The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Trump Travel Ban was Beneficial to the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,309 times Debate No: 99765
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




The travel ban recently put into place is beneficial to the United States. I am not here to defend the entire Executive Order, as I actually do think that more countries should be added, but this list is better than nothing. Take a look at polls of what Muslims actually believe. They are not good people to be living in Western Society. I do feel sorry for these people who are actually suffering in countries such as Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc. But I do think that we should think about the fact that according to Pew Research, over 16% of Muslims think that suicide bombings are sometimes or often justified, and that number goes up to over 38% when you factor in the Muslims who also say that they are at least rarely justified or they don't know. Another problem with Muslims that makes them not suitable to be living in western society is their thoughts about human rights, this of course being Sharia Law. Also according to Pew Research, more than 70% of Muslims believe that Sharia should be the law of the land. But this begs the question: what does that really mean? Well, if you believe in Sharia, then you believe in executing gays, killing Muslims who leave Islam, and cutting off people's hands for stealing. These are the kind of beliefs that are not acceptable in western society. But these stats are simply from countries that are very Muslim. What if we look at Muslims already living in the west? Well, about 1/4 US Muslims ages 18-29 think that suicide bombings are ever justified. The same applies with Muslims ages 18-29 who think that suicide bombings are ever justified with 35% in the UK, 42% in France, 22% in Germany, and 29% in Spain. Are these really the people we want coming into our country? Now, to end my side of the argument, I actually do feel sympathy for these people who are actually suffering in the Middle East who just want to live a normal life. Although, since the group as a whole show a pattern of an inability to live in western society, I think it's the job of surrounding, safe, Middle Eastern countries to take these people in. Countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, etc. Who have taken in virtually 0 refugees, but easily can. Saudi Arabia for example, has more than 100,000 empty air conditioned tents just waiting for refugees. These countries have what Muslims as a whole (70%) want, which is Sharia Law, but they are not war zones like Syria, Iraq, or Yemen.


If you could add some sources, that would be very helpful. I know you cited Pew Research, but if you could link to that, that would be great.

I assume by "Western society", you mean predominantly Christian countries. Therefore, if you believe in biblical law, you believe in killing any girl who has sex before marriage (Deuteronomy 22:20), putting "rebellious" sons to death (Deuteronomy 21:18), executing gays (Leviticus 20:13), killing anyone who tries to convert followers of God to another religion (Deuteronomy 12:6), and murdering anyone who commits adultery (Leviticus 20:10-12), among a slew of other things. Any defense that you use to prove that current Christians and Jews don't follow these laws in the same defense that many Muslims will uses as to why to don't follow all of Sharia law.

If by "Western society" you don't mean predominantly Christian countries, I don't know what else you mean. Perhaps white majority countries? In that case, within 20 years, American will no longer be a Western nation, regardless of how many immigrants we keep out from the few countries currently banned from immigration (1).

This brings up another point: the travel ban–which, I might add, the administration has repeatedly emphasized is not a travel ban at all, but simply a revised vetting process (2)–only lasts for 90 days, excpet for refugees, which lasts 120 days, and of course the indefinite ban of Syrian refugees. If you believe that Muslims do not belong in America, then you should say that the travel ban is not beneficial, as according to your view it is essentially useless.

Finally, leet me address the fact that we are debating whether or not the travel ban was beneficial to the U.S., so we should be discussing the travel ban and its merits and problems.

Debate Round No. 1



By west society, I mean: USA, Canada, Australia, West Europe, and New Zealand. The only problem is there is no evidence that Christians support stoning, executing gays, or killing non-Christians. I agree that the Bible and the Quran have similarities when it comes to raw text, but the followers of the religion have extreme differences. There are no polls showing that anything near 16% of Christians support suicide bombings. Also, I stand by that at the moment, Muslims can't successfully move to western society as a whole. But with extreme vetting I think we can allow the ones who don't have extremist views into the country. Also, the travel ban is beneficial because Syria, banned indefinitely, has upwards of 20% of Muslims that have a favorable view of ISIS. I'm not defending the entire executive order, as it has flaws, but overall it was beneficial. I


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." --First Amendment, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution.

I do not believe that violating the Constitutional rights of people who wish to move to America is beneficial to the country. If the citizens of those nations converted to Christianity, or even became atheists, would they be welcome then? Is that form of discrimination ever justified, like moving German Jews into their own neighborhoods because there is less conflict when they among their own people?

Furthermore, what about Muslims already living in the United States? Would they be forced to move to predominantly Islamic countries? If not, what makes them different from any other Muslim from another country? What about people who convert to Islam? Is it only racially Arabic Muslims? If so, is that not the definition of racism?

"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." --Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution.

The amendment above can be understood one of two ways. One: taken at its grammatical, written meaning, this amendment applies to "any person", not just citizens; therefore, people coming from predominantly-Islamic nations who arrive in the U.S. must be given equal protection under the law and due process, which means that we cannot violate their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. Two: if the amendment is implied to only refer to citizens, and you use it to justify a ban on citizens of these predominantly-Islamic countries, you argue that the U.S. government can discriminate on a federal level against both race and religion against any non-citizen. (Note that using the 14th amendment to revoke the rights of non-citizens still does not address the Muslims already living in the U.S. as presented above.)

Radical Islam is obviously a problem for many countries stuck by terror threats, and I believe that the government does have the right to maintain federal watch lists and act on potential threats, such as a Muslim who exhibits evidence of radical ideas online. Anyone who poses a threat to the well-being of others should be stopped, regardless of race, religion, or any other aspect of themselves. However, a radical faction of a particular group, race, or religion does not permit discrimination against the whole group, religion, or race.
Debate Round No. 2


It's not banning people based on their religion, as over 80% of Muslims can still enter the country. If he really wanted a more effective Muslim ban, Trump would have banned Indonesia, Pakistan, India, etc. The data proves that Muslims living in the U.S. are far more likely to say suicide bombings are justified (only 7% saying they are sometimes justified). And no, it's not racist to listen to facts to notice a pattern among people of a certain country.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is clearly stating that it only applies to U.S. citizens. And by the logic that we can't let these people in on the basis that they are from these countries, should we have let in the Japanese during WW2 after Pearl Harbor? Should we have let in Russians during the Cold War? I don't think so. At the times they offered serious threats to the security of the United States, like many residents of the countries on the travel ban list.

I don't think that every Muslim from these countries are terrorists, or even support terrorism. But 16% is too high of a number for me. Just because 84% of them don't support it, doesn't mean that there isn't some sort of pattern among these people. I think it would be dangerous to judge all of them as peaceful just because most of them are.


"I think it would be dangerous to judge them all as peaceful just because most of them are." -Pro, Round 3

So to clarify, you admit that most of them are peaceful, but because of a small minority of them are dangerous, you want to stop all of them from those countries. I would say that most African Americans are peaceful as well, but some of them in the U.S. are dangerous, and have been rioting and putting the live of people in danger. I suppose, by your logic, if we designated an area of the country for them to live in, the U.S. would be a peaceful state. Of course, we wouldn't because that would be discriminatory. Q.E.D.

"It's not banning people based on their religion, as over 80% of Muslims can still enter the country." -Pro, Round 3

The list of countries Trump banned was based on a list created by the Obama administration of countries with Muslim majorities. However, the basis for your defense of the Travel Ban is that Muslims do not belong in America at all (I'll provide a quote below), so I don't think trying to defend a ban by saying that over 80% of Muslims can still enter the country is valid given that you believe that is a weakness of the ban.

"...I actually do think that more countries should be added..." -Pro, Round 1
"Take a look at polls of what Muslims actually believe. They are not good people to be living in Western Society." -Pro, Round 1

Those quotes solidify that a deep-rooted disdain for Muslims based on the actions of a minority of radicals is the basis of your argument, which should either validate or disprove your argument in the eyes of the voters.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by AmericanDeist 2 years ago
I just want to clarify that non US citizens are protected under the US Constitution and they do have rights, however, immigration issues are not criminal proceedings; they are administrative. Because of that, immigration enforcement, to include bans, can legally operate outside of the scope of the BiIl of Rights.
Posted by jaketower555 2 years ago
Also just because a court rules its legality, doesn't mean that's the way it is. There are many judges who think this travel ban IS constitutional.
Posted by jaketower555 2 years ago
Well if Muslims are bad for America, I'd say overall the ban was beneficial.
Posted by DStallman 2 years ago
I think we were debating whether or not it was not the ban was beneficial, not whether it was legal. Obviously, if the courts ruled one way or the other, then it's pretty much indisputable that it's legal or not.

Also, my opponent keeps going back and forth between explaining why Muslims are bad for America and why the ban was beneficial, so I don't know which one to counter.
Posted by ILikePie5 2 years ago
The decision by the 9th Circuit was politically motivated. The President does have the authority vested to him by Congress to suspend immigration from any country he or she deems dangerous.
The Constitution doesn't apply to people on that aren't on American soil.
Posted by DrCereal 2 years ago
Have either of you read the court ruling by the 9th circuit appeals court? Have either of you even watched the oral arguments presented in either the district or appeals court?

They didn't rule the way they did due to the 1st amendment, they ruled on the alleged violation of the 5th amendment. Both Con and Pro should be mentioning the arguments presented by their respective sides in both the district court and the court of appeals.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AmericanDeist 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had good conduct and grammar. Pro's argument is sound in that if just 1 radical Muslim is stopped by the ban, then that is an American life saved. Con made a good argument toward the rights of all people, but immigration is not a criminal proceeding, it is administrative, and that falls outside of the scope of the Bill of Rights.