@ISIDEWITHQuestionsimmigrationStarted 2yrs agoActive 17hrs ago1 here now

Should immigrants from high risk countries be banned from entering the country until the government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists?

Proponents argue that this strategy would bolster national security by minimizing the risk of potential terrorists entering the country. Enhanced screening processes, once implemented, would provide a more thorough assessment of applicants, reducing the likelihood of malicious actors gaining entry. Critics argue that such a policy might inadvertently promote discrimination by broadly categorizing individuals based on their nation of origin rather than specific, credible threat intelligence. It may strain diplomatic relations with the affected countries and potentially harm the perception of the nation enacting the ban, being seen as hostile or prejudiced towards certain international communities. Additionally, genuine refugees fleeing terrorism or persecution in their home countries might be unjustly denied safe haven.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 59.3k Canada voters.

70%
Yes
30%
No
70%
Yes
30%
No

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 59.3k Canada voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 59.3k Canada voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Canada voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9MR9VHJfrom Ontario  answered…11mos11MO

no, but measures should be taken screen out potential terrorists.

 @B3DB5PQfrom Ontario  answered…2mos2MO

No, screening should be the same for everyone. Terrorists can potentially come from anywhere (or be born and raised here)

 @B4NWQ5Nfrom Nova Scotia  answered…5 days5D

this is a very hard question because terrorists can be anyone but i think they should still be alowed in but get their id checked

 @B4NGYDDfrom Ontario  answered…6 days6D

No, people from high risk countries should go through a higher screening process, but not be banned completely.

 @B4ND9T9from British Columbia  answered…6 days6D

Yes to improving screening techniques to not allow criminals and terrorists entering Canada. Also to ensure continued monitoring of immigrants to ensure productive citizens.

 @B4MZCRFfrom Ontario  answered…7 days7D

no, but there needs to be accountability to avoid dangerous extremist. this could include regular checks with an immigration officers.

 @B4LXJVMfrom British Columbia  answered…1wk1W

No, immigrants from high risk countries need to be able to find refuge. Make screening process more in depth.

 @B4LHWPYfrom Saskatchewan  answered…1wk1W

I don't think they should be banned based off where they come from. Give a chance and if something goes wrong we could start to think about stricter policies. I think that banning entry is not very nice just based on where people come from. But I mean you never know what someone can be up to. So it is good to always take precautions.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3mos3MO

Supreme Court Clears The Way For Trump Sentencing

Donald Trump will face sentencing over his New York “hush money” conviction on Friday, after the US Supreme Court declined to grant him a last-minute reprieve.The decision will force the president-elect to face public proceedings in the criminal case that he has fought strenuously to avoid. His lawyers had appealed to the high court on Wednesday to postpone the proceeding, claiming that allowing it to go ahead days before his inauguration would create a “constitutionally intolerable risk of disruption to national security” and interfere with his efforts to get his 34 felony convictions overturned.In a 5-4 decision handed down just hours before the sentencing was set to go ahead in a state court in lower Manhattan, a majority of the justices declined to do so, saying “the burden that sentencing will impose on the president-elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial” especially as Trump was unlikely to face any prison time. They added that any issues with the evidence presented at trial — some of which Trump’s lawyers have claimed was inadmissible — “can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal”.Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberals on the bench in refusing to grant Trump’s appeal.Trump said in a post on Truth Social that he appreciated the Supreme Court’s time but vowed to continue fighting the case. “For the sake and sanctity of the Presidency, I will be appealing this case, and am confident that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL,” he said.Lawyers representing Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Trump’s sentencing was repeatedly postponed while he mounted his third campaign for the White House and pursued various appeals against his conviction. Last week Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the “hush money” trial in New York earlier this year, finally set a firm date, in order to bring what he called “finality to this matter”.Trump will probably not face any punishment when he is sentenced, however, as the judge previously indicated he would not impose a fine or condemn Trump to prison time.

▲  1619 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…5mos5MO

Chaos in Europe: Germany’s Government Collapses As Trump Returns

Germany’s coalition government collapsed on Wednesday after Chancellor Olaf Scholz sacked his finance minister Christian Lindner, plunging the eurozone’s largest economy into political chaos hours after Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election.Scholz told reporters he would table a confidence vote in parliament on January 15, which most observers expect him to lose. That will pave the way for snap elections in March.Lindner’s sacking and the departure of his pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) from the government brings the curtain down on a deeply unpopular coalition that had become a byword for discord and acrimony.It leaves a void at the heart of Europe just as concern is growing in EU capitals over what a second Trump presidency will mean for transatlantic relations.Germany and the rest of Europe now face a long period of uncertainty they can ill-afford as they brace for a trade war with the US while trying to fend off a growing economic threat from China.In a blistering statement delivered in the chancellery, Scholz blamed Lindner for the breakdown of the government, calling him “selfish” and “irresponsible”. He said he “cared only about his own clientele and the short-term survival of his own party”.The trigger for Lindner’s dismissal was a dispute over next year’s budget. The three coalition partners — Scholz’s Social Democrats (SPD), Lindner’s FDP and the Greens — could not agree on how to plug a €9bn hole in spending plans ahead of a meeting of parliament’s budget committee next week.However, the conflict became overlaid with deeper ideological divisions over how to deal with Germany’s economic downturn and how much public debt the government is legally allowed to raise.Scholz said he had asked Lindner to agree to loosen Germany’s “debt brake”, a cap on new borrowing which is enshrined in the constitution and which the SPD and Greens have long wanted to reform.That would have allowed Germany to take on more debt and so boost its support for Ukraine, at a time when fears are growing Trump might cut aid to Kyiv once installed in the White House.Scholz said he had also proposed capping network charges to bring down energy prices for industrial companies, creating incentives for businesses to invest, and passing a package of measures to safeguard jobs in the car industry, which faces more competition from China.

▲  299 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…6mos6MO

Trump’s Puerto Rico Problem Erupts in Pennsylvania: Latino Voters Fire Back

Donald Trump has a serious Puerto Rico problem — in Pennsylvania.Many Puerto Rican voters in the state are furious about racist and demeaning comments delivered at a Trump rally. Some say their dismay is giving Kamala Harris a new opening to win over the state’s Latino voters, particularly nearly half a million Pennsylvanians of Puerto Rican descent.Evidence of the backlash was immediate on Monday: A nonpartisan Puerto Rican group drafted a letter urging its members to oppose Trump on election day. Other Puerto Rican voters were lighting up WhatsApp chats with reactions to the vulgar display and raising it in morning conversations at their bodegas. Some are planning to protest Trump’s rally Tuesday in Allentown, a majority-Latino city with one of the largest Puerto Rican populations in the state.And the arena Trump is speaking at is located in the middle of the city’s Puerto Rican neighborhood.“It’s spreading like wildfire through the community,” said Norberto Dominguez, a precinct captain with the local Democratic party in Allentown, who noted his own family is half Republican and half Democratic voters.“It’s not the smartest thing to do, to insult people — a large group of voters here in a swing state — and then go to their home asking for votes,” Dominguez said.The timing couldn’t be worse for Trump. Almost a week before Election Day, he’s pushing to cut into Harris’ margins among Latinos, especially young men who are worried about the economy. But the comments from pro-Trump comedian Tony Hinchcliffe Sunday night, referring to Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage,” has reverberated throughout Pennsylvania and elsewhere, prompting even the former president’s Republican allies to defend the island and denounce the comments. And with the race essentially a toss up, every vote counts — especially in Pennsylvania.“This was just like a gift from the gods,” said Victor Martinez, an Allentown resident who owns the Spanish language radio station La Mega, noting some Puerto Rican voters in the area have been on the fence about voting at all.

▲  3116 replies