TheDarkDemon

Considering the places banned, Constitutional rights, and human morality, is it a good idea?

I think some good could come of it, but the details need to be changed to fit the Constitution.
Government first!

I don't agree with singling out a specific ethnicity. You can't just assume every person in that ethnicity is a threat. Especially when some of them were born here and legally acquired green cards. I just don't believe it's a moral decision. I agree we need to protect our country from foreign invaders, but they should figure out a different way to do it.

I'd find it wrong to lock up 100 people in a hall because 1 is a terrorist.
Same can be applied for the travel ban. Target the right people, not the bystanders.

From what I've been reading the countries selected pose no higher risk than any other;
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/us/p ... .html?_r=0

It's a tricky problem to deal with, I agree. When so few are the issue. XD

Daniël wrote:I doubt there's really anyone on this website who agrees with the travel bans.

That's where you're wrong.

I agree with them 100%. And, as people are apt to forget, Obama also had a travel ban in place.

It is not targeted at a specific race, religion, ethnicity (if it was, wouldn't travelers from India or Indonesia be banned?)

It is targeted towards those entering the U.S. from countries that have a large ISIS population.

A country's number one job is to protect it's citizens. Once you can ensure your own populations safety, then move on to helping other nations civilians. I can't fathom how people don't see the logic in this.

I understand this is a bump, but w/e.