After the March 22nd terrorist attacks in Belgium, Republican U.S. Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz said law enforcement should be empowered to “patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.” In defending the plan, Cruz cited former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his aggressive policing efforts, including the alleged targeting of Muslim neighborhoods for surveillance. Current New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and NYPD commissioner Bill Bratton held a press conference where they criticized Cruz’s proposal as “incendiary” and “foolish.”
No, targeting Muslims is unconstitutional, Islamophobic, and incendiary and would provide ISIS with ammunition to accuse the U.S. of a conspiracy against Islam
@5QQ5MYTConstitution12mos
No, just an illusion to create fear among the people and to bring about their new world order by bringing in martial law as a facade to protect the people when they are actually stripping us of our rights...they are just using a twisted cult of a religion such as Islam to do it..
@5R27X4KRepublican12mos
Yes until they actively and publicly show they are against these atrocities. Just think - if Jews or Christians were cutting off people's heads, raping children there would be an outcry against that behavior by their respective leaders and members. We don't see that condemnation by Muslim leaders.
No, more attacks are commited by Christian fanatics
All neighborhoods presenting a high probability of violence and crime should have increased patrols. The race and or religion makeup of those neighborhoods should not play a role
Conduct more SIGNIT and HUMIT activities while working together with Muslim leaders to properly educate the muslim population about Islam. Take a look at the Singaporean system e.g MUIS and ISD
No, but ALL violent ideological adherents and associated organizations should be under surveillance. This includes some but not all interpretations of Islam and Christianity.
As one who is not blind to the fact that it isn't anyone but Muslims who are blowing themselves up and committing modern acts of terrorism I cannot deny I would feel safer if there was greater watch over Muslim communities. However, because so very few of all Muslims actually possess the propensity to commit such acts that I can't justify discriminating communities of Muslim Americans in such a way.
@5X5TJXWLibertarian12mos
We shouldn't even allow "Muslim neighborhoods", there should only be "American neighborhoods". Anyone who has demonstrated an unwillingness to adopt our culture should be expelled with great haste. Diversity is NOT our strength.
@5QLQQPLRepublican12mos
We should work with the Muslim community to identify potentially radically Muslims.
No, targeting Muslims is unconstitutional, racist, and incendiary. However patrols should increase to improve relations in the Muslim community.
@5QQ422LLibertarian12mos
We need to include more Muslims into the fabric of society so they feel safe enough to tell us about potential threats.
No, government surveillance of muslim communities send a message to the public that muslims are collectively guilty for acts of terror. This leads to an increase of hate crimes against american muslims because it creates an "us vs. them" dichotomy. this Dichotomy also is counterproductive because it legitimizes the message of radical groups that "the United states is an enemy of islam" because this enemy creation works both ways.
Additionally there is no statistical evidence that proves any correlation with the teachings of islam and propensity to violence. In fact, the majority of terror attacks in the US are carried out by radical right wing groups such as the sovereign citizen movement. Therefore, focusing on muslim communities would divert finite resources from other, more effective means of counterterrorism.
@5R2V9QBRepublican12mos
no, just because a few Muslims have made bad choices doesn't mean they are all bad.
Increase funding for homeland security.
@5YKDWTFRepublican12mos
Do you people even know the difference in a Muslim and a Wahhabi Muslim?
@5QMV5VJConstitution12mos
No, increase surveillance of all neighborhoods with a high crime rate.
@5QLVCDDConstitution12mos
No, unless the authorities receive solid information to support such surveillance.
@5QMR6GDLibertarian12mos
No, we should not be allowing any government surveillance of private US citizens.
@5QMK94BLibertarian12mos
Yes, but use surveillance agencies specializing in detecting radicalization or ideologically motivated crimes rather than local police departments
@5QV78YTRepublican12mos
If needed to show that Sharia Law does not apply in those neighborhoods
@5XSHF6SRepublican12mos
Not until we find reports of Sharia Law being practiced in said neighborhoods.
Give the NSA an enhanced targeted budget to set up an anti terrorist unit. Knowledge is everything.
@5QM8Z32Republican12mos
No, there are other ways that can help. This method has been proven to not work.
@5QMGZMTRepublican12mos
If I were Muslim, I'd welcome the increased protection--unless, of course, I were a terrorist.
@694V28ZRepublican12mos
Since Islam is not a religion it should be banned and no Mosques allowed.
@5QSH5J5Constitution12mos
@5YHN8KQRepublican12mos
Yes, because Islam is a Hate Group and the Koran dictates hatred and murder of others just like Mein Kampf.
@5QLPCS6Republican12mos
Yes but not because they are Muslims...but because the unrest and destructive forces are mostly from the Muslim community.
There should be a head Christian, *** and Muslim in the United States government to set an example of human decency and verbally make statements for that religion for the public's understanding of esch of these religions. Without communication the mission statement of any religion can be skewed to promote violence by criminally minded opportunists. Instead, raise bar centrally by having each large religion vote for a higher up we then direct our concerns to in our multi-ethnical country.
Again-- asking such an imperial question- those who cast the quickest reply are doubtful the most considerate.
Certainly there should be vigilant consideration and factors should be considered which seem to increase the possibility of such occurring. Vilifying an entire religion premised that this is the only threat to the America people is asinine and foolish. It not only justifies those already angry folks who look for a scapegoat but creates a panic for those who are frightened. It causes hysteria. Causes panic. Eliminates long term thinking needed when processing critical consequence.
@5QLT9QDRepublican12mos
An increased police presence, not meaning surveillance. An increased police presence in the form of community officers gives the police a better idea of what is going on in a neighborhood. People begin to trust the officers and are more open to talking to them openly.
@5QMLSHFRepublican12mos
only if there is suspect of a cell living in the neighborhood
@5QMN5PPRepublican12mos
The Muslim community should be encouraged to monitor within themselves for behaviors that may be signs of extremism
This is another extremely difficult question to answer. I would guess that 90% of all Muslims who enter the US are decent citizens with no desire to injure or otherwise damage people and places in this country--and the number of innocents may be even higher than that. The crux of the matter is that a few Muslims may enter the country with a specific mission to destroy, harm and otherwise wreck the peace and security of this nation. Thus, careful scrutiny of what may be fake passports must be maintained, and background checks carried out on those who would enter this country from Muslim locations--before they are permitted to enter.
@5QSR7Q4Republican12mos
Until the Muslims have cleaned up the own neighborhoods and mosques and have acculurated to American way of life. No Dearborn antics. Then the police are going to have to assist in monitoring their communities. Once they have taken responsibility for themselves like adult citizens and shown themselves to be trustworthy citizens as a group then the police will no longer need to monitor them. So the responsibility is on the Muslims to clean their own house or have big brother looking down their necks.
@5QMTN6YLibertarian12mos
Why are there "Muslim" neighborhoods? Police surveillance should be proportional to the degree of criminal activity in any neighborhood.
Only if said Muslim neighborhood has been having suspicious activity that qualifies it for increased surveillance
@5QPF53WRepublican12mos
There is a difference between terrorist and American Muslims
Yes, this would also protect legal law abiding Muslims
@5QMHRVSConstitution12mos
No they should perform their jobs the same regardless of the race
being a devout mainstream Muslim is not compatible with modern civilization. polygamy, the 5 daily prayer sessions, ramadan fasting, sharia law just don't fit in!
Yes, If there is enough evidence that a particular neighborhood has been shown to have residents with extremist ideologies
No, Muslims should increase self defense and resist police occupation
@5QQD8MLRepublican12mos
Neighborhoods with increased violence require increased surveillance no matter who lives there.
Yes, but only if their neighborhoods are proving suspect, or if they're showing legit higher crime rates. But it is incendiary and racist. It needs to stop. Perhaps cash-incentivizing Muslims to turn in fellow Muslim terror suspects.
@5VYM95ZRepublican12mos
Yes. Islam is NOT a religion, it is a socio-political ideology masquerading as a religion. No problem at all banning it.
@5YLCFKZLibertarian12mos
Wider latitude for action by highly trained individuals. the average police officer has too low of an IQ to be trusted
@5R38F58Republican12mos
No, But law enforcement should be allowed to criminally profile, not racially profile.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
