David Everett Marko. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. Volume 39, Issue 2. June 2019.
Introduction
Muslim immigration to the United States and Europe has risen significantly over the last several decades. As do other immigrants, Muslim immigrants seek a better life for themselves and for their families. While religious and cultural differences may make it “more difficult for Muslim immigrants to integrate fully,” the recent dark turn in political rhetoric and policies by the U.S. President Donald J. Trump and others appears to have unleashed a much more dangerous hostility that goes beyond ordinary xenophobia.
And while the consequences involve suffering, fear, and further alienation among groups on all sides, it also demonstrates a degree of resilience among Muslim communities. Nevertheless, in the near term, there is no denying that intense opposition to Islam and hence to Muslim immigration is currently “roiling the political agendas of democracies on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.”
This paper reviews the effects of Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies, such as his travel ban, and how these affect contemporary Muslim immigration experiences. The paper also surveys the wider scene in Europe in terms of their impact on dominant cultures, public policies, and assimilation. It further focuses on the relationships between public attitudes about Muslims, hate crimes and violence against Muslims, public policy changes, and the political reactions and attitudes of Muslims in the U.S. and Europe. Finally, this paper will contrast some differences between U.S. and European Muslims in terms of their responses to these bigoted attacks, as well as some differences in anti-Muslim sentiments between U.S. and Europeans nationalists.
Trump and the Travel Ban
On December 7, 2015,
… following terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino then-candidate Trump [called] for a ‘Muslim Ban’ when he published a ‘Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration.’ The statement explained that Trump was ‘calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on … . We have no choice.’
In 2017, the ban became reality after a series of executive orders adopted early in the Trump presidency. The effect has been significant for Muslims in the U.S. and abroad.
The government can now deny visas to nationals of the six banned countries, including people who have a “bona fide” relationship with a person or entity in the United States. This includes relatives of both U.S. citizens and green card holders from the listed countries as well as other visa applicants. The ban affects 150 million people, the vast majority of whom are Muslim.
The actual effect of the travel ban is not limited to travel restrictions from a hand-full of countries. While Muslim immigration into the U.S. is a fraction of the level of Muslim immigration flowing into Europe, in all categories, the total number of Muslim immigrants entering the U.S. after Trump’s policies were enacted has drastically reduced immigration, affecting as well temporary visas, immigrant visas, and refugees. Among the most vulnerable group, refugees, the decrease has been over 90%since Trump became president. In just the last year, the numbers of refugees fell from 22,900 in all of 2017-1,800 in the first half of 2018. It is worth noting that much of this overall decrease is not the result of actual policies, such as “extreme vetting,” but because many Muslims are no longer applying for visas to the U.S., even as visitors.
Furthermore, the rhetoric around Trump’s campaign went well beyond the technical call for policy changes relating to visas issued for a handful of countries. His campaign’s traveling circus was so inflammatory that it was the political equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. He attacked Syrian refugees as a “secret army,” falsely claiming numbers as high as 200,000 people. He asserted they are linked to the terror group ISIS. He compared them to the “Trojan Horse” and instigated fear that Muslims were sent to destroy America. On multiple other occasions, he called for closing mosques in America, claimed “Islam hates us”; said Islam is a “sickness” and Muslims are a “sick people”; asserted Muslim Americans danced and cheered to the collapse of the Twin Towers; proposed the formation of a Muslim database; called for the domestic surveillance of Muslims and of American mosques; supported the murder of innocent family members of terrorists and made many other inflammatory statements against Muslims in general including American Muslims. It is in this context that Trump’s call for a Muslim travel ban resonated in both the U.S. and in Europe.
Effects in the U.S.
In addition to the obvious and direct consequences on public policy, i.e. the decrease in Muslim immigration, Trump’s rhetoric-turned-policy has rippled through U.S. culture. First, there are signs the rhetoric has exacerbated anti-Muslim hate crimes and hostility against Muslims in the U.S. Since Trump’s 2015 statements, the rise of anti-Muslim violence has increased so dramatically that the number of incidents in 2015 and 2016 match and surpass, respectively, the spike in Muslim hate crimes that occurred immediately after 9-11.
In 2017, the rate of violence against Muslims increased fifteen percent over the previous year, according to a recent study by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Admittedly, there was a trend in the rise of anti-Muslim American rhetoric that pre-dates Trump’s initial call for a “complete ban” on Muslim immigration. Nevertheless, the spike in violence is evident. Research suggests that his rhetoric taps into a nexus between “old fashioned racism” and Americans’ support for his Muslim policies. Anecdotal incidences are numerous. One author reports as follows:
The Southern Poverty Law Center … collected anecdotes about hundreds of incidents of hate and intimidation towards a range of groups in the five days post-election [of Trump]. These included an account of a Muslim woman on an Oregon commuter train who was confronted by a group of teenagers who called her a terrorist, threatened that Trump was going to deport her, and told her she could not wear her hijab anymore; in Gwinnett County, Georgia, a Muslim high school teacher received a note saying that her headscarf “isn’t allowed anymore” and that she should hang herself with it. The stories have not abated; from the end of January 2017 through the end of March, there were approximately 32 anti-Muslim and anti-Arab incidents, or an average of one every other day.
The consequences are not limited to mere increases in the incidences of violence. Since Trump launched his political campaign, there has been a three-fold rise in the number of anti-Muslim hate groups. This expansion of anti-Muslim violence and hate groups most certainly undercuts Muslim Americans’ ability to assimilate.
Second, there are ongoing efforts to expand beyond the travel ban through various state and local governmental public policy efforts. For example, in 2017, 14 states introduced anti-Sharia legislation. Ironically, some states are attempting to utilize laws originally enacted to prevent the anonymity of the KKK to now prevent Muslim women from wearing hijabs. The building of mosques has also become a target by some local officials who are now using zoning laws to frustrate religious freedom. While these examples existed prior to the rise of Trump, recent trends indicate an exacerbation of these policies.
As with all communication, there are senders and receivers. The message being sent to the American Muslim community is clear:
[T]hat the President openly discriminates against their faith and has instituted policies that embody this prejudice and bigotry. It will separate Muslims in the United States from their family members abroad. It takes away the ability of U.S. citizens and green card holders to live with, or even be visited by, spouses, parents, children, grandparents, and other family members. Among other things, it will exclude friends and family from weddings, graduations, and funerals; prevent grandparents, uncles, and aunts from holding and caring for newborns; deny final visits to ailing relatives; deprive American audiences and scholars of the ability to hear from and collaborate with individuals from the banned countries; and bar talented, promising young people from U.S. universities and companies.
The Response of Muslim Americans
In response to the prevailing anti-Muslim rhetoric and resulting hostile climate, one could reasonably expect a community under siege might pull away from the larger society. Interestingly, this does not appear to be the case with Muslims in America. Many Muslim Americans engaged the system through orthodox political activities. Muslim American civic activism has now risen to unprecedented levels. More Muslims are running for political office than ever before, such as the inspiring examples of newly elected members of the U.S. House of Representatives, Ilham Omar and Rashida Tlaib, both young Muslim women representing their respective Congressional districts. These young neophytes are partially motivated by opposition to what they perceive as anti-Muslim policies and attitudes. Correspondingly, there is also a significant increase in voting by Muslim Americans. Seventy-five percent of Muslim Americans are registered to vote and that number has increased by fifteen percentage points in just the last two years since Trump’s rise, evidencing continued activism among members of the Muslim community. This rise in political activity should not be surprising considering that, despite the hatred, prejudice, discrimination, and Islamophobia, a majority of Muslim Americans are highly optimistic about their future in America.
According to the findings from Pew Research Center’s 2017 survey of Muslim Americans:
The early days of Donald Trump’s presidency have been an anxious time for many Muslim Americans, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. Overall, Muslims in the United States perceive a lot of discrimination against their religious group, are leery of Trump and think their fellow Americans do not see Islam as part of mainstream U.S. society. At the same time, however, Muslim Americans express a persistent streak of optimism and positive feelings (emphasis added). Overwhelmingly, they say they are proud to be Americans, believe that hard work generally brings success in this country and are satisfied with the way things are going in their own lives – even if they are not satisfied with the direction of the country as a whole.
Indeed, 9 out of 10 U.S. Muslims are proud to be American. However, American Muslims
… express concerns and worries about the future of the country and their place in American society in the wake of Donald Trump’s election as President. Most are dissatisfied with the direction the country is going, which is a reversal of opinion from 2011.
In fact, since 2016 the percentage of Muslim Americans who are satisfied with the direction of the country has fallen from 63% to 27%. Most believe anti-Muslim discrimination is prevalent in American society. Nevertheless, they persist. “President Trump may have said he wants to ban Muslims from entering America, but it would be impossible to take the America out of Muslims.” “Muslim immigrant assimilation proceeds as they continue to enjoy similar or greater socio-economic status and levels of education than the average American.” They remain engaged both inside and outside of their communities. Trump’s attacks do not appear to have adversely impacted their overall social and cultural position.
A possible explanation for the resilience of American Muslim communities to remain engaged and to enjoy broad relationships outside their immigrant communities is the fact that they are such a small minority in the U.S.—approximately 1% of all Americans—and are ethnically and racially diverse. Another explanation, which seems quite significant, is the overall feelings and attitudes of Americans toward Muslims and Islam. While anti-Muslim rhetoric and hate-crimes are increasing, that extremism is not reflected in overall attitudes. By January 2017, the share of Americans “who associate Islam with violence has declined 9 percentage points, from 50%, since September 2014.” Warm feelings toward Muslims have increased during the same period and have significantly increased across the board for all other groups except evangelical Christians. Overall, a majority of all American communities say they want “to live in a country where no one is targeted for their religious beliefs.” And large majorities of Americans support protecting the civil rights of American Muslims (83%), oppose banning mosques (79%), oppose surveillance of mosques (63%), oppose a Muslim ban (66%), believe Muslims are not responsible for violence carried out by a Muslim (69%), and believe Muslims face religious discrimination (65%).
This juxtaposition between increased anti-Muslim rhetoric and hate crimes by a few, on the one hand, and the more tolerant attitudes of the majority of Americans, on the other hand, underscores the image of an America where a small group of fringe, bigoted extremists are trying, and if the data is accurate, failing to stop assimilation of Muslim Americans into the culture. Thus, Trump’s policies and rhetoric are unlikely to succeed in the long run if their purpose is to remove Islam and Muslims from the bounty of American society.
There is also a fundamental delusion playing out here in that the majority of Americans as established in the polling data above are being defined by the words and actions of the minority. One of the hallmarks of anti-Muslim rhetoric by Trump and others is the generalization that Islam is the terror threat because of the criminal acts of a few. Likewise, small groups of Muslim extremists attack Western targets because of equally misguided generalizations about the West. This is the case of small groups generalizing about other small groups. Both groups are hate-filled and violent. Neither is representative of the larger groups and neither extreme view is capable of standing up to the most basic analytical scrutiny.
Impact on Europe
Anti-Muslim attitudes and policies in Europe obviously pre-date Trump. Unlike the nearly 4 million Muslims in the U.S., in Europe, Muslims are the second largest group of people (even as minorities) in excess of 25 million. More than half are citizens and residents of their home countries in Europe and hold largely positive attitudes about their governmental institutions. Yet, “they still experience high levels of discrimination because of their ethnic or immigrant background—including skin color, ethnic origin or immigrant background, and religion or religious belief.” Almost thirty percent of Muslims in Europe recently experienced discriminatory harassment. Through 2016, these conditions appeared to be relatively stable compared to the same analysis taken ten years prior.
While the European Union and the clear majority of European governments oppose Donald Trump’s policies and rhetoric, the actions taken by some European governments are similar to state and local actions taken in the U.S., e.g. inciting fear of Sharia law and restricting mosques. Several European countries have been emboldened by Trumps’ rhetoric on travel ban and have sought to further Islamophobic policies. In Europe, some countries have attempted to prevent Muslims from complying with their religious food rules, prevented the wearing of traditional clothing, targeted social welfare cuts to Muslims in all but name only, required crucifixes in public buildings, and have undertaken other public policy efforts to “westernize” Muslims. The head of the Conference of European Rabbis observed that this recent rise of anti-Islamic policies and attitudes in Europe is reminiscent of anti-Jewish laws that caused such sorrow among the Jewish community not long ago—a phenomena that is again on the rise both in Europe and in America today.
Donald Trump’s words and actions resonate with nationalist and far-right groups in Europe today. They openly celebrated what they pejoratively described as “the massive restriction on the entry of pseudo-refugees and Muslims to the USA.” One Dutch radical leader played the role of cheerleader: “For the first time ever, one can say from a nationalist perspective: keep going, USA.” Such rhetoric is too prejudicial and hateful to be tolerated, let alone celebrated.
These hostile sentiments are not limited to fringe, political outsiders. Elected leaders are also championing xenophobic policies. Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, claims “his country was being condemned for choosing not to be a ‘country of migrants'” The new Italian Interior Minister, Matteo Salvini hopes to form a common anti-migration front designed to oppose the E.U. migration policies. In addition to Hungary and Italy, other countries such as Austria, Germany, Denmark, Finland, and the Czech Republic have also seen the rise of successful candidates for office who oppose immigration and Muslim immigration in particular. These candidates are succeeding on platforms of openly opposing Muslim immigration and rejecting Muslim culture.
Unfortunately, this resonance has manifested in a spike in anti-Muslim violence similar to that witnessed in the U.S. In 2017, there were over 900 attacks on Muslims and mosques in Europe. In Spain more than 500 Islamophobic attacks occurred, including violence against places of worship and children. In Germany, there now are 5.2 attacks a day against Muslim refugees.
These attacks correspond to a significant normalization of anti-Muslim attitudes in Europe. A recent European survey reflects huge majorities (between 62 and 82%) that view Muslim immigration as a threat to European culture, correlated to terror attacks and a threat to Europe. It is ironic that indigenous Europeans appear so unified against the “existential threat” of Islam to their culture when they have themselves ripped each other to shreds twice in the last 100 years. Perhaps that underlying tension would explain why “European societies have a hard time accepting the Muslims who are living among them as an integral part of their societies today.”
How have Muslim communities in Europe reacted when compared to their American counterparts? Like their American counterparts, Europeans Muslims “have a high sense of trust in democratic institutions despite experiencing widespread discrimination and harassment.” However, they have less faith in European institutions than Americans Muslims have in their institutions. They feel strongly attached to the country where they live and they trust E.U. institutions relative to other non-Muslim Europeans. This trust in E.U. institutions makes rational sense in that the E.U. has historically stood against Islamophobia.
Historically, by comparison, this optimism and trust in institutions has not fully transformed into civil engagement. While American Muslims are as politically active as their fellow countryman, Muslims in Europe tend to be less politically active. The form of political activism between Muslims in the U.S. and Muslims in Europe is reflective of their different approaches to assimilation. Muslims in Europe have organized a significant number of Islamic political parties, such as “Think” in Holland, the “Union of Muslim Democrats” in France, and “ISLAM” in Belgium. By contrast, American Muslims have remained within the two-party system, largely within the Democratic Party in the era of Trump. The fact that some European Muslims are forming their own parties, and not joining one of the many existing parties in their multi-party systems, seems significant when analyzed through the lens of how they view the desirability of assimilation in the era of Trump, in America and Le Pen, Wilder, Salvini, and Orbán in Europe.
The formation of Muslim political parties in Europe does not suggest, however, a failure of Muslims to engage through broad social and political institutions. Muslims also are active in assimilated civic and political organizations. Many Muslim community organizations also act as entry points for cross cultural engagement and political activity, “rather than promoting social segregation.” Notably, British Muslims, are quite active within broad based civil society organizations and traditional party politics. There is a rich history of Muslim accomplishment that provide a basis to adopt a more balanced, long term view in the face of the current climate of xenophobia. Muslim communities are very aware of their relevance in European culture and history, and their impact on the “Renaissance, [the] Scientific Revolution, and Enlightenment.” No doubt, this history creates a spirit of resilience among many Muslim members of society.
Contrasts and Further Analysis
Several cultural factors serve to explain the noted differences between the immigration and assimilation patterns of Muslims into the U.S. versus Muslims in Europe. Much of this difference may be explained by education and economics. Muslim Americans are more likely to have arrived for higher education and then settled there while most immigrants to Europe arrived from their former colonies. Thus, more Muslim Americans “have a college degree than Americans generally, while Muslim immigrants to Europe are much less well educated than native Europeans.” These less educated European Muslims “are more isolated, less economically successful, and [consequently] less interested in participating in politics and civil society.” Simply put, they have fewer resources to devote to community engagement.
It also appears that American Muslims are more invested in the “melting pot” than their European counterparts. Aside from their pride in being American, large majorities of Muslim Americans believe they share common values with other Americans, readily establishing friendships and networks outside of their religious communities, and overwhelmingly consider themselves as part of the American Dream. The European Muslim community appears to be more insular. By contrast,
Muslim immigrants are said to establish themselves alongside the existing societies in ‘ministates’ or ‘parallel societies,’ which largely resemble those life frameworks familiar to them from their countries of origin. Spatial segregation based on class, religion, ethnicity or race has been known to exist for hundreds of years in slums, immigrant neighborhoods, closed communities etc.
There are also differences in social conditions that implicate the sense of belonging or alienation. In contrast to the U.S.,
Europe Muslim immigrants tend to have worse labor market outcomes, are less well educated, and less socially integrated. The lack of assimilation and integration in Europe is affected by policies regarding multiculturalism, welfare, labor market regulation, citizenship, and guest worker laws that make integration costlier.
This certainly leads to more significant feelings of alienation and resentment, which could explain the desire to establish closed communities.
One other contrast worth noting is the nature of anti-Muslim rhetoric and fears in the U.S. versus Europe in recent years. The tone behind each regions’ nativist sentiments are different. On one hand, the hostility of Trump and other extreme rights’ groups in the U.S. is primarily focused on terror and Islam itself as a “sickness” or “disease.” It is not an issue of being culturally or economically displaced by the volume of Muslim immigrants. On the other hand, in addition to employing the same sort of Islamophobic rhetoric as Trump’s, European nationalists appear to be focused on the fears of cultural or demographic replacement common to anti-immigration movements, e.g. Orbán’s rhetoric demanding that Hungary not become a “country of migrants” and Salvini’s call for an “anti-immigrant front,” as noted above. This contrast may be explained by the high volume of Muslim refugee flow into Europe over the last several years—primarily from the Middle East—when compared to much lower numbers coming into the U.S. The number of Muslims in Europe has increased by more than 5 million since 2010, while the number of non-Muslims shrank by more than 200,000. The total number of Muslims in the U.S. is less than 3.5 Million overall. Muslims currently make up 5% of European population as compared to 1% in the U.S. Pew data suggests that if high levels of immigration continue in Europe, the Muslim population will rise to 14% by 2050. By contrast, the Muslim population in the U.S. will rise to only 2.1% by 2050. Thus, European anxiety over Muslim immigration appears to be more similar to American anxiety over Central American immigration than it does to the “Trojan Horse” fears stoked by Trump and others over the very existence of Muslims in America, regardless of numbers of immigrants. While no less xenophobic, perhaps European anti-Muslim sentiments are fractionally less irrational, and, at the same time, perhaps even more outright bigoted.
Conclusion
While it may not be possible to isolate and attribute the effect of Trump’s rhetoric and actions or the actions and rhetoric of other like-minded leaders in the U.S. and Europe, it is also fair to say that Trump is not the sole “cause” of the recent rise in Islamophobia. It has existed even before the Moor conquest of Spain in 711 A.D. and continued in various forms since then. Nevertheless, there has been a strong impact on Muslim communities in America and in Europe as the result of recent direct calls for restrictions on Muslim immigration—the Muslim ban. Public attitudes have shifted. Policies have both led and followed these attitudes. Nativist sentiments have led to increases in bigotry and even violence against Muslims on both sides of the Atlantic. Nevertheless, and perhaps not surprisingly, Muslims in the U.S. and in Europe have increased their civic engagement and, within varying degrees, retained overall positive attitudes about their new homes and communities. However, the cultural and social impact of these policies and actions continues to unfold. Further research is warranted to examine the implications of the on-going hostile rhetoric on Muslims in the U.S. and in Europe, and the specific effects of these policies and actions upon Muslim communities in areas of employment, fair housing and education need to be assessed. Further research is also needed on Muslim reactions and prospects in terms of their continued community and civic engagement, as well as their economic and social participation.