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.
87% Yes |
13% No |
87% Yes |
13% No |
See how support for each position on “High Risk Immigrant Ban” has changed over time for 39 India voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “High Risk Immigrant Ban” has changed over time for 39 India voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from India users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@9KP6BNZ2mos2MO
Immigrants from high-risk countries should be screened thoroughly before entering the country but they need not be banned, as it would be an extreme measure.
@9K2JFLY2mos2MO
No, not at all. However there needs to be a structured process right from their arrival, to ensure that each of them is acknowledged and provided attention. Overall local welbeing needs to be systematically addressed everywhere within the country, so that while ensuring a basic safety and stability will help the immigrants feel secure, having a larger system to ensure everyone's welbeing may also help address the fear of safety of local members, thus, helping address the root causes of activities triggered out of fear by either.
Explore other topics that are important to India voters.