Should the US lower Muslim immigration until Islamist ideas and sentiments cool down in the region? Now that its out in the open, lets have a Great Debate!
No. That would be un-American and counterproductive, if it were even practicable, which it isn’t much.
I don’t think immigration quotas should classify people by religion.
Issues of principle and practicality aside, it’s doubtful whether such an overtly anti-Islamic stance by the US would do much to “cool down” Islamist ideas and sentiments. The opposite effect is probably more likely, surely?
No, the government of the United States of America should not violate the constitution establishing said government.
Lower Muslim immigration for what to what? What is it now, and what are you proposing to “lower it” it?
It’s up to you to make this a “Great Debate”. So far, all you did was ask a very vague question.
While it seems like a fairly clear rejection of some of the fundamental principles reflected in the US Constitution, I’m not sure that discriminating between prospective migrants on the basis of their religion would violate the Constitution itself. My searching abilities are not up to finding it, but I seem to recall an earlier thread on this topic, where Dopers more knowledgeable than I argued that non-citizens outside the United States enjoyed very limited protection under the Constitution. If the US can imprison non-citizens outside the US indefinitely without charging or convicting them of any crime or affording them any due process, I don’t think we can assume that non-citizens outside the US can invoke the “freedom of religion” or “equal protection” clauses.
I say no and I think we should actually encourage more diverse immigration. Here’s why. Classical liberalism works. If we want to win the ideological war we demonstrate that the free exchange of ideas and open discourse, even what the left erroneously labels hate-speech in an effort to control thoughts, leads to a better outcome for society. One reason why I think we see Islamist terrorism (aside from some strains go Islam being intrinsically dangerous) is that the external pressures that those societies feel is very high. They are in danger of, over time, cultural extinction. Of course that will lead some to lash out against those pressures from the West’s overwhelmingly strong cultural influences.
Unfortunately modern liberalism does make the job a bit more difficult.
Any particular reason why?
I don’t see how you’d actually prove whether someone is or isn’t a Muslim – how do you get inside someone’s head? If you’re talking about restricting immigration based on someone’s country or origin and their comings and goings, that’s fine, but we’re doing that already. There’s really nothing new other than ratcheting up the racial animosity.
Muslim, no. Middle Eastern, yes.
There is a difference.
Perhaps the US should consider increased emmigration?
Requisition some large offshore and now redundant naval/army base, set it up as an autonomous libertarian Christian fundamentalist low tax haven with secured and fully walled borders and in exchange for renouncing voting rights, offer free passage and lodging to any and all who think that represents the utopian society the US should be.
Because it’s none of the government’s business what religion ANYONE is. Can you point to any other example of government policy toward an individual being dependent on that person’s religion? The only thing I can think of are groups like the Amish being exempt from SS. Even that is far different that saying “you have this faith, therefore you can’t do that”.
That’s what the terrorists hope. Their whole goal with attacks in Europe is to eliminate the “gray zones” where Muslims live side-by-side with non-Muslims. They want to force such animosity against Muslims by everyone else that Muslims are forced to choose the side of ISIL.
What region?
No. It’s completely silly and ineffective.
Article from CNN showing some of the impact Trump’s proposed immigration ban would have which seems directly relevant to the OP:
Under these types of rules, a large number of my relatives, several in-laws, coworkers and neighbors as well as the dentist I carpool with would all be banned from the country. Is it actually necessary to point out that none of them are extremists, terrorists or fanatics?
Good thing that Donald Trump’s wife Melania was born in Slovenia and not 50 miles away in Bosnia-Herzegovena or she’d be subject to the ban as well.
None of those folks are Muslim so you might respond that they wouldn’t be affected by such a restriction, but if someone wants to enter the US and they know that being a Muslim will get them barred do you really think that they’ll just say “Dang, you got me. I will go away now”? Will a Muslim terrorist cancel his plans because someone might ask him his religion?
Ya’know… All those sandy & rocky places surrounding Israel.
I’d prefer to ship off the 47%.
Why not? Freedom isn’t absolute. And if people abuse their freedoms shouldn’t they be stripped of it? Lots of talk about repealing the 2nd. Why not modify the 1st? Troublesome ideas, publications, religions, and other assemblies are a danger. Why put society at risk due to support for archaic notions of intrinsic rights and liberty?
You are aware a large portion of that are the retired, disabled, students and military?
Since Muslims are concentrated in certain areas of the world it would be very easy to limit Muslim immigration by targeting those countries and you would never have to ask about religion.
Given sufficient number all immigrant groups will initially create enclaves where they attempt to recreate the familiar. We call these places Little Italy, Little Havana, Chinatown, etc. In these enclaves there will be less pressure to assimilate into the broader culture delaying the assimilation process for a generation or so. During the assimilation process young people trying create and identity will ask themselves am I an American or still my parent’s nationality. If I am my parent’s nationality what does that mean? Since Islam is such a vital part of many countries’ culture so many of these young people they will forge their identity as primarily muslims. Since in the muslim culture there is a subset that believes being authentically muslim means waging war on non muslims, some young people will choose this variety. Out of that you get things like the Orlando shooting, and the Boston Bombing.
If we restrict immigration from Muslim countries then it will mean faster assimilation of those who do immigrate and those who are already here and fewer recruits for those who are spouting jihadist rhetoric and it will make it easier to monitor those who are already here and advocating violence.
Take the example of Italians. From 1880 to 1915 there was a huge surge of immigrants from Italy. This allowed the creation of Little Italys. These enclaves allowed the emergence of the mafia in America. After immigration slowed down, the Little Italies were no longer needed and the mafia has been in decline for decades.