Shortly after President Donald Trump took office in 2017, he signed an executive order that temporarily prohibited immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries (i.e., Syria, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia) for ninety days. Following the initial travel ban, Trump signed several other discriminatory executive orders including: ending Temporary Protection Status, reducing the admission of refugees, and banning asylum seekers from entering the U.S.. The Trump administration reasoned that the ban protected Americans from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals who were allowed entry into the U.S.. The first executive order emphasizes that several foreign-born individuals have been convicted of terrorism since September 11, 2001. In order to ensure the safety of Americans, the U.S. must take greater measures to prevent the admission of individuals who do not support the Constitution and engage in acts of bigotry and violence. The Trump administration has since released three iterations of the ban, adding Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea to its list of banned countries.The Travel Ban 3.0 allows immigrants from these seven countries to apply for waivers that would grant entry to the U.S. under certain conditions. However, this waiver option placed applicants under “extreme vetting” in certain countries and curtailed the number of available visas. The NO BAN Act was introduced in April 2019. The bill would limit  Trump’s authority to ban immigrants and foreign travelers and prohibit religious discrimination in regards to immigration policy and decisions. Congress has yet to pass the NO BAN Act , thus continuing the unconstitutional discimination against Muslim immigrants and their families.

The discriminatory nature of Travel Ban 1.0 became apparent just a few days after Trump signed the order. During an interview with Fox News on January 28, 2017, Rudy Giuliani stated that Trump called him to request Giuliani’s assistance in crafting a “Muslim Ban” that was “legal and sensible.” Giuliani stated that the ban is based off of danger and the prevention of terrorism and not religion. However, Giuliani did not state that Trump wanted to ban only radical terrorist groups. He stated that Trump specifically asked for a “Muslim ban.” Giuliani went on to say that after Trump’s request, a few policy-makers disguised the ban by emphasizing that the listed seven countries are likely to bring terrorism into our nation; however, it is not based off of religion.Trump ran his campaign by promoting the idea of Islam hating the U.S. Thus, while religion may not explicitly be mentioned in the executive order, the basis of the ban stems from unconstitutional religious discrimination. In order to suppress the current religious and ethnic makeup of the U.S., the Trump administration strategically spun its blatant anti-Muslim sentiment into policy. 

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network on January 30, 2017, Trump himself broadcasted the religious discrimination behind the ban. During the interview, Trump stated that he would prioritize Christian refugees in the Middle East, by allowing more Christians into the U.S. He went on to say that Muslims can migrate into the U.S. easier than Christians in the Middle East, which is unfair because Muslims are “chopping off the heads of everybody.”  The Trump administration resettles about 55% more Christian refugees than Muslim refugees- a blatant form of relgious discrimination. Paradoxically enough, the administration has been resettling Christian refugees in vulnerable areas near the countries they have fled from. Not only is Trump’s prioritization of Christian refugees a form of religious discrimination, but his policy has actually been hurting Christians.

After two years of Trump’s discriminatory policy, Congress held the first hearing for the NO BAN Act on September 24, 2019. The hearing discussed the harmful implications the ban has had on the U.S economy and citizens. During the congressional hearing, two witnesses who were personally impacted by the ban were able to tell their stories. 

The first testimony was given by Dr. Abdollah Dehzangi, an Assistant Professor of Computer Science at Morgan State University. He met his wife in 2008 in Malaysia, whom he  married in 2016. Dehzangi submitted an I-130 form for his wife to join him in the U.S., which petitions for an “alien” relative of a U.S. citizen to immigrate to the U.S.. In 2018, The University of Maryland offered his wife a research and lecture position in drug design and discovery. However, her visa application was denied due to her Iranian citizenship. To be with his wife, Dehzangi would have to quit his position at Morgan State University, leave his mother and brothers, and abandon his dreams. Dehzangi stated, “I am being denied my love and my future because I am Iranian.” He emphasized that the xenophobic policy is destroying lives and love.

The second statement was given by Ismail Alghazali, a Yemeni bodega worker in New York City. Alghazali had a wife named Hend, a one year old son, and a new-born daughter he has yet to meet at home in Yemen. Alghazali, a U.S. citizen, had to leave Hend soon after they were married to work in the U.S. in order to provide an income for his family. Alghazali applied for Hend to join him in 2016, and they received notice for their interview two years later. Hend was pregnant with their son, but she was afflicted by a heart condition. Alghazali knew Hend would be denied entry into the U.S. because of the ban. However, they hoped that, due to her illness, she would be eligible for a waiver—especially because Alghazali is a U.S. citizen. The interview lasted less than five minutes, and Hind’s passport was denied because of the Muslim ban, as he expected. Alghazali had to return back to the U.S. once again without his family. He is asking Congress to end this ban so he can be reunited with his family. These narratives are only two examples of the lives affected by the travel ban. With the ban in full effect, families continue to be separated on the basis of religion.

The NO BAN Act has currently has 34 cosponsors in the Senate and 165 in the House of Representatives, although not a single Republican supports it. It is only the beginning of a long fight; Senator Chris Coons and Congresswoman Judy Chu just recently introduced  the bill. It currently has to pass the House, Senate, and the President. With the Trump administration in office, the implementation of the Muslim Ban is indefinite. However, discussion and action around the NO BAN Act must continue in order to pass the bill and prohibit the unconstitutional act of religious discrimination.