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.
Response rates from 81 India voters.
79% Yes |
21% No |
79% Yes |
21% No |
Trend of support over time for each answer from 81 India voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 81 India voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from India voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@9ML6M8J8mos8MO
Immigrants from high risk countries should be allowed to enter the country as long as they are privately sponsored.
@9KP6BNZ10mos10MO
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.
@9K2JFLY11mos11MO
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.