Do you support a Ban on Muslim Immigration into the United States?

Posted by: DavidMGold

  • Yes. Under the Constitution and rulings by SCOTUS, foreign nationals have no legal right to enter and may be excluded for any reason.

  • No. It is unfair, or mean, to bar a particular group from immigrating to the United States.

36% 19 votes
64% 34 votes
  • Regulating the coming and going of Muslims will limit the bombing and terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

  • Exactly, impossible to regulate. How do you tell if someone is Muslim? Ask them?

    Posted by: bhakun
  • Even if I thought it were the right thing to do, it's illegal, so it won't happen. Or, well, I guess I shouldn't say that. The Patriot Act is illegal too, and that happened. Somehow.

  • Time to bash in some more nazi skulls.

  • No don't ban them. But make sure that they are checked and watched over because we can't take any chances. Most terrorists are Muslim so...

  • Immigration laws should be based of nationality, not religion. The US in the past has limited immigration coming from almost every nationality that has ever existed at one point in time, so limiting the flow of immigrants from, lets say the middle east, is possible. But stopping anyone of a single religion isn't.

  • They have their rights for religious freedom

  • create a mobile version for this site. trying to submit my vote is a bitch.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
PetersSmith says2016-02-24T01:58:10.4955738Z
"The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens. All other rights, however, are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people."...The Court has repeatedly stated that "the Due Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."
DavidMGold says2016-02-24T02:10:52.1860564Z
Are you forgetting actual case law? "An alien who seeks admission to this country may not do so under any claim of right. Admission of aliens to the United States is a privilege granted by the sovereign United States Government. Such privilege is granted to an alien only upon such terms as the United States shall prescribe. It must be exercised in accordance with the procedure which the United States provides."
UtherPenguin says2016-02-24T02:11:07.5209547Z
How so you expect us to take over the west when we canthink even enter your country :(
UtherPenguin says2016-02-24T02:12:16.9882000Z
*can't not canthink, Damn autocorrect!
DavidMGold says2016-02-24T02:21:44.6290387Z
UtherPenguin, we know what happened when the Jews of Medina allowed Muhammad and his small band of friends and family to make Hijrah. It resulted in him using the city as a base for piracy until his plundering attracted enough followers for him to amass enough strength to attack the Jewish tribes after they rejected him as a false prophet. We're not interested in helping you takeover our countries.
Black-Jesus says2016-02-24T02:34:54.5288377Z
When I first heard about this Muslim immigration ban, someone told me that Trump wants to ban all Muslims. Which I thought was ridiculous, and an obvious violation of the first amendment, until I found out that he wants to ban Muslim immigration, which is more rational. I'm still fairly undecided on the issue, because to think that all Muslims wanting to come into America or even a fairly large number wish to do harm is ridiculous, but I can, and I hate myself for saying this, see Trump's point on this one, especially with how the immigration policy in Europe worked out for them. I don't really trust background checks too much, I know dozens of toothless redneck morons who are able to dodge background checks as American citizens, such as gun background checks. And I can't imagine that immigration checks are much more stringent than TSA checks at the airport, which have the alarmingly low success rate of 4% according to NBC news. Obviously the TSA is a more physical check and examination making it inherently different from background checks and the like, but physical checks are easier, so that's not a good sign.
UtherPenguin says2016-02-24T02:34:57.9921265Z
Good job exposing the Jihawdist sleeper agent that is UterPengiuin! We need to expose there taqqiya tactics!
DavidMGold says2016-02-24T02:46:58.2781949Z
UtherPenguin, I wasn't really interested in even responding to your remark but offered you one anyway (Beware of Hijrah). I think an examination of the ideology/worldview, history, and a contemporary look a numerous conflicts around the globe driven by Muslims or the negative impacts it has had on European countries is worth considering and debating. Thanks.
Anonymous says2016-02-24T02:53:55.5888949Z
@Bhakun We give them bacon. Courtesy of U.S taxpayers.
DavidMGold says2016-02-24T03:00:39.0776405Z
I'm also looking to debate the issue of Open Borders or more specifically this assumption that Western Nations are supposed to permit the rest of the world to immigrate continually and without limit while the rest of the world is free to restrict and prohibit it.
DavidMGold says2016-02-24T03:05:19.9940433Z
Black-Jesus, Donald Trump is not the only one to suggest some type of ban or temporary halt, but it may surprise you that I am not a fan or supporter.
Black-Jesus says2016-02-24T03:14:46.7374367Z
@DavidMGold, oh, I know, it's just that he was the first one I heard of with that opinion. And that doesn't really surprise me, I don't know you.
UtherPenguin says2016-02-24T03:33:12.3257225Z
Let's ban an entire group of refugees from entering the country on the sole basis of religionew! Oh America ''land of the free'', you guys are at it again!
UtherPenguin says2016-02-24T03:37:40.3561949Z
Let's ban an entire group of refugees from entering the country on the sole basis of religionew! Oh America ''land of the free'', you guys are at it again!
triangle.128k says2016-02-24T04:52:38.0534731Z
@UtherPenguin At least we don't have a monarch and hate speech laws.
UtherPenguin says2016-02-24T04:57:16.7180594Z
@triangle A monorail, no. But hate speech? The US has that in abundance (Just look at the politics forum)
UtherPenguin says2016-02-24T04:57:58.9163299Z
I meant *monarch not monorail!
triangle.128k says2016-02-24T05:05:45.1409185Z
Because we have free speech to the highest extent possible... Canada has hate speech laws on the other hand, that's why there's more public hate speech heard on the news in the US.
UtherPenguin says2016-02-24T05:11:12.1788841Z
That section of the Constitution is only in regards to ''reasonable limitations'' on any other rights mentioned in the Constitution, key word: reasonable. We don't go censoring people left and right, and comparitavly, Europe has much harsher hate speech laws (Despite France's whole ''Je Suis Charlie'' movement). A few restrictions in the Constitution certainly does stop bigots from blabbering drivel.
triangle.128k says2016-02-24T05:11:29.3415249Z
Canada has a monarch since it's part of the British commonwealth.
triangle.128k says2016-02-24T05:13:59.1336851Z
Places like Germany go overboard, but places like Scandinavia don't really have hate speech laws. (At least not to a noticeable extent). People have the right to be a bigot, and who's saying that censoring certain forms of speech won't lead to more free speech violations?
triangle.128k says2016-02-24T05:18:34.0854476Z
Sorry, my bad. Some parts of Scandinavia have noticeable hate speech laws.
UtherPenguin says2016-02-24T05:19:24.1218977Z
At leasthe we have the Queen, God Save The Queen.
triangle.128k says2016-02-24T05:23:39.2858040Z
The queen is a symbol of oppression and inequality during medieval Europe. What's special about the queen?
PericIes says2016-02-24T05:25:04.7878325Z
Mister_Man says2016-02-24T06:01:20.9103015Z
A temporary ban on Muslim immigration isn't a horrible thing, considering what's growing from that religion right now. They've destroyed parts of Europe, the ones who people call "moderate" Muslims. I've never been a fan of blindly doing what the constitution says (something written fucking forever ago, come up with some new rules, America), so to say "we have to allow anyone into our country because this piece of paper says we do" just doesn't fly with me. Although it obviously isn't the best moral choice, there are logical arguments behind it. And to clear up the confusion with you Anti-Trumpets who believe anything you hear, Trump said he wants to put a temporary hold on Muslim immigration until world leaders can get a handle on the crisis erupting in primarily Muslim countries. That's called "being safe."
liltankjj says2016-02-24T14:51:32.9210025Z
I don't see what's wrong with controlling immigration into a country. The Democrats did it under FDR.
PericIes says2016-02-24T23:30:41.8082959Z
Banning people from, say, Syria, or any other country or number of countries is perfectly legal, and I would perhaps even support stopping immigration from a few nations. However, banning a religion is not only wrong, but illegal as well.
Anonymous says2016-02-25T14:29:02.5813706Z
This is such a pathetic situation for Western countries. Both saying yes and no are bad options. By allowing Syrians in, you risk the chance of letting in some ISIS members, and on top of that you will have people who likely not assimilate. By saying no, you are playing to ISIS's advantage, since it gives them another reason to radicalize more muslims in the Levant, since they can easily say "the West doesn't care about you."
UtherPenguin says2016-02-25T14:34:50.3474627Z
@tajshar2k You do realize that the likelihood of an ISIS supporter being among the Syrian refugees is *abysmally* low. If a terrorist wanted to infiltrate america, all he'd have to do is get a passport, hop on a plane, and be in any country of choice within hours. The vetting process for the average Syrian refugees takes up to 2 years. This poll is also about banning Muslims from entering America, not just Syrians. Banning all Muslims from entering Syria because of ISIS is as mind numbingly stupid as banning all white people from Canada because of the KKK.
UtherPenguin says2016-02-25T14:36:36.0381402Z
Oops, I meant to say "Banning all Muslims from entering *America* , not Syria.
Fernyx says2016-02-25T15:43:36.3555113Z
Not a ban on immigration, but not mass immigration, do it in a responsible, and safe manor. Do not do it like they did in Sweden and Germany.
DavidMGold says2017-04-25T12:28:01.0063562Z
UtherPenguin, we're talking about a religion that doubles as an ideology, clearly and unequivocally prescribing Jihad warfare on all non-Muslims (who are routinely and frequently disparaged as worse than cattle, among others) until they're subjugated under Islamic rule. Your silly moral grandstanding begs the question and you don't even bother answering.
DavidMGold says2017-04-25T12:29:27.2899562Z
UtherPenguin, we're talking about a religion that doubles as an ideology, clearly and unequivocally prescribing Jihad warfare on all non-Muslims (who are routinely and frequently disparaged as worse than cattle, among others) until they're subjugated under Islamic rule. Your silly moral grandstanding begs the question and you don't even bother answering.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.