Muslim Ban Policy

1 Religious Discrimination My opponent claims the proposed ban would be insulting to the American value of religious freedom and that it would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Legal experts seem divided on this issue, but I will defer to the Supreme Court for that question. However, the immigration ban wouldn't violate the religious freedom of any U.S. citizens. They could still observe and practice their religion as they currently do. His next point seems to dance around the slippery slope fallacy. He holds up other religions as possible targets of persecution. I don't think that implementing this policy, which could be temporary, would inevitably lead to any of the religions he listed being persecuted in any way. Those possibilities seem unlikely to me based on the current context. As those possibilities would be examined on their own particular facts and circumstances, I will not address them here. My opponent then goes on to make a strong claim. He doesn't just say that there could be a an increase in hate crimes directed at Muslims. He claims a DRAMATIC increase in hate crimes against Muslims would be the inevitable result of this ban. Obviously this possibility would represent a negative cost of the policy, though my opponent has cited no evidence to back up his strong claim of inevitabilty or the "dramatic" scope he suggests. 2 Increases Recruitment of Radical Islamic Terrorist Organizations My opponent quotes Paul Ryan to support his point. I agree with Ryan and my opponent on a few of the points here. Having truly moderate Muslims as allies will be important to dealing with many of the issues going on across the world, and specifically in the Middle East. Some of the other points I think are less clear. Namely that the vast majority of Muslims in the world are moderate, peaceful, and tolerant. There are surveys and events that are contrary to this claim. According to a Pew Survey of Muslims, there were alarming results on issues like suicide bombing civilian targets, and punishments for adultery and apostasy. In Afghanistan, Egypt, and Palestinian territories, much less than 50% of Muslims answered that suicide targets and other forms of violence against civilian targets were justified to defend Islam from its enemies. In Bangledesh and Jordan, the numbers for never justified were 51% and 53% respectively. There were only 2 countries in the survey that surpassed 90% for this answer, and even then it was less than 95%. In 8 countries surveyed, less than 50% of people answered that honor killing a male for committing adultery was never justified. It jumped to 9 when the adulterer was female. In 7 countries in this survey, more Muslims answered that they favored than opposed the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion. The data also suggests an intolerant view of homosexuals, as well unequal treatment of women. I would like to believe the statements made by Ryan and my opponent, but the data highlights some worrying trends. For a more complete picture you can look to these sources: http://www.pewforum.org... http://ivn.us... http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org... My opponent goes on to say that to go to war with a billion Muslims would be catastrophic. He suggests that an immigration ban would lead to this. I would hope this is a largely exaggerated and inaccurate belief, that the moderate, peaceful, and tolerant Muslims that represent a vast majority according to him, could so easily be moved to support terror groups in stark opposition to those values. But I agree with the idea that we do not want to act in ways that will increase the manpower or firepower of terrorists. Along the same reasoning, my opponent suggests the possibility that this policy could cause Muslims in our own country to stop assisting the government in finding Muslim extremists. No evidence to support this belief is given, but it seems to imply that this ban alone would cause Muslims to be either indifferent or supportive of massacring innocent civilians. I do not believe this is true. I hope the majority of people, and specifically the people we're discussing, would be against such violence. We need the moderate Muslims, and the Muslim nations in the region to come together to help find a solution to these violent attacks. A ban, possibly temporary, could give these nations more incentive to deal with these threats. It could give the community more incentive to more openly denounce these radicals. Hopefully this would have some persuasive impact on people who might otherwise show indifference or even support for these extreme views. 3 Destroyers Our International relations with Allied Countries No evidence is given to support the claim that this ban would irreversibly damage our international reputation and provoke trade wars. I think the problems we face are clear, and the intention of this ban is to protect innocent people from violence. We are very much in favor of human rights. Many of the extreme views in question are opposed to this core American values that my opponent invokes in his argument. 4 Unfair to Pro American Muslims It is true a total ban would include some Muslims who don't share the more extreme views. Some might even be willing to give their life to protect the U.S., its values and its people. This is a fair point, it represents a cost or negative of the policy. But this problem is not easily avoided. The opponent's proposed plan will also suffer from banning people that pose little to no threat. It will only be done with a different category. A relevant question is which category would be ideal in terms of enforcement, cost, and effectiveness. Neither policy is exclusive though, so we could instead choose a combination of the two if it seems more effective at achieving the goals. 5 Plan has No Solvency Financial costs cannot be ignored, nor can the ability to implement and enforce the policy. I believe this policy is sustainable, and possible. It would need to be designed so a simple lie wouldn't completely bypass the ban. These issues are also present with my opponent's plan. Even though the categories are different, they still share similar issues. Lack of information, people lying, financial costs, etc. I think it is an exaggeration to suggest that it's impossible to determine someone's religion if they deny it. Just like I wouldn't suggest it impossible to determine an immigrant's country of origin without their confirmation. My plan doesn't exclude the possibility of the opponent's suggested plan, and in fact the most effective solution might be a combination. 6 Extensive Use of Political Capital My opponent claims that the vast majority of congressmen, senators, governors, etc are against the resolution. I c