Yes, I do have a better solution:
Let's not act as recruiters for ISIS and other nutters by polarising the situation to "us" and "them". It's what they want, it's how they grow in numbers. There was a time not too long ago when another group of people was similarly used by populist leaders; the whole thing ended with millions of people murdered.
That is not a solution. That is virtue signalling and you deflecting. Its you saying IF you do not do anything, you are "good" and are not creating an "us" and them and if you do something you are creating/perpetuating an "us" and "them".
Its a pretty weak way to say any action is tantamount to bigotry and only in doing nothing are you virtuous. Is pretty fucking weak. Answer the fucking question and stop deflecting.
See this is the Odeon I like. He is being a clown for our amusement.
"I stick up for Muslims being no one else does. I believe people have a right to their religious beliefs."
See it sounds very moral and virtuous but prod this moral grandstanding a bit and what happens? Want me to try?
Me: "Okay, sure Odeon, but who on here is questioning anyone's right to have their own religious beliefs or railing on Muslims or blaming the actions of a few on all Muslims?"
Odeon: "YOU have! You clearly have. You are a bigot and have done exactly that. You always say terrible things about Muslims and support Trump"
Me: "Actually I have not done any of that and only a drooling idiot could draw that conclusion. I have at every conceivable point underlined the fact that Muslim radical extremists are very definitely a threat and not all Muslims are Muslim radical extremists, but that it is difficult to identify any radical Muslim extremists coming into a country without identification OR from failed states where there is no viable infrastructure or database to check any identification that they may produce for inspection. In Australia, this means we do not accept these people into our waters. America seems to similarly support a freeze on such people that cannot be identified for whatever threat that they may bring with them as a result of poor identification."
Odeon: "That is a bigoted position. You are critical of them because of their religion."
Me: "No, because the "them" in your statement is false. If the "them" is radical Muslim extremists, then I am concerned with their rabid ideology and fanaticism NOT their religion, and if "them" is your ordinary run of the mill moderate Muslim, I have no issue and would wish them very well. In either case the ONLY tie between them is that the Islamic faith is shared by both groups and that all the radical Muslim extremists are found in the larger Muslim demographic. The only quandary is how to accurately differentiate good from bad. This is a vetting problem and thus a border and national security problem"
Odeon: "THAT'S RACIST!!!"
Me: "No. Furthermore, APART from - let in people you cannot vet because hopefully most will be okay and any damage the ones that are not okay will do hopefully will be minor - what is your suggestion"
Odeon: "Well sure, you cannot vet everyone and maybe some will be bad but we can't discriminate..."
Me: "So that IS your big solution?"
Odeon: "I am more moral than you. You are a bigot"
Me: " ...and you fool and ideologically skewed to a point that reason does not even see sunlight"
Odeon: "Bigot!!!"
There and without us having to even thrash it out. The irony is he thinks he is a better person for this lack of critical reasoning and believes it make him a moral defender of the defenceless. Its a healthy step to either ignorance or insanity. I am not sure which. Ideological blinkers are a strange thing to behold.