|
|
Andy Biggs on Immigration |
Congressional Summary:
Opponent's Comments (American Immigration Lawyers Association letter, Nov. 17. 2011): AILA urges withdrawal of this unnecessary and deeply harmful bill from consideration. If enacted, H.R. 3256 would do serious damage to the U.S. visa processing system, jeopardize U.S. businesses and communities that depend on foreign national students, workers, and their families, and threaten America's economy and security. At a time when America's doors must be open for business, we cannot risk sending the message to the world that we have shut our doors.
The proposed bill's mandatory visa-denial scheme would place at risk America's relations with many of its most important trade, business and diplomatic partners. H.R. 3256 would mandate the denial of visas to any country that denies or unreasonably delays the repatriation of its nationals. If implemented today, scores of countries would risk having their visas cut-off because they failed to repatriate nationals within a 180-day period. Among those countries are some of our closest allies and key economic partners.
The Project Vote Smart Voter Guide inferred how candidates would respond to the question, 'Immigration: Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?' Project Vote Smart notes, "in response to the increasing unwillingness of candidates to answer issue questions, Project Vote Smart has researched Congressional candidates' public records to determine candidates' likely responses on certain key issues. These issue positions, from the year 2016, are provided [for candidates who] refused to provide voters with positions on key issues covered by the 2016 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests. Historically, candidates have failed to complete our test due to the advice they receive from their parties and advisors and out of fear of negative attack ads."
The National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act (NO BAN Act) imposes limitations on the President's authority to suspend or restrict aliens from entering the US. It also prohibits religious discrimination in various immigration-related decisions, such as issuing a visa. The President may temporarily restrict the entry of any class of aliens after determining that the restriction would address specific and credible facts that threaten U.S. interests such as security or public safety.
GovTrack.us analysis (4/21/21): President Donald Trump instituted a travel ban on eight countries: Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. The Supreme Court upheld the travel ban 5-4 in the 2018 decision Trump v. Hawaii. Trump's travel ban was popularly nicknamed "the Muslim ban" by its Democratic critics since most of the countries it applied to were majority Muslim, and because Trump as a 2016 candidate had indeed proposed a Muslim ban. Regardless, President Joe Biden rescinded the policy on his first day in office. Currently, federal law bans any person from being discriminated against when entering the U.S. on the basis of five characteristics: race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. The NO BAN Act would add another category: religion.
Rep. Tom McClintock in OPPOSITION: President Trump invoked this authority against countries that were hotbeds of international terrorism and that were not cooperating with the US in providing basic information about travelers coming from these countries. The left called it a 'Muslim ban.' What nonsense. Without this authority, the president would have been powerless to take simple, prudent precautions against terrorists and criminals from entering the US.
Legislative Outcome: Passed House 218-208-3 on April 21, 2021, rollcall #127; introduced in Senate with 42 co-sponsors but no further Senate action during 2021.