| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Barring Muslims would spell a US economic disaster |
| 2016-04-04 |
| [ENGLISH.ALARABIYA.NET] Republican contenders for the White House manipulating voters’ fears for their own ends by threatening to shut America’s door to Muslim visitors while subjecting American-Muslims to intensive monitoring have failed to count the cost of such an immoral, bigoted policy. Current front-runners, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, are shamefully vying with each other to attract xenophobes and Islamophobes into their respective camps in a no-holds barred fashion. The real shock is the result of a Bloomberg Politics/Purple strategies poll indicating 65 percent of Republican primary voters support the idea and even more concerning, 37 percent of all voters are in agreement with a ban on Muslims. Clearly, they have no clue that such an unprecedented action would shoot America in the foot in more ways than one. Firstly, it would contravene the constitution that outlaws "religious tests". Secondly, it would create a ’them-and-us’ climate within the US and is guaranteed to alienate many of America’s traditional allies. Thirdly, it would serve as a gift to terrorist recruiters and America-haters. And, fourthly, it is wholly impractical when most passports do not mention its holder’s faith. It is likely, too, that some, if not most, predominately Muslim states would institute reciprocal rules whereby American citizens and corporations would be deemed unwelcome. However, if you can't say something nice about a person some juicy gossip will go well... even when those negative consequences are set aside, placing such a "Keep Out" sign with respect to all Muslims would, undoubtedly, have devastating consequences for America’s economy whose ripples would trigger yet another global economic downturn because, as is well known, when Washington sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold. For a start, America’s tourism industry would suffer a major hit. A study conducted jointly by Singapore-based Crescent Ratings and the US firm Dinar Standard reports that Muslim travellers spend an average of $2,000 more than people of other faiths and forecasts taking into account growth that by 2020 the overall spend relating to Muslim tourism worldwide will reach more than $192 billion. An article in the Telegraph, substantiated with statistics from Travel and Leisure magazine and the US National Travel and Tourism Office, suggests a ban on Muslims could cost the US more than $18.4 billion a year "not accounting for the necessary overhaul to border infrastructure to implement such a plan". |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #21 Also lucky for us Islamists take over the countries in which they are majority and then they have a nation state which joins the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation. No need to mess with the first amendment, just ban immigration from OIC states and those who have family/travel there frequently or were born there. Should pretty much do it... |
| Posted by: anon1 2016-04-04 19:45 |
| #20 also - this is a civilisational conflict. We can take some economic hardship in return for clearing our lands of Islamist theocratic fascists and saving our civilisation. |
| Posted by: anon1 2016-04-04 19:42 |
| #19 Declare war on the Caliphate. Not IS but the concept of the Caliphate with sharia its ideology. Round up all the promoters of sharia and the caliphate and put in internment camps just like germans were in World War II. Ban general Muslim immigration until such time as the civil war within Islam is over. Trump is right. No more diversity visas for OIC countries. Treat immigration like the Cold War - you didn't let communists in en masse, why would you let Islamists in en masse? They want to destroy your system also. Then drop Saudi Arabia as "ally". Ban Saudi funding for mosques, schools, university centres and general think tanks. Any propagandising, stop. Kick out their ambassador. No speaky, no trade until they embrace religious pluralism. Reciprocal rights all the way baby, and we don't need your oil now we have fracking. |
| Posted by: anon1 2016-04-04 19:41 |
| #18 I'm pretty sure I get to decide who comes into my house through the front door, and I know I get to deal forcefully with anyone who wants to set up housekeeping in my guest bedroom. So, pretty much settles it for me. |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2016-04-04 17:41 |
| #17 tend to agree with Ebbang Uluque6305 |
| Posted by: 3dc 2016-04-04 16:20 |
| #16 I'm not prepared to argue Constitutional law but since when do the rights granted by the US Constitution extend to foreigners? Does your argument mean that these barbarians can use our Constitution against us? Somehow I always thought that being a sovereign nation means we get to decide who comes here and who doesn't and if they don't like it they can pound sand. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2016-04-04 14:58 |
| #15 --remember Jimmah and Iran? Carter's actions were within established law based on national sovereignty. Any changes to immigration enforcement based solely on religion would require new legislation. Even Emperor Obama's "deferrment" policy isn't passing constitutional muster. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2016-04-04 13:43 |
| #14 Whether or not the executive has the right to limit or allow immigration absent Congressional bills passed on the subject, President Obama has shown how a determined executive can wield his phone and pen to open or close gates to favoured/unfavoured populations. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2016-04-04 13:28 |
| #13 The exec branch does have the right under law to limit immigration -- remember Jimmah and Iran? |
| Posted by: regular joe 2016-04-04 13:08 |
| #12 Dear author of this piece, Don't get your panties in a bundle. First, even if Trump were to become President the executive branch doesn't have the authority to enact such a ban. Second, it would be counter to both the US Constitution as well as international law. And third, it would not only be impractical to enforce but impossible. Then again, he just announced if elected he would wipe out the National debt in two terms without touching any entitlement programs. So just relax and try a cool Snake oil on the rocks. It must be good 'cause the Trumpbots are buying it by the case. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2016-04-04 13:04 |
| #11 This is the dumbest shit I ever heard. Mohammed is a liability, not an asset. He could blow up any time. |
| Posted by: newc 2016-04-04 12:50 |
| #10 Wonder what impact it would have on Brussels? |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2016-04-04 12:10 |
| #9 Of course if we don't bar, or at least restrict, them it would be a different, and much more costly, disaster. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2016-04-04 11:16 |
| #8 Oh, that kind of "barring." |
| Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy 2016-04-04 09:32 |
| #7 I wonder how much a falafel sandwich is at Haj time About the same as a churro at Disneyworld. |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2016-04-04 09:32 |
| #6 Muslim travellers spend an average of $2,000 more than people of other faiths Mecca is pretty pricey. I wonder how much a falafel sandwich is at Haj time. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2016-04-04 08:55 |
| #5 HAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Chortle. Was this a late April fools? |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2016-04-04 08:44 |
| #4 (i) US is already an economic disaster---it is just that something so big has a lot of inertia. (ii) Muslims always bring economic growth with them. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-04-04 03:58 |
| #3 And, fourthly, it is wholly impractical when most passports do not mention its holder’s faith. It is likely, too, that some, if not most, predominately Muslim states would institute reciprocal rules whereby American citizens and corporations would be deemed unwelcome. And the downside is ? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-04-04 02:09 |
| #2 It's called addition by subtraction. |
| Posted by: Raj 2016-04-04 01:18 |
| #1 No. Its spelled different. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2016-04-04 00:41 |