Why Trump's Muslim Ban is Nonsense

Source: G. Morty Ortega/ Getty Images

Much has been made of Donald Trump‘s first 90-day halt on travel into the US from seven Muslim majority countries: Syria, Iraq, Iran Yemen, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia. Despite legal complications having kept this initiative at bay, Trump has made it clear that he will attempt to enact a second order. Many defend this measure as necessary for security reasons, and state it does not amount to a Muslim ban, given the ability of Muslims from other countries to enter. We were told the ban on those countries originated with Obama, which presents something of a predicament for factions on the left. Despite the various misgivings, however, the ban is nothing short of absurd.

There are a number of points to draw from this controversy.

1. Despite the media sensationalism and ideological nonsense, the chances of being killed in a Muslim terror attack within the United States are profoundly limited. This is apparent from actual research which is too often ignored. In 2012, the National Counterterrorism Center recorded that seventeen of the 13,288 killed in terrorist attacks in the previous year were American citizens, accounting for .001% of total casualties. According to security expert Micah Zenko, “a comparable number” of Americans died as result of furniture falling on them each year.

More recently, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill released a study by sociologist Charles Kurzman, which found that Muslim Americans were responsible for one-third of one percent of murders in America last year. Kurzman has studied extremist tendencies amongst Muslim Americans for the last eight years, and has consistently found levels of extremist involvement amongst Muslims to be strikingly low. For 2016, Kurzman went a step further and researched whether the seven banned countries have any significant associations with terrorism. He found that 23% of those involved in extremist plots had family backgrounds in the banned countries. More critically, no fatalities resulted from the activities committed by this grouping. The notion that refugees pose a significant threat is particularly ridiculous. Consideration of this is important given Trump's decision to cut the cap on refugees entering the US in half. According to a report from the notably right-wing Cato Institute, the chances of being killed in a refugee terrorist attack stand at one in 3.6 billion per year. As in the case of Kurzman, this study also recorded that no fatalities resulted from extremist activities involving individuals from these seven banned countries. When fact–checking this study, Politifact found it to be reliable given reference to the Global Terrorism Database and other authoritative sources. Several analysts were also consulted, and broadly concurred that the study was credible. 2. It is also strange that other countries were excluded from the ban given their more troubled associations with extremism. The obvious example here is Saudi Arabia, with the 9/11 Attacks and substantial amounts of ISIS funding being only a few of the controversies in which it has been mired. Banning even this country would be ridiculous, but slightly more understandable. Despite this, Trump has decided to exempt the Saudi state most likely because of his lucrative business associations there. The same also holds true for the UAE, Egypt, and several other countries.

Far from being an earnest defender of the American populace, Trump has likely decided to implement the ban as a populist maneuver, whilst balancing this consideration with his own personal enrichment. The fact that Trump has not disclosed his tax returns and other information on his private finances, means we cannot be aware of the true nature of his dealings abroad. Some may claim these countries could be added later, but given the greater threat they have posed, I would have thought a ban would already be in place given the urgent need for security. Some apologists have claimed that Trump needs the Saudis in order to solve the Syrian refugee crisis, given negotiations with King Salman over the construction of "safe zones". As the narrative goes, the Saudis cannot be isolated at this point. More than once I have heard references to Trump‘s Art of the Deal, wherein he states the necessity to negotiate in order to get what you want. The only problem with this "deal", however, is that it benefits no one. According to policy analyst Joe Macaron, "safe zones" within Syria would be insecure without increased US involvement, including 15,000-30,000 troops at the cost of $1 billion a month. Furthermore: "Past experiences in Iraq and Bosnia tell us that US interest in enforcing such a zone will run out of steam over time and regional players will probably fill the vacuum and further feed the conflict."

3. The ban aids the cause of ISIS and other extremist groups, serving to further alienate Muslims and make them potential targets for recruiters. ISIS accounts on Telegram labelled the ban as a "blessed" one, whilst the former Jabhat al-Nusra fighter Abu Obeida stated: "[Trump's] helped ISIS a lot, he's basically being a tool for them in a way,". It is not difficult to imagine why the ban functions in this manner. Research scientist Sarah Lyon-Padilla and psychologist Michele Gelfand confirmed the radicalising effects of such a policy in a study recently published in the Behavioural Science and Policy journal. In surveying 200 Muslim Americans, both born citizens and immigrants, the researchers found that discriminatory measures contributed towards a lack of personal meaning. In their words: "this loss of meaning was associated with greater support for fundamentalist groups and extremist causes." These findings were found to be consistent with research conducted by social psychologist Arie Kruglanski, who found that notions of belonging, rather than beliefs, acted as the cause of radicalisation.

4. Trump has claimed the executive order does not amount to a Muslim ban, having stated: "This is not about religion - this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order." This point is largely irrelevant given that a bad policy remains as such despite its name. Even so, Trump previously advocated a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States", when running for office. Whilst technically having broken his campaign promise in banning only some Muslims, the point still remains that a ban was upheld against people due to their Islamic identity. Trump equated Islam with violence during his inauguration speech having mentioned the notion of "radical Islamic terrorism". This resonates with his previous remark that "Islam hates us".

5. Critics of the ban are not compromised due to poor decisions made by the Obama Administration. Some may question why no protests were held against Obama given the order originated with him, but this fails to consider that overlooking Obama does nothing to justify Trump's decision to continue this policy. Oddly enough, some right-wing media outlets, both mainstream and independent, still chose to focus on condemning Obama despite the ban having originated with him. Some even exaggerated Obama's links with Islam given his childhood in Indonesia and other details, claiming he was too sympathetic to Muslims. Trump himself spread doubt about Obama being a born citizen of the United States.

Meanwhile, many Muslims continued to disagree with and protest Obama's policies. I remember having written against Obama soon after his inauguration, having also protested against him frequently. Certain factions on the American left, though certainly not all of them, chose to do the same. If the mainstream media did not properly account Obama, that is their failing.

Given the common sense deficit inherent within this measure, it seems clear that Trump is either incapable of articulating decent immigration policies, or willing to sacrifice mature thought in favour of populism and fear-mongering. Having witnessed his election campaign, it seems the latter makes more sense. Anti-Muslim rhetoric has proven to be valuable political capital, particularly when considering that a majority amongst American conservatives have negative views about Islam and Muslims in general. With White House adviser Stephen Miller's recent statement that Trump's second ban will have "the same outcome" as the first, it can only be expected that this tactic will continue. One hopes that facts will become more important going forward.

#MuslimBan #Trump #America #CatoInstitute #CharlesKurzman #Immigration #ISIS