Should immigrants from high risk countries be banned from entering the country until the government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists?

No, but they should be kept somewhere safe like a migrant-specific shelter with all basic necessities provided until they’re thoroughly screened and cleared

Not banned, but they should be kept somewhere safe with all basic necessities provided until their background check is completed

No, but increase background checks for immigrants coming from countries with totalitarian governments or high crime rates.

Yes. Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states that one of the responsibilities of the federal government is to "protect each of [the States] against Invasion; and...against domestic Violence." Based on this, the safety of U.S. citizens should be the primary concern.

No but all immigrants regardless of where they are from should undergo security screenings and checks.

The government hasn't done well with it lately as it is, might as well make the path to citizenship easier.

Screen them and background check but allow them in only if they are fleeing the terrorist regime not support it.

No, but there should be a deeper vetting of visas and those entering from that country to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country

Not necessarily. Security needs to be improved for sure, but it seems that America has a track record of punishing innocent people from "terrorist" countries

I think they should take situations like this with more caution, but don't completely block them out if their way is legal and honest.

It is a hard situation, yes it could be risky taking in an immigrant from a dangerous country because of the risk of terrorism, but at the same time they high risk may be why they came here in the first place just to escape. It can definitely be worked on, one way being a screening test or a probationary period just to make sure that they are normal.

They shouldn't be banned the government should just check the person to make sure there not going to be violent

They should not be banned but should be housed in a specific location until they can be properly screened.

Perform sufficient background checks and allow a few in, I'm not too sure though. I can't really choose.

Yes, but honestly they should try to have a wait-list in order to know that they're not a potential terrorists to give them a new opportunity.

Yes, I understand the importance and the magnitude of infiltration of terrorists and cartel chains entering the U.S, therefore a prior screening should be enforced.

Yes they should be screened, but the process shouldn't take forever. The process should also have exceptions for immigrants in an emergency situation.

screen them correctly in an area between the us and Mexico and then decide fairly if they should be here

Immigrants shouldn't be banned if they come from high risk countries, but they shouldn't be let in as easily and should undergo extra screening, or be held somewhere safe while their backgrounds are checked, and if there is good reason to suspect them as terrorists, deport them back to the country they came from.

No, but in the case of high-risk countries I think that more strict laws are needed regarding screening and the gaining of U.S. citizenship

I would say not to ban them, just put them in a respectful holding while they screen out potential terrorists.

No. This would prevent refugees fleeing terrorism or persecution in their home countries from accessing a safe haven.

Banning immigrants from countries deemed "high-risk" is a complex and highly debated issue involving security, ethical, legal, and economic considerations. Proponents often cite national security concerns, while opponents point to the importance of effective screening and vetting, as well as the potential for discrimination and harm to vulnerable individuals.
Arguments for banning immigrants from high-risk countries
National security: Proponents argue that temporary restrictions can reduce the risk of terrorism while the government improves its screening capabilities. A country…  Read more9;s ability to vet immigrants is compromised if it lacks sufficient information-sharing or identity-management policies. In June 2025, a presidential proclamation cited insufficient vetting from certain countries to justify entry restrictions.
Protection of liberal values: Some argue that a ban could be ethically justified if motivated by a desire to protect and promote liberal values and human rights from those with antithetical beliefs, referencing data on illiberal practices in some countries.
Encouraging cooperation: Country-specific restrictions can pressure foreign governments to cooperate with US security protocols, such as providing biometric data on known or suspected terrorists.
Arguments against banning immigrants from high-risk countries
Ineffectiveness and harmful consequences: Banning based on nationality is widely criticized as ineffective and counterproductive. It can cause extreme emotional hardship for immigrants and their families, disrupt vital labor markets, and negatively impact the US economy.
Risk of discrimination: Critics point out that such policies risk discriminating against entire populations based on the actions of a few. Research has shown that immigrants are less likely than native-born citizens to commit crimes, and extensive vetting is already in place for refugees, a group often targeted by such rhetoric.
Undermining US values and international standing: Broad, country-based bans can be seen as u

No, because this would also affect people seeking asylum and our national security is already good enough to screen out potential terrorists.

It depends on their background. There should be a background check and they should have to go through an interview with highly trained officers to make sure.

No, because if they are refugees from a poor country, they should be allowed a safe haven in the US. We have measures to make sure terrorists don't come in. Tighten that security, however still allow them in if they are refugees

Immigrants should not be barbed from achieving freedom, because of their home country. However, I think an alternative is to acquire consent for thorough background checks and intelligence.

If the immigrant is not a dangerous criminal, they should be given a chance to start a new life. Just because they are from a "high risk country", does not automatically make them a terrorist and that is absolutely prejudiced and racial profiling.

thorough investigations but they should be allowed to immigrate like every other person especially if they are escaping their country for whatever reason.

I’ll say no, but they’ll be a small increments of refugees allowed and how these nations need to be helped stabilize from the world or themselves or from us, but very small amount from us

I feel like we should restrict it, but not ban it and allow not too many and deport anyone who is illegally here

No, immigrants from high risk countries who are of concern should be monitored if it cannot be deduced whether or not they are a terrorist

Work on screening out potential terrorists and monitor suspicious activity by immigrants to be prepared to stop any attacks.

Screening for terrorists should be standard practice. Immigration is a vital part of our democracy but should include practices that balance protecting Americans with providing immigrants opportunity.

To vague a question as it could lead to naming a country simply because it’s not a preferred country of origin.

no, but extreme focus on improving screening is needed. Less than 1% of immigrants are potential terrorists. We do NOT punish the many because of the rotten few.

it depends. Some people could be escaping their countries or trying to find a better place to work, in 99% of cases this is true, though slightly more restrictions should be put in place for truly dangerous situations

No, longer in depth screening interviews should take place before judging a person instead of a stereotype.

No, because some legal immigrants from these countries are skilled or are fleeing persecution. However, increase the vetting of all legal immigrants to ensure that they aren't involved in terrorism or other criminality.

Maybe. It depends on how the immigrants are treated during the process. They should be allowed to enter, stay in a humane environment and earn income while they wait. They should wear tracking devices.

Yes, but they should be kept somewhere safe like a migrant-specific shelter with all basic necessities provided until they’re thoroughly screened and cleared

No, but the government should at the same time improve its ability to screen out potential terrorists, and make sure there is as little discrimination and prejudice as possible in the background check and screening system

We should increase screening but allow people from high-risk countries to come to America if they're in danger, if we are suspicious keep a close eye or something.

They should not be banned but there should be extra screening measures put in place for all people coming into the country, the world is too dangerous right now

Not everyone from a high risk country is a terrorist, don't polarize people and fit everyone of the same culture into one box

We should rather increase the ability to check for potential terrorists without blocking the ability to emigrate.

Until the government is able to better screen for terrorism, those from countries with terrorism ties should only be granted temporary stays here, and they should renew periodically.

No, not for just being from a high risk country. However, movement once in the country should be restricted and reported (i.e. if you have to leave the city/cross state lines for any reason, you need to report it to immigration officials)

Yes, but define High Risk and do not allow immigrants from Nations that we were engaged in active combat with within the past 20 years.

Yes, but don't ban them since most might just want to leave their country for a better life here screen for terrorists instead

NO... immigrants from high-risk countries should not be categorically banned, but risk-based enhanced vetting should be applied.

We've already got plenty of surveillance technology, if it fails, that's on us. Against "banning" immigrants based on profiling.

There should be precautions for high risk immigrants however the government should not permit someone in need help that we are able to provide

Yes, but only if the Secretary of Homeland Security, Defense, and the Director of National Intelligence

Yes but need to have LEGITIMATE reasons for countries being classified as high risk. Dominica, really???

Not banned, but the US authorities must come up with much stricter and more comprehensive background checking, including (if necessary) temporary detainment for 2-3 days once the immigrant arrives in the US, until it can be concluded that the immigrant is safe enough to be released.

They would need further screening (i.e. looking through their internet activity) to ensure they aren’t a threat to the country.

We have the best intelligence people in the world so I don't believe potential terrorist are coming in this country. Domestic terrorism is on the rise so maybe we should address that.

Not banned outright, but they should be kept somewhere safe like a basic refugee camp on the border with basic necessities provided until their background check is complete and they can then apply for asylum or citizenship.

Yes, but don’t screen out potential terrorists unless they attack us. Ban immigrants from such countries from entering the U.S. entirely.

No, but do a thorough look into their background and if there are any red flags at all then no entry.

Yes but give deep searches and background checks with a waiting time (similar to purchasing guns) and keep contact to inform them when they're allowed to enter our country.

No, the policy seems too broad and will encourage tensions/heighten discrimination. Let's improve screening and intelligence at ports of entry instead.

Yes, but what constitutes a high risk country should be determined by national security interests and not race or ethnicity

No, terrorist radicalization happens in Western European countries because they're ethnostates trying to become American in composition without realizing assimilation is needed (hence allowing themselves to be colonized by Turkish imports). An Iranian can become a US citizen, but an Iranian can never become a Swede.

No, too many innocent, bright and talented people are being denied access to the USA just because of where they’re born

I believe that the US should have some sort of place/base for immigrants before they come into the country so that they do have time to screen out potential terrorists.

No, If they are politically persecuted by their own government. They should have the right to stay for a limited time until they choose to stay or move to a safer country.

I believe that every individual has a right to due process, however if they come from a high risk countries there should be more precautionary.

I don't believe countries should be banned, but background checks are definitely needed to creen out potential terrorists

Background checks or proper procedures should be done rather than outright refusing or accepting willingy.

No, unless they committed serious crimes or made any threats or express support of the enemy forces in said war torn nations.

not banned but they should be placed in a holding community until background checks can be completed. but if this becomes an issue where individuals are stuck within that community if there are so many immigrants that it takes too long to get through all of them, then yes.

I think they should get a very big background check and person check up on entering the United states

No, allow refugees but be cautious about certain people. Improve the screen process heavily and asap.

Yes, but if they prove not to be a risk and haven't committed any crimes they should be allowed to enter the country

Yes, as long as the government does check if they are potential terrorsist right away so there wouldn't be any problems

No, but instead of just for those countries, it should be treated for all countries to seek out potential threats