Trumps proposal for Temp Muslim Ban

That's not a strong response to me pointing out that Muslims were 10x more likely to commit terror attacks. Especially since Islamic terror isn't decreasing in recent years like you said, it's INCREASING

Number of deaths caused by Islam worldwide, last 5 years

Compare white population growth to KKK membership, it did in fact fade. No one is ripping out beating hearts and offering it to the Aztec sun gods anymore either, religious barbarity can and should fade.

 

It is a strong argument, and a relevant one if we're talking about recent years. The last 5 terror attacks within the U.S. by Muslims have an average delay of 6 months between incidents. Compare that to the daily mass shooting in America today in that same juncture and give me the new statistic.

When was the last time a Muslim came to the U.S. with the purpose of committing terror post 9/11 and done so? These attacks within the U.S. are done by citizens, a ban doesn't change the outcome of these attacks, and could possibly fuel more.

Fade was the wrong word, end is more appropriate. Actions are inspired by ideas. Because someone isn't acting out on those ideas doesn't mean the idea itself does not exist.

 

You keep forgetting that Muslims are 1% of the US population. Muslim violence continues to increase as the Muslims make up higher percentages of the population as well, ending in oppressive Sharia in Muslim dominated countries. The threat isn't just terror attacks, but the imposing of Islamic law.

Preventing more Muslims from becoming citizens directly stops those Muslims from carrying out the attacks.

 

Muslim violence in the U.S., domestic terrorism, isn't increasing. There is a decline when you compare dates of the attacks.

Are these attacks contingent of Muslims coming into America? As I said, these are citizens, U.S. born, committing these terror attacks. If the ban is in place and more attacks occur, what is the next solution? Mass deport all semites?

 

Muslim violence outside the US is increasing, which is why we would not want to bring those violent Muslims in to supplement the 25% of Muslims in the US who already believe violence against Americans is justified, who are 10x more likely to commit terror attacks than the average American.

Yes. Muslim citizens committing Islamic terror is the reason we wouldn't want to

 

So.. If the IRA (Irish Republican Army) showed an increase in violence, we should ban Irish people from entry even if violence from Irish people in the U.S. isn't contingent of entry? I mean.. The logic.

You don't come into America as a citizen.

 

Why would the IRA, who fights for Irish independence, want to commit violence against Americans? You are bad at analogies. ISIS' leader has explicitly stated they were infiltrating Europe and the US with fighters. The director of the FBI explicitly stated there is no way to vet the migrants.

There are no pros and all cons to allowing Muslims in.

What are you trying to prove with this statement.

 

You are unaware of the political conflict between the IRA and the U.S. then. The U.S. government is to outlaw the group due to the resurgence of violence caused by it. Irish American groups support their campaign by funding them and sending arms. The active militant group may not have as many followers as ISIS, but it was enough to outlaw the revised group. This is why I presented the hypothetical scenario of an increase in violence. The logic being that because threats were made by ISIS means the U.S. should block all Muslims from entry, even though there have been no documented terror attacks from Muslim migrants in the U.S., counting the refugees we've taken in recent years shows no correlation to entry and the violence influenced by Islam in the U.S.

Also, immigration can expand the tax base for the government, so there is a pro in itself.

You don't come into America as a citizen.

I asked:

You responded with:

 

25% of Muslims in the US believe violence against Americans is justified. The purpose of the ban is to prevent more violent Muslims from becoming US citizens.

No - these Muslims migrate to the West to take welfare, not pay taxes. Over 90% collect welfare.

^This is not a response to this:

 

I thought the idea was to keep them out of the U.S. period. What does Muslims becoming U.S. citizens have to do with causing terror? The process itself could take years if they aren't already permanent residents. Not really an ideal plan.

Who comes to the U.S. for the purpose of paying taxes? A bit weird.

1/3rd of the country is on welfare alone, not counting other government benefits. This is an issue within itself. Legal immigrants don't have an economic burden on America, however. Countless studies show an increase in economic growth with immigration.

What?

This is what you responded to:

There was only one question in that comment to which you responded to by saying "Yes. Muslims citizens.".

 

Keep them out of the US period. I said "Stop them from becoming citizens" because you keep saying "But they are citizens" as if that is a relevant distinction to make. Now address the argument.

No one does, which is why your claim that they are coming to pay taxes is a lie and a fantasy.

Bringing in welfare recipients does not increase economic growth. They do not contribute any meaningful taxes or labor, and drain tens of thousands of dollars of welfare money each, annually.

You keep making the distinction that these Muslims are citizens when that distinction is not relevant when discussing Islamic terrorism. "They are citizens" is not a rebuttal to anything, because we are discussing Muslim terrorism, citizens or not citizens.

 

No, you said this.

What do you want me to respond to? The poll? Does that warrant a ban? No.

What is meaningful taxes or labor? Immigration spurs economic growth in two ways. First, it expands America’s workforce and encourages more business start-ups. Second, because immigrants’ educational backgrounds typically complement, rather than displace, the skills of the native-born labor market, immigration increases economic efficiency by supplying more labor to low- and high-skill markets.

Here is a document showing how the benefit of immigration outweighs it's costs.

Well when the last 15+ acts of terrorism by Islam in the U.S. are all done by U.S. citizens/perm residents, it's pretty relevant. Just based on that trend, Donald Trump's proposal does little to no good. The argument basically revolves around potential.

 

What situation would warrant a ban if not this one? We know Muslims outside the US are being sent by ISIS disguised as refugees, and the FBI director said there is no way to vet them, and a large portion of the Muslims already in the US support violence against Americans.

If there is a known external threat that then becomes a known internal threat, why would you ever allow it in?

Syrian migrants are unskilled, most of them don't speak English/European languages, and many are illiterate even in their own language. Businesses are not interested in hiring or selling to them.

We already have an excess of unskilled labor. Labor participation is near all time lows. Bringing in uneducated, unskilled migrants doesn't complement our already unskilled, uneducated workforce.

Citizenship is not relevant to any of the attacks, Islam is the connecting factor. We don't look at those 15 acts of terrorism and say, "You know what they had in common? They were all motivated to kill by their CITIZENSHIP"

 

If threats can be linked to empirical evidence showing/proving immigration of Muslims are contingent of U.S. terrorism influenced by Islam. You're looking outside of the U.S. and saying, this group is doing this, so we should ban all Muslims from entering the U.S., even though Al-Qaeda has been sending threats to the U.S. for decades urging Muslim Americans to terrorize civilians. The vetting process for refugees takes 2 years on average, and is the most extensive security screening for visitors. It's much easier to come to the U.S. as a tourist, student, or businessman. If you're talking about pausing the process, fine, but banning all Muslims from entering the U.S. is impractical altogether being as it's a religion.

Literally, the next quote you respond to covers this portion.

Labor markets change constantly. I can already tell you didn't bother to read the source detailing this information.

So let me get this straight. As you said, the purpose of Muslim migrants is to come to the U.S., become U.S. citizens, and then commit terror? Doesn't quite make sense.

Becoming a U.S. citizen isn't a prerequisite to harm others.

What do all of the last 15 acts of terror have in common? Radicalization is the denominator and will continue to be such as the trend shows us.

 

I'm looking at the group inside the U.S. as well. When the group is a violent threat inside the US and a violent threat outside the US, then there is reason to stop the violent threat from outside from supplementing the violent threat inside.

Yes, and they have been successful. 25% of Muslims in the US support violence against Americans, and US Muslims are 10x more likely to commit terror attacks than the average American.

No it doesn't. I take this to mean you have no response to the facts I've provided.

"Labor markets change constantly" is not a reason to import low IQ, uneducated, violent migrants who leech many times as much in welfare as they pay in taxes while labor participation is near all time lows. I take this to mean you have no response to the facts I've provided.

Exactly, which is why your continued pointing out of citizenship status is a red herring that means nothing to this discussion and is not relevant whatsoever to the discussion of Islamic attacks.

 

The group isn't necessarily in the U.S., at least if you're talking about the ones causing terror. The influence of the group is definitely here, and that issue is something you don't fix by banning a religion from entry, if that's even possible.

That number is skewed because most attacks, e.g., mass shootings, aren't politically or religiously motivated in the U.S.

You mentioned violence against Americans as being a notable reason for allowing a ban. If we're just measuring that, then your argument falls short. Is one worse than the other? Violence is violence to me.

No, you snipped my reply and talked about the workers being unskilled when I literally cover that issue in the same context with a source to support my argument. Read again.

No, you said "We already have an excess of unskilled labor", which concludes that there is more than enough when that isn't true. Labor markets do change constantly by the disproportionate displacement of low-high skill market participants as seen on the chart in the source given to you.



By and large, the need for labor will always be there.

You claim what you're saying is factual, well, some sources would be nice to back those facts.

You still don't get it. My point was that Muslim migrants aren't coming to the U.S. to cause terror because the ones who are doing so are native born. The problem stems from radicalization, not movement of people.

How do these terror groups get bigger? They spread their influence.

 

Both Muslims inside the US and outside read the Quran, both worship Muhammad, there is no relevant distinction.

So where are your measurements, how does my argument fall short? I've proven that Muslims commit many times more violence than the average American.

You start with a false premise, the rest is false as well. I read it, it's false, so you have no response.

This chart doesn't show anything in support of your argument. You said my claim isn't true, it is. Again, your economics falls apart immediately because your first premises are patently false.

Native born Muslims come from Muslim migrants. I can't believe you are actually making me tell you this again. Citizenship has nothing to do with the fact they are Muslims.

 

Placing a ban on a group with a specific religious belief is foolish and has already been done thousands of times in history.

Every time religious bans are established, society realizes it was a mistake. It forces aggression rather than peace. Modern societies have grown from those past experiences and built up a tolerance to allow people from all religious beliefs to grow up together.

Why are we trying to make the same mistakes over and over? Typically there is an ignorant and delusional group of people that push those mistakes without ever learning from history.

Those Muslim migrants helped build our flourishing nation. Native-born Muslims are the result of the collaboration of our different religious beliefs within one society. You are trying to ban them to due to the violent outburst of individuals that worship Muhammad because you're trying to connect unrelated dots. Instead of investigating each case as an intellectual human being, you are playing ignorant and blaming a religious group because it's the easiest way for simpletons to solve problems potentially. Interestingly, history has shown that such ignorance should not be executed.

Yes, there are people within the Muslim religion born in the United States that cause terror. There are Muslims outside of the United States that create terror. Do we play ignorance and ban them? Such an unsophisticated response. Every case deserves proper investigation and resolution.

There are people within the Christian religion and are born in the United States that cause terror. There are Christians outside of the United States that create terror. Do we play ignorance and ban them? No one is even considering it, yet there has been a tremendous increase in murders over Christian beliefs in the United States over gay rights. We are taking it case by case, finding proper resolutions for every scenario instead of making the simpleton response of banning Christians from entering the United States.

It is fascinating that our society is becoming such a complex environment and difficult to understand, so the natural response to finding the easy way out. The easy way out is typically the worst response available.

P.S. I'm already expecting you to quote every line to make your best attempt at breaking my opinion. You might not want to bother; I'm not looking to debate. I'm just posting my opinion on the topic.

 

Ignorance is not a point of view. You have a right to an opinion, not an uninformed opinion. You are posting blatant lies, misinformation, ad hominem, and follow it saying "Don't respond, I will not change my mind even if I am proven wrong".

Disgusting.

 

No relevant distinction to ISIS (a terror group originating from outside the U.S.) and Muslim Americans? Seems pretty obvious what the significant distinction is between the two.

Source?

False premise? I'm reiterating what's in the source I gave (factual evidence). You've yet to respond to this.

Explain how it doesn't. Labor markets have changed markedly due to the increase of education and other measures of skill in the last few decades. This means those seeking education (primarily native-born) are invested in the high-skilled labor market, meaning less participants for the low-skilled labor market (see the disproportion in skilled jobs when comparing foreign to native born workers). Immigrants dominate the low-skilled labor market, but only make up 13% of the population. How is there an excess of unskilled labor again?

Let me tl;dr this for you since it seems you have a hard time understanding.

- Immigrants are more likely to create businesses (small)
- The creation of businesses means more job opportunities
- More opportunities for unskilled labor

Here are some facts.

• Immigrants started 28% of all new U.S. businesses in 2011, despite accounting for just 12.9% of the U.S. population
• Over the last 15 years, immigrants have increased the rate by which they start businesses by more than 50 percent, while the native-born have seen their business generation rate decline by 10 percent
• Immigrants are now more than twice as likely to start a business as the native-born
• Immigrants start more than 25% of all businesses in seven of the eight sectors of the economy that the U.S. government expects to grow the fastest over the next decade. These include health care and social assistance (28.7%), construction (31.8%), retail trade (29.1%) and leisure and hospitality (23.9%), among others

Source

A ban proposal request would suggest the problem is current. For someone who said changes in the future doesn't affect the past, you seem to keep bringing up the past to support an argument that is relevant to the present.