For more than a month in the second term of US President Donald Trump, his brutal suppression of immigration and asylum seeker has already harmed countless people. The implementation of the law carried out mass attacks throughout the United States, rounding people. Tens of thousands are deported, and the path to Asylum is blocked by tens of thousands more.
On the eve of this attack, people mobilized massively to protect vulnerable groups at the local and national levels. One part of the legislation could make a difference in this struggle: the antidiscrimination of national origin for the Neimigrants Act (without a ban), which he introduced on February 6 to US Congress by Judy Chu and Senator Chris Coons. The proposal of the law would create a much needed limitations and responsibility for any president who intends to categorically ban refugees, asylum seekers or people of certain faiths or nationality from entry into the United States.
Why is this necessary today? Because the fear of Trump is growing that Trump sets the stage for the resurrection of the infamous Muslim and African prohibitions of his first term.
Eight years ago, as a freshly inaugurated president, Trump issued an executive order to fulfill his promise of the campaign on the adoption of “the total and complete exclusion of Muslims entering the United States.” A few hours of decree, thousands of passengers from predominantly Muslim countries have been detained for hours at airports across the country for hours, as federal agents have struggled to decipher who could enter and who will be banned.
Hundreds of families were separated, and Trump subsequently expanded the ban on Tanzania, Sudan, Mjanmar, Eritrea, Kirgij and Nigeria – called the “African ban”. People who fled from war, famine and other humanitarian disasters were cut off from searching for shelters in the US.
Over 40,000 people were denied visas for Muslim and African ban, which caused a 94 percent drop in Muslim refugees’ income between January and November 2017.
Traumatic influences of Muslim and African bans, currently abolished, are still staying years later: families are separated, people are deprived of critical medical treatment, the cost of travel and visa fees lost, antimigrant and antimultural hatred.
Among those who are affected is Maral Tabriza, who has denied the support of her family when she is most needed. When Maral was pregnant in 2018, her parents signed up for tourist visas to witness the birth of their first grandson. The application of her father was held in administrative processing, and while they were waiting, the Muslim ban was approved by the Supreme Court and the visas of both parents were rejected.
Maral was deprived of his parents’ support during pregnancy and postpartum. Because connective tissue disorders that makes it incredibly painful every day, Maral believed that it was impossible to return to work as fast as she had hoped. She suffered from postpartum depression due to pain and sadness that caused and has been on antidepressants for over a year. Her parents will never be able to meet their mother -in -law, who died while waiting to come to visit the US.
Maral was a prosecutor in a civil proceedings in a class that sought to force the government to review the visual applications of individuals affected by the ban. Our organization, Muslim advocates, refrains the case. As a result of the lawsuit, the court ordered the Government to provide almost 25,000 individuals affected by the prohibition of the visa review process, whose implementation is ongoing today.
However, President Trump is ready to bring a potentially broader ban on travel and his administration could target individuals with legal status for testing and supervision just because citizens are forbidden countries or because his administration considers them “hostile”.
Because of this, since 2019, the proponents of Muslims and our partners in a coalition without a Muslim ban ever advocated a representative of Chu’s and Senator Coons without a ban. If adopted, this legislation would be expanded to the religion of the provisions on non -discrimination under the Immigration Act that already covers race, gender and nationality. It would also require that any travel limit imposed under the Law on Immigration and Citizenship (INA) Section 212 (F) is based on specific and credible facts and in a way that is closely resolved by a convincing government interest. The secretaries of the US Ministry of the State and the US Homeland Security would be required to submit notification to the Congress before any such travel limit and briefing within 48 hours.
Without the restriction on the prohibition law, the presidents will continue to abuse their power by being arbitrarily or on the basis of thinly concealed religious or racial hatred. Only last year, then President Joe Biden used the same government of INA 212 (F) to exclude the border, in a credible violation of the US Immigration Act. And Trump called 212 (f) when he closed the southern border in January. The prohibition law does not limit such cruelty and represents an alternative to the hatred and racism that encourage it.
In a world full of humanitarian disasters, our decisions today can mean a difference between life and death for untold numbers of people. Back in 2017, a coalition without a Muslim prohibition ever created from the movement that appeared at the airports, as people from all layers of life became close to protest against the first Muslim ban. Today, the legislators should also take a brave attitude for the highest aspirations of religious freedom and refuge from the Tiranian leaders and to bring the Law on Prohibition.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s and do not reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeere.
