But that doesn't really matter, does it? I mean, profiling someone based on their religion is, by definition, bigotry.
Let's establish some facts:
1) The vast, vast majority of muslims are normal peaceful people.
2) Even if you were able to establish something like, "Most terrorists are muslims!" that still does not provide some rational basis for profiling and assuming some sort of guilt about someone... because such things could be done for everyone.
That is, MOST serial killers are white men. But this doesn't mean that I can presume that you are a serial killer. Obviously. It doesn't even make sense, because while most serial killers are white men, that doesn't change the fact that 99.999999% of white men are in fact NOT serial killers.
And the same goes for muslims, and refugees.
And this is ultimately the problem with the ban, in that it has no statistical basis for us to believe that it will achieve anything beneficial at all. There is no reason, from a scientific, rational perspective, to believe that this ban will achieve any increase in safety at all. Feel free to present an argument to the contrary if you have one, but be prepared to present real, concrete data.
Ah, no... it's absolutely relevant to the discussion, because you are offering a trade. You are saying that we can treat these people in this way, in a manner we do not normally treat people, in order to achieve an increased level of safety for the people. That is the deal you are suggesting.
So then it absolutely is immensely relevant to the discussion for you to establish how, exactly, this will make anyone safer. Because if that cannot be established, then the deal is bad.
This is nonsensical. Even if you perceive that the status quo is unacceptable, that in itself does not automatically justify ANY action.
Suggesting that, "well, it's bad, so any action is better than doing nothing!" is absurd. Hitler said killing 6 million jews was the right move.... and hey, things were indeed bad for the germans in the 20's... so I guess that his crap was justified!
No man, that's nonsense.
This ban caused real, tangible harm to tons of people.. From the minor inconvenience of wasted time, to the much more significant cases where people from impoverished places were actually sent back and forced to pay more money to try and travel again.
If you're going to cause harm to people, even if it is only a minor inconvenience, then you need to justify it.
What about those citizens who have family who were turned away, for no reason, as a result of this ban? Do you care about THOSE citizens?
And beyond that, do you care about non-americans? Are they less than humans? Less deserving of dignity and respect?