[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2020)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E109-E110]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    SUPPORT FOR NO BAN ACT AND PREVENTING FUTURE DISCRIMINATORY BANS

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 29, 2020

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me offer my appreciation and 
thanks to Congresswoman Tlaib of Michigan for anchoring an important 
special order on the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for 
Nonimmigrants Act or ``No Ban Act,'' legislation which terminates the 
Trump Administration's so-called Muslim Ban and prevents future 
discriminatory bans.
  As a senior member of the committees on the Judiciary and on Homeland 
Security, and the vice-Chair of Congressional Progressive Caucus, and 
the Chair of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus and the Congressional 
Nigeria Caucus, I am proud to support the No Ban Act because it 
broadens Section 202(a) of the Immigrant and Nationality Act to include 
a nondiscrimination provision which includes protection from religious 
discrimination and applies to all individuals traveling to the United 
States.
  Specifically, the No Ban Act ensures that this nondiscrimination 
provision applies to nonimmigrant visas, entry into the United States, 
or the approval or revocation of any immigration benefit.
  The legislation mandates that restrictions or suspensions entry must 
be supported by reliable and compelling evidence and that it is 
tailored to the specified purpose and requires the consultation and 
input of the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security when 
suspending or restricting entry under Section 212(f).
  The No Ban Act preserves the President's ability to use this 
authority when the Secretary of State determines, based on credible 
facts, that entry should be suspended or restricted to address specific 
acts that undermine the security or public safety of the United States 
or of human rights or of democratic processes or institutions or 
endangers international stability.
  These permissible uses of Section 212(f) have been employed by 
previous Democratic and Republican presidents.
  The No Ban Act requires specific evidence supporting the use of 
Section 212(f), including evidence that is connected with the duration 
of the suspension or restriction and requires that the suspension or 
restriction must be narrowly tailored to address a compelling 
governmental interest, using the least restrictive means possible.
  Waivers for class-based restrictions and suspensions must be 
considered and the bill provides that there is a rebuttable presumption 
in favor of family-based and humanitarian waivers.
  The bill repeals the unilateral executive actions and three Muslim 
ban executive orders and presidential proclamations that have harmed 
the Muslim American community and damaged our standing in the world.
  I also approve the legislation's repeal of the Trump executive order 
that instituted extreme vetting for refugees, as well as an asylum 
presidential proclamation that abused the Section 212(f) authority.
  Another salutary aspect of the bill is that it ensures there will be 
congressional consultation and periodic reporting for any future use of 
Section 212(f) to ensure that Congress has data on visa applications 
and refugee admissions to conduct critical oversight.
  If a briefing is not provided within 48 hours and updated every 30 
days thereafter, the emergency suspension or action will terminate 
absent congressional action.
  Finally, the No Ban Act requires backward-looking reporting on how 
each of the executive orders and presidential proclamations was 
implemented to ensure a complete reckoning.
  Given the harm created by the Muslim Ban upheld by the Supreme Court 
in its 5-4 decision in Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. ----, No. 17-965 (June 
26, 2018), is it any wonder that the NO BAN Act enjoys broad support 
from nearly 400 civil rights, faith-based, and community organizations, 
as well as the legal community, the ACLU, the National Immigration Law 
Center, the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 
Church World Service, Amnesty International, and the International 
Refugee Assistance Project.
  It is useful to review how we got to this point.
  During the 2016 presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump 
pledged at a political rally in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina that, if 
elected, he would ban Muslims from entering the United States and was 
``calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the 
United States.''
  On January 27, 2017, as President, Trump signed Executive Order No. 
13,769 (EO-1), which, among other things, suspended entry for 90 days 
of foreign nationals from seven countries identified by Congress or the 
Executive as presenting heightened terrorism-related risks, which was 
immediately challenged and enjoined nationwide by a federal district 
court.
  Rather than continuing to litigate the matter, the government 
announced that it would revoke that order and issue a new one.
  On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 13,780 
(EO-2), section 2(c) of EO-2 of which directed that entry of nationals 
from six of the seven countries designated in EO-1 be suspended for 90 
days from the effective date of the order, citing a need for time to 
establish adequate standards to prevent infiltration by foreign 
terrorists.
  Section 6(a) of that executive order directed that applications for 
refugee status and travel of refugees into the United States under the 
United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) be suspended for 120 
days from the effective date ``to review the adequacy of USRAP 
application and adjudication procedures'' and section 6(b) suspended 
the entry of any individual under USRAP once 50,000 refugees have 
entered the United States in fiscal year 2017.
  On June 14, just before Section 2(c) of EO-2 was by its terms set to 
expire, President Trump issued a memorandum to Executive Branch 
officials declaring the effective date of each enjoined provision of 
EO-2 to be the date on which the injunctions in these cases ``are 
lifted or stayed with respect to that provision.'' The government 
sought review in both cases, making arguments both on the merits of the 
cases and on procedural issues.
   On September 24, 2017, the President issued a Proclamation 
restricting travel to the United States by citizens from eight 
countries, which along with the previous executive orders was struck 
down by the Ninth Circuit before the United States Supreme Court 
granted certiorari and reversed the lower court by the narrow 5-4 
margin.
  Let me share a story of how the President's Muslim Ban affects people 
in real life, living in the real world, one of whom lived in my 
congressional district.
  A few days after the first Muslim Ban was issued on January 27, 2017, 
I got a call to go to the George Bush Intercontinental Airport in my 
district.
  ICE had detained a Katy High School student from Jordan following 
President Trump's immigration ban.
  His name was Mohammad Abu Khadra.
  He was detained in Houston at the airport and then spirited away to 
Chicago when he returned from his native country a day after President 
Donald Trump issued his immigration ban.
  He was an innocent child who had gone home to renew the documents 
that allowed him to be in America.
  They had expired after he spent a few months living in the United 
States with his older brother.
  Mohammad Abu Khadra was just a young man who wanted to come to the 
United States, as many others do.
  The teenager looked every bit the part of an increasingly diverse 
America, with hair cut stylishly short on the sides and long on top, 
wearing a slim-fitting shirt, buttoned up to the collar, with rolled-up 
jeans and a big, blue wristwatch.
  His 37-year-old brother had lived in America for five years at the 
time.
  Mohammad had been taking courses in English as a second language.
  When Mohammad came to Texas on a tourist visa a few months prior, he 
had no trouble and had the documents required.
  When he returned to renew his paperwork, he was doing exactly what 
was required of him.
  Landing back again in Houston, however, Mohammad had been swept up 
needlessly in

[[Page E110]]

Trump's ban which does not even include Jordan, a longtime ally of the 
United States.
  They pulled him aside and kept asking him, ``What are you doing? 
Where are you going? What is your business?''
  The questions continued for a scared young boy thousands of miles 
away from home without counsel.
  Mohammad told the truth about what he was doing while in the States.
  At some point during the questioning, Mohammad told authorities that 
he was enrolled in school.
  Enrolling in public school is a violation of his visa, but we do not 
ask students their status in the school system in Harris County.
  He was taking only ESL courses--something he perhaps had not been 
able to explain.
  Authorities held Mohammdad, questioned him without counsel and then 
sent him to Chicago to a detention center for an undetermined amount of 
time.
  This is a 16-year-old boy, and this should not have happened to him.
  He was a minor, the case moved from the Department of Homeland 
Security to Health and Human Services, which eventually released him.
  The Muslim Ban was the first separation of children from their 
families and turned out be a harbinger of the cruelties and 
inhumanities to come.
  That is why we need to pass H.R. 2214, the No Ban Act.

                          ____________________