ISLAMOPHOBIA IN THE UNITED STATES: A CASE OF DONALD TRUMP’S

TRAVEL BAND POLICY

Afrizal Maula (016201605006)

1. INTRODUCTION

In this globalization era, religious concerns have become one of the driving factors for
ideological movements with a certain belief whether it is good or radical. Such an example we
can see from the present time is the movement of radical religious extremists from the Middle
East country known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Long before the 21st century,
there have been several terrorist organizations that have become the world’s threat. One of the
famous incidents of a terrorist attack happens on September 11, 2001, where nineteen men
associated with the Islamic extremist group Al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial American
airlines loaded with fuel for cross country flights and more than 265 passengers where they
carried out suicide attacks against targets in the United States. The plane crashed into several
different places in the U.S. to destroy the buildings and region that killed almost 3,000 people
including the 19 militants during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which triggered major U.S. initiatives
to combat terrorism and defined the presidency of George W. Bush.

This incident changes the world’s perspective towards Islam and its way especially for
the U.S. where they have suffered the most. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), there has been an increase in hate crimes post-September 11 tragedy towards the Muslim
in America. The report found that incidents targeting people, institutions, and businesses
identified with the Islamic faith increased from 28 from 2001 to 481 in 2002; a jump of a total
1,600 percent. But FBI figures show that it only represents a small portion of the true number of
hate crimes, because many of the estimated 7 million Muslims in the U.S. do not report such
incidents to authorities (Anderson, 2005). Then under the presidency of Donald Trump’s
administration, the policy of the U.S. against the radical Muslim extremists is increasing due to
maintaining the security of the American citizens and to balance the relationship between the
Middle Eastern countries. The U.S. Trump’s policy in combating the Islamic radical terror to the
U.S. and to prevent the tragic mistake that happens in 9/11 began when he signs the Executive
Order 13769, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,
also known as the Muslim ban or the travel ban on January 2017. This issue is important to be
described because it includes the way on how the U.S. will protect their country’s from foreign
attacks and how the policy will impact the external and internal public opinion towards the U.S.
power. Therefore, the author decided to choose this topic as our objective of research in order to
fully understand how public diplomacy works in the state. In this paper, the subject of public
diplomacy affecting the state’s relations and the intelligence institutions that handle the situation
will be discussed. Providing actual data of how Trump’s administration will address the Islamic
radical movement in the U.S. and how it will impact the mainstream Muslim countries
perspectives towards the U.S. after the travel ban has been issued.

2. METHOD

In this research, the author used the qualitative method and library research. Qualitative
method is a method or technique in acquiring data through a descriptive analysis of certain
content in order to provide a general description of the research background and as a material for
discussion of research results. According to Samuel Birkin (2008), the term ‘qualitative’ defines
a narrative or analytical richness, a method that reveals more detail and nuance from a case
found by reducing it to quantitative measures (Kotz & Prakash, 2008). The data obtained using
the qualitative method are through case study research, record-keeping analysis, and interview.
Also, the data collected are from various sources such as interviews, journals, books, documents,
articles, and research. The secondary data are gathered from various online sources that consist
of governmental and non-governmental websites. By using qualitative method, it has given
contribution to the author in writing this thesis which are to (1) increase the understanding of
what is happening, (2) understanding of who and what are being affected in certain way, (3)
analyze why particular impacts are occurring, and (4) assessing the particular situation to provide
a comprehensive recommendation.

2.1.Theoretical Framework
2.1.1. Integrated Threat Theory
 The involvement of grouping and categorization between Muslim and American
citizens is what drives the integrated threat theory to be used. Integrated threat theory or also
called an intergroup threat theory is a theory especially relevant to the study of attitudes
toward immigrants. The integrated-threat theory identifies two major types of threats that
individuals register from their outgroup members: realistic (material), and symbolic (ideal)
threats. Firstly, realistic threats relate to economic, political and physical threats perceived by
individuals in their outgroups. A large body of research indicates that the likelihood of
outgroup prejudice increases in the presence of realistic threats – that is when groups of equal
or unequal status (Duckitt 1992) are in competition over material resources. These social
psychological perspectives offer valuable insights into the processes that lead to prejudice.
However, they are confined to the individual level. In other words, they demonstrate the
extent to which individual differences influence the likelihood of prejudice against
outgroups. First, the realistic group conflict theory argues that immigrants pose (real or
perceived) threats to the economic and political power of the host society members,
especially in the presence of fierce competition over scarce resources (Sherif et al. 1961,
Esses, Jackson, and Armstrong 1998). Concerns about labor market competition (Scheve and
Slaughter 2001, Mayda 2006), or the disproportionate redistribution of the social welfare
funds (Hanson, Scheve, and Slaughter 2007) are regarded as the typical examples of realistic
threat perceptions in the context of immigration. Secondly, the theory of symbolic politics
underlines the importance of the threats to the prevailing cultural values and norms and
argues that the "ideal interests" are more influential on outgroup prejudice than material ones
(Sears 1996, Chong 2000). The symbolic threats refer to the concerns about the protection of
cultural values or norms. Symbolic politics theory holds that there is a causal link between
symbolic threat perceptions and outgroup prejudice. It argues that beliefs, values, and other
non-material "symbolic predispositions" gained during childhood have greater explanatory
power over outgroup prejudice (Sears and Funk 1990). In other words, from the perspective
of symbolic politics theory, ideal interests are more influential on majority-minority relations
than the material ones (Sears 1996, Chong 2000). Especially in the case of Muslim
immigrants, scholars find symbolic threat perceptions to be more influential than realistic
ones (McLaren and Johnson 2007), due primarily to the (real or perceived) distance between
Islamic and United States’ values.

Socially-acquired identities and their roles in satisfying the material and nonmaterial
human needs also play a role in shaping intergroup prejudice. The social identity theory, in
particular, holds that human beings are inclined to achieve and maintain a positive self-image
(Abrams and Hogg 1988), which they aim to derive from their group membership (Tajfel et
al. 1971). More specifically, social categorization theory extends on the social identity theory
that will branch into the integrated threat theory, by arguing that humans engage in intergroup
categorization (Tajfel et al. 1971), and the consequences of that, would lead to ingroup
preference and outgroup discrimination (Tajfel and Turner 1979). A set of social psychology
experiments conducted in the 1970s and 1980s reveal that human beings are very quick to
draw group lines for superficial reasons and discriminate against other people merely on the
basis of these unsubstantial group memberships.

This social identity theory is more than being one of the many perspectives within the
social psychology literature. It explains and underlines the basic human inclination to think in
terms of us and them. It thus serves as a basis for a number of other intergroup relations
theories which build on that general perspective. Among these theories, the integrated threat
theory is especially relevant in the context of the attitudes toward immigrants.

2.1.2. Concept: Track 1 & Track 1.5 Diplomacy

The U.S. has been implementing their policy that bans the Muslims from entering the
territory of the U.S. This means there are relations conducted between the government of the
U.S. with the institutions that have the authority of handling the process of migration outward
and also inward of the United State. Due to this condition, track-1.5 diplomacy is used in the
method of executing the public diplomacy which is travel ban where the government should
coordinate with the airport authorities, migrations authorities, and also the border
administration body that has a non-governmental body in them. Apart from the Muslim ban
policy in the U.S., it turns out that Donald Trump has included an exclusion to a particular
state that has the Muslim population to enter the U.S. Saudi Arabia, one of the largest oil
 producer countries, is one country that Donald Trump put in his list of Muslim country that is
allowed to enter the U.S. This is due to Donald Trumps’ business relations with Saudi
Arabia. This would make use of track-one diplomacy in this diplomatic relation that includes
the government-to-government relations between the U.S. with Saudi Arabia.

3. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

3.1. Travel ban: Donald Trump’s strategy on limiting the movements of Muslim in
America

The impact of the 9/11 terrorist attack is still continuing and given the anxiety of the U.S.
government regarding their security to protect their nation against any foreign attacks. One of the
examples to prevent other Islamic radical movements in the U.S. is through the Executive Order
13769 also known as Trump's Proclamation or commonly known as the travel ban or Muslim
ban. This petition was signed by Donald Trump on January 27th, 2017 then it was superseded by
Executive Order of 13780; it has the same objective of Protecting the Nation from Foreign
Terrorist Entry into the U.S. but the new proclamation places limits on travel to the U.S. from 5
majority Muslim countries as well as North Korea, Venezuela, and the Republic of Chad.
Although two non-Muslim majority countries, Venezuela and North Korea were included in the
proclamation, their addition had almost no impact on the number of those affected by the
proclamation. Venezuela's restrictions were limited to only specific officials of the government
and their families. Similarly, there is almost no immigration from North Korea to the U.S. The
proclamation, on the other hand, categorically bars all immigrant visas from Muslim majority
countries for individuals. As a result, Muslims and individuals from Muslim majority countries
are disproportionately discriminated against by the Proclamation. The 5 majority Muslim
countries are Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia where each of the respective countries have
problems of their own with terrorist group and civil wars within their countries (Bier, 2017). This
meant visitors from the respective countries would be prevented from entering the United States.
It also placed a 120-day ban on all incoming refugees. This policy has picked numerous interests
from the public both Americans and worldwide that support as well as condemned Trump’s
travel ban policy.
 Under what the Proclamation refers to as the case-by-case "waiver" process, the only
hope for a visa for affected individuals is that a waiver should function as an exception allowing
the issuance of a visa for otherwise prohibited individuals. The burden is on the applicant to
demonstrate that they meet the following three criteria: (1) denying them entry to the United
States would cause them undue hardship; (2) their entry would not pose a threat to the United
States ' national security; and (3) their entry would be in the United States ' national interest.
Apparently, these broad requirements should be met by thousands of families and applicants. The
process of waiver was elusive, opaque, and arbitrary, however. The U.S. released initial data in
February 2018. Department of State ('DOS') to Senator Van Hollen showed that all but two (2)
individual visas out of 6,555 had been denied between December 08, 2017 and February 15,
2015, reflecting a 99.97% dismissal rate. Subsequent data provided to Senator Van Hollen by
DOS over the next several months showed that approximately 2% of waivers are granted; still
reflecting almost 98% that are either pending or denied. Despite ongoing government
representations that listed country nationals were "not banned" because they could obtain a visa
through the waiver process, the implementation of the Proclamation and the released data
confirms that it is intended to reject and ban as many individuals as possible. Indeed, a former
U.S. consular officer has stated that "the waiver process is a superficial and wasteful bureaucratic
exercise designed to hide the true intention of the travel ban: to keep an arbitrary group of
Muslim travelers and immigrants from ever reaching the U.S. shores." At least two federal class
action lawsuits are currently challenging the unlawful implementation of the Proclamation, and
several U.S. Congressional representatives have proposed policies calling for accountability for
the so-called waiver process (CCR, 2019).

The travel ban also became a big concern in public diplomacy because it involves the
overall public of whether the mainstream Muslim within the U.S. and all over the world as well
as the sympathetic non-Muslim support against Islamophobia. This has shown the U.S. concerns
against another foreign terrorist attack and as a continuous policy on the ‘War on Terror’ from
the Iran invasion done by Trump’s predecessor. The War on Terror refers to the United States of
America and its allies fighting against groups that consider the United States and Western
countries' special defense and security started in September 2001 after the incident of the 9/11
terrorist attack.

As we can see, an anti-Muslim narrative has shaped policy-making of the U.S. for
decades. With a travel ban in its place, it will only make it worse. Especially for the U.S. Muslim
who fear they might not see their families again. Many Muslim Americans are hesitant to leave
the U.S. for fear of not being able to return, whether from the five banned countries or elsewhere.
Others wonder when or if they can ever see their relatives again from these countries. This ban
has divided parents from children, husband wives, and extended family from one another,
interrupting the lives of students, medical patients, and working professionals who are unable to
enter. There is fear that the ruling could create loopholes that could be used by our ruthless
administration to redefine citizenship for all Muslims or perceived to be Muslim. The national
security apparatus that relies on the story that tanned-skin and foreign Muslims are the greatest
threat to American ideals, works so smoothly as we choose to believe in it as a nation. Its natural
culmination is the idea that Muslims entering the U.S. need to be "completely shut down" in
order to keep the state safe (Islam, 2018). The political leadership has bought into this scam with
the approval stamp of the Supreme Court.

3.2.Findings

The Travel Ban policy that Donald Trump has implemented has triggered several
responses from the public. Since the travel ban is a very sensitive issue where it includes culture,
religion, and also norms of humanity that would automatically receive a negative response from
the public nationally and internationally. As expected before, this policy has received several
negative responses from the public of America. Even though there is still positive response from
the Trump supporters, negative responses are dominating the competition inside the U.S. since,
in America itself, there are approximately 3.45 million Muslims that hold the citizenship of the
U.S. The public opinion in the U.S. has showed fluctuated response towards the travel ban policy
proven by a poll conducted by the public that specifically asked: “Do you support or oppose
suspending immigration from ‘terror-prone’ regions, even if it means turning away refugees from
those regions?”. The final result of that poll shows 50% of people responded by supporting the
policy, 44% are against it, and the rest offered no solutions. The poll was conducted before
Donald Trump officially signed the executive order which was in November 2016. In February
2017, the same poll was reconducted and the result changed clockwise with the supporter
respondent of 44% and 50% were against it.

After the signing of the executive order by Donald Trump, the number of protests and
demonstrations increased gradually. Interestingly, they are not coming only from the Muslim
citizens of the U.S. but also from various backgrounds of people. They were no longer protesting
in the name of religion only but in the name of humanity. As Donald Trump shouted out to
protect the U.S. from terrorism and to keep America safe, the history of terrorism in the U.S. has
proven to him that the travel ban policy is not the most effective way, even slightly effective in
countering terrorism in America. A list of successful and attempted terrorist attacks linked to
radical Islamic ideology in the U.S. over the past 20 years and an assessment of whether the
travel ban about to go into effect might have prevented them is one of a strong example and
proof of the ineffectiveness of travel ban policy. In August 1997, two men with Jordanian
passports were arrested in New York before they could bomb public transit in the city. While
Jordan is not on the list of the travel ban. In December 1999, a man from Algeria was arrested
after entering the U.S. in Washington. His car was loaded with explosives; he planned to attack
Los Angeles International Airport. The man was detained at the border. In September 2001, the
attacks in New York and Washington, committed by 19 individuals from Saudi Arabia, the
United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon. None of the countries were on the list. In December
2001, Richard Reid, a British citizen, attempted to light a shoe bomb on a plane to Miami.
Britain is not on the list. In January 2017, a man opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale airport. The
man was a citizen of the U.S. and was born in the U.S. There are other cases that relate to the
terrorism happened in the U.S. but it shows that the travel ban is not one of the solutions to solve
it.

4. CONCLUSION

Overall, as part of the U.S. public diplomacy of immigration to the Muslim society; the
travel ban has risen ire and controversies and even supporters. The perspective and opinion
between different individuals of American citizens and the government of international society in
regards to Islam as a threat are still uncertain. It’s because, since the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., it
has shaped the way how the government treats Muslim and their policy-making has been
influenced by their fear of radical Islamist extremists for the good of the state security.

Also, Trump's travel ban policy has increased the anxiety and awareness of the state
government to focus on security to prevent the mistake of 9/11 to not ever happen again and to
prevent another terrorist attack. Still, even though the policy is restricting several Middle Eastern
countries that become a threat to the U.S. to enter the state but one of the countries which are
Saudi Arabia has been excluded on the list. It’s because of the good cooperation between the
U.S. and Saudi Arabia in terms of trade and security. It can be seen on the trade of crude oil
between the states and the U.S. reinforcement to Saudrki’s government to combat the terrorist
activities in the Middle East. Lastly, the U.S. immigration policy has become the world's concern
because the impact is not only to the Muslim restriction to the specific Middle East states but the
other states who are majority Muslim in population are also receiving the impact of the travel
ban. This means that Trump’s diplomacy to the Muslim World is not as good as it was from his
predecessor but it increases the chance of more Islamophobes policy of the U.S. to the Muslim
and the travel ban to continue.

As part of the state foreign policy, the author recommends several solutions that the U.S.
can do for its better diplomacy with the Muslim society in addressing the terrorist issue:

1) Remove the travel ban policy in order to form good cooperation with the Muslim society
to earn a good perspective from non-Middle Eastern countries with majority Muslim in
population.
2) As a hegemonic state, the U.S. need to implement another way of combating the terrorist
threat by helping the Middle East countries to deal with their problem of fighting the
terrorist group through military power because it is a more direct and fruitful way on
maintaining the relationship with the Muslim society where at the same time eradicating
the threat of radical religious movement.
 REFERENCES

Abrams, Dominic; and Michael A. Hogg. 1988. “Comments on the Motivational Status
of Self-Esteem in Social Identity and Intergroup Discrimination.” European Journal of Social
Psychology 18(4): 317–334.

Anderson, C. (2005, November 26). FBI: Hate Crimes Vs. Muslims Rise. Retrieved from The
Associated Press: https://apnews.com/5e249fb6e4dc184720e3428c9d0bd046

Bier, D. (2017, December 14). Trump's Muslim Ban is Working. Muslim Immigration Slumps.
Retrieved from Newsweek:
https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-muslim-ban-working-muslim-immigration-slumps-7
47922

Chong, Dennis. 2000. Rational Lives: Norms and Values in Politics and Society. Chicago
and London: University of Chicago Press.

CNN, Muslim teen Ahmed Mohamed creates clock, shows teachers, gets arrested (daring), 16
September 2015,
<http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/16/us/texas-student-ahmed-muslim-clock-bomb/>.
CNN, Ben Carson: U.S. shouldn't elect a Muslim president (daring), 21 September 2015,
<http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/20/politics/ben-carson-muslim-president-2016/>.
DallasNews, Ahmed Mohamed swept up, 'hoax bomb' charges swept away as Irving teen's story
floods social media (daring), 15 September 2015,
<http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/northwest-dallas-county/headlines/2
0150915-irving-ninth-grader-arrested-after-taking-homemade-clock-to-school.ece>.
Duckitt, John H. 1992. The Social Psychology of Prejudice. New York: Praeger.

Esses, Victoria M.; Lynne M. Jackson; and Tamara L. Armstrong. 1998. “Intergroup
Competition and Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration: An Instrumental Model of
Group Conflict.” Journal of Social Issues 54(4): 699–724.
Gladstone, R., & Sugiyama, S. (2018, July 1). Trump’s Travel Ban: How It Works and Who Is
Affected. Retrieved from The New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/world/americas/travel-ban-trump-how-it-works.ht
ml

Hanson, Gordon; Kenneth Scheve; and Matthew Slaughter. 2007. “Public Finance and Individual
Preferences over Globalization Strategies.” Economics and Politics 19(1): 1–33.

Islam, N. (2018, June 27). An anti-Muslim narrative has shaped policy for decades. The travel
ban will make it worse. Retrieved from VOX:
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/6/27/17510560/travel-ban-muslim-trump-islamop
hobia

Johnson, J. (2015, December 7). Trump calls for ‘total and complete shutdown of Muslims
entering the United States’. Retrieved from The Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-f
or-total-and-complete-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-the-united-states/?noredirect=on&u
tm_term=.c2de04c3f4f9

M. McLaughlin,’Keith Ellison, First Muslim Congressman, Carries Clock in Solidarity with

Ahmed.’, HUFFPOST POLITICS (online), 16 September 2015,
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/keith-ellison-carries-clock-ahmed-mohamed_55f9
e9a4e4b00310edf5ae14>.
M. Teague, ‘Ahmed Mohamed is tired, excited to meet Obama, -and wants his clock back.’,
theguardian (online), 18 September 2015,
<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/17/ahmed-mohamed-is-tired-excited-to-
meet-obama-and-wants-his-clock-back>.
M. Ibrahim, ‘Never a Muslim President? Minessota Boy, 12, tells Ben Carson He’s Wrong’,
MPRnews (online), 23 September 2015,
<http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/09/23/video-response-muslim-president>.
 Mayda, Anna Maria. 2006. “Who Is Against Immigration? A Cross-Country
Investigation of Individual Attitudes toward Immigrants.” Review of Economics and Statistics
88(3): 510–530.

McLaren, Lauren; and Mark Johnson. 2007. “Resources, Group Conflict and Symbols:
Explaining Anti-Immigration Hostility in Britain.” Political Studies 55(4): 709–732.

New York Post, Ben Carson: American’s President Cannot Be A Muslim (daring), 20 September
2015, <http://nypost.com/2015/09/20/ben-carson-a-us-president-cannot-be-muslim/>.
Reinl, J. (2018, January 26). ANALYSIS: Trump's 'Muslim Ban' one year on. Retrieved from
Middle East Eye:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/analysis-trumps-muslim-ban-one-year

Scheve, Kenneth F.; and Matthew J. Slaughter. 2001. “Labor Market Competition and
Individual Preferences Over Immigration Policy.” Review of Economics and Statistics 83(1):
133–145.

Sears, David O. 1996. “Symbolic Politics: A Socio-Psychological Theory.” In

Explorations in Political Psychology, ed. Shanto Iyengar and William J. McGuire. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press. pp. 113–149.

Sherif, Muzafer; O. J. Harvey; B. Jack White; William R. Hood; and Carolyn W. Sherif.
1961. The Robbers Cave Experiment: Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. Middletown, CT:
Wesleyan University Press

The Guardian, Ben Carson says no Muslim should ever become US president (daring), 20
September
2015,<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/20/ben-carson-no-muslim-us-presi
dent-trump-obama>.
The Muslim Ban: Discriminatory Impacts and Lack of Accountability. (2019, January 15).
Retrieved from Center for Constitutional Rights:
https://ccrjustice.org/home/get-involved/tools-resources/publications/muslim-ban-discrim
inatory-impacts-and-lack
 Tajfel, Henri. 1981. Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, Henri; M. G. Billig; R. P. Bundy; and Claude Flament. 1971. “Social

Categorization and Intergroup Behaviour.” European Journal of Social Psychology 1(2):
149–178.

Tajfel, Henri; and John C. Turner. 1979. “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.”
In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. Stephen Worchel and William G. Austin.
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. pp. 33 – 47.