Muslim Ban Policy

This debate is continued in the comments. I shall first disprove my opponent"s attacks on my disadvantages. My disadvantage points remain valid and clearly expose the foolishness of the Muslim ban. DA 1: Religious Discrim. Numerous legal experts do believe the ban will infringe on our 1st Amendment rights. I can cite them in the final round if needed. Our founding fathers had a vision of a country that respected all faiths, a nation without religious discrimination. Throughout history there have been countless examples of oppressive governments which start off by targeting vulnerable minorities. It is easy to attack those who cannot defend themselves. Once discrimination becomes the norm, the government can move on to new targets. I would like to quote German Pastor Martin Niemoller. He witnessed the rise of Hitler and the atrocities of the Holocaust. His quote reads: "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out"Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out" Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out" Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me"and there was no one left to speak for me." This demonstrates how the Nazis started off with one unpopular minority group and built momentum from there. If only good samaritans had realized what was going on and stopped Hitler before the atrocities were committed. A government that discriminates against an entire religion would have no problem with attacking other minority groups. Therefore, my argument is valid and has nothing to do with the slippery slope fallacy. There is no question about a significant increase in hate crimes against innocent Muslim civilians. My opponent"s policy would cause government sanctioned discrimination against a religious minority. If our own government condones such blatant religious discrimination, it would give the message that such behavior is acceptable. This has been proven over and over again through highly respected studies. Researchers at California State University, San Bernadino have compiled data showing "hate crimes against American Muslims were up 78 percent over the course of 2015. Attacks on those perceived as Arab rose even more sharply." They show how "the violent backlash against American Muslims is driven not only by the string of terrorist attacks in Europe and the United States that began early last year, but also by the political vitriol from candidates like Donald J. Trump, who has called for a ban on immigration by Muslims and a national registry of Muslims in the United States." Just bringing up my opponent"s plan was sufficient to increase hate crimes. The federal government putting this policy into law would be far worse. The dramatic surge of anti-Muslim violence would be inevitable. DA 2: Increased Terrorism Let us assume my opponent"s allegations about Muslims are true. Even if there are many extremist Muslims in those cited countries, my plan would also pause immigration from those specified areas. I would like my opponent to show us statistics from Iceland, Denmark, New Zealand and Canada. He doesn"t have to because it would reflect poorly on his policy. I do feel most Muslims are peaceful and moderate. That is just my opinion, however. My opponent says Muslims could not be moved to join terrorists. I agree that most Muslims wouldn't be swayed; that being said, Pews estimates there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Let"s assume a mere 2% or 1 out of 50 are on the border about whether to become radicalized. The U.S implementing a law of blatant religious discrimination, a law that targets Islam specifically, would be enough to cause them to join terrorist organizations. The biggest recruitment strategy of the Islamic state is to paint a false narrative of a war between Islam and Western society. Even if it was only 2% of Muslims who became extremists, it would create 32,000,000 (32 Million) terrorists. This would be an unmitigated disaster. DA 3: Internat. Reputation I am running out of time so I will expand more on this in my final round. DA 4: Unfairness I will discuss this more in my final round. If my opponent is okay with it I could continue in the comments section. DA 5: Solvency I have a question for my opponent. How would you determine if someone was lying? Assume this person is highly unethical, very dishonest, a skilled liar and does not appear to be super Muslim looking. DA 6: Polit. Capital I will first put my argument I had for round one. I had not expected to run out of space so quickly. The political establishment would expect something in return for passing such an absurd policy. Hillary Clinton had advocated for a no fly zone in Syria which both me and my opponent agree could have resulted in a war with Syria and Russia. It is clear that this policy was with the backing of the political establishment and globalists since my opponent believes Clinton was a pawn of the political elite and special interests. John Bolton is currently the frontrunner for Deputy Sec. of State. Bolton, along with Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, AIPAC, etc were all part of the neoconservative wing of the political establishment. Therefore, it was the political elites who got us into the disastrous war in Iraq. These are the very people Donald "I love making deals" Trump will be trying to strike a deal with, and these are also the elites who tend to get what they want. The wars in Vietnam, Korea and Iraq are just a few examples of wars orchestrated (at least partially) by the elites. Basically America has a huge military industrial complex and has been involved in countless wars throughout the last century. Furthermore, the establishment media has been repeatedly talking about the atrocities in Syria perpetrated by Assad (I agree he is a bad guy). Our close ally, Israel has been trying to bomb Iran for the longest time. As I said before, Trump wants "Bomb Iran" neoconservative John Bolton to be his deputy SOS. If my opponent"s plan is pushed through, there is a high probability of a war with Syria, Iran, Russia, or any combination of the three. As mentioned before a Muslim ban would require a significant concession in return. A war with Syria, Iran or Russia would each be much worse than the terrible war in Iraq. Maybe we will fight Russia, Iran and Syria at the same time. This would result in the murder of millions of innocent people and also thousands upon thousands of American soldiers. The severity of this impeding disaster is so immense that it is best to not risk it and literally gamble with the lives of millions. Millions of innocent civilians and countless brave American patriots could be mercilessly slaughtered by my opponent"s plan. Counter Plan Let"s assume X years is 10 years. It not difficult to determine country of origin. Finding out specific religion is much, much harder. I am glad my opponent finds one of his arguments