Proponents argue that this strategy would bolster national security by minimizing the risk of potential terrorists entering the country. Enhanced screening processes, once implemented, would provide a more thorough assessment of applicants, reducing the likelihood of malicious actors gaining entry. Critics argue that such a policy might inadvertently promote discrimination by broadly categorizing individuals based on their nation of origin rather than specific, credible threat intelligence. It may strain diplomatic relations with the affected countries and potentially harm the perception of the nation enacting the ban, being seen as hostile or prejudiced towards certain international communities. Additionally, genuine refugees fleeing terrorism or persecution in their home countries might be unjustly denied safe haven.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Voting for candidate:
Assembly District:
Zipcode:
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Yes
@9Y9FG3S6mos6MO
People should not be held accountable just because where they came from. They are still humans and have their own opinions that might differ from where they came from which is why they moved to a different country.
We should ban all immigration from Muslim countries that we're at war with
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
No
@9Y9FG3S6mos6MO
These immigrants still have feelings. They moved to the U.S. for a reason. This reason might be that they didn't like the things that happened at their old country, so it's not like they came to just destroy, they came for a better life. We should let them have a better life.
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
If you had to make a decision about who gets into a country, what factors would you think are most important to consider?
I think that criminal record is the biggest thing to consider.
@9YCR72C6mos6MO
a criminal background check, and if they were non-violent crimes they should still be elegible.
@9YCQNYZ6mos6MO
More Canadians are illegally living in USA than any other race or country.
@9YCQJDN6mos6MO
If they have proper identification, family or friends in the US who can vouch for them, and if they do not have a criminal or terrorist history.
@9GN5KWP2yrs2Y
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
@9M4G5FW1yr1Y
Yes, except for harmless refugees from persecution, and deport immigrants who incite hate or terrorism
@Paculino10mos10MO
I'm afraid of the effects of deportation. They will likely have less legal opposition to encouraging violence if going to somewhere with low stability, which will likely make the problem worse. It may be a more distant problem then, but it is a problem that is bigger and more difficult to control.
@9GSFFG22yrs2Y
No, but increase background checks for immigrants coming from countries with totalitarian governments or high crime rates.
@9NTH43Q11mos11MO
Not banned, but they should be kept somewhere safe with all basic necessities provided until their background check is completed
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
What might be the emotional impact on communities if certain groups feel unfairly targeted by policies like these?
@9YFLTY9Independent6mos6MO
it is what it is. Those who feel targeted should ask their demographic to do better.
@9TRPW558mos8MO
they may feel that the government is unconstitutional.
@9TRNNP98mos8MO
They will feel very uncomfortable and very targeted because maybe it’s not their faults it’s happening
Who gives a crap about emotional impacts? National security and economic efficiency/growth are the most important
@B3WL2632mos2MO
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.
@9VJZYWB7mos7MO
No, the vast majority of prospective immigrants are regular people, and this unjustly turns them away. Plus, there is no real definition of a high risk country.
@9QRZ2Y310mos10MO
No but all immigrants regardless of where they are from should undergo security screenings and checks.
@B4HXVRF1mo1MO
No, but increase restrictions and regulations for immigrants coming from countries with totalitarian governments.
@B44RQZP2mos2MO
Screen them and background check but allow them in only if they are fleeing the terrorist regime not support it.
@9GQFBJM2yrs2Y
No, but there should be a deeper vetting of visas and those entering from that country to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country
@B58NX8HIndependent4 days4D
Neither and create a new joint and counter terrorist agency to provide threat assessment reports and make sure that no one is a threat to the United States
@B58HKPG5 days5D
No, this would be highly discriminatory. Just do background checks on them like you would every other person coming through the border
@B56JCKW1wk1W
No but people who come to the U.S must go through a background check and go through more examination before entering the country
@B54J52G1wk1W
Only if its safe from them to return home and as long as the US can improve on its ability to screen out potential terrorists.
@B53CXCS2wks2W
i dont think that we sould prevent them but i think we should put some more effort on trying to figuer out there background and what there family did there and why the want to come over here
@B52G38C2wks2W
Yes, except refugees and people seeking a better life who are not connected to any form of terrorism.
@B4X346T2wks2W
if it's not safe for them to go back, they shouldn't be allowed too. from their own safety or their families.
@Esoteric2wks2W
We should not issue a blanket ban, but we should strengthen vetting protocols for all visa applicants using modern intelligence tools. Risk should be assessed by individual behavior and data, not only by country of origin.
@B4WC4BS2wks2W
No, if you become eligible to become a US citizen, then you should be let in no matter what country you come from.
@B4W7TN62wks2W
I don't believe that anyone should be banned from entering the U.S., however, more thorough background checks need to implemented in order to weed out any potential terrorists.
@B4VKL9R2wks2W
No, improve the vetting process for all immigrants, focusing on through background check while also ensuring individuals are not unfairly targeted based on their county of origin
they should do back ground checks before to prove they are not terrorists. If they are not they should be aloud to come to our country because this is supposed to be a free country.
I think yes, if they are illegal, they should go back to their country, but I think the government and president of the U.S. should see what is happening and why these people are leaving their home state and or country.
No, those from high risk countries might be fleeing or suffering within their home country, and screening is unreliable
@B4Q56J43wks3W
This is a hard topic as there are many families that flee countries for their own safety and try to make better lives. Others should be have a more strict screening process as their reasoning may not be for the right reasons.
@B4M8S494wks4W
No, but our government should be working harder and be putting more effort to improve its ability to screen out terrorists.
@B4M2QT84wks4W
I believe we should be more cautious but I don't believe they should be banned but rather carefully observed.
Not unless a throughout background check is done on the said immigrant, proving that they are iinfact a criminal. I dont think an intire group of people should be banned.
@B4KXH3Y4wks4W
I don't understand this question and the governments ability to screen out potential terrorists in the first place? It would depend the lengths they go to screen out potential terrorists.
@B4K9DCQ4wks4W
Immigrants in high risk countries have every right to come to America. Our government unfortunately decides to target immigrants, and often points toward innocents as terrorists.
Immigrants from high risk countries should be thoroughly background checked on any previous or suspected terrorist activity.
@B4HV9VK1mo1MO
It really depends, if the motive is to root out terrorism, that is a slippery slope and often is racism in disguise. If someone is coming as a refugee/to escape from political violence and don't commit egregious/horrific crimes themselves, then yes absolutely grant them immunity and give them grace
@B4HG3N51mo1MO
I think that it depends on the country they are coming from, and I think they need to be put through a thorough screening beforehand.
@B4H64CK1mo1MO
They should provide safety for the person, but not fully allow immigration until they're certain the person is not a terrorist
@B4GLDS31mo1MO
No, however there should be high quality checks to ensure, they will be allowed into the country no matter what but if found to be a terrorist sentenced to jail time or deported, if there is a good enough suspicion with evidence of possibility but not 100% they will be put on a police watch.
@B4FVJKN1mo1MO
I beleieve immigrants shouldn't be allowed into the country but after they've settled here they're is no point in sending them back.
@B4DXL7H1mo1MO
The government should do it but have a full investigation and documentation enforcing that it is not due to prejudices rather information from the investigation.
@B4DNRZK1mo1MO
No, but only if the immigrants are coming with a family and have no criminal record or motives to go against our country (genuinely trying to flee persecution).
@B4DJ5N7Independent1mo1MO
I don't think that they should be banned, they should all go through a fair screening to make sure they won't be a danger to the U.S.
@B4D6KHP1mo1MO
If they are illegal, then yes, for the sake of law and order, border security, and national security.
@B4CSJFP1mo1MO
Yes immigrants from high risk countries should be banned from entering the country until the government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorist because the high risk countries are more likely going to have people try to sneak illegal drugs of some sort into the U.S.
@B4CSCQ2Independent1mo1MO
No, but institute stricter requirements for immigrants coming from nations with totalitarian regimes.
@B49T8Q91mo1MO
No, but perform background checks to make sure they are not connected with any extremist ideaologies/groups
@B49PPVQ1mo1MO
No, it is unfair to ban people from countries simply because terrorists come from a certain place, if anything they should receive extra screening to make sure they aren't high-risk, but not banned
@B492HZC1mo1MO
I think that we should scan and test immigrants from high risk countries and give them a pass if they make the test but not let them in if they are able to follow an ID scan or a face scan.
Additional screening and background checks should be placed on them, but they shouldn't be banned from entering the country if the government can't implement proper procedures to screen out potential terrorists.
@B4873QXLibertarian1mo1MO
They should provide proof for work in the U.S to be allowed in, or must have a desperate requirement to enter the country.
@B3MR3N82mos2MO
Yes only if there is probable cause for the alien that has a history of terrorist crimes. No if its a child/woman, that has done no wrong.
@B3KF54R2mos2MO
Take them in, do the background check as they come and the begining of them being here and if screening comes back bad send them home
No, but keep them in a migrant-specific shelter with all basic necessities provided until they’re thoroughly screened and cleared
@B3H6KL22mos2MO
All individuals need to be evaluated on a case by case basis based on their record from their mother nation
@B3FHM9N2mos2MO
They should have a strict screening on who they are then decided weather or not they are allowed to come in and they must have proper evidence on why they cant come in.
@B3DCKJG2mos2MO
Yes, but make it a relatively fast process, because many of those people only have a short time frame where they have the ability to flee their country.
I believe in people who come here illegally but are seeking asylum deserve the right to come here and be processed legally.
@B36S4293mos3MO
Yes, but only if there are serious efforts being made by the government to improve its ability to screen out potential terrorists.
@B366YX83mos3MO
So long as 'high risk' country is defined in a nonpartisan way that does not target specific racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, etc. groups
@B3592P63mos3MO
I would say yes, but I am also in the middle of this question. This could prevent many immigrants that will bring no harm to the country and only want to come here for safety and to work from entering the country,
@B34B3343mos3MO
They shouldn't be banned from entering but it would be smart for them to be put under surveillance for a while till they are trusted.
@B33VTWD3mos3MO
No, they should be located to facilities while they wait further vetting to ensure their safety and maintain America's national security.
@B33V5SJ3mos3MO
They shouldn’t be banned but they should have a background check and screened for criminal history or other crimes we should be aware of
@Mohanri-Brown3mos3MO
No but increase restrictions and regulations for immigrants coming from countries with totalitarian regimes.
@B2YX99N3mos3MO
In my opinion if they are innocent before entering from proof of a security or any type of evidence that they mean no harm, then I think they should be allowed.
@B2X4X5K3mos3MO
Depends, if immigrants from the foreign country are in urgent, and it shows they need assistance, then they should be allowed
@B2WFWZF3mos3MO
No, this would stop people like dissidents from high risk countries to come to this country. What we need to do is to fundamentally reform our refugee system. Our refugee system has failed to vet people. We need to start vetting people for things like terrorism and whether their refugee claim is legitimate or not
@B2VGGTC3mos3MO
They shouldn't be banned but they should be monitored and heavily checked before entering the counntry.
For now, we should develop a short-term way so we don't ban them right away until we find a long-term thing.
@B2SY3TL3mos3MO
What does "high risk countries" even mean? I know how It would tend to be used, and that just means more racial profiling.
Yes, specifically from Africa and India. Asylum seekers and refugees that are christian, atheist, Muslim, secular and peaceful religions or lifestyles should be let in. Missionaries that do good as well. Humanitarian aid should be allowed in. Reporters that are persecuted should be given refuge as well as whistleblowers, communists, anarchists and all sorts of political prisoners. Let immigrants from Latin America, Europe, Asia and Oceania and the Pacific, Greenland and Iceland and other countries from the Middle East and others in. Pass a love it or leave it bill in which people in the United States can leave to any country they want at all expenses paid to reduce overcrowding, especially in cities.
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican 3mos3MO
Yes, we cannot risk letting terrorists into our country, even if one terrorist gets in, it's all over
No with regard to individuals and the families of people who assisted our war effort in their country (Afghanistan) who now live under threat of death after we promised to save them. Also, our vetting system largely works. It can always be improved, but shunning actual refugees from oppressive regimes is morally wrong.
@LoopedCheese1Democrat 3mos3MO
They should be required to stay in said country until they have a thorough background check completed
@B2Q9CDP3mos3MO
No but there should still be a regular background check but instead of attacking or rebelling against the government people should make suggestions about this issue instead peacefully.
@B2PMTB43mos3MO
This assumes we dont already have the technology to fully vet potential terrorists. Use the existing criteria but don't enact travel bans. Perhaps limit their length of stay.
I oppose the very concept of "High Risk Countries" as an imperialist justification for their mistreatment by the western nations.
@B2P8QFQ3mos3MO
Do a background check, and see what activities they have done for anything that could be harmful to the community
@B2P62833mos3MO
The government should let them in, but put them in a queue to be screened later, and maybe limit some things they can do (purchasing a gun/weapon).
@B2NQ4H73mos3MO
send them back if they are dangerous, protect those who have families but if found dangerous with a family then send the whole family back but if the kids was born here they have the choice to enter into adoption or go back with there family.
@B2NPCS43mos3MO
There is plenty of ways to know who is a terrorist and who isn't. The US government needs to help those who are clearly fleeing from disastrous countries and ban anyone with terrorist marks/tattoos. It's not that hard people!!
@B2G83G24mos4MO
Mixed. Screening for potiental terrorists is not a bad idea. Banning an entire group of people from traveling to the US? Nope.
@ArghhGeeDub 4mos4MO
No, more employees should be hired to conduct background research on immigration applicants to confirm that they are not terrorists.
@B2CPN8V4mos4MO
No because the majority of immigrants coming from high risk countries are trying to go somewhere safer.
@B2BMLQK4mos4MO
People leave the country for a better opportunity. its bad but i rather risk 1 terrorist entering for saving 200 lives. Government action is too slow and takes long.
@B2BM36FPeace and Freedom4mos4MO
This is a hard question to answer, when the question comes up about who deserves safety more, it is hard for someone of my age to answer.
@B2BHM424mos4MO
As long as the immigrants go through the citizenship process then I'm find with them entering, regardless on if they are from a high risk country or not.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
