The move is a response to what they say is Trump’s effort to ban Muslims from the country, a policy he adopted during his 2016 presidential campaign. Although he never instituted a blanket ban, Trump did place restrictions on a large number of countries in Muslim majority, describing them as security risks. Democrats said the effort was, in practice, an effort to implement Trump’s proposed Muslim ban and cover it up under the guise of a national security justification.
“The United States has always been, and should continue to be, a place that welcomes and welcomes people of all faiths and nationalities,” House of Representatives Judicial Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (DN.Y.) said Wednesday. on the floor of the Chamber. “But, as a result of the Muslim ban, our country’s reputation as a beacon of hope, tolerance, and inclusion for those fleeing persecution, reuniting with their families, or simply seeking a better life has been tarnished forever.” .
The proposal prohibits religious discrimination in immigration orders, and limits the President, the Department of State, and the Department of Homeland Security to impose new restrictions unless they are justified by a “compelling government interest” and the restrictions are designed to strictest possible way to support that. interest. The law provides an exception to the restrictions if the State Department judges that it is based on credible threats to the United States.
Republicans, however, argued that the move would prevent the president from reacting quickly to protect national security, citing Trump’s ban on travel from China at the start of the pandemic as an example.
“The President must have the authority to act when our national security is at risk. When a situation requires us to stop traveling to our country, whether it is to protect us from a pandemic or other national security problem, the President must have the power to do so. So, “said Rep. Lance Gooden (Republican of Texas).
