I would argue that there is proof that they are radicalized since they took part in the attack. Which suggests there was a high chance of them performing the attack anyway, however what reason is there to believe they would not have performed any attack - its safe to assume the details of the attack would have been different but I dont think its safe to assume that no attack at all would have happened.


Had it been implemented in the European countries we were talking about refuge would have been denied and threatened the lives of asylum seekers, and I dont see how it would not have raised the death toll in these countries by more than it would have lowered it.


Turkey's instability obviously does not help.

What do you see a Western country? Most things Ive seen view Turkey as not part of the Western world but attempting to join it.

However im sure we can both agree that in its current state it is definitely unstable and in a position where it is more akin to Syria and Iraq than the UK and Spain in terms of susceptibility to terrorist attacks.


On this point http://www.ssb.no/en/innvandring-og-...ere/nokkeltall in the section "Immigration, emigration and net-migration, by world region" Statistics Norway uses these categories

Given which countries are where I find it safe to assume that they use the top classification as the western world, Turkey does not fit in the category used, this is how I view what fits into the Western World - if you disagree that thats what the category is then can you explain why those countries are grouped together?

Whether Turkey is a Western country is largely irrelevant to the topic of discussion though so its probably better to carry on with this part of the discussion through PM rather than on this thread


Imposing strict rules on one demographic for an undetermined period of time definitely seems off.

The point Im trying to make is that as its written there the rule is negative discrimination against muslims in general because it doesnt matter where the muslim is from, whether the country is stable or not, they are barred from migration because they are assumed a terrorist threat. Assuming all muslims a terrorist threat no matter what their situation is strikes me as derogatory, and not a policy that could well negatively affect the lives of many innocent muslims as well as a portion of the public's opinion on people of that relgion.
In addition, I don't think this is defensible by arguing; he hadnt viewed it in that way and he made the adjustment to the proposal because the new version was his intention all along, because during a presidential campaign I would certainly expect the candidates to think through their proposals before they make them public, if they don't I don't feel safe about them thinking through their proposals as president either.

I guess that ^^ is the point Ive been trying to get across all along.



I removed the rest of your post because I think those parts of your post weren't really making a particular argument, and you wanted to end those parts of our discussion because it was turning into yes it is - no it isnt - yes it is-no it isnt, if you disagree and think anything I missed off was particularly important quote it again and I'll reply to it next post.