Why shouldn't we prevent immigration from Muslim countries?

Great Debates
21

I find many of the arguments posted here convincing. A few of my close friends are Muslims, and while I find their dislike for pork utterly bizarre, they’re great folks who don’t have retrograde views about homosexuality or women.

But for the sake of playing devil’s advocate… Those guys chose to come here. Can the same be said about, say, the multitude of syrian refugees? They’re not coming here because they are desperate for western culture, they’re coming here because they have nowhere else to go, and the refugee camps elsewhere are not worth living in. Are they as likely to integrate successfully? Are they as likely to accept western cultural mores?

–

And on a side note, yes, Trump is a dick to women. Yes, republicans have been going after reproductive rights for ages now. But if you ask them, chances are good they’ll deny that they are sexist, or want anything other than equal rights for women. Because “Women deserve an equal shake under the law” is a political more for all but the most rabid of Christians here. Many people just aren’t sure what counts as an equal shake, and/or consider various concerns unjustified. It’s absolutely not the same thing as a country where women aren’t allowed to drive, or can be put to death for being raped. Yes, it is disgusting for people who voted for Trump to act like we have to protect feminism from Islam. But it’s not really comparable.

22

I do agree the disdain for pork seems bizarre but you actually look how most pigs are raised and slaughtered for meat it is rather unsettling. they live in shit, eat shit, but cook anything enough and ill probably eat it.

You also have to note that the Syrian refugees are choosing to come here, for reasons you stated. They are choosing life in a western culture over death in their homeland. it is not easy to leave ones home regardless of how treacherous the situation is. Also once they are here, women are allowed to drive, and cannot be sentenced to death for being raped. so the views of the government of their home country becomes somewhat irrelevant. a person who hides that they are sexist isn’t and less sexist than one who flaunts it, they simply understand the political air and social feelings towards sexism so they know to hide it. I’m sure if they lived in those countries that persecute women their entire life, they would also be a lot more willing to express those views.

I don’t believe them accepting western culture is even an issue whether they do or not, they will not change the culture we live in. their children will still be raised in this culture and eventually assimilate.

23

I’m afraid sometimes that the traits you want to expel (racists, sexists, homophobes, anti-semites, etc.) ARE what define Americans. It’s us who are tolerant and open that are the minority, buying into the “myth” that America stands for goodness.

And I’m not sure that’s not true.

24

[QUOTE=Budget Player Cadet]
But for the sake of playing devil’s advocate… Those guys chose to come here. Can the same be said about, say, the multitude of syrian refugees? They’re not coming here because they are desperate for western culture, they’re coming here because they have nowhere else to go, and the refugee camps elsewhere are not worth living in. Are they as likely to integrate successfully? Are they as likely to accept western cultural mores?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t believe this is true, i.e. the Syrian’s coming here are ‘not coming here because they are desperate for western culture, they’re coming here because they have nowhere else to go’. The US only allows a very restricted number of refugees in each year (even before our current president), and the vetting process is pretty high. No one who really didn’t want to come here would go through it, basically…especially since there are other choices (not like the US is the only place for them to turn).

25

Horseshit. Good grief. :rolleyes: If you really think that those are the traits that define the majority of Americans you should seriously get out more.

26

Yeah like not having a fake president that think of women as a sex objects!

27

Hmmm… from an external point of view, I have my doubts. You’re a very clived society. You have on one hand people like SJWs and RadFems with an ideological discourse so extreme that a lot of people are rolling their eyes, and on the other hand, people such as Christian activists who are incredibly reactionary by western standards.

I’m not sure you actually have clear “American values”, in fact. Certainly not “universal American values”. Including wrt women rights. Sure, you all shout “freedom!” but for some it means freedom for gays to marry, and for others freedom to refuse to sign their marriage license. Your arrangements to accomodate both seem awkward and unstable, with nobody seeming to be satisfied.

There are much less fuss about social issues over here (so far at least, let’s knock on wood). There are still people opposed to abortion, for instance, but you hardly ever hear about them, and they certainly don’t have a significant influence wrt policy making. This horse has left the barn almost 50 years ago. A lot of our disputes seem to happen on the margins, while your disputes seems to be precisely about core values.

So, well, no, I don’t agree.

(On top of which, regarding your OP, “Muslims don’t support gay/women/animals rights” seem to often be a pretext covering the real reason : xenophobia. I’m not saying that it’s your case, I believe in your sincerity, but not everybody is like you).

28

Tolerance for the existence of other beliefs in one of the values we’re supposed to be protecting. If you start banning beliefs you don’t like then the value is already lost.

The whole point of having a marketplace of ideas is that good ideas outweigh bad ideas in the long run. Misogyny is a bad idea and it won’t prosper in a free culture. So’s Islamaphobia. The children and grandchildren of Muslim refugees are going to grow up thinking women should have equal rights. And the children and grandchildren of people who had Muslims living in the neighbourhood are going to grow up realizing Muslims are just regular people. In a couple of generations, the only effect that will remain from allowing Muslim refugees into the country is we’ll have some good mezze restaurants.

29

As a rule, I try to abstain from responding in political posts, but this immigration stuff has me conflicted enough to post my thoughts here in an effort to help clear it up at least in my own mind.

First, some qualifiers…
I am a natural born American citizen and consider myself a proud American. I used to say “patriot”, but that name seems to have taken on a different definition lately. Mention patriot now and people start thinking about people who belong to militias, have a doomsday bunker in their back yard and wear tinfoil on their head.

My Great Grandpa was was an immigrant, I grew up hearing stories of how hard he worked to become a citizen and have grown to respect the immigration process.

I am not Muslim, I have read some books on the religion and know some Muslim people that are kind enough to answer questions I have; but I realize I still have a lot to learn and don’t consider myself an expert at all. With what I have read, I don’t consider the religion a “bad” religion, it’s just another religion that is in this world, like Christianity, Judaism, etc.

The first thing I noticed with the immigration issue is everyone calls it a “Muslim Ban”. I agree that the regulation affects Muslims the most, but I don’t think it’s anyone’s intention to actually ban all muslims.

I’m not a lawyer, politician, immigration expert at all so this is how I understand it. The ban is on citizens from certain countries. Each of those countries either have no central government in place or the government in place is suspect. In either case, getting accurate information from either is next to impossible. So when a citizen that is trying to enter the US and says they are from one of the countries listed, the US has no way to verify if they are telling the truth or not. If someone from Canada wants to come to the US, the US knows that the Canadian Government is solid and that when the customs officer looks at the passport or runs the person in a database to see if the person has a criminal history, they know that are getting accurate, up to date information. When the person is from a country that has a failed government, there is no way to know if the information is accurate or up to date. The fact that the countries on the ban list happen to be Muslim majority countries seems coincidental to me.

The second thing is that the ban isn’t forever, its temporary, but I see the temporary ban as a way to quicken the response from the country to make it right. Not the best analogy, but it’s kind of like the water company will shut off your water if you don’t pay the bill. The usually send you a couple of notices first, then, when you don’t respond, they shut off your water. When that happens, they now have your attention and you realize that if you don’t work with them and pay your bill, you won’t have water. So if the US doesn’t stop the immigration from the countries that aren’t helping us make sure we aren’t letting in dangerous people, the same country can continue to ignore the requests from the US. We stop them from coming in, now the other countries have to take action to get us to allow it again. (I am not trying to insinuate that the US is providing a service in this example, my sleep deprived brain just can’t think of anything better right now).

In conclusion; I like that the US allows people to immigrate from other nations, but I also like that they are trying to protect the citizens by screening people. I disagree with people that keep calling it a “muslim ban”, I think that just muddies the water and doesn’t allow for a clean debate to occur.

So my question is, Am I missing something in my thoughts that I should take into consideration?

30

The refugees spend 18-24 months (sometimes more) being investigated. If they can’t be verified, they don’t get in. And it’s not just the US, the U.N. handles their part. Also, the refugees don’t get to choose where they settle, they get assigned.
What does Trump think will happen with a 3 month ban?

Trump called for a ban on all Muslims. Can’t be more direct than that.

31

Well except for the Administration’s. There have been people associated with the President (such as Rudy Guiliani) who have said this was their attempt to put in place a “Muslim Ban” that could survive legal challenge (of course in the openly saying this they put the legality of it in greater risk).

32

Sure, but aren’t you also the poster who said it was time for red America and blue America to split and be separate nations since the political/cultural divide was too great?

Be that as it may, there is already no shortage of fodder with which people in the Arab world can demonize the USA with. The US supports Israel, props up regimes, is responsible for the deaths of many thousands of people in the Middle East, has a long history of generating ill-will in the Middle East, shot down an Iranian airliner, is decadent and venal, etc. etc. Welcoming Muslim immigrants will do little to stop Islamic extremism. It’s removing one straw from the camel’s back.

33

Yes, and I still feel that way. Each America should allow immigration without considering their religion.

34

[QUOTE=running coach]
Trump called for a ban on all Muslims. Can’t be more direct than that.
[/QUOTE]

You know, hyperbole really detracts from your argument. Basically, Trump et al didn’t call for a ban on all Muslims. The ban was simply focused on Muslims…which is really bad enough. You don’t have to buff it up any to demonstrate that it was and is a bad thing.

35

Then you haven’t been paying attention. Donald Trump campaigned in large part on a promise that he would ban Muslims. He asked Mitt Romney to help him ban Muslims. The travel ban was the result of that. These are verifiable facts. There is no doubt this is a Muslim ban. The only question is how much they can tweak it before the judges stop overturning it. They haven’t made it that far yet.

This is a red herring. We don’t ban travel between the states if someone can’t prove they weren’t a criminal in Idaho, for example. And besides a few racist attempts at banning Chinese people, the US had completely open borders until the 1920s. You think all our ancestors who entered the country before that were checked against a criminal database of foreign citizens kept up to date with info from other countries?

We consider people innocent until proven guilty for a reason. Because you can’t prove innocence. You can merely prove you are not guilty of a specific crime. So stop asking homeless war victims to do the impossible before you graciously allow them to move.

Immigration is a good thing. People are an economic resource. To say otherwise is an insult to your own family. And mine.

36

Then why not have red and blue America interact with each other’s culture as one nation? Aren’t liberals and conservatives better off as neighbors having to interact regularly?

37

It’s amazing to me how many people don’t realize this simple concept.

38

Its not exactly hyperbole though. The judge ruling against the order in Hawaii used Trumps and Giuliani’s very own words in his argument

“In its decision, the federal court in Hawaii used Mr Trump’s own words - and the words of his advisers - against him. The text of the executive order, Judge Derrick Watson held, could not be separated from the context of the recent presidential campaign, “Muslim ban” rhetoric and all. An order that discriminates against some Muslims, he continued, is just as legally deficient as one that discriminates against them all.”

That’s from a BBC article on the revised order being turned down, pretty new to this so not exactly sure how to cite the source yet, please be patient.

39

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/donald-trumps-call-to-ban-muslim-immigrants/419298/

Really, you’re going to try picking this nit?

40

How does (or do you think) your cite demonstrate that Trump is going to ban all Muslims? For that matter, can you demonstrate that with the ban, phase II it will even ban most Muslims? The numbers don’t look like they are in your favor, but I’m willing to be convinced.

Again…it’s a Muslim ban. No doubt. And really, that’s all that needs to be said. Trying to say it’s going to ban ‘all’ or even ‘most’ Muslims misses the point and detracts from it, since as with Trump’s myriad exaggerations it’s easily debunked…and by debunking it you’ve already moved the discussion, which should be focused on the key point. His ban targets Muslims.