Opinions on Muslim Ban

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm in favor. The issue is not security, but culture.

But how would such a ban be enforced?

Ban immigration from countries not deemed acceptably westernized. Require birth certificates and such as evidence for country of origin.
Revisit international human rights law to allow us deport people if they refuse to tell us their country of origin to a "safe harbor."

...

Like Mecca.

[Azurius]

Well that would at least be fair to everyone. However there is a small problem with that: Unlike the 20s to 60s we today live in a globalized world, and doing that will seriously harm americas tourism and with that harm a lot of other parts of the economy that thrive also partially thanks to tourism.

I also think this sends the wrong message to the american people, as it will only further fortify paranioa, anxiety and ultimately xenophobic views.

Globalisation does not mean the individual constituents lose all autonomy.

Maintaining a personal security standard, short of a complete lack of emmigration/immigration mechanism is not paranoia or xenophobia. Self-presevation doesnt require complete alienation, especially if you are being honestly discreet about it.

Tourists are non-immigrant admittants, so I dont get your point there.

Never said that, nor do I see what autonomy has to do with anything I said.

Did you read the first post? They want to ban muslims entirely from entering the country, tourists too to prevent them from trying to do any terror attacks. And this means also banning muslim tourists.

This is not maintaning a personal security standard anymore but clear fearmongering and xenophobia at its finest here. And even if not even that would be xenophobia and also totally hypocritical given the fact that it is totally okay for us to emigrate to any country we want at any time, but at the same time denying others the right to do the same and come to us.

[Internationalist Bastard]

But how would such a ban be enforced?

Ban immigration from countries not deemed acceptably westernized. Require birth certificates and such as evidence for country of origin.
Revisit international human rights law to allow us deport people if they refuse to tell us their country of origin to a "safe harbor."

...

Like Mecca.

Lovely. Screw human rights

[Orberstine]

I'm surprised the "Yes, we should ban Islam and deport Muslims" is so large. Are we really that scared of any one group of people?

[Azurius]

Fact, you are free to provide evidence that this is "horseshit".

I'd like to see evidence on 1 billion killed because of Christianity.

I said clearly that these are estimates since we lack proper records of that time. Nonetheless experts estimated the death toll of christianity to be around 1 billion and the death toll of islam to be around 700 million.

These numbers come from countless wars, genocides and religious practices which as I said are simply to much too actually count.

And once again instead of strawmanning or using insults you are free to provide evidence that this is not so.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

But how would such a ban be enforced?

Ban immigration from countries not deemed acceptably westernized. Require birth certificates and such as evidence for country of origin.
Revisit international human rights law to allow us deport people if they refuse to tell us their country of origin to a "safe harbor."

...

Like Mecca.

But thats not banning muslims, thats banning everyone from a country.

[United Marxist Nations]

I'd like to see evidence on 1 billion killed because of Christianity.

I said clearly that these are estimates since we lack proper records of that time. Nonetheless experts estimated the death toll of christianity to be around 1 billion and the death toll of islam to be around 700 million.

These numbers come from countless wars, genocides and religious practices which as I said are simply to much too actually count.

And once again instead of strawmanning or using insults you are free to provide evidence that this is not so.

Who are these experts?

[Laissez-Faire Economics]

Where is the option "leave as is" or "maintain status quo"?

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'd like to see evidence on 1 billion killed because of Christianity.

I said clearly that these are estimates since we lack proper records of that time. Nonetheless experts estimated the death toll of christianity to be around 1 billion and the death toll of islam to be around 700 million.

These numbers come from countless wars, genocides and religious practices which as I said are simply to much too actually count.

And once again instead of strawmanning or using insults you are free to provide evidence that this is not so.

Bullshit, gimme links to these experts.

[Vedilia]

But how would such a ban be enforced?

Ban immigration from countries not deemed acceptably westernized. Require birth certificates and such as evidence for country of origin.
Revisit international human rights law to allow us deport people if they refuse to tell us their country of origin to a "safe harbor."

...

Like Mecca.

It's really a safe harbor? Or is it just convenient?

I'm surprised the "Yes, we should ban Islam and deport Muslims" is so large. Are we really that scared of any one group of people?

Yep.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Where is the option "leave as is" or "maintain status quo"?

First option.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ban immigration from countries not deemed acceptably westernized. Require birth certificates and such as evidence for country of origin.
Revisit international human rights law to allow us deport people if they refuse to tell us their country of origin to a "safe harbor."

...

Like Mecca.

Lovely. Screw human rights

That tends to be what happens when large numbers of people willfully and knowingly abuse them to the point of absurdity and make them impractical for governance yes. Why should we continue to pursue a policy that de-facto means open borders to anyone smart enough to refuse to tell us where they come from?

There is no harm to deporting people like that. Just some mystical ethereal upset over us changing the letter of the law. What use is human rights if they cause harm, not prevent it?

[Laissez-Faire Economics]

Where is the option "leave as is" or "maintain status quo"?

First option.

That isn't the first option. The first option says that we would give Muslims even easier access than anyone else. I'm talking about maintaining the system we have now.

[United Marxist Nations]

I'd like to see evidence on 1 billion killed because of Christianity.

I said clearly that these are estimates since we lack proper records of that time. Nonetheless experts estimated the death toll of christianity to be around 1 billion and the death toll of islam to be around 700 million.

These numbers come from countless wars, genocides and religious practices which as I said are simply to much too actually count.

And once again instead of strawmanning or using insults you are free to provide evidence that this is not so.

According to this NYT article, the high estimates for the total killed in the entirety of human history by warfare is only around a billion: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/books ... wanted=all

[The first Galactic Republic]

But how would such a ban be enforced?

Ban immigration from countries not deemed acceptably westernized. Require birth certificates and such as evidence for country of origin.
Revisit international human rights law to allow us deport people if they refuse to tell us their country of origin to a "safe harbor."

...

Like Mecca.

My god the bureaucracy alone.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ban immigration from countries not deemed acceptably westernized. Require birth certificates and such as evidence for country of origin.
Revisit international human rights law to allow us deport people if they refuse to tell us their country of origin to a "safe harbor."

...

Like Mecca.

But thats not banning muslims, thats banning everyone from a country.

My issue with Islamic immigrants is cultural. I don't expect religious minorities from the third world to be any better, and indeed, have already posted saying i'm fine with banning christians from the third world too.

[Aelex]

According to this NYT article, the high estimates for the total killed in the entirety of human history by warfare is only around a billion: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/books ... wanted=all

Shhhh, don't let pesky facts contradict the narrative that Christians are the most evil and violents persons in history!

[Internationalist Bastard]

Lovely. Screw human rights

That tends to be what happens when large numbers of people willfully and knowingly abuse them to the point of absurdity and make them impractical for governance yes. Why should we continue to pursue a policy that de-facto means open borders to anyone smart enough to refuse to tell us where they come from?

There is no harm to deporting people like that. Just some mystical ethereal upset over us changing the letter of the law. What use is human rights if they cause harm, not prevent it?

Because you yourself are also causing harm by deporting people back to a pontentially awful country, that they may have personal reasons for not wanting to say they are from there

[Azurius]

I said clearly that these are estimates since we lack proper records of that time. Nonetheless experts estimated the death toll of christianity to be around 1 billion and the death toll of islam to be around 700 million.

These numbers come from countless wars, genocides and religious practices which as I said are simply to much too actually count.

And once again instead of strawmanning or using insults you are free to provide evidence that this is not so.

Who are these experts?

Historians?

And who are and where are your sources? Your bible? Your belief? Start by yourself before you criticize others, as the bible famously says:

"Pull out the splinter out of your own eye before you attempt to remove it out of others."

[Yodle]

Discrimination based on religion is a blatant violation of the constitution. More border security, sure, but if we just start giving out religious tests that would literally shred up the first amendment

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

First option.

That isn't the first option. The first option says that we would give Muslims even easier access than anyone else. I'm talking about maintaining the system we have now.

"No, there should be no restrictions on Muslims coming in the US" is not giving muslims even easier access than anyone else.

They are getting the same option as jewish people, christian people, or any other kind of people.

[United Marxist Nations]

Who are these experts?

Historians?

You're only proving that these experts don't exist, and you're just pulling numbers out of your ass.

[Ostroeuropa]

That tends to be what happens when large numbers of people willfully and knowingly abuse them to the point of absurdity and make them impractical for governance yes. Why should we continue to pursue a policy that de-facto means open borders to anyone smart enough to refuse to tell us where they come from?

There is no harm to deporting people like that. Just some mystical ethereal upset over us changing the letter of the law. What use is human rights if they cause harm, not prevent it?

Because you yourself are also causing harm by deporting people back to a pontentially awful country, that they may have personal reasons for not wanting to say they are from there

What harm?
And just because some countries are worse doesn't mean they are entitled to come here. Refugee status is different from immigration status, though as we've seen, that too may need revisiting since hundreds of thousands of """Refugees"""" from Syria are just immigrants claiming asylum status and telling us they come from Syria.

Your policy is one of literally throwing open the doors to the entire third world.

I could accept that if they would integrate in meaningful numbers, but they do not. Why should the west be overrun and have our culture forced to conform to theirs?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Who are these experts?

Historians?

And who are and where are your sources? Your bible? Your belief? Start by yourself before you criticize others, as the bible famously says:

"Pull out the splinter out of your own eye before you attempt to remove it out of others."

Give us the names of these historians.

[Vedilia]

But thats not banning muslims, thats banning everyone from a country.

My issue with Islamic immigrants is cultural. I don't expect religious minorities from the third world to be any better, and indeed, have already posted saying i'm fine with banning christians from the third world too.

So if they're from the land of do as you're told, hail the dictator and kill subversives, they're banned?