Muslim Ban Policy

Since you have the last word I would appreciate it if you didn't sneak in new points. I would not have the opportunity to respond. I will begin this round with six harmful consequences of my opponent's resolution. Then I will propose a Counter Plan (my opponent said running a Counter Plan would be fine) which avoids these disadvantages. Disadvantage 1: Religious Discrimination A ban on all Muslim immigrants is an insult to American values of religious freedom. Banning an entire religion (more than a billion people) is a clear violation of our treasured 1st Amendment. We should not have a "religious test" and discriminate against those of a different faith. In addition to attacking Islam, the ban would set a precedent that would allow the government to ban other religious minorities in the future. Mormons could be next because they are also a weak religious group in terms of representation. Even though Mormons are Christians they face more bigotry than mainstream Christians because they are a religious minority. Hindus, Buddhists, Jesuits and Agnostics could be banned after them. An oppressive government could pick and choose which groups they didn't like and persecute them. When would the religious bigotry stop? Furthermore, such a policy would cause a dramatic increase in hate crimes directed at Muslims. It would encourage blatant xenophobia and stereotype all Muslims as terrorists. Recently there have already been numerous hate crime against Muslims and their Mosques. My opponent"s plan exacerbates the issue. It has been proven that harmful rhetoric against Muslims increases hate crimes. Disadvantage 2: Increases Recruitment of Radical Islamic Terrorist Organizations According to the (republican) Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, "Muslims are our partners. The vast, vast majority of Muslims in this country and around the world are moderate. They"re peaceful. They"re tolerant. And so they"re among our best allies, among our best resources in this fight against radical Islamic terrorism. " This is true, most Muslims are moderate and don"t want a war with western society. Radical Islamic Terror groups such as ISIL have advocated for a war between Islam and Western society. Such a war would be catastrophic considering there are more than a billion Muslims in the world. We should not increase the manpower of our terrorist enemies. Throughout the Middle East we are allied with moderate Muslims in the battle against extremists. We also give them weapons. If they find out that we have banned all Muslims from our country, many soldiers from our Muslim allies may join the terrorists and slaughter American patriots. The only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is by creating a coalition that includes moderate Muslims. Moreover, in our own country we rely on Muslims to find extremists in their own communities. If Muslims angered by the Muslim ban refuse to report terrorists, this could result in the massacre of innocent civilians. Passing my opponent"s plan could butcher countless innocent people. Disadvantage 3: Destroys Our International Relations with Allied Countries This plan will cause irreversible harm to our international reputation. This can provoke trade wars with all of our trade partners. What"s more, the resolution damages our reputation as a champion of human rights. No longer would America be a symbol of freedom, religious liberty and democracy. Disadvantage 4: Unfair to Pro American Muslims Many Muslims love America and wish to experience the American dream. They believe in Western values especially religious liberty. Some would even give their own life to serve our country. To ban them from the country would be a clear mistake. Disadvantage 5: Plan has No Solvency This plan would not be ratified by congress. Moreover, even if passed, it would be difficult to implement. What if Islamic terrorists would lie and say they are atheists? It is naive to assume terrorists are trustworthy folks. Members of ISIL have no issue with lying, and it would be impossible to know for sure if they were Muslims. Disadvantage 6: Extensive Use of Political Capital Let us assume that somehow the plan was passed. Getting it done would require an unbelievable amount of political capital and bring out resentment towards our president (or technically president-elect). The vast majority of congressmen, senators, governors, etc are against this resolution. The political establishment would expect something in return for passing such an absurd policy. I can elaborate in the next round because I am running out of space. The resolution is deeply flawed. Fortunately, I have a viable solution: Counter Plan: Temporarily implement a pause on immigration for all immigrants from countries with a higher percentage of terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. It is critical to defend the security of our borders; we need to put America first once again! This list of nations would include (but would not be limited to): Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Ukraine, Egypt, Lebanon, Nigeria, Sudan, The Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Libya. The list would not include countries with almost zero terrorism such as: Iceland, Switzerland, Canada, Denmark, and New Zealand. There will be one caveat for immigrants from those peaceful countries. We will not accept any immigrant who moved from a high terrorism country to a safe country and wants to immediately come to the U. S. That would serve little purpose, be incredibly suspicious and therefore will not be allowed. Also we will have a thorough background check (including careful scrutiny of their travel history), civics test, citizenship test, etc for those immigrants from safe countries. This policy is superior to my opponent"s plan in every way. My Counter Plan will Make America Safe Again! There are numerous reasons why this Counter Plan beats my opponent"s resolution. First off, it would be very unlikely to have terrorists coming from a nation such as Iceland which statistically has a much lower percentage of terrorism than the United States. Terrorist groups would have no chance of sneaking anyone in at this point. There is absolutely zero benefit for banning Muslims from Iceland or any other nation with a minuscule percentage of terrorists. There has never been a terrorist attack on American soil from a low terrorism country. Furthermore, my plan avoids the extreme disadvantages of banning all Muslims. My plan is realistic, constitutional, promotes religious freedom, preserves our international relationships, does not encourage a war with Islam, and it will be fair to the vast majority of Muslims who are peaceful people. I await my opponent's arguments in the next round. Sources: . http://www.theatlantic.com...