Democrats in the House and Senate have again introduced legislation seeking to block funding for President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting travel from certain countries, which has been widely criticized as a “Muslim ban.”
“The Muslim Ban — now in its third iteration, but wrong in any form — is just one of the weapons Donald Trump is using to foment xenophobia and bigotry and drive wedges in our communities. It is simply un-American. We do not create policies based on religion and we do not target people because of who they worship,” said Rep. Judy Chu, who is leading the House measure.
“That is bigotry at its worst, and it is part of the reason we have seen an increase in hate crimes and violence since Trump started his campaign,” Chu said. “And that is why Sen. Murphy and I are reintroducing our bill to block any federal funds from going towards the implementation of the Muslim Ban.”
Both Chu, a Democrat from California, and Connecticut Democratic Sen. Christopher S. Murphy have long lists of Democratic co-sponsors for their bills, which take the form of a simple blockade on funding for Trump’s executive orders that would not expire at the end of any fiscal year.
Also watcjh:Ilhan Omar: Diversity in Congress Leads to Better Policy
And the bill would seem to have a better chance, at least in the House, with the Democratic majority in the 116th Congress.
“Two years ago, after President Trump announced his hateful Muslim ban, I heard from families across Connecticut who feared they would never see their loved ones again. But the proposed ban wasn’t just a threat the families affected by it — it threatened the very idea of America. We are made stronger — and safer — by embracing our diversity,” Murphy said in a statement.
In June 2018, the Supreme Court held that the most recent version of the Trump administration’s travel ban, which does not apply only to Muslim-majority countries, is constitutional.
Central to the case were Trump’s statements and tweets about the travel ban, both as a presidential candidate and after winning the White House, and whether those statements meant the travel ban was actually a pretext for a discriminatory “Muslim ban.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., held in the 5-4 opinion, that the president’s statements could not be a basis for striking down the actual executive order.
“Because there is persuasive evidence that the entry suspension has a legitimate grounding in national security concerns, quite apart from any religious hostility, we must accept that independent justification,” Roberts wrote.
Todd Ruger contributed to this report.Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.
Topics: congressional-affairsdemocratsdonald-trumphouseincludephotolegal-affairssenatecaliforniaCampaignsChristopher S MurphyConnecticutdemocratsDonald J. TrumpExecutive BranchHouseindependentsJudy ChumediaopedreligionSenateSupreme CourtWhite HouseIMGR
- What is assisted living
- Does my diet affect my descendants
- Are you sexually active 2?no_redirect=1
- Will the world be better
- Can Amazon freeze my bank accounts
- What do you think of dowry
- Which is the worst gaming convention
- Does nature require disorder
- How do you define a douchebag?no_redirect=1
- What is something you want to know
- What are the best pink paint colors
- Is Vivekananda College Mylapore strict or not
- What are things that make IIITians sad
- What type of spectrum is the rainbow
- Why is computer science needed in business
- Did Terraria start due to Minecraft
- Why is Zantac no longer available
- When is vibrato most effective
- Where do Americans need visas