Would you support a temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S.?

2016-06-14T11:28:06-04:00

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 14 at 2016 11:28 AM

2016-06-14T11:28:50-04:00

Not an outright ban, but the vetting process definitely needs some fixing.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Jun 14 at 2016 11:29 AM

2016-06-14T11:29:27-04:00

I vote No

Response by PO1 Jason Taylor made Jun 14 at 2016 11:31 AM

2016-06-14T11:31:42-04:00

Not a full ban no, however I think that there needs to be more of a background check done on every one coming in this great country of ours. If they find any red flags, then YES they need to be stopped.

Response by Alan K. made Jun 14 at 2016 11:33 AM

2016-06-14T11:33:16-04:00

I would support a CENTRAL processing facility so both hands know what each is doing and a thorough vetting....No matter what. You better have someone here to sponsor and pay for you as well. Charity starts with children then Vets then legal US citizens....That would be a good start.

Response by SSgt Charles Freeman made Jun 14 at 2016 11:33 AM

2016-06-14T11:33:32-04:00

I would support a temporary ban until our vetting process is fixed.

Response by SGT David T. made Jun 14 at 2016 11:36 AM

2016-06-14T11:36:48-04:00

We cannot ban based on religion. That violates the 1st amendment. Now stopping all immigration temporarily until the vetting process is fixed would be fair.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Jun 14 at 2016 11:39 AM

2016-06-14T11:39:50-04:00

No, However, I would support reinstating our former immigration policy. Which required a background check before letting anyone enter the United States (even if they had a passport from a friendly nation). Religion should not be considered. What should be considered is a person's criminal history, a check of their cyber history to identify if they have ever declared themselves an enemy of the United States, and most importantly whether or not he/she has ever fought for or trained with an enemy of the United States.

Our current policy literally allows an ISIS fighter to put down his gun, walk off the battlefield to a relocation/refugee camp and eventually be brought to Europe or the United States. It's insanity.

Response by SPC Dawud Makonnen made Jun 14 at 2016 11:44 AM

2016-06-14T11:44:42-04:00

Yes, I think it needs to be discussed with all parties involved. Arabs were not brought to America in chains & shackles they have a country and they can leave. Period! I know plenty of Muslims who make that choice. I don't like it here for my children so I'm moving back to my country. #Easy

Response by SPC Dawud Makonnen made Jun 14 at 2016 11:53 AM

2016-06-14T11:53:02-04:00

To add, and we are talking about Arabs who leave their country to come to the West. According to Islam "Hijra" Arab Muslims migrating from one place to another has conditions. But they must migrate to other Muslim countries first moving to the West must be a last resort...Not the first! That is due to differences in beliefs and lifestyles.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Jun 14 at 2016 11:58 AM

2016-06-14T11:58:53-04:00

I would support a temporary ban of any individual coming from an area we are not currently on friendly relations with.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jun 14 at 2016 12:23 PM

2016-06-14T12:23:27-04:00

No ban. Better vetting....and not being afraid to call a spade a spade.

Response by PO1 Brian Austin made Jun 14 at 2016 12:31 PM

2016-06-14T12:31:32-04:00

I support a more extensive vetting process where agencies actually talk to each other and share information. However it is difficult to vet what is inside someone's head.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jun 14 at 2016 12:35 PM

2016-06-14T12:35:51-04:00

Lots of opinions out there but I'm in the "not decided" category because I don't have the information to make a judgement on. I haven't been presented with any decent analysis of how good the current vetting is, what acceptable risk is, and whether or not I agree with it, what difference does geographical bans makes, and the list goes on and on. What we need is an Intel community that's allowed to do their job, comprehensive analysis of risks, and anyone who's into "perfection" removed from the discussion. If you insist on zero risk then that means you don't allow any Muslims in and kick all the ones that are here out. That's not what America is about. Even with a rigorous program, attacks will happen presumably at a lower rate than otherwise. So what we're really trying to do is to find a cure for radical Islamic terrorism and surgery is only a near term partial solution. I'm for starting out with that now but aggressively working out the rest of the plan over the next year or so. Unfortunately that assumes the great people who can take on that task are allowed to do so.

Bottom line, there may not be any "good" solution to a conflict that's been going on since the 1300's.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jun 14 at 2016 1:33 PM

2016-06-14T13:33:06-04:00

No. That is stupid over the top ridiculous.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Jun 14 at 2016 1:46 PM

2016-06-14T13:46:25-04:00

I would support such a ban until a more full-proof way could be established which provides better assurances that the bad will be separated from the good ones. Simply waiting until someone kills 50 people to declare him bad is not good enough. Simply applying American Constitutional rights to foreigners, terrorists of any color or stripe plays right into the hands of the foreign and domestic terrorists who are becoming experts at using our own freedoms as weapons against US. DT has the right idea and is not afraid to say so. He has been ahead of the power curve on this one since day one. POTUS wants to let 10,000 Muslim-type refugees and their tag-along terrorist buddies into the country using the same vetting process as that used on the San Bernardino shooters. A process which is supposed to take 18 months or so, yet he still vows to let 10,000 into the country in 12 months alone

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Jun 14 at 2016 2:02 PM

2016-06-14T14:02:43-04:00

No I would not. Not one of the recent attacks (Fort Hood, San Bernadino, Orlando) would have been affected by such a ban. This argument is a Straw Man, meant to give the weak-minded a target to throw their fear and anger at.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2016 3:29 PM

2016-06-14T15:29:30-04:00

I am not suggesting a ban on a religion. But we do need to close the borders until the vetting system can be improved and until homeland security can better allow secure people in without jeopardizing lives by allowing 10,000 in at a time. It is being proven that those coming from known areas of extremism are becoming a plague to the western civilization and only want to interrupt our way of life. Not a ban on Muslims, a temp ban on all coming into the country.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2016 4:08 PM

2016-06-14T16:08:44-04:00

Hi, Sergeant Cunnally. I don't know if this will answer your question, but it came to mind first.

""Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2016 4:22 PM

2016-06-14T16:22:33-04:00

Government isn't supposed to be looking at people and deciding if they are the "correct" or "incorrect" religion. That said, if someone believes it is ever acceptable to use violence to overthrow a representative government, that should be enough to deny entry.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Jun 14 at 2016 4:40 PM

2016-06-14T16:40:08-04:00

Have you seen what is happening in Europe and Sweden. There is no way to Vet these people. And there are men who should be serving there country.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Jun 14 at 2016 4:48 PM

2016-06-14T16:48:22-04:00

Yes, because this group is proving to be the most troublesome.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2016 6:51 PM

2016-06-14T18:51:24-04:00

I'd support a temporary ban on everyone entering the US until such time as we can unscrew a system that is badly in need of reform and oversight.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jun 14 at 2016 11:13 PM

2016-06-14T23:13:32-04:00

How many of these "Muslims" are escaping Terrorism. No, No way can I support such a poor knee jerk reaction. The Terrorist Organizations victimize their fellow Muslims much more than they do us. At a Gut Level it violates my American Values. No!

Response by MSG John Wirts made Jun 14 at 2016 11:47 PM

2016-06-14T23:47:46-04:00

NO! A temporary ban will do no good. All mMuslims are tought that when Muslims enter a country that country is Muslim forever. The Muslims have had slacves since the beginning of their religion, they are very descriminating about race and religion, you either convert to Muslim or you die, and almost any excuse will do to enslave anyone they wish, but especially non-Muslinm girls and women. They invaded europe in the 732 AD and there were other attempts later on. The only way to be safe is to identify, and permanently ban ALL MUSLIMS fromentering the U.S.A., or there will be a war, look at England, France , and Norway. You can't play nice with these finatics it won't work.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Jun 15 at 2016 5:02 AM

2016-06-15T05:02:55-04:00

President Obama said Donald Trump's proposed ban on Muslim immigration would make the U.S. less safe and make Muslim Americans feel their government is betraying them

Response by SGT Edward Wilcox made Jun 15 at 2016 9:10 AM

2016-06-15T09:10:16-04:00

What good would a ban do? Especially considering that 4 of the last 5 attacks linked to "radical islam" were done by natural born citizens, including the Orlando shooter and The San Bernardino shooter.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Jun 15 at 2016 11:34 AM

2016-06-15T11:34:29-04:00

yes

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Jun 15 at 2016 11:49 AM

2016-06-15T11:49:48-04:00

Nearly six in 10 Americans oppose Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's proposal to bar Muslims from entering the United States, but Republicans are evenly divided, according to a new national poll....source: Decision 2016

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2016 6:46 PM

2016-06-15T18:46:35-04:00

Easy solution i they will lie and say they are Christians. (As the Quran allows them to do)
However, religions won't be banned comming into the US. however from locations can be.

Also.. A Refugee fleeing a war torn country needs to be defined as..... a FAMILY. Women and non military aged children. If you are a military aged male, without a family with you... about face and go defend your country.

Response by SSG Richard Reilly made Jun 16 at 2016 10:29 AM

2016-06-16T10:29:21-04:00

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
― Emma Lazarus

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2016 4:24 PM

2016-06-20T16:24:11-04:00

Absolutely, unequivocally NO!

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Jun 20 at 2016 4:34 PM

2016-06-20T16:34:40-04:00

Hillary Clinton:....."I will not support a ban on Muslims and something stinks here "

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Nov 22 at 2016 9:02 AM

2016-11-22T09:02:55-05:00

Principled objections aside for a moment, although I feel that the principled objections should be sufficient to put this concept to death forever: how do you know if someone is a Muslim?

You have to ask them.

Might as well ask them if they're terrorists, because there is no blood test to determine either.

I am not a Muslim, by any means, however, my faith informs my belief that this is an incredibly bad idea.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2016 11:13 AM

2016-11-23T11:13:52-05:00

Vetting of all entering USA is just good security. If they want to stop ALL immigration until they can reach a level of certainty then that's debatable, but who decides what that level is and will it ever be attained?. Blanket banning of anyone based on religion definitely is not debatable. We already went down that road and declared our Independence over it. Seems it was over taxation without representation and freedom from religious oppression. We fought and won that war so that chapter of the book is closed. Despite all the chatter over refusing to use words "Islamic terrorism", a terrorist is a terrorist regardless of makeup and a Muslim is someone that practices Islamic faith. The two are not one and the same automatically. The larger problem is that once we start refusing people due to a religion then what religion is next? Once that starts then how does it end? Only white Southern Baptists are permissible? All others need to stay out? Not the Constitution I support and defend for life.