tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/seven-country-ban-35413/articlesSeven country ban – The Conversation2017-09-04T23:54:38Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/822352017-09-04T23:54:38Z2017-09-04T23:54:38ZHow Muslim Americans are fighting Islamophobia and securing their civil rights<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184569/original/file-20170904-9717-aw31yq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Rally against President Donald Trump's executive order banning travel from seven Muslim-majority nations.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Andres Kudacki</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The past year has been a difficult one for American Muslims.</p>
<p>According to a July 2017 <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2017/07/26/demographic-portrait-of-muslim-americans/">Pew survey</a>, 48 percent of Muslims report experiencing at least one incident of discrimination in the past 12 months. The Council on American-Islamic Relations and other Muslim advocacy organizations found <a href="https://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/14476-cair-report-shows-2017-on-track-to-becoming-one-of-worst-years-ever-for-anti-muslim-hate-crimes.html">these trends</a> were particularly intense during the 2016 campaigns and the early months of the Trump presidency.</p>
<p>And while the survey shows that Americans report warmer feelings toward Muslims today than they did in 2014, Muslims continue to be the <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2017/07/26/how-the-u-s-general-public-views-muslims-and-islam/">most negatively rated religious group</a> – followed closely by atheists. In fact, about half of Americans (49 percent) believe that <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/09/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/">at least “some”</a> Muslim Americans are anti-American. </p>
<p>As a scholar of religion and politics, <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09739572.2016.1239437">I’ve studied</a> how U.S. Muslim advocacy organizations have advanced their community’s integration in America. Their work reminds us that minorities in the U.S. are still struggling for civil rights.</p>
<h2>Islamophobia in politics</h2>
<p>Spikes in anti-Muslim sentiments and hate crimes appear to <a href="https://www.theislamicmonthly.com/islamophobia-is-made-up/">correlate with elections cycles</a>. This is not a coincidence. In recent years, politicians have increasingly relied on <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-muslims-islamophobia-hate-crime/500840/">anti-Muslim rhetoric</a> to mobilize voters. What was once considered unacceptable <a href="http://www.islamophobia.org/158-key-issues-in-islamophobia/180-islamophobia-in-politics-a-2016-review.html">discourse</a> by members of both parties has gradually been normalized, particularly among Republican candidates.</p>
<p>During the 2016 presidential primaries, for example, Sen. Ted Cruz called for law enforcement to “<a href="http://www.npr.org/2016/03/22/471405546/u-s-officials-and-politicians-react-to-brussels-attacks">patrol and secure</a> Muslim neighborhoods.” Ben Carson claimed that Islam was <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/ben-carson-does-not-believe-muslim-should-be-president-n430431">incompatible with the Constitution</a>. And former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal warned that some immigrants were trying to “<a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=112042">change our fundamental culture and values and set up their own</a>.”</p>
<p>Then, candidate Donald Trump called for “<a href="http://www.npr.org/2015/12/07/458836388/trump-calls-for-total-and-complete-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-u-s">a total and complete shutdown</a> of Muslims entering the United States.” Many critics consider that statement the basis for his January 27 <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states">executive order</a> banning immigration from seven Muslim majority countries.</p>
<p>Muslim Americans are responding through organizations that represent their interests, and are increasingly visible, engaged and assertive. At the grassroots level, their presence is seen through the work of activists like Linda Sarsour, a co-sponsor of the 2017 Women’s March. At the policy level, Muslim advocacy organizations such as the <a href="https://www.cair.com">Council on American-Islamic Relations</a> also work to advance the community’s legislative agenda. </p>
<h2>Advocating for Muslim Americans</h2>
<p>There are an <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2017/07/26/demographic-portrait-of-muslim-americans/">estimated</a> 3.35 million Muslims in the U.S. A majority of them, 58 percent, are first-generation Americans who arrived in the U.S. after the passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965. As these immigrants began to settle in the U.S., they established institutions. In fact, most Muslim advocacy groups were founded in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but gained prominence in the <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44430432/ns/us_news-9_11_ten_years_later/t/american-muslims-come-age-post--era/#.Wancaa2ZNus">post-9/11</a> era. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.cair.com">Council on American-Islamic Relations</a>, the <a href="https://www.mpac.org/">Muslim Public Affairs Council</a> and the more recently established <a href="http://www.uscmo.org/">U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations</a> are among the largest at the national level.</p>
<p>By working on behalf of one of the most stigmatized religious minority groups, Muslim advocacy organizations aspire to uphold the most cherished of American ideals and values: liberty, equality and the inalienable rights of all citizens. They aim to make U.S. Muslims agents of their own narratives, fostering their civic engagement and strengthening the social fabric of our nation. </p>
<h2>Muslim American advocacy today</h2>
<p>For years, these organizations have encouraged and registered Muslim citizens to vote. More recently, they’ve begun encouraging them to <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/american-muslims-running-for-office/522585/">run for office</a>. These efforts are significant because many Muslims <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2017/07/26/political-and-social-views/pf_2017-06-26_muslimamericans-04new-02/">are not registered to vote</a>, and only 44 percent of those who are voted during the 2016 elections. </p>
<p>Muslim advocacy organizations are also actively bringing their community’s concerns to the attention of elected officials. Some of their most recent lobbying efforts include calling on the House and Senate to support two bills. The No Religious Registry Act of 2017 (<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/489">H.R. 489</a>) would protect the constitutional rights of American Muslims. And <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/248">Senate Bill 248</a> would block Trump’s travel ban on seven Muslim majority countries. </p>
<p>They’ve also lobbied for the protection of immigrant communities and the cessation of religious and racial profiling. In particular, they have focused on building support for the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/496">BRIDGE Act</a>, which would protect young undocumented immigrants from deportation, and the End Racial and Religious Profiling Act of 2017 (<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/411/text">S.411</a>), which would protect all Americans from discriminatory profiling by law enforcement.</p>
<p>U.S. Muslims face serious challenges, but they are also increasingly motivated to confront them. Their efforts show how minority groups in America work to secure their collective interests and continue the process of building an inclusive democracy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82235/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Emily Cury does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>New survey data show that Muslim Americans are the most negatively perceived religious group in the US and are often victims of Islamophobic attacks. How are they responding? By getting organized.Emily Cury, Research Fellow in International Affairs and Middle East Studies, Northeastern UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/792472017-06-27T16:24:56Z2017-06-27T16:24:56Z4 ways the Supreme Court could rule on Trump’s travel ban<p>The Supreme Court has <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf">decided</a> to hear two legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s revised “travel ban.”</p>
<p>Among other things, the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/09/2017-04837/protecting-the-nation-from-foreign-terrorist-entry-into-the-united-states">executive order</a> Trump signed in March temporarily bars entry of nationals from six predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.</p>
<p>In cases arising out of <a href="http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/171351.P.pdf">Maryland</a> and <a href="http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/general/cases_of_interest/17-15589%20per%20curiam%20opinion.pdf">Hawaii</a>, lower courts had blocked applying the ban to all nationals from the six countries. Now, under the Supreme Court’s June 26 order, family members, students, employees and others with “a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States” will be allowed entry. At the same time, the Supreme Court will allow part of the travel ban to go back into effect for “foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all.” </p>
<p>The Supreme Court will hear the combined cases in October after the justices return from summer recess. Its decision will be its first major encounter with a president who <a href="http://www.npr.org/2017/02/08/514161142/trump-accuses-courts-of-being-political-in-defense-of-immigration-order">criticizes</a> the courts as political. As a professor of constitutional law <a href="https://theconversation.com/san-francisco-is-using-a-montana-sheriffs-playbook-to-sue-trump-on-sanctuary-cities-74660">who studies</a> <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=2945405">law</a> and <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=2660484">politics</a>, I see four ways forward for the Supreme Court in these cases.</p>
<h2>Two ways to strike down the travel ban</h2>
<p><strong>1.</strong> The Maryland case was brought by U.S. residents who are separated from family members in the six named countries. It challenges the travel ban as an unconstitutional <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-i">“establishment of religion”</a> under the First Amendment. In earlier <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=975414503455261754&q=lukumi&hl=en&as_sdt=6,27#p532">cases</a>, the Supreme Court has said the Establishment Clause “forbids an official purpose to disapprove of a particular religion…” Because the travel ban singles out six countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations, the lower court <a href="http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/171351.P.pdf">held</a> a “reasonable observer would likely conclude” the travel ban is intended to discriminate against Muslims. In doing so, it relied on Trump’s controversial <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/10/muslim-ban-statement-removed-from-donald-trumps-website/">statement</a> during the campaign calling for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” A decision on these grounds would require the Supreme Court to question the president’s motives – a highly unusual move.</p>
<p><strong>2.</strong> The second case was brought by the state of Hawaii on behalf of its state university and a United States citizen whose Syrian mother-in-law seeks to immigrate. They claim the travel ban exceeds the president’s authority under immigration law. The travel ban relies on a <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182">1952 law</a> authorizing the president to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” if he finds their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Congress <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152">reformed</a> immigration law in 1965 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of nationality in issuing visas, the documents allowing immigrants to enter the United States. The court <a href="http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/general/cases_of_interest/17-15589%20per%20curiam%20opinion.pdf">held</a> that the president did not show entry of people from the six countries “would be detrimental” under the 1952 law, and that the travel ban discriminated on the basis of nationality under the 1965 law. A decision on these grounds would leave the issue with Congress, which could then keep or change the law.</p>
<h2>Two ways to leave the law as it stands</h2>
<p><strong>3.</strong> Traditionally, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to second-guess the president’s policy judgments involving national security. In earlier challenges, the Supreme Court has <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12950062112938023194&q=din&hl=en&as_sdt=6,27#p2140">upheld</a> the exclusion of individual foreign nationals, even where constitutional rights may be at stake, if the government offers a “legitimate and bona fide reason.” Under this broad language, vague concerns about terrorism could be a good enough reason. As the Supreme Court recognized in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf">granting</a> review of the cases, “preserving national security is an urgent objective of the highest order.” In a separate opinion accompanying the order, three of the Supreme Court’s conservative justices, including Trump appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch, suggested this factor should weigh heavily in favor of upholding the travel ban in its entirety.</p>
<p><strong>4.</strong> The court’s order holds another clue about how it might decide the case. It asks the parties to brief the court on whether the challenges to the travel ban “became moot” or, or legally meaningless, when the 90-day travel ban ended, according to its original terms. That period is intended to give the government time to review its “vetting” of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States. Once the government completes its review, the travel ban loses its original justification. The president recently <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/14/presidential-memorandum-secretary-state-attorney-general-secretary">moved back</a> the 90-day clock to start when it takes limited effect after the Supreme Court’s order. Yet mootness remains a possibility. Even the extended timeline will end before the case is argued in October. If the case is moot, the Supreme Court would dismiss it without reaching a decision on the legality of the ban. </p>
<h2>Win, lose or draw</h2>
<p>It can be tempting to score these outcomes as either “wins” or “losses” for President Trump. However, the back-and-forth between the courts and the administration has already led to a significantly narrower revised ban after <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/IM-VA-0004-0055.pdf">earlier</a> <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf">cases</a> struck down the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states">original ban</a> issued in January. Many people who would have been subject to both the original and revised travel bans now can enter the United States legally thanks to these cases. </p>
<p>This sometimes tense dialogue between the president and the courts is typical to the resolution of high-stakes legal controversies. For example, the government argued that the courts had no role to play in determining the rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay after 9/11. Yet, the Supreme Court <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=hamdi&hl=en&as_sdt=6,27&case=6173897153146757813&scilh=0">issued</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13489903449749466109&q=hamdi&hl=en&as_sdt=6,27&scilh=0">several</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8363055032913729526&q=hamdi&hl=en&as_sdt=6,27&scilh=0">decisions</a> that prompted the president and Congress to revisit and temper detainee policies. In the last of these cases, Justice Anthony Kennedy on behalf of the Supreme Court <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=913322981351483444&q=boumediene+v+bush&hl=en&as_sdt=6,27#p2277">encouraged</a> the president and Congress to “engage in a genuine debate about how best to preserve constitutional values while protecting the Nation from terrorism.”</p>
<p>Whatever the fate of the travel ban, it is unlikely the Supreme Court will have the last word when it issues a decision this fall. Striking down the travel ban as unconstitutional would still allow for new restrictions on immigration. Upholding the travel ban would still allow for narrower challenges to the policy and its implementation. Holding the travel ban illegal under immigration law, or finding the case moot, would throw the issue back to the president and Congress. In each of these outcomes, look for the Supreme Court again to encourage “a genuine debate.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79247/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anthony Johnstone does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A professor of constitutional law gives a preview of what to expect when the travel ban cases reach the highest court this fall.Anthony Johnstone, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of MontanaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/741412017-03-07T01:18:03Z2017-03-07T01:18:03ZTrump’s revised travel ban still faces legal challenges<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159682/original/image-20170306-20749-1hpblkt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Men watch the TV news in Baghdad, Iraq, on March 6, 2017. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Hadi Mizban</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>President Trump’s <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states">new executive order</a> on immigration addresses some of the legal problems found by courts in the Jan. 27 original order, but is still vulnerable on some of the same legal grounds. </p>
<p>As a constitutional law professor who has recently written on <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-best-legal-arguments-against-trumps-immigration-ban-72196">this topic</a>, I’d contend that Trump’s lawyers are not out of the woods yet.</p>
<h2>Some important changes</h2>
<p>The new executive order still has <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/">the original’s</a> 120-day ban on the entry of refugees from all countries. Jettisoned is the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees. </p>
<p>The new order keeps the 90-day ban on entry by persons from six majority Muslim countries – Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen. But the new order removes Iraq from the list. The change came because of Iraq’s role in assisting the U.S. in the fight against the Islamic State and its enhanced security measures, according to Secretary of State <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/iraq-travel-ban/index.html">Rex Tillerson</a>. </p>
<p>The revised order also removes the original’s preference for refugees who are members of “minority” religions in their country of origin. Stating this preference had opened the Trump administration up to <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-loses-appeal-but-travel-ban-fight-isnt-over-yet-72648">the argument</a> that the original order aided Christians and other non-Muslims in violation of the separation of church and state. </p>
<p>But the change may be too little, too late. The federal court that struck down the first executive order on <a href="http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/azizmemo.pdf">church-state grounds</a> also relied on statements by Trump and Rudy Giuliani that the purpose of the order was to effectuate a “Muslim ban.” The new executive order doesn’t undo the effect of those statements. You can’t unring that bell.</p>
<h2>Due process clause less of an issue</h2>
<p>Additionally, the current executive order clarifies that it does not apply to green card holders or those who hold lawful visas. This detail will help Trump defend against arguments that the order violates the Constitution’s due process clause, which was <a href="http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf">the basis for the federal appellate court ruling</a> that the order was unconstitutional. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment">due process clause</a> provides that the government cannot take away someone’s liberty without notice and a hearing before an unbiased decision-maker. It applies even to noncitizens if they are <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/678.html">present in the U.S.</a>, but not to noncitizens abroad. Exempting noncitizens with green cards or visas means there are far fewer people affected by the executive order who have the right to complain of a due process problem. </p>
<p>But other legal issues apply equally to the original and revised orders. By imposing a blanket ban on anyone coming from one of the remaining six majority Muslim countries, this week’s executive order still arguably runs afoul of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152">a 1965 statute</a> that bans discrimination on the basis of “national origin” regarding visas. To be sure, by exempting current visa holders from the executive order’s reach, the universe of potential legal challengers on this ground shrinks. But to the extent the executive order burdens those seeking new visas, there may still be a viable legal challenge.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the only way to know for sure the legal effect of this new executive order is to wait for a court ruling. Given that the American Civil Liberties Union has <a href="https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/838800959836983298">already pledged</a> to challenge the new executive order in its ongoing litigation against the immigrant ban, we may not have to wait long.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74141/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Mulroy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The revised ban allows entry to citizens of Iraq, but continues to block citizens of six other Muslim majority nations.Steven Mulroy, Law Professor in Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Election Law, University of MemphisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/727812017-02-22T02:09:38Z2017-02-22T02:09:38ZThreats of violent Islamist and far-right extremism: What does the research say?<p>On a Tuesday morning in September 2001, the American experience with terrorism was fundamentally altered. Two thousand, nine hundred and ninety-six people were murdered in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania. Thousands more, including many first responders, lost their lives to <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/16/9-11-death-toll-rising-496214.html">health complications</a> from working at or being near Ground Zero.</p>
<p>The 9/11 attacks were <a href="https://9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf">perpetrated</a> by Islamist extremists, resulting in nearly 18 times more deaths than America’s second most devastating terrorist attack – the Oklahoma City bombing. More than any other terrorist event in U.S. history, 9/11 drives Americans’ perspectives on who and what ideologies are associated with violent extremism.</p>
<p>But focusing solely on Islamist extremism when investigating, researching and developing counterterrorism policies goes against what the numbers tell us. Far-right extremism also poses a significant threat to the lives and well-being of Americans. This risk is often ignored or underestimated because of the devastating impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.</p>
<p>We have spent more than 10 years collecting and analyzing empirical data that show us how these ideologies vary in important ways that can inform policy decisions. Our conclusion is that a “one size fits all” approach to countering violent extremism may not be effective.</p>
<h2>By the numbers</h2>
<p>Historically, the U.S. has been home to adherents of many types of extremist ideologies. The two current most prominent threats are motivated by Islamist extremism and far-right extremism. </p>
<p>To help assess these threats, the Department of Homeland Security and recently the Department of Justice have funded the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09546553.2012.713229">Extremist Crime Database</a> to collect data on crimes committed by ideologically motivated extremists in the United States. The results of our analyses are published in peer-reviewed journals and on the website for the <a href="http://start.umd.edu/publications?combine=ECDB&year%5Bvalue%5D%5Byear%5D=">National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism & Responses to Terrorism</a>.</p>
<p>The ECDB includes data on ideologically motivated homicides committed by both Islamist extremists and far-right extremists going back more than 25 years. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Ue5ah/3/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="550"></iframe>
<p>Between 1990 and 2014, the ECDB has identified 38 homicide events motivated by Islamist extremism that killed 62 people. When you include 9/11, those numbers jump dramatically to 39 homicide events and 3,058 killed.</p>
<p>The database also identified 177 homicide events motivated by far-right extremism, with 245 killed. And when you include the Oklahoma City bombing, it rises to 178 homicide events and 413 killed.</p>
<p>Although our data for 2015 through 2017 are still being verified, we counted five homicide events perpetrated by Islamist extremists that resulted in the murders of 74 people. This includes the <a href="http://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482322488/orlando-shooting-what-happened-update">Pulse nightclub massacre</a> in Orlando, which killed 49 people. In the same time period, there were eight homicide events committed by far-right extremists that killed 27 people. </p>
<p>These data reveal that far-right extremists tend to be more active in committing homicides, yet Islamist extremists tend to be more deadly.</p>
<p>Our research has also identified violent Islamist extremist plots against 272 targets that were either foiled or failed between 2001 and 2014. We are in the process of compiling similar data on far-right plots. Although data collection is only about 50 percent complete, we have already identified 213 far-right targets from the same time period.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/QDeoQ/3/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The locations of violent extremist activity also differ by ideology. Our data show that between 1990 and 2014, most Islamist extremist attacks occurred in the South (56.5 percent), and most far-right extremist attacks occurred in the West (34.7 percent). Both forms of violence were least likely to occur in the Midwest, with only three incidents committed by Islamist extremists (4.8 percent) and 33 events committed by far-right extremists (13.5 percent).</p>
<p>Targets of violence also vary across the two ideologies. For example, 63 percent of the Islamist extremism victims were targeted for no apparent reason. They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, often visiting symbolic locations or crowded venues such as the World Trade Center or military installations. </p>
<p>In contrast, 53 percent of victims killed by far-right extremists were targeted for their actual or perceived race or ethnicity. Far-right extremists, such as neo-Nazis, skinheads and white supremacists, often target religious, racial and ethnic, and sexual orientation and gender identity minorities.</p>
<h2>Motives and methods</h2>
<p>There are also differences in violent extremists across demographics, motives and methods. For instance, <a href="http://start.umd.edu/publication/twenty-five-years-ideological-homicide-victimization-united-states-america">data show</a> that guns were the weapon of choice in approximately 73 percent of Islamist extremist homicides and in only 63 percent of far-right extremist homicides. We attribute these differences to far-right extremists using more personal forms of violence, such as beating or stabbing victims to death.</p>
<p>We have also found that suicide missions are not unique to Islamist extremists.</p>
<p>From 1990 to 2014, we identified three suicide missions in which at least one person was killed connected to Islamist extremism, including the 9/11 attacks as one event. In contrast, there were 15 suicide missions committed by far-right extremists.</p>
<p>Our analyses found that compared to Islamist extremists, far-right extremists were significantly more likely to be economically deprived, have served in the military and have a higher level of commitment to their ideology. Far-right extremists were also significantly more likely to be less educated, single, young and to have participated in training by a group associated with their extremist ideology.</p>
<h2>Threat to law enforcement and military</h2>
<p>Terrorists associated with Islamist and far-right extremist ideologies do not only attack civilians. They also pose a deadly threat to law enforcement and military personnel. During the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, 72 law enforcement officers and 55 military personnel were killed by members of Al-Qaida. On April 19, 1995, 13 law enforcement officers and four military personnel were killed when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was bombed by an anti-government far-right extremist in Oklahoma City.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/LPx0s/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<p>Outside of these two events, Islamist extremists are responsible for the murders of 18 military personnel in three incidents, and seven law enforcement officers were killed in five incidents between 1990 and 2015. Far-right extremists have murdered 57 law enforcement officers in 46 incidents, but have never directly targeted military personnel. </p>
<p>Far-right extremists, who typically harbor anti-government sentiments, have a higher likelihood of escalating routine law enforcement contacts into fatal encounters. These homicides pose unique challenges to local law enforcement officers who are disproportionately targeted by the far right.</p>
<h2>Moving forward</h2>
<p>The events of 9/11 will continue to skew both our real and perceived risks of violent extremism in the United States. To focus solely on Islamist extremism is to ignore the murders perpetrated by the extreme far right and their place in a constantly changing threat environment. </p>
<p>Some have even warned that there is <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1057610X.2010.514698">potential for collaboration</a> between these extremist movements. Our own <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1057610X.2010.514698">survey research</a> suggests this is a concern of law enforcement.</p>
<p>Focusing on national counterterrorism efforts against both Islamist and far-right extremism acknowledges that there are differences between these two violent movements. Focusing solely on one, while ignoring the other, will increase the risk of domestic terrorism and future acts of violence.</p>
<p>Both ideologies continue to pose real, unique threats to all Americans. Evidence shows far-right violent extremism poses a particular threat to law enforcement and racial, ethnic, religious and other minorities. Islamist violent extremism is a specific danger to military members, law enforcement, certain minorities and society at large. It remains imperative to support policies, programs and research aimed at countering all forms of violent extremism.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72781/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Parkin receives funding from the Department of Homeland Security. He is affiliated with the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeff Gruenewald receives funding from the National Institute of Justice. He is also affiliated with the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joshua D. Freilich receives funding from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). He is affiliated with the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) and is a member of its executive committee.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Chermak receives funding from National Institute of Justice. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brent Klein does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Data on violent incidents in the US reveal that our focus on Islamist extremism since 9/11 may be misguided.William Parkin, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice, Seattle UniversityBrent Klein, Doctoral Student, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State UniversityJeff Gruenewald, Assistant Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, IUPUIJoshua D. Freilich, Professor of Criminal Justice, City University of New YorkSteven Chermak, Professor of Criminal Justice, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/726342017-02-14T02:15:15Z2017-02-14T02:15:15ZRefugees: Is there room for a middle ground?<p>The debate over whether or not to bring in more refugees in the U.S. continues. There seems to be a sharp <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-loses-appeal-but-travel-ban-fight-isnt-over-yet-72648">division</a> within civil society, the media and public opinion as to the best course of action toward refugees. </p>
<p>But my <a href="https://harrisburg.psu.edu/sites/default/files/research-brief-polisci-pub-policy.pdf">research</a> shows that there is room for building a middle ground, where both American aspirations to welcome refugees and security concerns can be reconciled.</p>
<h2>Ambivalent views</h2>
<p>The American public has always been ambivalent regarding refugees. Although public discourses tend to emphasize pride in the U.S. tradition of receiving refugees, <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/19/u-s-public-seldom-has-welcomed-refugees-into-country/">studies</a> have highlighted that, at critical times in history – like when many Indochinese migrants arrived in the 1970s, and Cubans in 1980 – majorities felt uneasy about, if not opposed to, receiving large numbers of refugees. Yet, the U.S. has consistently ranked among the countries that resettled the most refugees. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/DaXv0/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="522"></iframe>
<p>Regarding Syrian refugees, late 2015 polls from <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2312">Quinnipiac University</a>, <a href="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/NBC-SM%20TOPLINES%20and%20METHODOLOGY%20Paris%2011%2018.pdf">MSNBC</a>, <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/186866/americans-again-opposed-taking-refugees.aspx">Gallup</a>, <a href="http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-poll-nov-15-19-2015/1880/">ABC News/Washington Post</a> and <a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/290824881/Bloomberg-Politics-national-poll-Nov-23-2015">Bloomberg</a> have shown that a majority of Americans oppose settling Syrian refugees in the country. However, 2016 polls from <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/American-attitudes-on-refugees-from-the-Middle-East-MASTER.pdf">Brookings</a> and <a href="https://harrisburg.psu.edu/sites/default/files/research-brief-polisci-pub-policy.pdf">Penn State Harrisburg</a>, which I conducted, found a clear majority supported more Syrians settling here. Views on Trump’s recent executive orders on refugees <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-immigration-travel-ban-234816">are also mixed</a>. </p>
<p>There are many ways to explain this ambivalence. First, <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-immigration-travel-ban-234816">wording and methodology</a> matter. </p>
<p>So does the timing of the poll. For instance, the polls cited above showing a majority opposing Syrian refugees were taken in November 2015, shortly after the terror <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/europe/2015-paris-terror-attacks-fast-facts/">attacks</a> at the Bataclan theater in Paris. At the time, there was a heated discussion as to whether Syrian refugees had been involved in this terrorist event. It turns out they <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34832512">weren’t</a>, but two of them used the same migratory routes as Syrian refugees. In contrast, polls that indicated majority support for refugees from Syria were conducted in May 2016 (Brookings) and August-October 2016 (Penn State Harrisburg), when the news headlines had moved away from the issue of Syrian refugees.</p>
<p>Contradictory poll results may also simply reflect relatively slight and normal changes of mood in public opinion, with a few percent change enough to sway the majority one way or the other.</p>
<h2>Room for a middle ground?</h2>
<p>What is more striking, however, is not so much that the public is divided, but that it is polarized – that is, it holds views that are closer to either extreme. The Penn State Harrisburg’s School of Public Affairs <a href="https://harrisburg.psu.edu/sites/default/files/research-brief-polisci-pub-policy.pdf">poll</a> allowed respondents to choose whether they “strongly oppose,” “oppose,” “neither support or oppose,” “support” or “strongly support.” A healthy public opinion would see a majority of respondents gather around the “oppose,” “neither” or “support” answer. However, only 39 percent of respondents answered that way, while 56 percent opted for a “strongly oppose” or “strongly support” answer. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/DgGkS/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<p>This polarization is confounded when partisanship is added: 45 percent of self-declared Republicans strongly opposed taking in Syrian refugees versus only 12 percent of Democrats. Inversely, 43 percent of self-declared Democrats strongly supported taking in refugees versus 10 percent of Republicans. This polarization is troubling for the future of American democracy, as it hampers the possibility of <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00206.x/full">consensus-building</a>. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, a deeper look at the data shows some potential for building a middle ground. </p>
<p>Responses to an open-ended question asking why respondents supported or opposed taking in Syrian refugees showed ambivalence at the individual level. Respondents were somewhat aware of the need to balance different goals. For instance, some opponents to receiving more Syrian refugees also recognized the ethical call to help people in need. Some of them said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I know America is supposed to be the land of opportunity but we have to be safe.” </p>
<p>“Half of the refugees are terrorists. The other half I feel terrible for.” </p>
<p>“I’m all for helping the Syrian refugees, just don’t bring them here.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>And, about one-third of the supporters of receiving more Syrian refugees mentioned security concerns and questions regarding the existing vetting process. A typical answer would be:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I don’t want to see children and families persecuted. The vetting has to be seriously done, but I see no threat from young children.”</p>
<p>“Our country was founded on immigrants and refugees and I couldn’t discriminate on others when my family were refugees – as long as they’re appropriately screened.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is <a href="https://theconversation.com/syrian-refugees-detrimental-to-americans-the-numbers-tell-a-different-story-72326">little evidence</a> of a connection between refugees and security risk, but the association is already made in the American mind. It indicates that supporters of a generous refugee policy may be willing to concede the need to review the existing process. This could be the basis for building consensus.</p>
<h2>Leadership matters</h2>
<p>As shown above, public attitudes toward refugees are reactive and versatile. A number of respondents mentioned phrases used by politicians during the 2016 presidential campaign. In particular, several referred to Republicans’ <a href="http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/aug/12/carlos-beruff/fbi-admitted-it-cannot-properly-vet-middle-eastern/">interpretation</a> of then-FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before Congress that the U.S. “cannot properly vet” Syrian refugees. One said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The FBI has said that they can’t possibly keep track of these people, because they don’t have proper paperwork, and they can’t be tracked once they’re here.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Respondents’ use of specific and similar verbiage highlights that leaders can have a strong impact on people’s attitudes and beliefs towards refugees.</p>
<p>To gain support in democracies, politicians often engage in “<a href="https://psmag.com/to-resist-trump-change-the-narrative-b1533065de18#.dmq1t07la">symbolic politics</a>” that caters to preexisting beliefs. But political leadership also means providing narratives that have transformative power over these beliefs. Politicians have the power to educate their constituents about important issues such as refugees, and lead voters toward a middle ground that balances both citizens’ concerns and aspirations.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72634/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Juliette Tolay does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Data since 1950s show Americans have always been wary of refugees. A public opinion expert explains current attitudes toward Syrian refugees and what it means for building consensus on policy.Juliette Tolay, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/716102017-02-10T04:15:23Z2017-02-10T04:15:23ZWhy Trump needs the civil servants he wants to fire: Lessons from abroad<p>Like most Republicans, President Donald Trump has made it clear he intends to “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/opinion/donald-trump-bureaucracy-apprentice.html?_r=0">fix</a>” the federal government by “draining the swamp.” Traditionally, the GOP has aimed to <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/gop-readies-cuts-federal-workforce-trump">cut the size</a> of the federal government. The president’s freeze on <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-issues-executive-orders-freezing-federal-hiring-targeting-trade-n710886">hiring federal employees</a> is a first step in that direction. And he might go a step more.</p>
<p>The administration is showing signs that it views the bureaucracy as primarily implementers, not creators, of policy.</p>
<p>Evidence of this shift in approach can be seen in White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s response to a <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/01/31/state-department-dissent-letter-draws-signatures/bAoEtqeqEwyfUQoC2uzDgL/story.html">letter of dissent</a> signed by nearly 1,000 State Department employees against Trump’s travel ban to the U.S. from seven Muslim majority countries. He <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/30/spicer-diplomats-opposed-to-immigration-ban-should-either-get-with-the-program-or-they-can-go/?utm_term=.9915a87def0b">said</a> they should “either get with the program or they can go.”</p>
<p>Trump abruptly ended Sally Yates’ term as attorney general for <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/30/acting-us-attorney-general-tells-doj-lawyers-not-to-defend-trumps-travel-ban.html">refusing</a> to defend the order.</p>
<p>This demand for obedience is most often seen in competitive authoritarian regimes, which I <a href="https://adnankrasool.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/rasoolfairbanks-working-paper-version-2.pdf">study</a>. Such regimes often look like democracies, but don’t actually function like them. Think Turkey and Malaysia, for example.</p>
<p>Such a confrontation between leaders and civil servants leaves the system gridlocked and in chaos. It’s worth understanding the vital role bureaucracies play in the smooth functioning of a government by looking at examples from other countries.</p>
<h2>Lessons from Japan and Turkey</h2>
<p>After the second World War, Japan made efforts to rebuild its economy and revamp its pre-war institutions. Leaders sought to better serve a new democratic country with significantly limited global influence. Civil service reform was a crucial part of this rebuilding process. As a result of these reforms, starting in the 1960s, Japan was effectively <a href="http://www.tokyofoundation.org/en/articles/2008/the-bureaucratic-role-and-party-governance-symposium-report-3">governed</a> by a bureaucracy, while the Liberal Democratic Party ruled.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156313/original/image-20170210-8631-9oubjg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156313/original/image-20170210-8631-9oubjg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156313/original/image-20170210-8631-9oubjg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156313/original/image-20170210-8631-9oubjg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156313/original/image-20170210-8631-9oubjg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156313/original/image-20170210-8631-9oubjg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156313/original/image-20170210-8631-9oubjg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Japanese Prime Minister Eisaku Sato’s third Cabinet is inaugurated in Tokyo on Jan. 14, 1970.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/T. Sakakibara/H. Huet</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Prime Minister Eisaku Sato, who was in power most of the ‘60’s and early '70’s, empowered bureaucrats at government departments. For example, under his leadership, the responsibilities of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry were expanded to include building an export-oriented economy that created jobs. This work built the foundations for the modern Japanese economy. </p>
<p>Politicians were able to take credit for economic programs that worked, and distance themselves from those that were unpopular, but necessary. The LDP <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/how-did-ldp-hold-so-long-79091">deflected criticism</a> of unpopular budget cuts, and the restructuring of basic public services implemented by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry. </p>
<p>This division of responsibility allowed nonelected officials to conduct the day-to-day tasks of governing and delivering public services. Meanwhile, party leaders focused on the big-ticket populist items, such as resisting China’s acceptance into the U.N., and committing to a nonnuclear Japan. This allowed the regime to focus on promises that helped win reelection. Civil servants had the autonomy to run their departments in the most efficient way without political blow-back. </p>
<p>The case of Turkey is more complex. It also went through a similar period during the 1980s in which its government – both in authoritarian and democratic forms – relied on the bureaucracy to lead industrialization and development <a href="https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/09/turk-s27.html">efforts</a>.</p>
<p>In the late '70’s, Turkey was on the verge of civil war triggered by economic collapse. Democratic government led by Suleyman Demeril unsuccessfully tried to launch a last ditch series of economic reforms which left Turkey unable to buy even the <a href="http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/651731468761064368/pdf/multi0page.pdf">basic commodities</a>. At risk of complete economic breakdown, General Kenan Evren seized power and put in place an authoritarian regime to rule Turkey in 1980.</p>
<p>The new regime pushed a series of <a href="http://www.merip.org/mer/mer122/turkeys-economy-under-generals?ip_login_no_cache=f28c0c3d54a20b0853ae553827d0540c">sweeping changes</a>, including banning unions, controlling wages, banning political parties and removing agricultural subsidies. The push for industrialization was the cornerstone of this strategy. What the regime failed to do was effectively implement the strategy and trust state institutions to do their work. The policies had little input from the bureaucrats who expected to implement them. As a result, real wages were depressed and farming communities suffered losses without subsidies. </p>
<p>In state-sanctioned elections of 1983, Turgat Ozal was elected as prime minister against President Evren’s preferred candidates. Ozal was able to roll back the harsh economic policies and actively push for industrialization. He was able to bring back the professionalization of the bureaucracy by giving them a larger role in policy creation and implementation. Buoyed by the new mediator, newly independent government institutions <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1010748">pushed austerity measures</a> that cut government spending and incentivized foreign investment. Heavy government subsidies for large industries in new economic opportunity zones stabilized and spurred growth in Turkey’s economy.</p>
<p>Meanwhile President Evren, who had <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/02b4a6e4-f6ef-11e4-a9c0-00144feab7de">advocated against</a> this approach to governance approach between 1980 and 1983, seemed to be ready to <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/03058298900190020601">take credit</a> for it by the time 1987 rolled around.</p>
<p>The common pattern observed in the cases of Turkey and Japan is the government’s reliance on an independent civil service, especially in times of political turmoil. </p>
<h2>Ruling and governing: Marriage of convenience?</h2>
<p>The new administration in the U.S. is challenging the autonomy of the civil service by limiting its role in policy creation and implementation. Trump’s election mandate, with significant support from Congress, is to “change things up” in Washington and push for stable economic growth. To achieve this, the administration will need to find a way to work with the civil service and allow it to do its job, not impede it. </p>
<p>Like in Turkey and Japan, the bureaucracy evolves in times of political change. Especially in times of severe political partisanship, reliance on bureaucracy to deliver on campaign promises increases. Trump’s administration needs the technical policy making expertise of bureaucrats to deliver on those promises.</p>
<p>But what is becoming increasingly clear with the <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/02/01/homeland-security-inspector-general-opens-investigation-of-muslim-ban-rollout-orders-document-preservation/">inefficient rollout</a> of Trump’s travel ban is that his administration may lack willingness to work with relevant bureaucrats to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-aides-strategy.html?_r=0">implement its vision</a>. </p>
<p>If the administration continues down this path, we may witness more botched implementation of orders like the travel ban. The quicker the administration reformulates its strategy to work with civil servants, the faster we can expect meaningful policies and their implementation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71610/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adnan Rasool does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Trump administration may do well to make a friend of the federal bureaucracy it’s so intent on gutting, according to an expert who studies the role of civil servants in government.Adnan Rasool, Ph.D. Candidate, Georgia State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/723262017-02-09T03:47:17Z2017-02-09T03:47:17ZSyrian refugees ‘detrimental’ to Americans? The numbers tell a different story<p>President Donald Trump wants to close the door on Syrian refugees, barring them indefinitely from settling in the U.S. </p>
<p>In an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states">executive order</a> signed on Jan. 27, the president wrote: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>USRAP stands for United States Refugee Admissions Program.</p>
<p>In light of the president’s executive order and the continued debate over the status of refugees in the U.S., I’d like to <a href="https://theconversation.com/syrian-refugees-next-door-56111">reexamine</a> two questions: What are the chances that a Syrian refugee might live in your community? And what is the risk that he or she would be a terrorist?</p>
<h2>Details of the executive order</h2>
<p>First, let’s consider what the president’s executive order would do.</p>
<p>In addition to ending the settlement of Syrian refugees in the U.S. indefinitely, the president’s order would stop any refugee from entering the U.S. for 120 days. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.unrefugees.org/what-is-a-refugee/">A refugee</a> is someone who has been forced to flee their home by violence or war. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states">order blocks</a> the entry of citizens from seven majority Muslim countries for a minimum of 90 days and caps admissions of refugees from all countries for 2017 at 50,000. That’s a decline of nearly 30 percent from 2015 when 70,000 refugees were settled and a decline of 41 percent from 2016 when 85,000 refugees were admitted.</p>
<p>The order gives no timeline concerning how the USRAP will be updated and made more secure. </p>
<p>There have been protests and <a href="http://freepressonline.com/Content/Home/Homepage-Rotator/Article/A-Collection-of-Responses-to-President-Trump-s-Executive-Order-Banning-Refugees-Muslim-Immigrants/78/720/50287">several legal challenges</a> to the order. </p>
<p>The Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco rejected an appeal by the Department of Justice to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/us/politics/visa-ban-trump-judge-james-robart.html?_r=0">restore the order</a> on Feb. 3, thus upholding an earlier decision by the Federal District Court in Seattle. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, the administration’s characterization of <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-ban-judge-suspended-reacts-big-trouble-tweet-immigration-bob-ferguson-a7562671.html">refugees as “dangerous”</a> and tweets by Trump that warn of “bad people” freely pouring over the border continues to cloud an emotionally charged debate. </p>
<p>So what are the facts?</p>
<h2>Why are people fleeing?</h2>
<p>Syrians are being displaced by a civil war that has dragged on for more than five years. A major destabilizing factor in their country has been the spread of IS into Syria from Iraq. Airstrikes to take territory back from IS have leveled many Syrian cities. </p>
<p>According to the <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/latest/2016/6/575e79424/unhcr-report-sees-2017-resettlement-needs-119-million.html">UNHCR,</a> the numbers of people pushed out of their homes continues to outpace the resources available to support resettlement. </p>
<p>Since 2011, Turkey has accepted more than <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/02/syrias-refugee-crisis-in-numbers/">2.7 million Syrian refees</a>. However, Syrian refugees are increasingly turning away from Turkey and choosing instead to travel first to Libya and then risk crossing the Mediterranean Sea in hopes of finding <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/02/italy-on-track-to-surpass-greece-in-refugee-arrivals-for-2016/">security in Italy</a>. This may be a way to avoid the difficulties created by <a href="http://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/paradox-eu-turkey-refugee-deal">Turkey’s agreement with the EU</a> to manage the flow of refugees into Europe. </p>
<p>Finding a place for all of these people to resettlement is critical. Writing for the <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/latest/2016/6/575e79424/unhcr-report-sees-2017-resettlement-needs-119-million.html">UNHCR</a>, Leo Dobbs notes “Resettlement does not only provide Syrian refugees with a durable solution but has often been a critical and life-saving intervention for refugees with urgent protection needs and compelling vulnerabilities.” </p>
<h2>How many Syrians are in the US?</h2>
<p>From the beginning of the Syrian conflict in 2011 through November 2015, a total of 2,174 Syrian refugees were settled in the U.S. <a href="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/refugee-arrival-data">according to the Office of Refugee Resettlement</a>. They represented fewer than 0.0007 percent of the U.S. population. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/7KTtA/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="642"></iframe>
<p>In 2016, an additional <a href="http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/30/14432650/global-refugee-crisis-refugee-ban-trump-9-questions">12,587 Syrian refugees</a> were resettled in the U.S. While it was a record number for this country, for comparison, Germany settled nearly <a href="http://www.unhcr.ie/about-unhcr/facts-and-figures-about-refugees">half a million</a> refugees in the same year. By the end of 2016, the total number of Syrian refugees settled in the U.S. was 12,587 + 2,174, or 14,761, about .0046 percent of the country’s population. </p>
<p>In other words, the chances that a Syrian refugee would move next door to you are statistically zero. That’s true with or without Trump’s ban.</p>
<p>To put the small number of Syrian refugees who have been settled in the U.S. in context, the Mariel boatlift resettled approximately <a href="http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/cuban-immigrants-united-states">125,000 Cubans</a> in 1985. And between 1975 and 1995, <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/3ebf9bad0.html">about 2 million Vietnamese refugees were relocated to the U.S.</a>. </p>
<h2>Is any too many?</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/">Not one Syrian refugee </a>in the U.S. has been arrested or deported on terror related charges. </p>
<p>This may be because Syrian refugees face intense scrutiny before they are allowed to enter the U.S. They <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states">are vetted</a> in a process that can take up to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/01/refugees-are-already-vigorously-vetted-i-know-because-i-vetted-them/?utm_term=.55d9133a5923">18 months</a>. Once registered as a refugee by the UN, refugees face several rounds of interviews that include the U.S. State Department and the Department of Homeland Security as well as background checks, fingerprinting, health screening and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html?_r=0">classes in American culture</a>. </p>
<p>After careful vetting, refugees are settled by one of nine agencies: <a href="http://cwsglobal.org/">Church World Service</a>, <a href="http://www.ecdcus.org/">Ethiopian Community Development Council</a>, <a href="http://www.episcopalmigrationministries.org/">Episcopal Migration Ministries</a>, <a href="http://www.hias.org/">the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society</a>, <a href="http://www.rescue.org/">International Rescue Committee</a>, <a href="http://lirs.org/">Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service</a>, <a href="http://refugees.org/">US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants</a>, <a href="http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-and-refugee-services/">United States Conference of Catholic Bishops/Migration and Refugee Services</a>, and <a href="http://refugeecrisis.worldrelief.org/">World Relief</a>. </p>
<p>No refugee is randomly placed into a community. Rather, agencies settle refugees in planned, <a href="http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugee-resettlement-metropolitan-america">predetermined cities and urban centers</a>. They also minimize difficulties by keeping refugees as close as possible to family and friends. </p>
<p>A 2016 report from the <a href="https://www.cato.org/">Cato institute</a>, a think tank “dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace” <a href="https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis#full">stated</a>: “The hazards posed by foreign-born terrorists are not large enough to warrant extreme actions like a moratorium on all immigration or tourism.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72326/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeffrey H. Cohen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Ban or no ban, finding a Syrian refugee in the U.S. isn’t easy.Jeffrey H. Cohen, Professor of Anthropology, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/721702017-02-02T08:36:48Z2017-02-02T08:36:48ZTrump’s travel ban is nothing to do with national security<p>In the two month interregnum between the 2016 presidential election and Donald Trump’s inauguration, many hoped that the new president’s bark would be worse than his bite – that the office would make the man, rather than the man remaking the office. It took Trump a week to dispel this hope, and to signal to the world that he means business. </p>
<p>The last straw was his executive order <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states">Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States</a>, which bans nearly all passport-holders from Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen from entry into the US for 90 days. It also puts an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.</p>
<p>The order is supposedly meant to protect the nation from foreign terrorists – but it has nothing to do with keeping Americans safe. It is an act of manipulative security politics, and its motives lie elsewhere.</p>
<p>The order’s supposed policy motives fail on simple logic. Since 1975, no terrorist from any of the seven countries listed has been responsible for a fatal attack on US soil. Meanwhile, the radical Islamists who carried out the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/crime/shootings/san-bernardino-terror-attack-EVCAL00077-topic.html">San Bernardino attack</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/orlando-massacre-shows-our-understanding-of-terrorism-is-too-focused-on-jihad-60949">Orlando massacre</a> were not from Trump’s seven listed countries – two were in fact US citizens. </p>
<p>And that’s ignoring attacks from a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/us/church-attacked-in-charleston-south-carolina.html?_r=1">white supremacist on an African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina</a>, or the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/27/colorado-springs-shooting-planned-parenthood">shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic</a> in Colorado Springs by an anti-abortionist. Then there are the US’s <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/13/health/mass-shootings-in-america-in-charts-and-graphs-trnd/">all-too-common mass shootings</a>, which don’t get the “terrorism” label. (If Trump were serious about sacrificing liberties to increase security, perhaps severe gun control would be a better place to start.)</p>
<p>Similarly, if Trump were genuinely concerned about threats to the US, he would not have given his radical political advisor <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/the-radical-anti-conservatism-of-stephen-bannon/496796/">Stephen Bannon</a> a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-national-security-council.html">full seat</a> on the National Security Council and downgraded the roles of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence, who will now attend only when the council is considering issues in their direct areas of responsibilities. </p>
<p>All this points to the same stark fact: Trump’s executive order on refugees and foreign arrivals has everything to do with the optics of the situation. </p>
<h2>Loud and clear</h2>
<p>This is not in itself unusual. After a terrorist attack, democracies often overreact by introducing draconian restrictions on human rights in the name of national security. It is, unfortunately, not uncommon for these measures to irrationally scapegoat some “them” without making “us” any safer. </p>
<p>After September 11 2001, for example, the UK introduced indefinite detention without trial pending deportation for non-UK citizens suspected of terrorism. The House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights, however, found that such a measure was unjustified as it <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4100481.stm">only affected non-UK citizens</a>, despite the fact that UK citizens also posed a terrorist threat (as the July 7 2005 London bombings and the murder of army officer Lee Rigby proved). </p>
<p>In these post-attack moments, governments react because they believe they have to. They act to alleviate the anxiety of a fearful public, and to show that they’re back in control. After all, terrorist attacks have effects far beyond the loss of life; their real impact is to show that a government cannot protect its citizens. It is an emasculating event for a government, which must then react to re-assert itself.</p>
<p>The strange thing about Trump’s actions is that he isn’t reacting to a specific terrorist threat or perceived risk increase. Rather than some major attack, this particular policy was precipitated simply by a change in government. It is as pure a political act as they come – but even if the principal motive is grandstanding, this order and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-embrace-of-torture-is-irresponsible-and-explosive-72143">others Trump is signing</a> are anything but harmless.</p>
<p>There are good grounds for believing that they are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-muslim-ban.html">illegal</a> and his <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/30/justice-department-trump-immigration-acting-attorney-general-sally-yates">firing of acting Attorney General Sally Yates</a> for instructing officials to not comply with his executive order adds fuel to this fire. But the problem with relying on courts to halt Trump’s executive orders is that they take a long time to make a decision. </p>
<p>While an <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/28/512158238/arrivals-to-u-s-blocked-and-detained-as-trumps-immigration-freeze-sets-in">emergency Habeas Corpus challenge</a> was heard soon after Trump signed the order, the judgement issued was only a temporary stay until the full case can be heard. In the meantime, many people are stuck in legal limbo, visas are being cancelled and lives are being ruined, all in the name of national security – but really in the service of a president trying to assert himself.</p>
<p>Constitutions and human rights laws do not enforce themselves. Similarly, they remind us that much of the president’s power is not granted by the constitution alone; it’s “soft power”, the power to persuade and influence, to frame and shape the public agenda and public debate. Trump’s early actions show us that although much of his power may be “soft”, it’s certainly not harmless.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72170/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Greene does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In a crisis, governments often act just to be seen to be doing something. The difference with what Trump’s doing is that there is no crisis.Alan Greene, Lecturer in Law, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/721762017-02-02T02:56:54Z2017-02-02T02:56:54ZImmigration and crime: What does the research say?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155265/original/image-20170201-29923-xq97jj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People rally in New Brunswick, N.J. against President Trump's 'travel ban.'</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Mel Evans</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>Editor’s note:</strong> In his first week in office, President Donald Trump showed he intends to follow through on his immigration promises. A major focus of his campaign was on removing immigrants who, he said, were increasing crime in American communities.</p>
<p>In his <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-07-21/read-donald-trumps-nomination-acceptance-speech-at-the-republican-convention">acceptance speech</a> at the Republican National Convention, Trump named victims who were reportedly killed by undocumented immigrants and said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities with no regard for the impact on public safety or resources…We are going to build a great border wall to stop illegal immigration, to stop the gangs and the violence, and to stop the drugs from pouring into our communities.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Now as president, he has signed executive orders that <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states">restrict entry</a> of immigrants from seven countries into the U.S. and authorize the construction of <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/executive-order-border-security-and-immigration-enforcement-improvements">a wall</a> along the U.S. border with Mexico. He also signed an order to <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/presidential-executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united">prioritize</a> the removal of “criminal aliens” and withhold federal funding from “sanctuary cities.”</p>
<p>But, what does research say about how immigration impacts crime in U.S. communities? We turned to our experts for answers. </p>
<hr>
<h2>Across 200 metropolitan areas</h2>
<p><strong>Robert Adelman, University at Buffalo, and Lesley Reid, University of Alabama</strong></p>
<p>Research has shown virtually no support for the enduring assumption that increases in immigration are associated with increases in crime. </p>
<p>Immigration-crime research over the past 20 years has widely corroborated the conclusions of a number of early 20th-century presidential <a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/44548NCJRS.pdf">commissions</a> that found no backing for the immigration-crime connection. Although there are always individual exceptions, the literature demonstrates that immigrants commit <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.659200">fewer crimes</a>, on average, than native-born Americans. </p>
<p>Also, large cities with substantial immigrant populations have <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.01.001">lower crime rates</a>, on average, than those with minimal immigrant populations.</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15377938.2016.1261057?af=R">paper</a> published this year in the Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, we, along with our colleagues Gail Markle, Saskia Weiss and Charles Jaret, investigated the immigration-crime relationship. </p>
<p>We analyzed census data spanning four decades from 1970 to 2010 for 200 randomly selected metropolitan areas, which include center cities and surrounding suburbs. Examining data over time allowed us to assess whether the relationship between immigration and crime changed with the broader U.S. economy and the origin and number of immigrants.</p>
<p>The most striking finding from our research is that for murder, robbery, burglary and larceny, as immigration increased, crime decreased, on average, in American metropolitan areas. The only crime that immigration had no impact on was aggravated assault. These associations are strong and stable evidence that immigration does not cause crime to increase in U.S. metropolitan areas, and may even help reduce it. </p>
<p>There are a number of ideas among scholars that explain why more immigration leads to less crime. The most common <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0003122413491964">explanation</a> is that immigration reduces levels of crime by revitalizing urban neighborhoods, creating vibrant communities and generating economic growth.</p>
<h2>Across 20 years of data</h2>
<p><strong>Charis E. Kubrin, University of California, Irvine, and Graham Ousey, College of William and Mary</strong></p>
<p>For the last decade, we have been studying how immigration to an area impacts crime. </p>
<p>Across <a href="https://www.academia.edu/2769600/DOI_10.1525_sp.2009.56.3.447._Exploring_the_Connection_between_Immigration_and_Violent_Crime_Rates_in_U.S._Cities_1980_2000">our studies</a>, one finding remains clear: Cities and neighborhoods with greater concentrations of immigrants have lower rates of crime and violence, all else being equal. </p>
<p>Our research also points to the importance of city context for understanding the immigration-crime relationship. In <a href="https://www.academia.edu/5031590/Immigration_and_the_Changing_Nature_of_Homicide_in_US_Cities_1980-2010">one study</a>, for example, we found that cities with historically high immigration levels are especially likely to enjoy reduced crime rates as a result of their immigrant populations.</p>
<p>Findings from our most recent study, forthcoming in the inaugural issue of The Annual Review of Criminology, only strengthen these conclusions. </p>
<p>We conducted a meta-analysis, meaning we systematically evaluated available research on the immigration-crime relationship in neighborhoods, cities and metropolitan areas across the U.S. We examined findings from more than 50 studies published between 1994 and 2014, including studies conducted by our copanelists, Adelman and Reid.</p>
<p>Our analysis of the literature reveals that immigration has a weak crime-suppressing effect. In other words, more immigration equals less crime. </p>
<p>There were some individual studies that found that with an increase in immigration, there was an increase in crime. However, there were 2.5 times as many findings that showed immigration was actually correlated with less crime. And, the most common finding was that immigration had no impact on crime.</p>
<p>The upshot? We find no evidence to indicate that immigration leads to more crime and it may, in fact, suppress it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72176/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charis Kubrin receives funding from the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Graham C. Ousey, Lesley Reid, and Robert M. Adelman do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Our panel of experts examines whether immigration leads to more crime using data from across 200 metropolitan areas and 20 years of research.Charis Kubrin, Professor of Criminology, Law and Society, University of California, IrvineGraham C. Ousey, Professor and Chair of Sociology, William & MaryLesley Reid, Professor and Department Chair of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of AlabamaRobert M. Adelman, Associate Professor of Sociology, University at BuffaloLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/721452017-01-31T16:37:20Z2017-01-31T16:37:20ZTrump’s strategy on immigration comes straight from the Middle East playbook<p>It is easy to ascribe Donald Trump’s recent policy decisions on immigration to his temperament. The US president’s executive order temporarily halting the <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-order-barring-refugees-flies-in-the-face-of-logic-and-humanity-72061?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1485773157">country’s refugee programme</a> and <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-refugees-idUKKBN15B2HN">suspending visas</a> for citizens of seven, Muslim-majority countries, are in line with his xenophobic rhetoric on the campaign trail. </p>
<p>The pressure on Mexico to finance the construction of a wall on the US-Mexican border is also a direct follow-up to his vitriolic statements on “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/20/what-we-learned-final-presidential-debate">bad hombres</a>”. </p>
<p>It is equally tempting to blame the new administration’s immigration policy on Trump’s lack of respect for the rule-of-law and <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-dangerous-to-flatter-trumps-narcissism-with-too-much-attention-71854">his need</a> for continuing media and public attention. Particularly so as Trump has proposed policies that are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/politics/a-sweeping-order-unlikely-to-reduce-terrorist-threat.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news">unlikely to reduce any terrorist threat</a> and can be <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-prompting-legal-challenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news">easily overturned by federal courts</a>.</p>
<p>But the history of Middle Eastern politics teaches us to approach immigration policies less as consequences of elites’ personalities, and more as instruments in the quest for political power. Both Trump’s policy on Mexico and his recent executive orders are reminiscent of measures adopted by Middle Eastern elites as bilateral strategies of coercion.</p>
<h2>Remittance and visa restrictions</h2>
<p>In early 2016, Saudi Arabia <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/c8252d98-e200-11e5-9217-6ae3733a2cd1">threatened to impose limits</a> on the amount of money Lebanese migrants could send back home as a way of pressuring Lebanon into clamping down on Hezbollah. The Saudis, and other Gulf states, <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/gcc-declares-lebanon-hezbollah-terrorist-group-160302090712744.html">having declared</a> Hezbollah a terrorist organisation in March 2016, realised that they possessed an effective, and relatively cost-free, mechanism of exerting pressure on Lebanon, which relies on migration to the Gulf Cooperation Council states for <a href="http://newsweekme.com/lebanon-strained-ties/">70% of its remittance income</a>.</p>
<p>A few decades ago, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi would frequently implement – or threaten to implement – controls on Egyptian workers’ remittances as a way of putting pressure on the Egyptian government. When Egyptian president Anwar Sadat announced the creation of a Unified Political Command with Syria and Sudan in 1977, Gaddafi announced that “Sadat, in his behaviour, intends to oblige us” to act against Egyptians. Libya duly ceased the issuance of new work visas as authorities <a href="http://www.merip.org/mero/mero031715">expelled thousands of Egyptian workers</a>.</p>
<p>If this strategy sounds familiar, it is because it featured prominently in Trump’s presidential campaign agenda. In March 2016, Trump sent <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/memo-explains-how-donald-trump-plans-to-pay-for-border-wall/2007/">a two-page memo to the Washington Post</a> detailing how he would threaten to halt illegal migrants’ money transfers to Mexico unless the country paid for the construction of the wall. “It’s an easy decision for Mexico,” Trump wrote. “Make a one-time payment of US$5-$10 billion to ensure that US$24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year.”</p>
<h2>Deportations, Saudi style</h2>
<p>Beyond remittance and migration restrictions, Middle East elites have also used deportation as a strategy of coercion amid neighbourhood tension. When Yemen failed to denounce the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait at the UN Security Council (where it was a non-permanent member) in September 1990, Saudi Arabia expelled around 800,000 Yemenis <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/30/world/mideast-tensions-yemenis-ousted-by-saudis-bring-new-burden-back-to-their-land.html">over the following two months</a>. Other Arab states followed Saudi’s example and deported more Yemenis. The domestic upheaval that ensued in Yemen and the collapse of migrant remittances had destabilising effects that <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ROmOAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=van+hear+new+diasporas&ots=1hnaAyyFJy&sig=n-CtZ_w5Ts7VpfQWOT2VKZDq4_k#v=onepage&q=yemen&f=false">paved the way for the 1994 Yemeni Civil War</a>.</p>
<p>Palestinians in Kuwait had a similar fate, and the entire community <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/palestine-kuwait-relations-ice-started-melt-150805072107680.html">faced discrimination and, consequently, mass deportations</a> when Palestine Liberation Organisation leader Yasser Arafat failed to denounce the Iraqi invasion in 1990.</p>
<p>Trump’s executive order <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-refugees-idUKKBN15B2HN">barring entry to citizen from seven Musim-majority countries</a> – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen – needs to be understood through the lens of the US administration’s immigration strategy. This will undoubtedly become much clearer in the new few weeks, but the Washington Post has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/countries-where-trump-does-business-are-not-hit-by-new-travel-restrictions/2017/01/28/dd40535a-e56b-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?utm_term=.ddc0169c353b">already identified</a> how the ban excludes any country where the Trump Organisation has business interests. Though it’s worth pointing out that the seven countries were <a href="http://theconversation.com/how-trumps-travel-ban-differs-from-obamas-visa-restrictions-72125">initially singled out</a> for extra visa checks during the Obama administration. </p>
<p>Beyond the human cost involved in the use of immigration policy as a geopolitical strategy, the US administration should keep in mind a second lesson from the Middle East experience: target states often devise a retaliatory strategy. This may involve countermeasures or, in the case of Egypt and Libya, <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002716287489001003">a border war in 1977</a>. Iran has already declared it would <a href="http://europe.newsweek.com/iran-bans-us-citizens-entry-retaliation-549537?rm=eu">ban entry to US citizens</a> in response to Trump’s actions, while the New York Times has begun talking of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/business/economy/trumps-mexico-china-tariff-trade.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur">the making of a trade war</a> with China. Not surprisingly, the number of voices criticising Trump’s strategy as <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-immigration-order-is-bad-foreign-policy-72053">bad foreign policy</a> is increasing daily.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72145/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gerasimos Tsourapas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Gulf countries have a history of using migrants’ rights as a tool in their geopolitical strategy.Gerasimos Tsourapas, Lecturer in Middle East Politics, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/721252017-01-31T13:34:42Z2017-01-31T13:34:42ZHow Trump’s travel ban differs from Obama’s visa restrictions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154972/original/image-20170131-13246-12ou03b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Anger at Trump's immigration controls continues to spread. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/109799466@N06/32478446291/sizes/l">joepiette2/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Donald Trump’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html">executive order on immigration</a>, issued on January 27 2017, indefinitely bars Syrian refugees from entering the US, suspends the admission of all refugees for 120 days and blocks citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – from entering the country for 90 days.</p>
<p>Introduced <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html">as a policy</a> to “protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States”, the order has provoked a storm of protest worldwide. Foreign governments <a href="http://www.news24.com/World/News/merkel-slams-trump-travel-ban-cites-geneva-convention-20170129">reminded</a> the US president of his obligations under international human rights law, such as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-guide-to-the-geneva-convention-for-beginners-dummies-and-newly-elected-world-leaders-72155">Geneva Refugee Convention</a>, of which the US is a signatory. </p>
<p>Visitors, students, scientists, family members, even permanent residents with green cards have been stopped at airports around the world, plunging customs and arrival zones into chaos. Former president, Barack Obama, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/obama-trump-immigration-ban.html">publicly spoke out</a> against the immigration ban, and acting attorney general Sally Yates <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/30/justice-department-trump-immigration-acting-attorney-general-sally-yates">was fired</a> after having instructed officials not to enforce the new order.</p>
<h2>Obama’s visa restrictions</h2>
<p>Deflecting the criticism, Trump now points a finger at Obama. Trump has compared his new policy with an alleged visa ban for refugees from Iraq for six months, <a href="http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/">issued in 2011 under his predecessor</a>. More recently, legislation that imposes travel restrictions on travellers from the seven countries had already passed congress under the Obama administration. </p>
<p>The suggestively labelled “<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158/text">Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act</a>” of December 2015 complicated the visa application process for citizens of Iran, Iraq, Sudan or Syria. It also made it more difficult for anyone who had visited any of these countries on or after March 1 2011 to get a visa, as I <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-new-us-visa-rules-are-bad-news-for-europe-and-the-iran-nuclear-agreement-56185">had to find out myself</a> after I was effectively barred from attending a conference in the US as an EU academic because I had previously visited Iran. </p>
<p>The restrictions aimed to prevent people with ties to countries thought to pose a terror threat from using the <a href="https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/">Electronic System for Travel Authorisation</a> to travel to the US with minimal screening.</p>
<p>That act erected discriminatory barriers for access to the US for scholars, people with dual nationality, or tourists. And while the December 2015 act was not based on an executive order issued by the president, Obama <a href="http://history.house.gov/Institution/Presidential-Vetoes/Presidential-Vetoes/">could have vetoed</a> that congressional piece of legislation, but didn’t. Somalia, Libya, and Yemen were added in February 2016 as “<a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program">countries of concern</a>” by the Department of Homeland Security, and it was this list of seven countries referred to in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?_r=0&mtrref=theconversation.com&gwh=33BDC15B15D160207461517BA58C2953&gwt=pay">Trump’s executive order</a>. </p>
<p>The arbitrary classification of these seven countries as “terror threats” stays the same. Saudi Arabia, Egypt or other countries with links to the 9/11 perpetrators are not on the list, rendering Trump’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html">evocation of the September 11 attacks</a> in the executive order sketchy at best. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/countries-where-trump-does-business-are-not-hit-by-new-travel-restrictions/2017/01/28/dd40535a-e56b-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?utm_term=.25c24bf1702c">Neither are countries</a> like Turkey, in which the Trump Organisation has done business.</p>
<p>Trump’s new order, however, differs from the December 2015 law in its scale. Under the new rules, the US is detaining people that have already undergone lengthy vetting procedures. Imposing a blanket travel ban against entire nationalities not only violates commitments the US made under international law and is <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/316871-trumps-immigration-ban-is-clumsy-but-perfectly-legal">controversial constitutionally</a>, it is also imprudent policy. Jihadist groups are already <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/jihadist-groups-hail-trumps-travel-ban-as-a-victory/2017/01/29/50908986-e66d-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.4efbfbf84c8e">celebrating the new travel ban as a propaganda success</a>, bolstering their claim that the US is waging a war on Islam – despite Trump’s <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-trump-defends-travel-ban-saying-its-not-about-religion/">attempts to underline</a> that the travel ban is “not about religion”. </p>
<h2>Unsealing the Iran deal?</h2>
<p>With regard to Iran, the new policy has particular political implications. The US <a href="https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245317.pdf">committed itself</a> to “refrain from any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely affect the normalisation of trade and economic relations with Iran” as part of a nuclear agreement with Iran reached in July 2015. The December 2015 changes to the US visa programme had already been <a href="http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/12/iran-syria-zarif-.html">criticised as contravening the spirit</a> of this agreement. </p>
<p>With Iranian academics, businessmen, and family members now <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-academics-idUSKBN15D10R">stranded at airports</a> and barred entry to the US, the US now is seen as taking steps that undermine pledges made in the nuclear deal. It has strengthened <a href="http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13951110001534">Iranian critiques</a> and hardened suspicions about the trustworthiness of US commitments. Iran has already announced that it will <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-iran-idUSKBN15C0NR">ban US visitors</a> in retaliation. </p>
<p>So besides the carefully rehearsed security argument, the new travel ban is also a policy that undermines the agreement made with Iran – and is therefore in line with Trump’s criticism of “<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/09/10/donald-trump-interview-newday-part-one.cnn">one of the worst deals</a>” he has ever seen negotiated. As the order was drafted without inter-agency consultations with Homeland Security, the Justice, State, or Defense departments, it is <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/malevolence-tempered-incompetence-trumps-horrifying-executive-order-refugees-and-visas">not entirely clear</a> whether the “incompetence mitigates the malevolence” or whether the political signals are deliberate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72125/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Moritz Pieper does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Trump has pointed the finger at Obama for creating the list of seven countries in his new travel ban.Moritz Pieper, Lecturer in International Relations, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/715792017-01-31T07:45:41Z2017-01-31T07:45:41ZThere is more than one story to be told about Muslims in Trump’s America<p>Let me tell you two stories that happened to two different people. Both concern religion in North America. </p>
<p>Register how you feel about each of them.</p>
<p><strong>Story one</strong>: “Why are you not Christian?” a man asks you.</p>
<p><strong>Story two</strong>: You wake up to find someone has left a Bible on your doorstep.</p>
<p>Which of these sounds more violent, more threatening to you? Or neither?</p>
<p>Now, imagine yourself a Muslim woman wearing a headscarf in a Western country and repeat the two stories to yourself again. How would you feel?</p>
<p>Now let me complete each story and give you some context.</p>
<h2>Story one</h2>
<p>“Why are you not Christian?” the man asked, kindly, in broken English.</p>
<p>“We believe in Jesus and the Bible,” I said, wanting to comfort him, “and we have a lot of Christians in Egypt where I come from.”</p>
<p>This happened to me in Houston, Texas around 2007 or 2008. The man was a plumber coming in to fix my sink. He found it difficult to express himself in English but seemed to care about saving my soul, however misguided that was. </p>
<p>It didn’t occur to me to be offended or afraid. This was a time when America was on the cusp of electing either a black president, a female president or at least a female vice president. Houston, despite what all my American friends had told me before I left Egypt, was not a generally racist place to live. </p>
<p>Half of the surgery fellows working with my husband at the Texas Heart Institute were Muslim. Some strangers said “<em>Assalamu Alaikum</em>” (peace be upon you) to me on the streets, or stopped me and my friends to comment on the beauty of our colourful headscarves.</p>
<h2>Story two</h2>
<p>You wake up to find someone has left a Bible on your doorstep. This happened to a friend in North America, soon after Donald Trump was elected president. She felt it was a threat or a subtle act of violence. She wondered how her neighbours would feel if she placed a Qur’an on their doorsteps.</p>
<p>When I heard my friend’s story, it got me thinking about the possible intentions of the person who placed that Bible on her doorstep. </p>
<p>I trust that my friend’s feeling of being threatened was real in that context. But I wondered if the story might have been different. What if the story had included a note inside the Bible, showing who had left it, or giving an invitation to exchange holy books? </p>
<p>What if the Bible on the doorstep had been the beginning of a dialogue rather than a way to scare someone away? And if the person who left the Bible on my friend’s doorstep didn’t have bad intentions, why didn’t they do it in person and look her in the eye? </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154768/original/image-20170130-7653-zlwge8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154768/original/image-20170130-7653-zlwge8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154768/original/image-20170130-7653-zlwge8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154768/original/image-20170130-7653-zlwge8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154768/original/image-20170130-7653-zlwge8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154768/original/image-20170130-7653-zlwge8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154768/original/image-20170130-7653-zlwge8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What does a Bible on a doorstep mean?</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Context and power</h2>
<p>There are differences between story one and two, chief among them are context and power. The political context and who the actors are make a difference to the story. An elderly, Hispanic plumber fixing my sink? Not a threat to my 20-something self in Houston, accompanying my surgeon husband doing a fellowship at a prestigious nearby hospital. </p>
<p>Had I been asked the same question by a white man, in an angry voice, in another context, my reaction would probably have been very different. </p>
<p>I am telling this story in the era where we are lamenting <a href="http://dmlcentral.net/fake-news-not-main-problem/">the rise of fake news</a> and exploring our roles as educators to respond to it, as if a technical solution to figuring out if something is a lie will fix our problems. It won’t. Because it’s not a technical problem. </p>
<h2>Education and understanding</h2>
<p>Donald Trump’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-refugees.html?_r=0">executive order</a> banning people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US is not fake news. It’s real news. And <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-the-face-of-trumps-muslim-ban-all-academics-have-a-responsibility-to-act-72068">as a community</a>, we have to deal with it.</p>
<p>Nigerian writer <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story/transcript?language=en">Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie</a> has said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Power is the ability not just to tell the story of another person, but to make it the definitive story of that person. The Palestinian poet Mourid Barghouti writes that if you want to dispossess a people, the simplest way to do it is to tell their story and to start with, ‘secondly’. Start the story with the arrows of the Native Americans, and not with the arrival of the British, and you have an entirely different story. Start the story with the failure of the African state, and not with the colonial creation of the African state, and you have an entirely different story.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The media does this all the time. So do politicians – we see Donald Trump right now, talking about banning Iraqi refugees and immigrants from entering the US, without mentioning the role of his country in causing the instability that motivated the immigration in the first place.</p>
<p>Adichie also says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The single story creates stereotypes, and the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In my view, the best way to ensure that we and our children see more than the stereotypical story about people who are different from us is to expose them and ourselves to multiple stories. The bare minimum is to expose ourselves to other cultures on their own terms. </p>
<p>So, for example, we don’t learn about Native Americans from Pocahontas or from Western films. We learn from Native Americans themselves. If we don’t have direct access to them (I live a long way away in Egypt), find them online. Read or listen or even, if you’re lucky, converse.</p>
<p>I know what you’re thinking. I’m Muslim, talking about Muslims in America. What brought this on? But in the midst of my concern over Muslims in America, I also <a href="http://www.npr.org/tags/492631446/dakota-access-pipeline">noticed Trump’s presidential memo to advance approval of the Dakota Access Pipeline</a>, I can see the injustice in this, and the irony: on the one hand, a “nation of immigrants” that is neither honouring immigrants, nor honouring the original residents of this land.</p>
<p>We will always have blind spots towards cultures that are unfamiliar to us. But the more deeply we establish understanding of the “other”, the more we try to empathise, with social justice as our underlying value, the more likely we are to become <a href="http://www.al-fanarmedia.org/2013/08/critical-citizenship-for-critical-times/">empathetic, critical, global citizens</a>. As educators, we must expand and diversify the people in our in-groups, and <a href="https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/video/day-learning-2013-binna-kandola-diffusing-bias">help students do this too</a>. </p>
<p>Education expert Sean Michael Morris, on the day of Trump’s inauguration, urged us to <a href="http://seanmichaelmorris.com/once-a-fearsome-murderer-invaded-a-zen-masters-home/">change the way we teach</a>. He wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>An education that convinces us of what needs to be known, what is important versus what is frivolous, is not an education. It’s training at best, conscription at worst. And all it prepares us to do is to believe what we’re told.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This goes for parents and mentors as well as those of us in more formal teaching roles.</p>
<h2>Building empathy</h2>
<p>The best way not to believe what we’re told is not to go fact-checking each and every thing we hear. Instead, I propose we start building our ability to understand people who are different from us, in context, rather than relying on harmful stereotypes. To know them as individuals, as they would like to be known, not as some dominant power (or US president) has decided we shall know them. </p>
<p>This is not quick or simple. But it can allow us to form a view of the world that rises above deception and to see what’s important in our humanity. And it will change the way we vote. When we empathise with others, we imagine how our decisions can impact them. </p>
<p>Remember those two stories I mentioned earlier? Back in 2007 and 2008, I felt comfortable and safe praying in a mosque in Houston. Now, I would not, given the latest news of <a href="https://www.aclu.org/map/nationwide-anti-mosque-activity">Islamophobic violence in mosques</a> coming from North America, most recently the <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-city-mosque-shooting/article33822092/">terrorist attack on a mosque in Quebec City</a> that left six people dead. </p>
<p>My friend with the Bible on her doorstep, a dual citizen, was unable to attend a conference in the US a few days ago. </p>
<p>But that isn’t the biggest tragedy. The tragic stories are those of families torn apart by this executive order. Parents who cannot reach their children. What we need now, more than ever, is empathy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71579/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maha Bali does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We must know people as they would like to be known, not as some dominant power has decided we shall know them.Maha Bali, Associate Professor of Practice, Center for Learning and Teaching, American University in CairoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/721562017-01-31T02:24:05Z2017-01-31T02:24:05ZTrump’s immigration ban: Will it undercut American soft power?<p>The Trump administration moved over the weekend to <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/donald-trump-refugees-executive-order/index.html">ban all immigration</a> from seven Muslim nations, including stopping the entry of students and scholars with valid study and work visas from those countries.</p>
<p>A large number of students come to study in the United States from these nations: Iran <a href="http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/International-Students/Leading-Places-of-Origin/2014-16">ranks 11th</a> on the list of countries that send students to the United States. Iraq and Syria participate in a student leaders program supported by the <a href="https://mepi.state.gov/opportunities/mepi-exchange-programs/student-leaders.html">US-Middle East Partnership Initiative</a>. The program brings students to the U.S. to “expand their understanding of civil society, as well as the democratic process and how both may be applied in their home communities.” </p>
<p>Iraq also has an active Fulbright program – <a href="https://eca.state.gov/fulbright">an international exchange program </a> meant to “increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries by means of educational and cultural exchange.” </p>
<p>As a scholar of international education, I have seen the impact of American higher education abroad. While conducting field research in the United Arab Emirates on development of American branch campuses in the Middle East, I was struck by the response of the residents after George Mason University <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/27/gulf-withdrawal">closed</a> its UAE-based campus in 2009. </p>
<p>The setting up of the university campus was heralded as an expansion of American values overseas, and its closure was viewed as an example of “America withdrawing its support” for the region. I was asked, “Why did America choose to pull out of the region?” </p>
<p>In a region where higher education institutions are largely controlled by the government, it was difficult to explain that it was a decision of a single institution, not of the American government. </p>
<p>The fact is that over the decades America has made <a href="https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0502s.pdf">considerable investments</a> in building goodwill around the world through higher education exchange efforts. Evident in the responses of the people in UAE was how the action of a single institution could erode those sentiments. </p>
<p>So, what might Trump’s ban mean for the U.S. role in international education? And will it undermine the use of international higher education as a soft power tool for the United States? </p>
<h2>A soft power tool?</h2>
<p>First, let’s look at the role higher education has played in expanding American influence and in building stronger relationships between nations. </p>
<p>In 1945, Senator William Fulbright from Arkansas <a href="https://us.fulbrightonline.org/about/history">sponsored a bill </a> to fund a program to support “international good will through the exchange of students in the fields of education, culture and science.” </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154834/original/image-20170130-7669-iwl3ai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154834/original/image-20170130-7669-iwl3ai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154834/original/image-20170130-7669-iwl3ai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154834/original/image-20170130-7669-iwl3ai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154834/original/image-20170130-7669-iwl3ai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154834/original/image-20170130-7669-iwl3ai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154834/original/image-20170130-7669-iwl3ai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A statue of Senator William Fulbright at the University of Arkansas.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cwsteeds/49532953/in/photolist-KvD5di-c2ySaN-dvMsRq-cK1jAo-ba5rQF-ba5rXB-ba5tW6-ba5rNv-aJhdzi-jDhdvi-jYt1Ga-ba5rpD-5nSqr-5nSv7-arDpxZ-nXJh4D">Clinton Steeds</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Today, the Fulbright program is probably the most widely recognized initiative in the world supporting international exchange, facilitating the movement of more than 360,000 students and scholars across more than 160 countries during its <a href="https://us.fulbrightonline.org/about">history</a>. Its value is more symbolic – it represents the United States’ view about how international education can support democracy and encourage positive relationships between nations. </p>
<p>The free flow of students and scholars has served well the interests of the United States, including students from those with differing ideologies. </p>
<p>One of the most famous alumni of the Fulbright program was Russian student <a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/book/43243">Alexander Yakovlev</a>, who came to the U.S. to study at Columbia University in 1958 – the period of the Cold War. That same person would return to the USSR to become a close ally of Mikhail Gorbachev and eventually become the “<a href="http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB168/">father of glasnost</a>,” the political philosophy (along with <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/perestroika-and-glasnost">“Perestroika”</a>) that eventually <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/02/28/iron-curtain-call/">brought down</a> the Iron Curtain. </p>
<p>More recently, during a standoff between the United States and China over the future of blind Chinese political dissident <a href="http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/worldwise/can-universities-manage-risks-to-academic-freedom-in-foreign-outposts/29470">Chen Guangcheng</a>, New York University stepped in to offer him a visiting scholar position in New York, thereby diffusing a tense situation. </p>
<p>Time and again international education has been a critically important soft power tool. </p>
<h2>Students from banned nations</h2>
<p>Coming back to international exchange –– it has played a significant role in promoting peaceful relations between nations for decades. </p>
<p>For most of the 1970s, Iran sent more students to the U.S. than any other country. The <a href="http://www.iie.org/%7E/media/Files/Corporate/Open-Doors/Fact-Sheets-2016/Countries/Iran-Open-Doors-2016.pdf?la=en">peak year</a> was 1979-1980, when more than 50,000 Iranian students came to study in the U.S. </p>
<p>After relations between the two nations deteriorated following the fall of the shah of Iran, the number of students coming to the U.S. dropped dramatically, until there were fewer than 1,700 students in 1998-1999. However, in the 2000s, as relations with the two nations began to warm, the trend finally began to turn around, with the number of students more than doubling from 2010 to 2015. </p>
<p>The other nations on the banned list do not have nearly as robust numbers as Iran, yet they do send students to the U.S. Those numbers are growing overall. Both Iraq and Libya have more than 1,000 students currently studying in the U.S. Although other nations send fewer (there are only 35 Somali students) in total, there were more than 17,300 students from the banned countries studying in the U.S. last year. </p>
<p>What is noteworthy is that was a 7 percent increase over the previous year and a more than 300 percent increase from <a href="http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/International-Students/All-Places-of-Origin/2000-02">15 years ago</a>, when there were only about 4,000 students from those same nations. Iran led with more than 1,800 students, and Syria was number two with more than 700.</p>
<p>In fact, more than 10 percent (about 108,000) of the international students in the U.S. come from the Middle East and North Africa regions, the home to most of the banned countries. When they return home, these students serve as ambassadors of the U.S. and, while here, help us gain a greater appreciation for their culture. </p>
<h2>Declining enrollments?</h2>
<p>How these actions will impact the students is not clear, but we do know that major events can have lasting impact on international education numbers. </p>
<p>For about five years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the total number of international students studying in the U.S. declined. Much of this decline came from <a href="http://www.nea.org/assets/img/PubThoughtAndAction/TAA_05_18.pdf">students</a> in Muslim majority nations, who could either not obtain a visa or chose not apply for it. They also feared they would not be welcomed in the United States. </p>
<p>And this was at a time when the American president, George W. Bush, <a href="http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2002/s021120b.htm">argued</a> that “Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for.” </p>
<p>Data have already suggested that the rhetoric of the current administration has weighed on the minds of students considering where to study abroad. A study by international student recruiting companies prior to the election <a href="http://hechingerreport.org/number-international-students-u-s-universities-hits-new-high-amid-trump-worries/">found</a> that 60 percent of the 40,000 students surveyed in 118 countries would be less inclined to come to the U.S. if Trump won the election (compared to only 3.8 percent who would be less inclined if Clinton won). And that was before the rhetoric turned into reality. </p>
<p>Even though the U.S. still retains the largest global market share of international students, <a href="http://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2014-Indicator%20C4%20(eng).pdf">that market share has been declining gradually</a>. This is due to the increased competition from other nations and international student concerns about safety, cost and hospitality in the United States: In 2000, about one quarter of all international students globally came to the United States. Within a decade, that number had shrunk to 19 percent, and by 2012, the number had dropped to 16 percent.</p>
<h2>Where is this all going?</h2>
<p>An early <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/11/10/implications-trumps-presidential-victory-international-and-undocumented-students">policy paper</a> by the Trump team seemingly called for the elimination of J-1 visas, which allow for international youth to pursue temporary work in the U.S. And the current administration has sent <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/01/30/trump-targets-techs-h1b-visa-hiring-tool/97240588/">signals</a> indicating that it would make it more difficult for immigrants to receive H-1B visas, awarded to individuals with specialized skills. </p>
<p>Both of these programs are used by universities to support student and scholar exchanges. It is not yet clear if the current administration will pursue policies in these area that will affect universities in the same way the ban has done. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154832/original/image-20170130-7659-tzaxz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154832/original/image-20170130-7659-tzaxz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154832/original/image-20170130-7659-tzaxz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154832/original/image-20170130-7659-tzaxz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154832/original/image-20170130-7659-tzaxz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154832/original/image-20170130-7659-tzaxz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154832/original/image-20170130-7659-tzaxz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Temple University student holds up her sign during a protest in Philadelphia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Corey Perrine</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What is clear is that the recent ban has already sent a chilling effect across colleges near and far. Within one day, there were <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/universities-grappling-with-impact-of-trumps-refugee-ban/2017/01/29/a8adfcea-e639-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.83aad0a245d9">reports</a> of students being trapped overseas and in the U.S. An Iranian Ph.D. student at SUNY Stony Brook was detained at JFK and almost <a href="http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/stony-brook-student-held-at-jfk-in-trump-travel-ban-released-1.13032310">deported</a>. </p>
<p>Another Iranian, pursuing his Ph.D. at Yale, was traveling internationally to conduct research, and <a href="http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/colleges-scramble-after-trumps-executive-order-bans-citizens-of-7-muslim-countries/116624">feared</a> that he might not be able to return to his studies even though he was a green card holder (the administration subsequently <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/white-house-official-in-reversal-says-green-card-holders-wont-be-barred.html?_r=0">reversed</a> its ban on permanent residents from those nations). There is no telling how many others are blocked from returning having been away on break between semesters. </p>
<p>Protecting our nation is one of the most important roles of the federal government, and we do need to be thoughtful about how to establish effective immigration polices. However, the broad-based nature of the ban flies in the face of decades of support for the power of international exchange. Even a foreign policy hard line approach would typically be softened by an ongoing support of international exchange. </p>
<p>As Senator Fulbright <a href="https://eca.state.gov/fulbright/about-fulbright/history/j-william-fulbright/j-william-fulbright-quotes">said</a>, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Educational exchange can turn nations into people, contributing as no other form of communication can to the humanizing of international relations.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The motivation for this ban is the concern that we might let in a terrorist. But what if we turn away the next great scientist or peacemaker?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72156/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason E. Lane does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For decades, the US has used international education to support democracy and positive relations with countries. For most of the 1970s, Iran sent more students to America than any other country.Jason E. Lane, Chair and Professor of Educational Policy and Leadership & Co-Director of the Cross-Border Education Research Team, University at Albany, State University of New YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/721662017-01-31T02:23:51Z2017-01-31T02:23:51ZWhat’s gone wrong in the seven countries Trump included in his ban? Essential reads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155002/original/image-20170131-3265-8cfnjt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Syrian children remove rubble Aleppo, Syria.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Hassan Ammar</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Editor’s note: The following is a roundup of archival stories related to Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia.</em></p>
<p>Last week, President Trump signed an executive order temporarily banning citizens from seven countries from entering the U.S. and indefinitely banning Syrian refugees.</p>
<p>The stated aim of <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states">the order</a> is to ensure the U.S. doesn’t allow terrorists into the country. </p>
<p>Why did the Trump administration single out these seven countries? As many commentators have pointed out, they are all majority Muslim. Another commonality is war.</p>
<h2>Iraq and Syria</h2>
<p>The destabilizing force of the militant organization Islamic State (IS or ISIS) has been especially strong in Iraq and Syria. In June 2014, IS shook the world by overrunning the Iraqi city of Mosul. Taking advantage of political weaknesses and ethic division in Iraq and neighboring Syria, IS grew rapidly to the point where 10 million people lived under its power, <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27838034">according to the BBC</a>.</p>
<p>The Syrian government and Russia and – acting separately – a U.S.-led coalition pushed back against IS. They dropped tens of thousands of airstrikes that weakened IS and leveled Syrian cities. By late October 2016, IS had been diminished to the point that University of California professor James L. Gelvin considered <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-the-islamic-state-finished-five-possible-scenarios-67676">five possible scenerios</a> for its demise.</p>
<p>But the violence displaced more than three million Iraqis in the span of 18 months prior to the U.S. presidential election. This left humanitarian aid agencies struggling to meet the demand for assistance, wrote Thomas Acaro of Elon University in November. His <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-iraq-and-syria-humanitarian-aid-workers-struggle-within-a-strained-system-67604">survey of international aid workers</a> revealed stress in the system:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“A lack of safety is an increasingly palpable fact of life. They report seeing friends and colleagues get raped, kidnapped and, yes, even beheaded.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Airstrikes in November 2016 also destroyed the two largest hospitals in the Syrian city of Aleppo. M. Zaher Sahloul, a physician and professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, traveled there as a volunteer and wrote about <a href="https://theconversation.com/inside-aleppos-medical-nightmare-and-why-we-must-act-67434">the medical nightmare affecting thousands of civilians</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Physicians for Human Rights has recorded 382 attacks on medical facilities, of which 344 were carried out by the regime and Russia; they were also responsible for the deaths of 703 of the 757 medical personnel killed in the war so far. Most of Aleppo’s doctors have left.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Libya</h2>
<p>After Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was overthrown by a militia-led uprising in 2011, the U.S. and other Western countries supported efforts to elect a new, democratic government. By February of 2015, the U.S. was bombing parts of Libya in an effort to extinguish IS strongholds in the North African country. <a href="https://theconversation.com/libya-and-isis-what-happened-37801">What went wrong</a>? Mieczyslaw Boduszynski,
a former U.S. diplomat who worked in Libya during the post-Gadhafi transition, explained:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Over time, the vast unguarded borders and lawlessness of post-Gadhafi Libya provided the ideal environment for jihadists of various stripes to set up bases. For IS, Libya provide[d] an opportunity not only to extend the caliphate, but to do so far away from coalition airstrikes in Syria and Iraq.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Iran</h2>
<p>While threatened by the spread of IS in neighboring Iraq, Iran’s government celebrated a victory in 2015 when the the Obama administration and five other countries agreed to lift sanctions against Iran in return for the country’s voluntary curbing of its nuclear ability. </p>
<p>Scholars at Indiana University, Bloomington <a href="https://theconversation.com/money-trumps-fear-in-reactions-to-wests-nuclear-accord-with-iran-44749">wrote</a>: “As sanctions fall away, Iran should rise swiftly back into the major leagues, propelled by larger energy exports that could top $100 billion a year, the release of hitherto frozen funds and a highly educated and motivated workforce.”</p>
<p>But the deal may have been short-lived. As David Mednicoff of University of Massachusetts Amherst <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-and-tillerson-face-the-middle-east-68695">observed</a>, “Trump has … promised to renegotiate the multilateral treaty that stopped Iran’s move toward nuclear weapons.”</p>
<p>Mednicoff also noted another potential source of instability: Iran’s relationships in the region.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Arab Gulf states frequently express anxiety around Iran’s power. They see Iran as a threat to their countries’ autonomy and to the majority Sunni Islam that differs from the assertive minority Shi’ism central to Iran’s political ideology.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Yemen</h2>
<p>Civil war has been raging for nearly two years in Yemen. The U.N. has called the conflict a “major calamity.” </p>
<p>Vincent Durac of the University College Dublin <a href="https://theconversation.com/yemen-a-calamity-at-the-end-of-the-arabian-peninsula-67954">traces the origins of the war</a> to 2011 when a rebellion unseated the country’s president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, whose party had dominated the country’s political life since Yemeni unification in 1990. But what really triggered the conflict was the years of failed transitional negotiations that followed Saleh’s ousting.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“More than 10,000 people have lost their lives, while more than 20 million (of a total population of some 27 million) are in need of humanitarian assistance. More than 3 million people are internally displaced, while hundreds of thousands have fled the country altogether. There are reports of looming famine as the conflict destroys food production in the country.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Somalia and Sudan</h2>
<p>Robert Rotberg of Harvard’s Kennedy School suggested another reason why IS may have asserted control in northern African countries. “Terrorists are in it as much for the loot as for the ideology,” <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-little-understood-connection-between-islamic-terror-and-drug-profits-53602">he wrote</a>. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“ISIS- and al-Qaida-linked groups in Africa prosper by trafficking drugs across the Sahara and by offering "protection” to smugglers who have long been trading illicit goods throughout the continent. Although Westerners tend to think of these groups as driven by ideology, new recruits may be more attracted by opportunities to make money.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Simon Reich of Rutgers, Newark <a href="https://theconversation.com/has-world-war-three-begun-55201">cautions that</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“we may have been entering a new form of global war for the last three decades – in slow motion. This war is similar in some respects to prior incarnations, and significantly different in others. First, all wars have a geographic fulcrum. This one is in the Middle East and North Africa. Its epicenter spreads from Libya and Egypt to the Persian Gulf and Turkey.”</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72166/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
This roundup from our archives explains some of the major conflicts unfolding in the seven countries singled out by Trump’s executive order.Emily Costello, Director of Collaborations + Local News, The Conversation USDanielle Douez, Associate Editor, Politics + SocietyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.