The Instigator
CosmoJarvis
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RonPaulConservative
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Trump's Executive Order: "The Muslim Ban"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 784 times Debate No: 99643
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

CosmoJarvis

Con

This debate will judge the usefulness and the constitutional legality of Trump's recent executive order: "Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements."

I, con, will argue against the executive order, while pro will argue for it.

Rules:
1) Use proper grammar and sentence structure. Please look over your arguments before posting them to make sure that you didn't accidentally make a grammatical mistake or use malapropism.
2) Do not troll or use insults as your argument.
3) Support quantitative and qualitative data with valid sources.


Rounds:
R1: Acceptance

R2: Main Arguments
R3: Rebuttals (No new arguments)
RonPaulConservative

Pro

Hola Amigo.
?Como Estas?
Debate Round No. 1
CosmoJarvis

Con

I will argue that the executive order is not an act to protect our nation, but much rather an attack on Muslims.

Donald Trump’s most recent executive order, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” declares that refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya are forbidden to enter the country (S1). This ban is expected to last three months, but many people believe that this is a preview of a much broader immigration ban.

At least 20 well-known Republicans have spoken publicly against Trump's executive order such as Charlie Dent, saying "This is ridiculous. I guess I understand what his intention is, but unfortunately the order appears to have been rushed through without full consideration. You know, there are many, many nuances of immigration policy that can be life or death for many innocent, vulnerable people around the world," (S2).

Many people, such as myself, have been led to believe that this is an attack on Muslim refugees. Not only has Trump adressed this executive order as the “Muslim Ban,” but the order calls for the ban of refugees living in seven Muslim-dominated regions. Additionally, the executive order allows the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State to prioritize one group of refugees over another based on their religion.

There are many indications in Trump’s executive order that this inspired entirely by the fear of the Muslims, such as a reference to the 9/11 attacks, suggesting “while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.” However, as the NPR editor and writer, Greg Myre, says, "This executive order does not include any countries from which radicalized Muslims have actually killed Americans in the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001.” This means that the executive order accuses refugees of being affiliated to terrorist activities and radicalized ideologies. The executive order continues on to say “In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.” This is suggestive that the countries of which this order applies to are populated with refugees who “bear hostile attitudes” towards citizens and American law, and possess violent ideologies, such as religion.

Rumors have surfaced, and rightly so, over a controversy of Trump prioritizing Christian refugees over Muslim refugees, as supported by this statement taken directly from the executive order: “... to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization,” (S3). This also warrants the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to prioritize certain religious groups over others.

This executive order has also been accused of being unconstitutional. Many believe that it is, as Politico Magazine describes it, "a direct assault on the fundamental constitutional values of equal protection and religious freedom." This executive order certainly has to do with religion, conflicting with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, denying refugees the right to access the United States solely based off of religion. As stated in my fourth source, the First Amendment “prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion...” (S4). However, this executive order prohibits certain groups and refugees of nations from entering the country solely on the basis of their heritage and religion.

Sources:
S1) http://www.cnn.com......
S2) http://fortune.com......
S3) http://www.npr.org......
S4) https://en.wikipedia.org......;

RonPaulConservative

Pro

First of all, the constitution ensures religious freedom to American Citizens, so it is well within our rights to discriminate aganist foreigners, as our constitution does not extend to them.

Second of all, even a flat out ban on Islam wouldn't be the same as a ban on Christianity or Jainism. When Charles Manson started his cult, we didn't grant him religious freedom to do whatever he wanted, we deemed it a cult and arrested him and his followers. Even today, if I start a cult centered around Charles Manson, my group would likely be classified as a cult and I could get shut down for it.

Third of all, Muslims cannot exect anything different than for people to think of them as terrorists. If I join the American Nazi party people are going to think of me as a racist, and if in WW2 we banned Nazis from entering the country, this would most certainly not constitute a violation of political freedom.

We cannot give Islam any kind of special privelage as if it were anything fundamentally different from Nazism or Mansonism. If I started a religion, and in my holy book I wrote to murder all those who aren't part of my religion, my cult would get shut down and I would get arrested for promoting domestic terrorism. We cannot treat Islam any different.
Debate Round No. 2
CosmoJarvis

Con

I presume that, because Islam permits violence, we must not give them "special privileges," or the ability to come into this country seeking refuge. He continues to compare Islam to Nazism, saying "We cannot give Islam any kind of special privelage as if it were anything fundamentally different from Nazism or Mansonism."

However, if that was the case, why should we permit Christian refugees to enter our country when the Bible blatantly incites hate and violence such as Leviticus 20:13: “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

My opponent still has yet to discuss as to whether or not the Executive Order, "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," is unconstitutional, an attack on Islam and is beneficial.
RonPaulConservative

Pro

My argument consisted in two points:
The first was that Islam isn't morally different from Nazism, so just as we did not permit members of the Nazi Pary to enter the United States during WW2, we should not allow members of Islam, which seeks to destroy the United States, into our country. Just as it woudn't be considered a violation of political freedom not to let Nazis into the country, it would not be a violation of religious freedom to not let Muslims into this country.
My opponent attempted to refute this by stating how the bible is filled with moral attrocities nd is therefore no different from the Qur'an. While this is true, the purpose of the New Testament ws to nullify the Old Testament, so though these things are in the bible, Christianity is founded around the New Testament. In addition to this, Christianity is not currently formed into a regime whereas Islam is.
Likewise, the Torah is not much better than the doctrines of the Nazi party, and yet in WW2 we let Jews take refuge in the US, but we did not welcome Nazis. This is because the Nazis represented an immediate threat to the United States, whereas the Jews did not, just as Muslims represent a direct threat to the United States, but Christian refugees do not.

The second was that the Constitution only applies to citizens of the United States, and so non-citizens are not entitled to be ensured religious freedom from us. This means that a ban on Muslims is not unconstitutional, as it only applies to non-citizens, whereas the constitution only applies to citizens. My oponent has failed to respond to this.

I must now show how Donald Trumps Executive Order is beneficial, as I have not done this in the previous round. Islam is a danger to humanity and to the United States. This can be found in statistics, Muslims account for 1% of the US population, {1} but commit almost 10% of all crime. {2} This is why we shouldn't allow Muslims into the US, just like we don't allow druggies into the US.

{1}. http://www.pewresearch.org...
{2}. https://www.statista.com...

Debate Round No. 3
CosmoJarvis

Con

Rebuttals:
My opponent argues that the morals of Muslims are similar to Nazis,andthattheMuslims pose an immediate threat to America, and therefore do not have the right to seek refuge in America.


On the contrary, approximately 90% of terrorist attacks are carried out by non-Muslims. Additionally, approximately 2.5% of all terrorist attacks in the U.S. between 1970 and 2012 were carried out by Muslims (S1). According to the Harvard Political Review, Syrian refugees pose little to no security risks. Historically, according to a recent report by the Cato Institute, only three of 859,629 refugees who came to the U.S. since 2001 have been convicted of planning terrorist attacks, none of which ever came to fruition (S2). Even if the U.S. takes in 10,000 refugees as planned next year, that amounts to only one out of every 450 Syrian refugees posing a security risk (S3).

My opponent concludes the round by saying that relatively 1% of America's population is Muslim, and that Muslims commit 10% of all crime. However, The FBI Crime Statistics show that around 1.2% of Asians, and being that the majority of Muslims are Asian (S4), commit crimes in America. I can confidently say that the claim that "Muslims commit 10% of all crimes in the U.S." is false.

Sources:
S1) http://www.globalresearch.ca...
S2) https://www.cato.org...
S3) http://harvardpolitics.com...
S4) https://encounteringislam.org...
S5) https://ucr.fbi.gov...;
RonPaulConservative

Pro

The Muslim population in America has been, historically, very low- in fact our current population of Muslims, being only 1%of the US population, is at an all time high. So that Muslims commited 2.5% of terrorist attacks in the US, while accounting for, on average for the past 46 years, less than 0.5% of the population, shows that Muslims are disproportionately likely to commit terrorist attacks. Also, the majority of Muslims are not 'peace loving liberals,' in fct more than half of Muslims worldwide want Sharia Law.
https://www.youtube.com...;
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Good debate, Ronny
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: AmericanDeist// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro was correct in stating that the executive order was constitutional. Trump's duty is to the citizens of the US first, not foreigners. Radical Islam is the #1 threat to the western world right now. What he is doing is nothing new. Carter did it in the 1970s toward Iranians. Both used sources and conducting themselves appropriately. I can see both sides of the argument, but I have to agree with Pro as far as an executive order being constitutional.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically analyze arguments by both debaters and compare those analyses between the two debaters. In this case, the voter only states that one of the debaters is "correct," justifies it by what appears to be partially his own arguments, and decides the debate on that basis. Lacking any analysis of Con"s arguments and appearing to use largely biased reasoning for this decision make this vote insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
Esta bien. Es tu decision
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
oYE, PODEMOS PELEAR SI TU QUIERES, HOMBRE
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
It's yo estoy feliz, not mucho feliz.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 year ago
RonPaulConservative
@Amicandeist
The supreme court is never given that power.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Hola, Ronny. Yo estoy mucho feliz! Y tu?
Posted by AmericanDeist 1 year ago
AmericanDeist
The Constitutional legality is determined by the US Supreme Court, not us. The President has the right to impose such temporary bans in the interest of national security, when a threat has been posed to the US. This is nothing new that Trump has done. Carter did it in the 70s toward the Iranians.
No votes have been placed for this debate.