Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 1333

Should the President’s Power to Impose Restrictions on Entry Into the U.S. Be Limited?

Argument in favor

The Trump administration’s “Muslim ban” demonstrated how much power the president currently has to capriciously deny entry to the U.S. on the basis of religion. Even with President Donald Trump out of office, it’s still wise to limit future presidents’ powers to impose similarly discriminatory policies.

larubia's Opinion
···
04/21/2021
Ten years ago, I would have thought “what’s the point?” One populist, bigoted narcissist later and I see clearly! Yes, please limit presidential powers that deny entry into our country.
Like (40)
Follow
Share
Sharon's Opinion
···
04/21/2021
In pre-Trump years, I would not have seen this as necessary. I am still a little ambivalent. However, after seeing the way capping and mistreating people seeking entry occurred as a result of a bigoted president using immigrant fear as a way of solidifying a base, and considering the characters of at least some of the next generation of politicians who seem to follow Trump’s playbook and share his attitudes (e.g, DeSantis, Boebert. Greene, Hawley, Gaetz, McCarthy) I have regretfully concluded it is necessary. I prefer to see data and evidence used in these decisions.
Like (16)
Follow
Share
Brian's Opinion
···
04/21/2021
I am not opposed to the executive branch having the authority to regulate immigration, but I think it should be policy-driven and must meet legal muster. A president cannot just suddenly issue executive orders that violate the law, steal money from multiple agencies, and disrupt the flow of people and commerce without thought. The previous administration had no plan, no policy, and no legal standing for some of its orders on immigration, and that can't be allowed going forward. However, I do think that as long as it's legal and would meet court and congressional approval, then it should remain within the executive's power.
Like (12)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Presidents’ broad authority over national security matters rightly entitles them to make decisions regarding denying entry to people of certain nationalities if they deem it necessary to do so. Further, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration’s entry restrictions were permissible because the executive actions made no mention of religion.

Freethinker's Opinion
···
04/21/2021
The Muslim ban is false. Obama had the same restrictions and Trump continued them but included North Korea and Venezuela. All of you are so gullible to MSM and politician lies. Good grief! Keep these powers separate. The president is provided more intelligence on national security threats that they should be given this authority.
Like (24)
Follow
Share
Lane's Opinion
···
04/22/2021
Because of Biden, more kids are in cages than ever before. Sex trafficking of children is up 10 fold. $14 million in sex trafficking A DAY is being made now because of Bidens border. 6000/day are coming over. We are a lawless nation and children are being raped and sold and murdered. This is on you, leftists. And it's not sustainable. Once your taxes skyrocket to pay for this and your children end up the victim a the sex rings grow, maybe then you'll understand. Though if you haven't woken up by now, you never will.
Like (15)
Follow
Share
Robert's Opinion
···
04/22/2021
I am all for immigrants coming to America, but done legally!!! Stop letting everyone and anyone in!
Like (12)
Follow
Share

What is House Bill H.R. 1333?

This bill, known as the NO BAN Act, would limit the president’s authority to impose limits on entry to the U.S. on the basis of religion. It would also establish a process for the president and relevant federal agencies to undertake entry bans, details of which can be found below.

If the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security determining that the entry of any non-citizens or class of non-citizens into the U.S. would threaten security, public safety, or the preservation of human rights, democratic processes or institutions, or international stability, the president could temporarily 1) suspend such persons’ entry or 2) impose any entry restrictions that they deem appropriate. These actions would be limited in scope and as narrowly tailored as possible. The president, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Homeland Security would be required to specify the duration of these restrictions and to consider waivers to these restrictions in cases of family-based or humanitarian concerns. While suspensions or restrictions are active, the Secretary of State would be responsible for submitting a report to congressional committees detailing the impact of the suspensions or restrictions.

This legislation would also require the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to work with relevant federal agency heads to compile a congressional report on the implementation of Presidential Proclamations 9645, 9822, and 9983 and Executive Orders 13769, 13780, and 13815. These proclamations instituted entry restrictions during the Trump administration and then repealed them in the first days of the Biden administration. These reports would include information on:

  • The number of visa applicants affected by each Presidential Proclamation or Executive Order;
  • The number of visa applicants approved, refused, granted a waiver, or denied a waiver during the period each Presidential Proclamation or Executive Order was effective;
  • The number of visa applicants whose applicants remain pending;
  • The total number of refugees admitted; and
  • The complete reports that were submitted to the president every 180 days. 

This bill’s full title is the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act.

Impact

Muslims seeking entry to the U.S.; non-citizens seeking entry to the U.S. while subject to entry bans; presidential authority to impose travel bans; U.S. presidents; the Secretary of State; and the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 1333

$3.00 Million
In the 116th Congress, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that this bill would increase federal spending for health care, nutrition, education, and disability benefits provided to newly-arrived non-citizens and their children born in the U.S. The CBO estimated that this would lead to $3 million in spending over the five-year period 2020-2025 and increase the deficit by $80 million over the same period.

More Information

In-DepthSponsoring Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) reintroduced this bill from the 116th Congress to strengthen the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion and restore the separation of powers by limiting overly broad executive authority to issue future travel bans:

“The Muslim Ban was a hateful stain on our nation. Inspired only by bigotry and not any genuine national security concerns, the ban served only to separate families while stoking bigotry, xenophobia, and Islamophobia. That is why I was so grateful when President Joe Biden took action on his first day in office to rescind all versions of this ban. However, we cannot risk letting prejudice become policy again. That is why I am once again introducing the NO BAN Act to update our laws. By requiring actual evidence of a threat before there can be any such broad based bans like this, the NO BAN Act ensures that future presidents will not be able to ban people solely because of their religion. I’m proud that this bill was passed by the House last Congress and, with the help and leadership of Senator Chris Coons, I hope to see it passed again and brought to the President’s desk soon.”

When she introduced this legislation in the previous Congressional session, Rep. Chu spoke specifically of the need to repeal all of the Trump administration’s “Muslim bans”:

“America has one of the strongest vetting systems in the world and we have demonstrated an ability to safely grant visas to travelers and visitors for years. But security was always a flimsy pretext for Trump’s real goal of fomenting bigotry and dividing families, which is precisely what this ban has done. The effect of Trump’s Muslim Ban has been to leave America less safe and families suffering needless pain. That is why we introduced this legislation to repeal all of Trump’s Muslim Bans, but also to change the law so no future president can issue a similar ban without evidence.”

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), who sponsored this bill’s Senate companion in the 116th Congress, adds:

“We have turned the page on the tragic Muslim ban, but now we must write the next chapter – one in which no president can act through fear and prejudice to discriminate against a community of faith,” said Senator  Chris Coons. “The Muslim ban senselessly upended lives and cut off thousands of Americans from their loved ones. Only through an act of Congress can we ensure that such a discriminatory and overreaching action by a president never happens again. The NO BAN Act reasserts not only the role of Congress under our system of checks and balances, but also the proud American legacy of welcoming immigrants and refugees.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is among a number of advocacy organizations that supports this bill. Its Senior Legislative and Advocacy Counsel, Manar Waheed, says:

“In a moment when Black and Brown immigrants continue to bear the brunt of our broken system, the introduction of the NO BAN Act is a welcome change, signaling the importance of protecting us all against future discriminatory bans. President Biden made the rescission of the Muslim ban and its targeting of Africans a Day One priority for his administration, and Representative Chu and the House of Representatives today made it their priority to ensure that this discrimination never happens against our communities again. We hope that this bill marks the beginning of a new chapter in which Black and Brown immigrants, including Muslims, are priorities for us all.”

Judiciary Committee Republicans opposed this bill when it was considered in their committee this Congress. In an April 16, 2021 minority views report, the Republicans called this an “assault” on “successful Trump immigration policies” whose repeal have led to a criss at the southern border. They further accused committee Democrats of not trusting the Biden administration to act appropriately on immigration issues:

“By reporting H.R. 1333 favorably from the Committee, Chairman Nadler and Committee Democrats appear not to trust that President Biden will utilize the 212(f) authority effectively or in a non-discriminatory manner. H.R. 1333 strips the President of authority to deny entry of certain aliens to the United States, weakens national security, and invites litigation against the U.S. government.”

Committee Republicans also criticized this bill for taking power from an elected official (the president) in favor of giving that power to “unelected federal bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the American people.” They contended that “the transfer of authority from an unelected official to unelected bureaucrats is a bad idea no matter the circumstances,” and added that is particularly dangerous with the current surge of unauthorized migrants at the southern border.

Judiciary Committee Republicans also argued that this legislation could limit security-related programs and “dangerously curtail” the president’s authority to use executive discretion to impose restrictions on the entry of groups of people that may threaten U.S. security interests. Finally, they argued that this legislation is “a recipe for litigation,” as it provides for an expansive judicial review that “invites an expansive interpretation.”

During the 116th Congress, the Trump White House expressed opposition to a legislative package that included this bill and threatened to veto it over the inclusion of this bill and the Access to Legal Counsel Act, while also chiding Democrats for adding prescription drug legislation to the bill that should’ve been considered separately. It wrote in a statement of administration policy:

“Title I of H.R. 2486 [the NO BAN Act] would harm the national security of the United States. Notably, the President’s authority to restrict travel into the United States has been central to the Administration’s ongoing efforts to safeguard the American people against the spread of COVID-19. At a minimum, Title I of H.R. 2486 would cause dangerous delays that threaten the safety, security, and health of the American people.”

This legislation has 159 House cosponsors, all of whom are Democrats. It has been discharged by the House Committees on Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, and Intelligence. It’s supported by a range of civil rights, religious tolerance, and Muslim-American advocacy organizations, including Asian American Advancing Justice- AAJC, the Brennan Center for Justice, and the American Muslim Empowerment Network.

In the 116th Congress, this bill passed the House Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote of 22-10, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed, and had 219 Democratic cosponsors. Its Senate companion in the previous Congressional session, sponsored by Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), had 41 Senate cosponsors (39 Democrats and two Independents) and didn’t receive a committee vote. This legislation was also included in Rep. Alma Adams’ (D-NC) FUTURE Act (H.R.2486), which had 28 bipartisan House cosponsors and was passed by a final House vote of 231-184.


Of NoteWhile he was campaigning for president, former President Donald Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.” After his inauguration in early 2017, he proceeded to sign executive orders banning travel from several Muslim-majority nations that are hotbeds of terrorism, including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen with inadequate traveler vetting processes. After lawsuits led to the ban being blocked, it was reintroduced, blocked again, and reintroduced. Although no versions of the travel ban contained language about religion, Democrats referred to it as a “Muslim ban”, which fact-checkers noted was a false allegation.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court weighed in on the third iteration of the travel ban, which restricted travel by nationals of five Muslim-majority nations -- Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen -- plus North Korea and Venezuela. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s majority opinion in the 5-4 decision upholding the travel ban, in which he noted it was “facially neutral toward religion” and added:

“The proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices. The text says nothing about religion.”

The court’s liberal justices wrote in a dissent that Trump’s comments from the campaign trail were sufficient evidence that the travel ban was motivated by anti-Muslim animus rather than national security justifications.


Media

Summary by Eric Revell and Lorelei Yang

(Photo Credit: iStockphoto.com / vivalapenier)

AKA

NO BAN Act

Official Title

To transfer and limit Executive Branch authority to suspend or restrict the entry of a class of aliens.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on the Judiciary
  • The house Passed April 21st, 2021
    Roll Call Vote 218 Yea / 208 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Foreign Affairs
      Immigration and Citizenship
      Committee on Homeland Security
      Committee on the Judiciary
    IntroducedFebruary 25th, 2021

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    Ten years ago, I would have thought “what’s the point?” One populist, bigoted narcissist later and I see clearly! Yes, please limit presidential powers that deny entry into our country.
    Like (40)
    Follow
    Share
    The Muslim ban is false. Obama had the same restrictions and Trump continued them but included North Korea and Venezuela. All of you are so gullible to MSM and politician lies. Good grief! Keep these powers separate. The president is provided more intelligence on national security threats that they should be given this authority.
    Like (24)
    Follow
    Share
    I think it important to not delimit the powers afforded to the President because of the egregious abuses of the trump. I think it is more important to fix the Congress and the Courts so they cannot ignore their responsibilities to provide a righteous and much more rapid exercise of their responsibilities to provide timely oversight and meaningful checks and balances. Presidential authority is granted so that our government can respond quickly to unanticipated threats as they occur. I think it impossible to legislate all of the ways that the authority granted by the people could possibly be abused- and attempting to do so could put our country at risk, tying up timely responses in ‘official’ red tape. … … … I prefer legislation to ensure that Congressional Branches cannot engage in any quid-pro-quo relations with their party’s President, that they are more strictly held to honor their oath’s of office and to fully hold the President to account for not honoring their’s. The ability to hold Congressional representatives accountable for their violations of the public trust need to be strengthened and enforced - the threat of this could have prevented the Republican Senate from not even considering the facts presented in either of the Presidential Impeachment trials. … … … Legislation to prevent the President from dismantling or changing the intended mission of government agencies without explicit Congressional approval would help as well as assuring that the President cannot direct the actions of the Department of Justice, the investigations of Attorney’s General or Inspector’s General nor any of their dismissals without Congressional approval. It should be explicit that any Presidential interference with the trials of anyone whose alleged criminal acts could implicate the President or the pardoning any of these people is a distinct violation of the public trust and clearly an impeachable offense. … … … The Supreme Court needs to be more accountable in supporting impeachment inquiries to prevent the glacial procedural processes that permits rope-a-doping of the resolution of Constitutional issues arising from oversight responsibilities or Impeachment inquiries until whatever resolution that comes is no longer relevant or needed. The world is moving much faster than it did 200 years ago and issues regarding subpoena powers to provide oversight or investigate potential Impeachable offenses must be main-lined directly to and given expedited priority by the Supreme Court to prevent the up-the-court down-the court merry-go-round that makes any Supreme Court resolution useless in addressing the offenses being investigated. … … … Finally, it must be made clear that an Impeachment is solely a determination that the public trust has been violated and has absolutely nothing to do with the breaking of any laws at all- only a determination by the people as represented by the House that the Oath of Office was compromised in such an egregious way that it violates public trust and that the authority granted by the public should be revoked. … … … I prefer fixing the Branches of government so they can be trusted to honor their oath’s of office and their Constitutional duties to hold their fellows and fellow organizations in check. A democracy works when it’s institutions can be trusted and it is up to us to hold our elected officials to at least this minimal standard - and to starve out the disinformation purveyors whose only goal is to undercut the trust which is essential to a flourishing democracy; only for their self-serving interests of political benefit, entertainment market share, the willful destruction of our democracy by foreign influence or because conspiracy theories and ‘deep-state’ operatives provide an excuse to ignore inconvenient truths.
    Like (38)
    Follow
    Share
    In pre-Trump years, I would not have seen this as necessary. I am still a little ambivalent. However, after seeing the way capping and mistreating people seeking entry occurred as a result of a bigoted president using immigrant fear as a way of solidifying a base, and considering the characters of at least some of the next generation of politicians who seem to follow Trump’s playbook and share his attitudes (e.g, DeSantis, Boebert. Greene, Hawley, Gaetz, McCarthy) I have regretfully concluded it is necessary. I prefer to see data and evidence used in these decisions.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    Because of Biden, more kids are in cages than ever before. Sex trafficking of children is up 10 fold. $14 million in sex trafficking A DAY is being made now because of Bidens border. 6000/day are coming over. We are a lawless nation and children are being raped and sold and murdered. This is on you, leftists. And it's not sustainable. Once your taxes skyrocket to pay for this and your children end up the victim a the sex rings grow, maybe then you'll understand. Though if you haven't woken up by now, you never will.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    I am not opposed to the executive branch having the authority to regulate immigration, but I think it should be policy-driven and must meet legal muster. A president cannot just suddenly issue executive orders that violate the law, steal money from multiple agencies, and disrupt the flow of people and commerce without thought. The previous administration had no plan, no policy, and no legal standing for some of its orders on immigration, and that can't be allowed going forward. However, I do think that as long as it's legal and would meet court and congressional approval, then it should remain within the executive's power.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    I am all for immigrants coming to America, but done legally!!! Stop letting everyone and anyone in!
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Every office including the President must have its powers and their limits clearly delineated. So, YEAH--the presidency is not a dictator or a king--he/she must never have unlimited powers over anything.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    1A
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    The number one priority of the President is to protect the people of the US and this authority is part of it. If there is a question about the legality of a President's action, there is a process in place to challenge it, thereby making this bill unnecessary.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    I support this bill limiting Presidential Power to refuse entry into America based solely on religion. Further, I would like to see a bill prohibiting a President from using Twitter to conduct any of America's business. E. g. Firing a Secretary of State by a Tweet. Recall: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-43389744
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    The president is solely responsible for the safety of the United States. He therefore should be the one to set the limits of the number of people being allowed to enter the United States. The so called Muslim ban wasn’t that at all if people would have educated themselves instead of listening to the “ hate trump talking head” crowd, then they would have seen that the ban included North Korea and Venezuela. I’m not sure when those countries became Muslim but they must have. Currently we are having a tidal wave of illegal alien pouring across the border. Who knows if some of them are terrorist or not, there have been two caught- how many crossed without being caught. I guess we will see-and I’m sure we will with catastrophic effect. That places them blame directly at the feet of the president-currently Biden and Harris no matter how they try to bend and turn and twist their way out of it.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Big surprise, the party of religious freedom supports that concept unless it would have benefits for Muslims or other non-Christian religions. 🤡 it’s the blatant unchecked xenophobia for me. The Muslim ban demonstrated the problem that involves our presidential powers involving travel and I don’t want to see more people denied entry due to their religion.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Four years with a deranged orange racist at the helm did far more to prove that these powers need to be limited and obviates the need to pose this as a hypothetical question.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    The security of the nation is one of the presidents jobs. Politics aside, if the president truly believes he should limit entry into the U. S. for a situation in which may save lives, he/she can and should limit entry.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    The president primary role is the defense of America and its citizens thus border control.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Anytime someone proposes limiting the power of another equal branch of government all Americans should proceed with extreme caution. The instinctive response should be Absolutely No ! The proposal is likely less about restricting power and more about usurping power for political gain. This is Especially true today in an error of broken politics,both major political parties failed and the failure of journalistic integrity. The Founders warned of the dangers to freedom when political loyalty takes priority over loyalty to the Constitution. The deceit,deception,and the furious,aggressive ideological attacks on the institutions and People of the United States by the Left Democrat Party is unprecedented and must stop.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    If not the President, who?
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Part of the job of commander in chief is national security. Controlling who comes into the country is a big part of that... Take notes Joe...
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    My knee jerk reaction was to say that we should limit presidential ability to ban immigration after the deplorable “Muslim ban”. However, in an unforeseen event challenging the safety of the US requiring immediate action with regard to immigrants entering our country to do harm, the President must retain the ability to issue a ban. I would like to have the President confer with Congress prior to issuing the ban.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE