top of page
Research
Capstone Project
Research: Features
As long as I can remember, I've been fascinated by sea animals. Visiting aquariums and zoos are some of my favorite childhood memories. However, not all sea animals are held in the same place in my heart. I've never been able to fully explain it, but sea lions and I have never gotten along.
​
I don't trust them. I know they're different than me and I will never really understand them. I could spend hours looking at pictures and videos trying to understand, or spend days reading about their anatomy that allows them to move the way that they do. I don't know how they move, I don't know how they can live on land and in sea, I don't know how they communicate and interact with each other. I don't get them.
Research: Bio
Recently, I've noticed something about my feelings (fears) towards sea lions. Every absurd question, concern and suspicion I have about sea lions is also said in the context of today's political climate regarding immigrants, specifically Muslim immigrants, in the United States. To contextualize my capstone project, which explores my animosity and mistrust of sea lions, I did the following research about United States immigration policies under Donald Trump. I began my research focusing on the 2016 Presidential campaigns, looking at the language and rhetoric used by then candidate Trump. Then I looked further into the language used in legislation and executive orders by current President Trump as well as the language used by supporters of the Trump Administration's policies.
​
Throughout the Trump campaign, then candidate Trump was never shy about his views on Muslim immigrants coming to the United States, nor was he vague about what he planned to do about these immigrants if elected. His campaign rhetoric was extremely critical and demeaning toward all Muslims and he specifically called for a ban on Muslim immigration; "Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." His supporters cheered this proposal then, and every time it was repeated on the campaign trail and later in the White House.
Research: About
The reasons given for the then proposed ban stem from recent terrorist attacks enacted by religious minorities within the Islamic faith. Terms like "radical Islam" and "Islamic terrorists" were used to categorize all those who conducted terrorist acts as if to correlate the Islamic religion to acts of terror. Trump and his supporters are quick to blame Muslims with every new act of terror whether or not the attacker(s) are in fact Muslim or not.
​
Beliefs held by Muslims are distorted by people who have never read the Quran or have any substantial knowledge about Islam. Many Americans began claiming that the Islamic faith directly calls for acts of terror against non-Muslims. This is simply not true. After the attacks on 9/11, President Bush said, "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war." Only recently has the Islamic faith been categorized as a religion bound by hate and terror. Some point to the treatment of women, specifically the tradition of wearing headscarves like burkas, hijabs and niqabs. Those outside the Islamic faith claim that this is an act of oppression and classify the entire religion as oppressive, especially toward women and LGBTQ individuals. Rather than recognizing that a microscopic minority of those within the Islamic religion conduct these acts of terror, many Americans blame the entire religion and the entirety of its followers for each and all terrorist actions.
Research: About
EO1.jpg
donald-trump.jpg
map1.jpg
EO1.jpg
On November 8th. 2016, Donald Trump was elected and would soon have the ability to follow through on his campaign promises for a Muslim ban and stricter immigration laws. Within his first week in office, Trump signed his first Executive Order on the issue of immigration; Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. This order effectively banned immigration from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, all Muslim-majority nations. The order claimed to attempt to, "protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States." The order goes on to say, "In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different than their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation." As a result, immigration from the seven Muslim-majority nation is to be suspended for ninety days, refugees are to be suspended for one hundred twenty days, with the exception of Syrian refugees who are banned indefinitely. However, refugees of a religious minority in their home country (Christians and Jews) are given priority.
Research: About
Shortly after the Executive Order was released, acting Attorney General Sally Yates wrote in a letter to Justice Department officials, "At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities, nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful." She was fired later that night. In the three days following the release of the order, Americans reacted in two ways: extreme support or extreme criticism. Many Americans were outraged by the seemingly blatant religious persecution of the ban, but Trump and his administration responded simply with, "I'm just doing what I said I would do." Denials were made by the Trump administration that the order was a "ban," despite multiple calls made by candidate Trump for a Muslim ban as well as repetitions of this phrase by Trump officials.
​
As a result of the order, immigrants from the seven countries were taken off planes on their way to the United States and those who were already in the air or in American airports were detained upon entry. The status of green card holders and dual citizens of one of the seven countries and the United States was unclear. Because of this ambiguity, thousands of people were detained in airports where their rights as citizens were suspended and they were subjected to highly increased levels of screening and security checks. What to do with green card holders and dual citizens was not made clear in following statements by Trump or members of his administration. Contradicting statements regarding the issue were made by White House officials. Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said, "the order 'doesn't affect' green card holders, then later said 'of course' it affects green card holders from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia."
Research: About
The order was immediately contested in court. Judge Ann M. Donnelly, a University of Michigan graduate, blocked some of the actions proposed by the order. She ruled that those being detained were not to be deported, as this would cause, "irreparable harm." Judges across the country passed similar rulings, and the ban was temporarily halted.
​
Trump and his administration fought the rulings that halted the executive order. A case was brought to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, who issued a ruling on February 9th, 2016. The panel of three judges unanimously rejected President Trump’s bid to reinstate his ban on travel into the United States from seven largely Muslim nations. The ruling states that the travel limitations, "appeared to violate the due process rights of lawful permanent residents, people holding visas and refugees." After this loss in court, Trump and his administration vowed to release an updated order that would accomplish the same goals as the original order intended.
​
On March 6th, 2017, a second draft of Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States was signed. The new order clarified some of the confusion caused by the original draft and included several revisions.
The new order affects six Muslim-majority nations; Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia (Iraq was removed). These specific countries were included because, "each of these countries is a state sponsor of terrorism, has been significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or contains active conflict zones." Immigration from the six previously listed countries is suspended for ninety days beginning on the effective date of the order. Iraq has been removed from the new order because the "close cooperative relationship between the United States and the democratically elected Iraqi government, the strong United States diplomatic presence in Iraq, the significant presence of United States forces in Iraq, and Iraq's commitment to combat ISIS."
​
Cases involving green card holders and United States citizens is addressed in Section 3 of the new executive order. These individuals are not subjected to the actions of the executive order, as it only applies to foreign nationals of the six countries who, "are outside the United States on the effective date of this order; did not have a valid visa at 5:00 p.m., eastern standard time on January 27, 2017; and do not have a valid visa on the effective date of this order."
​
The status of refugees entering the United States remained the same as in the original order. Entry of refugees is suspended for one hundred twenty days, now including Syrian refugees who were previously banned indefinitely.
Research: About
28eo_web1-master768.jpg
image-Trump-EO-Draft-on-Refugees-master495-v3.gif
compare-travel-ban-promo2300.jpg
trump-travel-ban-order-1488819533819-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600.png
Research: About
Like the original executive order, the second edition was contested almost immediately. A federal judge in Hawaii blocked the ban on travel aspect of the order. Later, a federal judge in Maryland did the same. Both Obama appointed judges ruled that the ban on travel was religious discrimination and therefore unconstitutional. However, these rulings as well as the similar rulings that followed do not definitively decide if the entire revised executive order is unconstitutional or not. The Trump administration has said it plans to appeal the blocks and reinstate the executive order in its entirety.
​
Given the comments made by candidate Trump, an interview with Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani in which Giuliani states Trump asked for help crafting a legally sound Muslim ban, as well as countless other remarks made by Trump and his staff explicitly calling the restrictions a "Muslim ban," any appeals by Trump and the Justice Department are unlikely to succeed. As of March 27, 2017, a three judge panel in the fourth circuit will hear the appeal on May 8, 2017. An order was filed by the fourth circuit asking both sides of the case, the International Refugee Assistance Project and others v. Donald J. Trump and the Justice Department, if the full fifteen judge bench should hear the case instead of the customary three judge panel. Neither side has commented and the court date remains May 8, 2017.
Research: About
Fears of different religions and different cultures have always been present in the United States. Different religions and cultures are targeted in waves, with the acceptance of one group meaning the alienation of a new group. Our current political climate is Islamophobic, as suggested by the results of the 2016 Presidential election and the actions that followed.
​
Everything in my project has a direct relationship to current fears of Muslims and the Islamic religion. The title, So Called Sea Lions, is a play on Trump's belittling of a dissenting judge, calling him a "so-called judge." The spots on the head of the sea lion being questioned are meant to reflect the head scarves worn by many Muslim women and other physical identifiers of the Islamic faith. The questions regarding why the spotted sea lion wants to swim in a certain part of the ocean is meant to mirror the questions and suspicions Americans have about the motives for Muslims immigrating to the United States. Many of the other inflammatory statements and questions made by the lighter colored sea lion are similar to, if not verbatim, statements and questions made by fearful Americans about what Muslims believe and what Muslims want to do in the United States, which all show the blatant suspicion of otherwise innocent people.
​
Doing this research and writing So Called Sea Lions has made me realize that the admittedly strange feelings I have toward sea lions are just as ridiculous and unfounded as fears and accusations leveled against Muslims, especially Muslim immigrants. I hoped that through satire I could create a fun project while addressing a serious and topical issue in today's society.
Research: About
bottom of page