Introduction
Immigration is essential for society because of its advantages, the economic growth it brings to the sector, and the skilled immigrants who may also play a significant role in society. The United States, which boasts a diverse population of people from many different cultures, has drawn immigrants from different parts of the world since its establishment. However, the question of immigration, mainly Muslim immigrating to Western nations, is becoming quite divisive. The European refugee crisis and jihadist terrorist assaults in Western nations have fueled split public opinion in many Western nations. Due to this, Islamophobia is pervasive in many Western nations, as seen by the rise in hate crimes and assaults against Muslims offline and online. As a result, numerous American presidents have tried to develop legislation limiting immigration as a measure of national security. The most recent and controversial approach would be the travel ban proposed and effected during the Trump Administration. This article investigates Americans’ public opinion on the Muslim Ban, looking at political connections, security concerns, human rights and equality, media influence, and the Muslim Ban’s long-term impact on the country and its foreign ties. It seeks to showcase how the Ban harmed U.S. citizens and the world.
Background of the Muslim Ban
President Donald Trump signed the Muslim Ban, technically a travel ban, on January 27, 2017. It imposed travel restrictions on seven primarily Muslim nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen (Al-Khersan, and Azadeh 131). This approach could be linked to stereotypical depictions of Muslims associating all Muslims with people from the Middle East and South Asia (Samari et al., e2). The Muslim Ban was made, citing national security concerns. The Sedition and Alien Acts are analogous to President Trump’s Muslim Ban. During John Adam’s administration, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed to prepare for war with France. The acts increased the amount of time a person lived in the United States from 5 to 14 years to become a citizen. Prior to receiving citizenship, a person had to declare their intentions in the nation for five years. In comparison, the Muslim Ban barred the entry of refugees for 120 days and reduced the number of refugees allowed into the country (Guild et al. 1). This Ban was to bar entry not only for refugees but immigrants and visitors from those Muslim nations (Pierce et al. 3). The prohibition caused heated discussions and conflicts, with supporters claiming it was necessary to protect the nation and detractors accusing it of being discriminatory and a breach of religious freedom.
Significance of the Study.
This study on Americans’ public perception of the Muslim Ban is significant. It sheds light on the fundamental differences that exist in American culture regarding immigration and national security, which are fueled by variables such as party affiliation and media influence. Policymakers may utilize these data to make educated decisions that are consistent with the values of citizens. Furthermore, despite addressing security issues, the report highlights the need to maintain civil rights and religious freedom. It also emphasizes the role of the media in molding public opinion and the consequences for international relations. Overall, this research promotes better-informed and inclusive policymaking and opens the door to further research in related areas.
Literature Review
I. Political Opinion and Public Response
Political affiliations have profoundly affected public opinion on the Muslim Ban. Republicans favored the Ban, saying it was necessary for national security and preventing possible terrorist threats. During the presidential race 2016, Republican nominee Donald Trump proposed “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” (Ali and Faiza 695). Democrats, on the other hand, overwhelmingly rejected the Ban, seeing it as a discriminatory measure that contradicted American religious freedom and tolerance principles. This approach worked in their favor as more than 60% of Muslim Americans polled in 2016 said they would vote for Democratic party candidates (Beydoun 1771). As such, some of those affiliated with the Republican party were against the Ban, while those people under the Democrat umbrella were against it.
The U.S. immigration policies have long been driven by racism and exclusion, so it is no surprise that the Ban occurred. The country introduced restrictions that made it hard for non-white individuals to become citizens long before the proposed Muslim Ban (Al-Khersan, and Azadeh 133). The citizenship statutes of 1790 was Congress’s first legislation addressing immigration, and it recognized immigrants who were “free white persons” of “good character” as qualified for citizenship (Congress). The plenary power theory, which empowers the Supreme Court to dismiss even overt animosity under the pretext of deferential scrutiny, makes such discriminatory immigration policy viable.
Protests and rallies erupted around the country following the Ban’s adoption, with numerous advocacy groups and civil rights organizations voicing their displeasure. Many protesting claimed, “the Ban did not align with ‘American values'” (Al-Khersan, and Azadeh 133). These activities illustrated the chasm between those who feel the Ban is appropriate and others who see it as an assault on civil freedoms and constitutional rights. Several legal cases were brought to court, leading to changes in some provisions within the Ban; however, the new version was still met with hostility (Ali and Faiza 708). While the bill had been in effect for years before the current president ended it, the policy caused many controversies.
II. Uncertainties about Immigration and Security
Advocates of the Muslim Ban stated that it was critical for national security because it prevented prospective terrorists from entering the country. Many Americans associate Islam with violent males and oppressed females ( Gottschalk and Gabriel 4). Hence, they felt that banning travel from specific nations with a history of terrorism would improve American people’s safety. Al-Khersan and Azadeh propose that U.S. presidents have used national security as a justification for exclusionary immigration laws leading to immigration being connected to anti-terrorism campaigns (p.141). After the September 11 attacks, talks from the Bush Administration lead to a notion that specific individuals from some regions are more likely to engage in acts of terrorism, thus fueling fear and uncertainty among Americans.
While the Ban was proposed as a security strategy, some questioned the Ban’s effectiveness in tackling security issues associated with migration. Most criminal activities in the United States are committed by the local-born population, not immigrants from the prohibited nations (Calamur). Additionally, existing immigration verification systems cannot detect possible risks, rendering the prohibition superfluous. This Ban is likely to lower Muslim communities’ trust in the government and thus hamper counter-terrorism efforts by law enforcement (Benjamin). The Ban has increased prejudice and violence against Muslims in America and thus caused more harm than good.
III. Concerns about Human Rights and Equality
The arguments opposing the Muslim Ban primarily centered on religious freedom and justice. The prohibition, critics claimed, unfairly targeted Muslims, spreading prejudices and bigotry against an entire religious community based on the behavior of a few people. When the Muslim Ban was introduced, it caused a rise in Islamophobia – a social stigma toward Islam and Muslims. According to Samari, Hector, and Mienah, research has found links between Islamophobia and poor mental health, substandard health habits, and an absence of healthcare-seeking practices (p. e2). Indeed, civil rights supporters deemed the prohibition unlawful because it violated the requirements of the first amendment (Ali and Faiza 707).
The prohibition had a profound impact on Muslims in the United States. Families were split up, and many had trouble reconciling with loved ones or pursuing school and employment possibilities (Al-Khersan, and Azadeh 132). This consequence of the Ban fostered a sense of estrangement and marginalization among the country’s Muslim minorities. Access to fundamental rights such as healthcare or refugee resettlement became hard. In addition, there were increased incidences of intimidation, bigotry, and violence against persons in Muslim-majority areas.
Balancing national security and civil rights has become a difficult task for legislators. While safeguarding individuals’ safety is critical, it should not come at the expense of fundamental human rights and equality ideals. Ali and Faiza suggest that the Muslim Ban’s underlying purpose is to collect data on foreigners worldwide (p.705). As a country that champions the right to privacy, this covert collection of data could raise issues since it can be seen as a strategy to get information that can be used by U.S. intelligence agencies (Guild et al. 2). The travel restriction severely impacted the United States refugee resettlement program.
IV. Role of Media in Shaping Perceptions
The media was critical in molding public opinion on the Muslim Ban. Most misconceptions about Islam in America can be linked to the media coverage that propelled stereotypes following the attack on the World Trade Center (Ali and Faiza 697). Biased reporting and sensationalized coverage frequently reinforced pre-existing political perspectives, further polarizing opinions. In most cases, Muslims do not appear on news reports except as culprits of violence; hence, many Americans form a negative opinion about them (Gottschalk and Gabriel 10). Prevalent media images of the conflict between Islam and the West work to reinforce the negative perceptions formed through consuming information from media sources. The visibility of Muslims is scarce, only made possible when they are perceived as a threat (Gottschalk and Gabriel 143). Additionally, Moore proposed that about 36% of Americans are not exposed to basic facts about Islam (p.91). Following the 2001 terror attacks, there was a considerable surge in anti-Muslim sentiment which would likely have shaped people’s perceptions of the Muslim Ban.
Various media outlets presented opposing views on the prohibition, with some emphasizing its negative impact on people and families and others emphasizing its ostensible benefits in protecting the nation. This disparity in media coverage exacerbated public opinion differences. Prior to its implementation, mainstream media seemed obsessed with Trump’s campaign against Islam, highlighting his castigation of the faith (Beydoun 1759). This focus shifted attention from those opposing the Ban, thus creating the illusion that many people are for the policy. Also, the presentation of the travel restriction under the guise of the Muslim Ban further polarized attitudes toward Muslims.
V. Long and Short-Term Impact
Implementing the Muslim Ban had an impact that spanned beyond the American borders. Once it came into effect, it led to a refugee crisis as many headed to America were stranded, and others were deported on arrival (Al-Khersan, and Azadeh 132). Since the Ban caused a decline in the number of refugees sent to America, it will likely negatively impact refugee resettlement for years. The prohibition resulted in the demonization of Islam and sociopolitical and legal distrust of Muslims, causing Muslim Americans to be subjugated (Beydoun 1769). Individuals were coerced to provide substantial personal data to sponsor third-country national family members or visitors to enter their state (Guild et al. 3). Liberty of movement and their right to privacy was infringed upon in this case.
The Muslim Ban substantially impacted U.S. foreign ties, particularly with Muslim-majority countries affected by the prohibition. Since the Naturalization Act of 1790, Muslims who immigrated to the United States have been stigmatized as non-white and denied citizenship (Al-Khersan, and Azadeh 143). However, implementing the Muslim Ban was taken as active aggression against Muslims. The Ban damaged diplomatic ties and gave the impression that the United States was hostile to Islam and immigration, which might have influenced future cooperation and partnerships. Beydoun notes that laws or policies after 9/11 restricted Muslim immigrants outside American borders (p.1747). Hence, their monitoring and control are being carried out by embassies of the U.S. in other nations impacting their governance. The Muslim Ban placed the EU-US privacy shield under strain as it necessitated sharing personal data, which had been a point of contention leading to the development of the shield (Guild et al. 6). The prohibition further distanced U.S. security measures from E.U. data protection standards impacting its relations with countries under the E.U.
The prohibition called into doubt the U.S. commitment to sustaining its core ideals of liberty, diversity, and inclusion. The suspicion of Muslims seems to fuel the foreign policy that America operates under. Islam Namira argues that the United States justifies its violent acts against countries like Iraq as “the price we need to pay for national security” (p.2). Islamophobia seems deeply embedded in American law, policies, and political rhetoric. The Muslim Ban affected people from four countries with Temporary Protected Status (TPS). With the introduction of the restriction, the U.S. declined to re-designate TPS for these nations, putting recent entrants in uncertainty. Failing to protect such people groups placed America in a bad light as it was perceived as a nation that did not wish to help out other countries.
Discussion
This paper has given insight into the complex character of popular opinion in the United States about the Muslim Ban. The Muslim Ban was a contentious and emotionally charged issue, mirroring the broader socioeconomic issues that the United States faced in striking a balance between security precautions and safeguarding civil rights and liberties. Its enforcement led to even further political polarization as those in favor opted to side with Republicans while those against it affiliated with the Democrats. It caused more division than unity in a nation that champions diversity and inclusion. The Ban was driven by anti-Muslim sentiment and discrimination as opposed to national security concerns which were put forward. It had no notable impact on the war on terror since most crimes in the U.S. are done by local-born individuals and not the immigrants portrayed as threats. Instead, the Ban hindered even those with a valid reason to come to the U.S.
Throughout this paper, the importance of political connections, security concerns, human rights, and media influence in forming various viewpoints has been extensively expounded upon. Humans are social beings; thus, their perception or response to something within their environment is driven by that very society in which they exist. This paper has highlighted how the various elements in American society have affected people’s public opinion on the Muslim Ban. It is evident that American society propels its people to hold a negative opinion of Muslims and thus supports the Ban. While this essay did a thorough evaluation, there are still gaps in our understanding of how different socioeconomic characteristics impact public opinion on this subject, necessitating more research. Besides the abovementioned variables, personal experiences, economic concerns, and educational levels may also be essential in determining people’s attitudes toward prohibition. Higher education and good economic standing may positively affect how individuals view others who are different from them. Studying these characteristics may offer a more complete picture of the underlying dynamics. Future research should also incorporate the level of exposure an individual has to Muslims or Islamic content since this also affects their opinions.
Conclusion
The Muslim Ban was a travel restriction enacted by President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017. It limited the number of refugees admitted into the country, impacting not just refugees but also immigrants and tourists from those Muslim countries. Political connections significantly impacted popular opinion on the Ban, with Republicans maintaining that it was necessary for national security and the prevention of terrorist threats. Democrats, on the other hand, regarded it as a discriminating move against American values like religious freedom and tolerance. The prohibition had a tremendous impact on Muslims in the United States, resulting in family separations, difficulty with reconciliation, and an increase in incidences of harassment, prejudice, and abuse directed at people who live in Muslim-majority communities. Balancing national security and civil rights is difficult because the fundamental purpose of the Muslim Ban may raise worries and affect U.S. international relations.
This study stressed the need to promote religious freedom and inclusiveness in a diverse and multicultural society. The Muslim Ban sparked outrage, legal challenges, and international condemnation, underscoring the difficulties of immigration rules and national security in the aftermath of 9/11. This paper examined the numerous problems underlying the Muslim Ban, including its historical context, political and social repercussions, impact on afflicted populations, the media’s influence on public opinion, and probable long-term effects on the country’s relations with other countries. It is critical to understand the complexities of the Muslim Ban to have informed conversations and develop policies consistent with the principles and ambitions of a democratic and inclusive society. It is necessary to objectively assess the impacts of prejudiced laws like the Muslim Ban to chart a path toward a more fair and peaceful future for all. Understanding public opinion on such laws is vital for politicians and citizens since it allows them to make educated decisions for future generations.
Work Cited
Ali, Boukhalfa, and Faiza Meberbeche Senouci. “The Muslim Ban: The Way to Trumping Up Islamophobia.” The Algerian Journal of Political Studies, 8.1 (2021): 694-714.
Al-Khersan, Tina, and Azadeh Shahshahani. “From the Chinese Exclusion Act to the Muslim Ban: An Immigration System Built on Systemic Racism.” Harvard. Law & Policy Review. 17 (2022): 131.
Benjamin, Daniel. “How The New Immigration Rules Might Threaten Our National Security | Brookings .”Brookings, 2017, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-the-new-immigration-rules-might-threaten-our-national-security/. Accessed July 28, 2023.
Beydoun, Khaled A. “‘ Muslims Bans’ and the (Re) Making of Political Islamophobia.” Illinois Law Review 2017(5):1733-1774
Calamur, Krishnadev. “Are Immigrants Prone To Crime And Terrorism?”. The Atlantic, 2016, https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/immigrants-and-crime/486884/. Accessed July 28, 2023.
Congress. “ArtI.S8.C4.1.2.3 Early U.S. Naturalization Laws.” https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C4-1-2-3/ALDE_00013163/#ALDF_00019935 . Accessed July 28, 2023.
Gottschalk, Peter, and Gabriel Greenberg. Islamophobia: making Muslims the enemy. Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.
Guild, Elspeth, Didier Bigo, and Sergio Carrera. “Trump’s travel bans. Harvesting personal data and requiem for the EU-US Privacy Shield. CEPS Policy Insights No. 2017/03, April 2017.” (2017).
Islam, Namira. “An anti-Muslim narrative has shaped policy for decades. The travel ban will make it worse.” Vox 2018. https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/6/27/17510560/travel-ban-muslim-trump-islamophobia Accessed July 28, 2023.
Moore, Ashley. “American Muslim minorities: The new human rights struggle.” Human rights & human welfare 19.1 2010: 91–99.
Pierce, Sarah, Jessica Bolter, and Andrew Selee. “U.S. immigration policy under Trump: Deep changes and lasting impacts.” Migration Policy Institute 9 2018: 1–24.
Samari, Goleen, Héctor E. Alcalá, and Mienah Zulfacar Sharif. “Islamophobia, health, and public health: a systematic literature review.” American Journal of public health 108.6 (2018): e1-e9.
write