This brief discusses the impact that Executive Order 13780, or the ‘Muslim Ban,’ had on immigration from Muslim and African countries. It will include historical context, a discussion of how the affected countries were impacted by this order, and how it came to be rescinded under the presidency of Joe Biden. 

I. Executive summary

Executive Order 13780, commonly known as the “Muslim ban,” restricted entry for individuals from several Muslim-majority countries. This brief examines the ban’s history, its impact on the targeted countries, the debate surrounding it, and future policy options that are being considered.

‍

II. Overview

The following section provides an overview of the impact of Executive Order 13769, stances on the act, and policy responses.

A. Pointed Summary

• In 2017, Executive Order 13780: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States was passed, temporarily restricting entry into the U.S. from specific countries with the intent to enhance national security.
• Supporters of the Executive Order viewed it as necessary to prevent threats from entering the U.S., while critics saw it as discriminatory, arguing that it unfairly targeted Muslims.
• Past decisions include Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld executive authority and the recession of the ban by President Biden in 2021.

B. Relevance

During his 2024 presidential campaign, former President Donald Trump vowed to reinstate the travel ban, which had been repealed by President Biden in 2021. He specifically mentioned barring Palestinian refugees from entering America, calling such countries “infested.” This harsh rhetoric tends to alienate Muslim voters, with the Democratic candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris, also experiencing major setbacks in winning the Muslim vote because of her opinion on the war in Gaza. Debate surrounding the travel ban, which has returned to the forefront of American politics, highlights the tension between balancing national security with immigrant rights.

‍

III. History

A. Current Stances

Immigration lawyers state that the United States’ plans to ban access to non-immigrant visas for certain predominantly Muslim countries will result in family separations and make it increasingly difficult for individuals to obtain waivers to qualify for visas. For instance, Iranian researchers have faced obstacles attending international conferences due to the bans, while nearly 4,000 spouses and over 5,000 adopted children have been prevented from joining their U.S.-citizen partners and parents. Additionally, the demand for travel waivers has risen significantly, leading to more complications in securing visas.

On the other hand, advocates of these immigration restrictions contend that such measures are necessary to protect national security and ensure thorough vetting of individuals entering the country. They argue that the visa process prioritizes cases with compelling humanitarian needs and that the restrictions are aimed at preventing potential security risks.

B. Tried Policy

In 2017, the Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States Act was passed, putting into law the suspension of visas and other immigration benefits to nationals of countries that the United States deems concerning. The original travel ban in 2017 included nationals from seven countries: Iran, Venezuela, Libya, Somalia, North Korea, Syria, and Yemen. The 2017 presidential administration justified the ban by claiming that those seven countries are a haven for terrorists, and their leaders that repeatedly failed to cooperate with U.S. officials. "A Yemeni mother who was denied entry for months to see her dying toddler son; a Somali boy in a Kenyan refugee camp whose father died and who had waited more than three months to join his mother at the time of a July 2018 report," according to the Migration Policy Institute.

In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), the Supreme Court upheld President Trump's 2017 travel ban that restricted entry to the U.S. for foreign nationals of several predominantly Muslim-majority countries. The state of Hawaii argued that the ban targeted predominantly Muslim countries to prevent their populations from diffusing into the United States. With a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the ban was within the limits of the executive branch to regulate the entry of foreign nationals despite Hawaii's claims of religious discrimination; thus, as a result, the ban remained in place.

‍

IV. Policy Problem

A. Stakeholders

Up until January 10th of 2021, travel bans that had suspended entry into the United States affected 13 countries: Burma, Eritrea, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Nigeria, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Venezuela, and Yemen. In Libya, Venezuela, and Yemen, entry was typically denied towards nonimmigrants on business or tourist visas. In Venezuela, officials from government agencies (such as the Ministry of the Popular Power for Interior, Justice and Peace, etc.) and their immediate family members were refused entrance.

B. Risks of Indifference

With the escalation of global conflicts, such as Afghanistan and Myanmar, immigration restrictions targeting specific countries are argued to exacerbate humanitarian crises and strain the economies of nations that are already impacted by political instability or conflict. Additionally, restricting visas for students and job-seekers limits opportunities for growth and innovation, leading to a "brain drain" that deprives these countries of resources and skilled workers, potentially exacerbating regional instability and national security risks.

However, others believe that the best way to protect national security and support the U.S. economy is by instituting targeted immigration bans. Without restrictions, the labor supply would drastically increase, potentially causing wages to fall to levels comparable to those in developing countries. However, research from 1995 found that a 10% increase in immigrant labor participation reduced wages by only about 1%. More recent studies indicate that wage elasticities are now nearly zero, making it unlikely for immigrant labor to significantly impact American wages. In addition to economic concerns, many fear the looming threats to national security. In specific countries linked to terrorist organizations, both government officials and civilians often perceive that the absence of a migration ban could increase the risk of individuals with harmful intentions entering the country.

C. Nonpartisan Reasoning

On January 10, 2021, President Biden signed a Presidential Proclamation titled “Ending Discriminatory Bans on Entry to the United States.” This proclamation revoked Executive Order 13780, (Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States), Proclamation 9645 (Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats), and three other similar policies that prevented the entry of specific migrant. On the other hand, the Trump administration has backed policies that increased restrictions on immigration to strengthen U.S. national security. In addition to Executive Order 13769’s “Muslim Ban” on several Muslim-majority countries, the Trump administration significantly reduced the cap on refugee admissions, lowering it from 110,000 in 2016 to 18,000 in 2020 and limiting access for Syrian refugees fleeing intrastate conflict involving mass persecution and violence.

‍

V. Policy Options

A. Rescission of Travel Ban on Selected Countries

With the proclamation made by President Biden on January 20, 2021, the travel bans under Presidential Proclamations 9645 and 9983, which barred entry into the U.S. for nationals of selected countries, were rescinded. This policy change instructed the U.S. Department of State to reconsider applications for immigrant visas that had been previously denied on account of those bans and invited expedited processing for affected applicants. The rescission also sought to foster family reunifications. As evinced, though the consular services continued to face challenges due to COVID-19, this policy change has marked a significant shift toward reopening for individuals coming from formerly banned countries.

B. The National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act or the NO BAN Act

First proposed in 2019, the NO BAN Act was reintroduced in 2021 as a move to rein in executive power by enacting broad immigration restrictions based on national origin. Proposed by Representative Judy Chu, D-CA, this bill would prohibit future “travel bans” by stating that restrictions must be justified by credible security threats and subject to review by Congress. The bill would prevent such far-reaching bans by the executive branch if passed into law and would ensure more checks upon immigration policy. The NO BAN Act has received bipartisan support within Congress but has yet to be passed into law.

C. Potential Concerns of the NO BAN Act 

In reference to the American Civil Liberties Union, there are three potential issues concerning the NO BAN Act that is causing a standstill within Congress, [1] security flexibility, [2] overreach of authority and [3] a concern for national sovereignty. This Act would restrict presidential flexibility when implementing travel bans in relation to security threats such as acts of terror and health concerns. Immigration and emigration restrictions have always been at the power of the sitting president, so some feel that the act disregards the executive power of the White House and unnecessarily involves Congress. Some conservatives believe that this act could infringe on the State’s right to regulate our nation’s border, which could impede on the enforcement of immigration policies, potentially posing security risks.

VI. Conclusions

While the 2017 Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States Act, which barred entry into the United States by citizens of mostly Muslim majority nations, was abolished by the Biden administration, its legacy still lives on. With the election of Donald Trump, it is likely that similar anti-immigration policies will soon be enacted. The President-elect has vowed to enact a mass deportation of illegal immigrants, as well as to target birthright citizenship for current citizen children of immigrants. To this end the NO BAN Act has been proposed by Judy Chu, D-CA, seeking to reign in executive power over immigration, however, the bill has yet to be passed into law. Currently little stands in the way of the President’s power to influence immigration, and much of what comes next policy-wise has been for now decided at the polls this past election day.

‍

References

1. Cook, Nancy. 2024. “Trump Says He’ll Reinstate ‘Famous Travel Ban’ and Will Ban Refugees from Gaza.” TIME. Time. September 20, 2024. https://time.com/7022828/trump-travel-ban-refugees-gaza/.
2. David, Bier. “Why Legal Immigration Is Nearly Impossible,” 950, June 13, 2023. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2023-06/policy-analysis-950-updated.pdf.
3. Federal Register. 2017. “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” Federal Register. March 9, 2017. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/09/2017-04837/protecting-the-nation-from-foreign-terrorist-entry-into-the-united-states.
4. Federal Register. “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” February 1, 2017. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/01/2017-02281/protecting-the-nation-from-foreign-terrorist-entry-into-the-united-states.
5. “H.R.2214 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): NO BAN Act.” 2019. Congress.gov. 2019. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2214.
6. International Refugee, Assistance Project. Know Your Rights: Muslim and African Ban, n.d. https://refugeerights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/KYR-Muslim-Ban-4.0-English-May-2020.pdf.
7. POLITICO. “Why These 7 Countries Are Listed on Trump’s Travel Ban,” June 26, 2018. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/trump-travel-ban-supreme-court-decision-countries-map/.
8. “Rescission of Presidential Proclamations 9645 and 9983.” 2021. Travel.state.gov. March 10, 2021. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/visas-news-archive/rescission-of-presidential-proclamations-9645-and-9983.html.
9. Starr, Stephen. 2024. “‘They Will Vote against Harris’: Arab Americans in Michigan Desert Democrats over Gaza.” The Guardian. The Guardian. October 14, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/14/hamtramck-donald-trump-arab-american-muslim.
10. The Supreme Court. “Trump vs. Hawaii,” June 26, 2018. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf.