January, 18 2021, 11:00pm EDT

NIAC FAQ on the Muslim Ban: Why A Repeal Is So Important
Since January 27, 2017, when President Trump made good on his campaign promise to impose a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering this country," tens of thousands of families have been separated from one another solely due to Trump's bigotry. Since that time, the Iranian-American community and NIAC Action have joined with allies across the nation to fight against the Trump administration's blatantly discriminatory and unjust ban that has targeted Iranian nationals and deeply impacted countless Iranian Americans.
WASHINGTON
Since January 27, 2017, when President Trump made good on his campaign promise to impose a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering this country," tens of thousands of families have been separated from one another solely due to Trump's bigotry. Since that time, the Iranian-American community and NIAC Action have joined with allies across the nation to fight against the Trump administration's blatantly discriminatory and unjust ban that has targeted Iranian nationals and deeply impacted countless Iranian Americans.
Thankfully, President-Elect Biden plans to stand with us and, on Day one of his presidency, will revoke Trump's discriminatory order. Lawmakers should celebrate this overdue decision to repeal the Muslim Ban as one in line with American ideals that will have no negative impact on national security:
Question: What is the Muslim Ban?
Answer: The ban was the first Trump immigration order rooted solely in bigotry, foreshadowing further targeting of immigrants and the administration's assault on democracy writ large. The first order targeted most or all individuals from obtaining immigrant or nonimmigrant visas from seven Muslim majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Over time, some countries had those restrictions removed for geopolitical reasons - like Iraq and Sudan - while other non-Muslim nations were nominally added under the ban, like North Korea and Venezuela, to increase the likelihood Presidential Proclamation 9645 could survive judicial scrutiny. Later, a host of African countries were subjected to bans, increasing the total to 13 countries.
- Formally codified by Presidential Proclamation 9645, Trump's third ban was upheld by the Supreme Court after protracted legal battles. The Supreme Court decided in the administration's favor 5-4, despite the clear constitutional concerns and blatant discriminatory intent of the order, after the administration created a sham "waiver process" that was rarely used and included non-Muslim nations with minimal application.
- The ban sparked major protests at airports across the country, as outraged individuals saw firsthand the cruelty and chaos of detainments and deportations ordered solely on the basis of the President's bigotry. Impacted immigrant communities and civil rights groups kept up the fight throughout the duration of the Trump presidency, and helped convince the House of Representatives to pass legislation repealing the ban and similar discriminatory policies.
Question: How has it impacted the Iranian American community and other affected communities?
Answer: The Muslim ban has had a devastating impact on people across the globe, including countless U.S. citizens. It has deferred dreams, separated families, deprived people of life-saving health care, and blocked access to education and professional opportunities.
- 29,845 Iranians alone have been rendered ineligible for a visa under Presidential Proclamation 9645 through November 2020, or nearly three-quarters of all nationals presently impacted by the ban.
- During the Obama administration, more than 40,000 Iranians typically secured immigrant and nonimmigrant visas in a given calendar year. Thanks to the Trump administration's discriminatory ban, this plummeted to little more than 5,000 visas issued in any given year before the onset of COVID-19.
- While some still sought to secure visas, other Iranians put their dreams of reconnecting with families on hold or sought to study or pursue their careers in other countries.
Question: Did the Muslim ban provide any security benefit to the United States?
Answer: No. The Trump administration never demonstrated that nationals of the targeted nations were in fact a security threat.
- As the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis indicated early in the ban's implementation, citizens from the targeted countries are "rarely implicated in U.S.-based terrorism," and citizenship itself - which the ban is based on - is an "unreliable indicator of terrorist threat to the United States."
- Additionally, Iran was added to the list of banned countries because of its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, a designation ostensibly derived from the actions of the government rather than any threat from Iranian nationals.
- Instead, there is a long track record of the ban being tied solely to the President's bigoted campaign promise, including the President asking Rudy Giuliani how to do a ban "legally" and Stephen Miller saying that subsequent bans would be fundamentally the same.
Question: What is the path forward on implementing the reversal of the Muslim Ban?
Answer: With the ban being lifted, the Biden team must work quickly to restart the atrophied immigration process for affected communities.
- The Biden team will need to not just lift the ban but provide a pathway to ensure individuals from affected countries will get visas, even amid ongoing limitations from COVID-19. Since the U.S. and Iran do not have diplomatic relations, Iranians are required to go to U.S. embassies in other countries to conduct the necessary interviews. However, currently Iranian nationals have no viable pathway to secure a visa appointment, as nearby embassies are either not accepting visa appointments, like in Albania or are not accepting Iranian nationals such as in Turkey or the UAE.
- Moreover, the Biden team should ensure that those visa applicants rejected solely on the arbitrary and discriminatory basis of Proclamation 9645 or earlier bans are able and invited to re-apply. Similarly, the U.S. should seek to - at minimum - restore visa processing back to the levels before the Muslim ban was put in place once health protocols allow it.
Question: What becomes of the NO BAN Act with the Muslim Ban repealed?
Answer: An amended version of the bill could be reintroduced in the 117th Congress and President-Elect Biden should make it a crucial piece of his 100-day push on immigration reform.
- While a portion of the NO BAN Act, which passed the House in July 2020, repealed a host of discriminatory orders, it also included provisions that would prevent any future President from further abusing the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and imposing blanket, discriminatory bans that only harm people and do not make Americans safer.
- In the INA's current form, the 212(f) statute does not codify what factors determine whether an aliens' entry is "detrimental" to U.S. interests, what restrictions are "appropriate," and how long those restrictions should last. The NO BAN Act would remedy these gaps by curtailing the broad and unspecific language in the law and mandate the government to meet a more stringent standard in suspending entry based on "credible facts" and connected to "specific acts" that have occurred.
- The bill also created a process where Congress would be routinely notified and briefed on the status, implementation, and legal authority for the executive's actions. It would also expand the INA's anti-discrimination language by specifically prohibiting religious-based discrimination.
- Failure to address these gaps means that a future administration could follow in Trump's footsteps by abusing its immigration powers and ripping apart families from one another.
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization founded in 2002 to give voice to the Iranian-American community. From being the trusted voice on U.S.- Iran relations, to pushing forth legislation that protects individuals of Iranian heritage from systematic discrimination, to celebrating our cultural heritage, NIAC creates a lasting impact in the lives of the members of our community.
(202) 386-6325LATEST NEWS
UAW Chief Says Contract Fight With Big Automakers 'Boils Down to One Thing: It's Corporate Greed'
"Either you stand for a billionaire class where everybody else gets left behind, or you stand for the working class," said United Auto Workers president Shawn Fain.
Sep 07, 2023
With a potential strike just a week away, United Auto Workers president Shawn Fain said late Wednesday that the union's members are "fired up" and prepared to do what's necessary to win a fair contract after years of massive profits for Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis.
"They've watched the corporations make a quarter of a trillion dollars in the last decade as we went backwards," Fain said in an appearance on CNBC.
The so-called "Big Three" automakers have made $21 billion in the first six months of 2023, Fain noted, pushing back on automakers' claims that accepting UAW's demands—which include a 46% wage hike and a 32-hour work week with 40 hours of pay—would lead to unsustainable cost increases.
"What angers me is to hear the corporations talk about how workers being treated fairly is going to drive up the cost of vehicles. In the last four years, the cost of vehicles went up 30%; our wages went up 6%. Corporate CEO pay went up 40%," said Fain. "This boils down to one thing: It's corporate greed. It's not our contracts, it's not our members' demands. It's corporate greed. And that needs to change in this country."
UAW's contracts with the Big Three are set to expire on September 14. Fain reiterated Wednesday that the union intends to go on strike against any automaker that doesn't come to an acceptable agreement with the union by next week. (UAW has never before gone on strike against all three major automakers at the same time.)
"We're down to the wire. We have eight days to go," Fain said. "We're pushing. We're available 24/7, as we have been for the last seven weeks, so it's up to the companies on where we end up and whether we end up having to take action or not on the 14th."
Fain told the Associated Press that UAW negotiators are set to meet with General Motors on Thursday to get the company's response to the union's demands, which it outlined more than a month ago.
Stellantis, for its part, is expected to make its counteroffer by the end of the week.
Last week, the UAW filed unfair labor practice charges against both companies, alleging that they had unlawfully refused to bargain in good faith. The National Labor Relations Board is investigating the accusations.
UAW has also reportedly submitted its response to Ford's contract counteroffer, which Fain dismissed as insulting. The company offered a 9% wage increase through 2027, a far cry from the UAW's call for a 46% raise.
While Fain has stressed that the goal of the ongoing contract fight is to win fair treatment for workers, not to strike, the union president told CNBC that a strike would signal to President Joe Biden and other political leaders "where the working class people in this country stand."
"It's time for politicians in this country to pick a side," Fain said. "Either you stand for a billionaire class where everybody else gets left behind, or you stand for the working class."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Orders Texas to Remove Buoy 'Death Traps' From Rio Grande
"These inhumane traps were placed by Greg Abbott to harm and kill people who were just looking to move to survive and thrive," said one rights group.
Sep 06, 2023
Migrant rights groups and Texas Democrats on Wednesday welcomed a federal judge's order that the state remove from the Rio Grande about 1,000 feet of orange buoys fastened together with metal cables and anchored with concrete blocks.
The federal Department of Justice sued Texas and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott over the buoys in July. Judge David A. Ezra of the Western District of Texas—an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan—ordered the state to remove the barrier by September 15 and prohibited "building new or placing additional buoys, blockades, or structure" in the river along the U.S.-Mexico border.
"Gov. Abbott announced that he was not 'asking for permission' for Operation Lone Star, the anti-immigration program under which Texas constructed the floating barrier," Ezra wrote. "Unfortunately for Texas, permission is exactly what federal law requires before installing obstructions in the nation's navigable waters."
Democratic Texas Congressman Joaquin Castro said that "Abbott knows his actions are illegal. I'm glad the court is forcing him to remove his death traps from the Rio Grande. He has endangered lives, damaged Texas' working relationship with our largest trading partner, and let politics rather than sensible policy dictate his actions."
U.S. Rep. Greg Casar, another Texas Democrat, also praised the preliminary injunction on X, formerly Twitter, and charged that "Greg Abbott's Operation Lone Star is abusive, illegal, wasteful, and inhumane."
Activists and advocacy groups also celebrated the development on social media. Antonio Arellano of NextGen America called the decision a "major win" for the Biden-Harris administration and human rights.
United We Dream Action declared that "these inhumane traps were placed by Greg Abbott to harm and kill people who were just looking to move to survive and thrive."
Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, said in a statement that "from the onset, Gov. Abbott's improvised buoy wall was an inhumane response to a humanitarian emergency, but this ruling makes crystal clear its underlying illegality. This 1,000-foot barrier diverted $1,000,000 of Texas taxpayer funds for a political stunt that was designed to secure media coverage, not the border."
"The Abbott administration's buoy wall is just one deeply problematic example of its disregard for the core values of Americans who are eager to welcome and embrace asylum-seeking families," she continued. "It is far less costly, both financially and morally, to treat asylum-seekers with basic human dignity."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, wrote of the ruling: "All in all, a resounding defeat for Gov. Abbott—one they likely knew was coming, despite his puffery about Texas' alleged right to install the barrier. Federal law is quite clear on this issue; if you want to install a structure in a river, get a permit. And Texas didn't."
Reichlin-Melnick added it is "no surprise" Abbott has already pledged that "Texas will appeal." In his statement, the governor also said the state "is prepared to take this fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court."
Meanwhile, U.S. Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta said that the Justice Department is "pleased that the court ruled that the barrier was unlawful and irreparably harms diplomatic relations, public safety, navigation, and the operations of federal agency officials in and around the Rio Grande."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Now End All the Drilling, Campaigners Say as Biden Rescinds Arctic Refuge Leases
"Our sacred land is only temporarily safe from oil and gas development," said one First Nations leader, urging Congress and the White House to "permanently protect the Arctic Refuge."
Sep 06, 2023
Indigenous tribes and climate campaigners applauded the Biden administration's announcement Wednesday that it will cancel all existing oil and gas drilling leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and ban drilling across 13 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve, while hundreds of groups also called on the U.S. Interior Department to go further on fossil fuel leasing.
Biden's move in Alaska will reverse former Republican President Donald Trump's approval of a 2017 law that required leasing in the Arctic Refuge, the nation's largest area of pristine wilderness which is home to vulnerable species including polar bears, migratory birds, and caribou.
The Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) holds the last remaining leases in the refuge, after two other lessees canceled drilling plans. AIDEA's leases would have allowed it to drill in 365,000 acres in the Arctic Refuge's coastal plain.
The Biden administration conducted an environmental analysis of the lease sale which found "multiple legal deficiencies."
Jamie Williams, president of the Wilderness Society, said that following the Biden administration's announcement, "our climate is a bit safer and there is renewed hope for permanently protecting one of the last great wild landscapes in America" as Indigenous communities can continue to depend on the porcupine caribou herd, which uses the refuge as its calving ground.
"We are profoundly grateful to the Biden administration for taking this step to protect what the Gwich'in [First Nations people] know as Iizhik Gwats’an Gwandaii Goodlit—The Sacred Place Where Life Begins—and we call on Congress to repeal the Arctic Refuge oil and gas leasing provision in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and take action to permanently protect the coastal plain for future generations," said Williams.
Bernadette Dementieff, executive director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, added that the tribe knows "that our sacred land is only temporarily safe from oil and gas development."
"AIDEA's leases were economically infeasible, unlawful, and threatened the porcupine caribou herd and the Gwich'in way of life. We thank the Biden administration and Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland for taking this step," said Dementieff. "We urge the administration and our leaders in Congress to repeal the oil and gas program and permanently protect the Arctic Refuge."
U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) also said Congress should make the protections permanent.
The protections announced Wednesday will not stop the Willow oil drilling project that Biden approved in March, allowing ConocoPhillips to potentially extract more than 600 million barrels of crude oil over 30 years, leading to roughly 280 million metric tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions.
“The only way to meaningfully combat the climate crisis is by stopping new fossil fuel projects," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "The Biden administration is right to stop these egregious drilling plans—and they must apply the same standard to all other oil drilling and fracking operations in the country."
"Today's action is a reminder that the White House has considerable authority to rein in fossil fuels," she added. "It's time for the president to act on those powers."
Earthjustice expressed hope that the announcement will be "the tip of the iceberg" for protections in Alaska.
The protections will also not stop the Biden administration from allowing drilling elsewhere, including in the National Outer Continental Shelf, where the Interior Department is expected to announce a five-year leasing plan this month which could include as many as 11 offshore oil and gas leases with the potential to emit up to 3.5 billion tons of carbon pollution.
Groups including Earthjustice, Defenders of Wildlife, and Oil Change International were among more than 200 groups that wrote to the Interior Department on Wednesday calling for the plan to include no new leases.
"Today's youth should not have to grow up in and inherit a world plagued by oil spills," wrote the groups. "We implore you, please end offshore drilling leasing in the Gulf of Mexico and all U.S. oceans, so we can start to undo the damage from decades of leaks and spills, protect our shores forever from a catastrophic oil spill, and enjoy a livable future."
Raena Garcia, a senior campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said Wednesday's announcements by the Interior Department, while laudable and important, do not wipe away the shortcomings of Biden's overall climate policy and "simply don't go far enough."
"Lease sales like those in the ANWR that were put forth by the Trump Administration should have never happened in the first place," said Garcia. "Small measures like the ones the Department of Interior put forward won't erase President Biden's incredibly disappointing climate record with respect to oil and gas leasing. If the Administration is truly committed to protecting our people and the planet, they will halt climate-destroying projects like Willow altogether."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
Independent, nonprofit journalism needs your help.
Please Pitch In
Today!
Today!