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.
44% Yes |
56% No |
41% Yes |
43% No |
2% Yes, and ban all immigration until the government improves its screening process |
8% No, but we should ban immigrants from “high risk” countries |
1% Yes, until terrorist attacks decrease |
6% No, banning immigrants based on their religion is unconstitutional |
See how support for each position on “Muslim Immigrant Ban” has changed over time for 1.2k Finland voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “Muslim Immigrant Ban” has changed over time for 1.2k Finland voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from Finland users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@9D8PZFW9mos9MO
If governments can manage it and keep it under control then yes
Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Muslim Immigrant Ban” news articles, updated frequently.
Explore other topics that are important to Finland voters.