Faculty Insight: What Trump’s Nigeria Travel Ban Means

March 5, 2020
Jacob Olupona
Professor Jacob Olupona is a noted scholar of indigenous African religions. / Photo: Jon Chase, Harvard Staff Photographer

In late January 2020, Nigerians reacted to U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement that Nigeria would be added to the administration's controversial visa and travel bans list.

In a statement, the Association for Credible Leadership in Nigeria (ACLN) said: "With this new travel ban in effect from February 21st 2020 ... U.S citizens looking to bring over children, parents, or siblings will no longer be able to do so. Also, partners or spouses of American citizens will no longer be able to immigrate to the U.S."

The U.S. government has cited lapses in security as the reason for expanding the travel ban to African's most populous country and largest economy.

For more insight into U.S.-Nigeria relations, as well as the decades-long impact Nigerian immigrants have had in shaping the religious landscape of the U.S., we turned to Jacob Olupona, Professor of African Religious Traditions at HDS and Professor of African and African American Studies in Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

Harvard Divinity School: Just as some background, what has the relationship between the U.S. and Nigeria historically been like? In the past, the U.S. has relied on Nigerian oil, and in recent years the U.S. has been involved in anti-terrorism efforts in the country, especially against Boko Haram. Do the U.S. and Nigeria have an amicable relationship?

Jacob Olupona: Historically, the relationship between the U.S and Nigeria has been a largely positive one. Nigerians are keenly interested and inspired by U.S. democracy and system of government and have largely perceived the U.S. as a source of inspiration and a beacon of opportunity and possibility.

The U.S. was also significantly involved in the geopolitics of Nigeria throughout the 1980s and 1990s. During the military dictatorship era, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Nigeria for the government's human rights abuses and the thwarting of democratic elections. For the most part, this involvement was viewed positively by Nigerian citizens, who wanted free and fair elections, economic development, and a transition out of military rule. The U.S. was perceived as being in support of the hopes of the Nigerian populace.

There has also been a great deal of immigration from Nigeria to the U.S. over the years. An estimated one million Nigerians have immigrated to the U.S. either temporarily to study or to live permanently. This immigration has also bolstered ties between Nigeria and the U.S., as many Nigerians know a friend or family member living in the U.S. and have a positive view of America through those types of connections.

I should also add that because of the vulnerability of the Nigerian authorities in a post-Cold War world and mounting economic crisis, the Nigerian authorities presently have little leverage in its relations with the U.S. For good or bad, its leverage remains its people: larger population, transitional Nigerians, and cultural capital that transcends government to government relations.

HDS: The U.S. says Nigeria was added to the travel ban over security concerns, but that the ban could be lifted if and when Nigeria makes improvements to its security challenges. Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration has responded by setting up a committee to work with the U.S., saying: "Nigeria remains committed to maintaining productive relations with the United States and its international allies, especially on matters of global security." Could you describe the current political/government situation in Nigeria? What are the specific security challenges Nigeria is facing?

JO: What we need to do first is exam the context of the ban and what constitutes this so-called ban. First, over the last three years, access of Nigerians to immigrant visas has been reduced drastically, and applications for visitor visas curtailed dramatically. So I think the impact of this policy discussion may be negligible in certain respect, except for the large number of innocent students who are denied visas to study in America.

The largest number of Nigerians who are traveling to the U.S. are green card holders and naturalized citizens. Those who have overstayed their visas are already here and they are not returning to Nigeria anytime soon. Consequently, we need to ask ourselves what really is the purpose of the policy. The impact on flights to and from Nigeria will be negligible. Affluent Nigerians who have the resources to travel abroad are no longer coming to the U.S. as they used to anyway. They now prefer to go to the UK, Europe, UAE, Canada, and China!

It is no secret that Nigeria has security challenges: there is Boko Haram operating in the north of the country and increasing insecurity in other parts of the country because of economic stagnation. This has of course greatly increased the desire of many citizens to immigrate to greener pastures and more secured places around the world and particularly in the U.S.

But on the other hand, the political climate of the country is reasonably stable, at least as far as it goes in Nigerian history. There has been a peaceful handover of the government from one political party to another. In so far as Boko Haram is operating, their goals are focused in Nigeria and West Africa, and they are not really a credible threat to the U.S. So it is not clear to me, what security challenges necessitate a ban on Nigerians coming to live in America.

To me, this hints that the problem is not so much concern about Nigeria's security challenges but rather a fear of the potential demographic (and political) consequences of Nigerian immigration to America. This is what is troubling about the ban.

Terrorism is a complex evil, but so are international relations and regulations. Nigeria continues to be a key player on the global scene. Nigeria faces several “internal” conflicts, which might pose a threat to security within the country, but it is highly doubtful that they have significant direct impact on America.

However, there are robust systems in place to monitor migration and travel that would not permit these conflicts to spill over as easily as Trump would like us to believe. I think that in the past, the terrorism threat has mostly come from the Middle East, but now, with international recruitment strategies, it is more likely that folks already in America will be recruited to terrorist organizations. 

HDS: The Nigerian writer Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani spoke on NPR about, despite the country being added to the travel ban, President Trump's popularity in Nigeria. If you’ve been talking to folks back in Nigeria, what are they saying? Are they upset by the ban?

JO: This is probably due to the alignment of the Republican Right with Trump and there touting of Trump as America’s “chosen leader” and “anointed by God”.  Nigeria, being a very Christian-leaning country, holds similar if not identical sentiments about what it means to support Trump. Of course, this view is misinformed and completely exaggerated.

Trump’s popularity is an interesting phenomenon. He is more liked in Nigeria than in many parts of the world. The Pew Research Center found that 58 percent of the country had confidence in him to do the right thing regarding world affairs as opposed to, for example, 8 percent of Mexicans or 28 percent of Canadians. This poll was taken before the travel ban, so the numbers might have changed, but I think it is fair to say that he is more popular in Nigeria, and Africa in general, than many would assume.

The way Nigerians feel about the U.S. translates to Trump. Because there is a largely positive view of the U.S. and of Nigeria's relationship with the U.S., then there is a more positive view of the U.S. government and its actions. Additionally, there is something about Trump that is very attractive to the average Nigerian. There’s always been an attraction to strong men politically and culturally, and Trump sparks that. He is an African politician in a way.

With respect to the average Nigerian, there’s great confusion over the implications and implementation of the ban. The true measure and impact of the ban has yet to be felt. There’s an element of lamentation over the ban in Nigeria. It is a humiliation. But we would have a much better sense of the impact and if there’s a change in feelings toward the United States once the ban has actually been implemented and we see some of the effects on families and lives.

HDS: How has America’s religious landscape been impacted or altered by Nigerian immigrants? I’m specifically thinking about Nigerian priests who’ve risen to prominence in church leadership in the U.S., as well as the flourishing Nigerian Pentecostal movements.

JO: A sizeable population of African immigrants in America are Nigerian. Every sector and market has been influenced and, in some cases, dominated by Nigerians. More specifically, a large number of doctors and medical personals in America are Nigerian, and there is sufficient evidence of corporate sector leadership that has high Nigerian representation.

Nigerian churches in the U.S. are their own bosses; they run independently from American denominations and have their own structures in place. They’ve made thriving home churches in other countries, and have provided spiritual facilitation in areas that many Western spiritual leaders are unable to go. They learn the language, make sense of the differences in the context, and adapt easily and quickly. It’s a gift really, and such dedication should be celebrated. 

There is the concept of “reverse missionaries” and reverse evangelicalism that is a fascinating phenomenon and your question alludes to. “Reverse mission” is a term I coined in the 1990s in my research to describe African immigrant missionaries’ return to Europe and America to evangelize the west.

The true impact of Nigerian immigrants in the religious realm is difficult to truly quantify; however, there’s an intensity and fervent religious tradition that Nigerians are exporting to the United States, Canada, and Europe, and bringing Pentecostal evangelism to a new level of prominence. One also must understand that religion is such an integral part of Nigerian lives, so with increased immigration of Nigerians, it makes sense that there is a growth in the religious influence of the Nigerians who have immigrated.

HDS: The expanded ban largely affects majority-Muslim countries in Africa. But according to HDS’s own Religious Literacy Project, Nigeria is about half Muslim, 40-45 percent Christian, and another 5-10 percent indigenous religious. In the past, there have been conflicts between Nigerian Christians and Muslims, but there have also been efforts to build peace. What’s the situation on the ground today? Is there harmony/stability for the most part, or has there been more violence between the groups?

JO: It is a difficult question to answer in a blanket manner. Nigeria is very large and diverse place, and there are regions and segments of the country in which Muslims and Christians have lived together side by side (often in the same family) in harmony for generations.

Within my own family, there was that kind of harmony. One of my grandmothers was born Muslim and although her son, my father, grew up to be an Anglican priest, he would take me back to his mother's family to visit, where we were warmly accepted and embraced.

There was and remains in parts of Nigeria a sense that it was possible and indeed advisable to be a non-discriminatory member of society, to embrace others, and to also be a devoted member of a specific religious community. This view, however, is on the wane as religious partisanship increases and developments—economic and social—weaken the bonds of local community. But religious conflict in Nigeria is a recent narrative. For much of our history we have served as an example to the world of religious pluralism and how beautifully people observing different religious beliefs can live together and enrich each other's life.

It is also important to note that where there is conflict and violence, as there has been in recent years between nomadic Muslim herders and largely Christian settled communities in certain parts of the country. The story is as much, and perhaps more, about an economic conflict between groups fighting for control of resources as it is about a religious conflict.

HDS: The Nigerian constitution states that there will be no state religion, supports the free expression of religion, and prohibits discrimination on the basis of religious belief. Is that the current reality in Nigeria?

JO: As I said earlier, Nigeria for most of its history has been a largely religiously pluralistic society, and the conflicts have been largely across ethnic lines and about fighting for the control of resources. Our conflicts have not generally been religiously inspired.

There is technically no state religion and the constitution is certainly an aspirational document, but the reality of the country day to day is much more complex. In my observations, Nigeria's idea of religious freedom is about freedom of religion and in no way freedom from religion.

Nigerians are deeply religious and religion permeates all parts of life, including the government. Thus, while the constitution says there is no state religion, in reality, there seems to me to be two state religions, Christianity and Islam. Both are respected and supported by political authorities, regardless of what particular religious’ beliefs the top office holder adheres to.

Indigenous religions, while tolerated, and in actuality are more widely practiced than the numbers suggest, are not supported either financially or culturally in even close to the same ways the two most widely-practiced religions. The adherents of indigenous religions are likely to have received less formal education than Christians and Muslims and thus have less political and economic power in society.

by Jonathan Beasley