Why Banning Muslims is a Bad Idea

To my friend(s) who still think(s) banning Muslims from entering the United States is a good idea,

ISIS

Okay, the so-called “Islamic State” is a very scary terrorist organization has said they will send terrorists to the US disguised as refugees. You think we should take them at their word and, to be on the safe side, ban all Muslims. But to err on the side of caution would,in this case, be an error in the extreme.

1. Even the Trump for President campaign has backed away from this position. They now say that only Muslims from countries where ISIS is active should be banned.
2. Just because your enemy is a member of a set does not mean that the entire set is your enemy. The is a fallacy of logic: arguing from the specific to the general.
3. We are not the enemy of ISIS, Islam is. The goal of ISIS is to overthrow the governments of the Levant and (other predominantly Muslim countries). Oh they hate the west and the US but most of their actual victims are Muslims.
4. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We should be working with the nations and institutions of Islam to fight against our common enemy. It is the opposite of helpful when Americans start calling for policies that are blatantly anti-Islam.
5. The US is not a “Christian country” per se that is at war with “Radical Islam.” While using the term Radical Islam is not as poisonous as banning Muslims, it is also not helpful. In fact the US is, in-part, a Muslim Country with 3.3 million Muslim-Americans, many of whom are fighting as special operators inside Syria and Iraq. Who’s to say who is/is not radical. Many people say that Evangelical Christians are “radical.” Would they not be offended if our allies started referring to “Radical Christianity?”

Refugees

The people from the Levant who are fleeing ISIS are the victims of war. They are literally running for their lives. They are people just like you and me who, through no fault of their own, have no place to live.

How do we know that these people aren’t terrorists?

1. There is a very thorough screening process. Refugees cannot chose to come to the US. The UN decides who goes where. Then there are background checks and multiple interrogations over a two year period. If they are caught lying about anything, they are denied. Most are women and children.
2. Without a doubt, sending terrorists to the US disguised as refugees would be the most difficult (and least likely) way to do it. There are so many other ways: They can radicalize Americans who are already here via the Internet. They can radicalize people who come and go with valid passports. They can steal someone’s identity and send them into the US with a fake passport.
3. Just because your enemy (e.g., ISIS) says they are going to do something doesn’t mean they actually will. Considering how stupid and difficult it would be for ISIS to use an international refugee program to infiltrate the US, it seems much more likely that their actual goal in saying that is to punish the refugees who they view as infidels.

I realize that this is a bit more complicated than “…a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” but just because something sounds good the first time you hear it, doesn’t make it good foreign policy.

None of this really matters, of course, because the idea of banning Muslims from entering our country was (and is) rejected by the overwhelming majority of Americans who not only disagree for the reasons stated above, but consider it “un-American” and offensive.