So, right now there's very little discourse between the left and the right. They can't really talk to each other without one side calling the other racist, sexist, islamaphobic and so on. As a result, the normal diachtomy of how things are supposed to work is out of sync. Normally, Republicans would bring up an issue, say, security. And then democrats would bring up an issue, say humanitarianism. Both sides would then work together to come up with a solution and solve the problem without denying the other the core elements of what they wanted.
The republicans have legitimate concerns that the 7 countries where immigrants are coming from are terrorist havens. More so, crime, such as rape and assaults have gone up dramatically in Germany and Norway after allowing in all these migrants, and so as a result there is a legitimate concern Germany is now literally the rape capital of Europe, and yet maybe America should do that too, right? [1][2] A lot of Muslims live in countries where if a woman isn't wearing a hijab or Burka that she is seen as wanting sex, and therefore a lot of these young men who are unemployed and psychologically scarred from war are further pressed in to groping or in the worst circumstances, even raping woman. Whether you want to say it's because of cultural differences or it's not true for all Islamic people and so on is fine, but the fact of the matter is, it's still happening. It's one thing to show tolerance for another culture's ways, it's another to outright deny that these problems exist.
The truth of the matter is that both sides have legitimate points; one is concerned with security, and the other is concerned with humanitarian purposes. So, what do we do? My personal opinion is to let the refugees in to refugee camps, but not allow them to leave until they've been vetted. The simple answer is to quarantine them from the rest of society until we can prove they are decent people *and* provide them with a home, job and necessary language and cultural skills needed to work in our society, rather than just dumping them in the middle of the biggest city and leaving it at that. Democrats seem to be so obsessed with letting immigrants in, but don't seem to want to take care of them once they get here. Creating a homeless population of a million new migrants that have nowhere to stay is just as bad as leaving them back in Syria or wherever their home country is, and unless you actually try and help these people you're just as guilty as those you claim to hate, and just want to virtue signal about how accepting you are, rather than actually giving a fuck about the outcome of what happens to these migrants. To ignore the legitimate security concerns of the Republicans through character assassination ironically does not justify or give credence to your own argument, which thus far is to claim that the ban is because the other side is a bigot, and to have open borders.
Even if Trump is a bigot that doesn't, by itself, mean his legislation is necessary bad. Many of the founding fathers literally owned other people and yet supported the first amendment; should we do away with it just because a racist supported it, or keep it because it's actually a good idea? The sad reality is that Liberals attack the other side for arbitrary characteristics that don't even prove their side right or acknowledge the legitimate difficulty taking in immigrants will provide for the American people. If you actually wanted to make a fair argument, you would say that he chose the 7 countries for the SAME REASON OBAMA DID, but that Obama wasn't as harsh. When you say he chose these 7 islamic majority countries due to bigotry, you ironically condemn the entire left and Obama in the same breath. He chose these countries because they represent a legitimate threat to security, not because he was an Islamaphobe. However, the overly harsh restrictions seem unjustified both due to a general lack of terrorism from these countries, and the fact that a restriction of leaving a refugee camp, rather than entering the country at all, seems more justified. We can keep security concerns and humanitarian concerns at the forefront, without one necessarily canceling out the other.
But the liberals seem to be incapable of actual reasonable discourse. Anyone who disagrees with them is an islampahobe or a racist, despite the fact that they supported immigration restrictions on the same 7 countries for the same reason. It is clearly not a muslim ban, and if it is the left is guilty of it as well. The question in the debate should be the harshness and severity of Trumps action and his bypassing of congress to do it via executive order, rather than whether or not he wanted to ban muslims. But, like always, what do you think Invicta?