On Tuesday, the Senate voted to roll back President Trump’s “Muslim ban,” a sweeping executive order that targeted people from seven Muslim-majority countries.
This week, the House passed a measure that would reverse the ban, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced the Senate would take up the bill this week.
While Trump is no longer president, the move to rollback the executive order is a welcome step.
It is a first step in a long-term effort to rollbacks Trump’s executive order and protect the country from future terrorist attacks, and it’s also an opportunity for Congress to revisit the ban’s original purpose.
Here’s how it might work.
The Executive Order The order Trump signed in January banned entry to the United States for anyone from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen.
While the order included some exceptions for religious minorities, it also barred citizens of Syria, Iran, Libya and Yemen from traveling to the U.S.
It’s a common misconception that President Trump signed the order with the sole intent of rolling back his predecessor’s immigration policies.
But in reality, the order’s original intent was to protect Americans from terrorist attacks and prevent others from returning to their home countries.
The order explicitly prohibited all travel from the seven Muslim majority countries.
In the original version of the order, Trump said, the purpose was to ensure the country was “not at war with anyone.”
But the order was not intended to target specific groups of people or to bar refugees from the U,S.
from entering the country.
Rather, it was designed to prevent terrorists from coming into the country, which could have included people from the targeted countries and others who might be vulnerable to terrorism, such as refugees.
But it wasn’t long before the order had to be rewritten to include the idea that there was no “War on Terror.”
And it didn’t help that the original executive order was designed with only one goal: to keep Americans safe.
The revised executive order aims to achieve the same goal, but with one exception: to stop people from traveling from the affected countries to the US.
“While the original Executive Order did not include a broad definition of terrorist organizations or include specific national security risks, it did specifically address those national security issues that may be relevant to the national security and public safety of the United Kingdom and the United State,” the House bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), said in a statement.
“The bill I am co-sponsoring would amend the Executive Order to eliminate the requirement that an applicant be from a particular country to qualify for a visa, and to provide for the admission of certain individuals from the countries covered under the original order.”
The legislation would also allow for the entry of refugees from those countries.
In the original bill, refugees from Iran and Somalia were excluded.
But under the bill, those two countries would be included.
This would mean that those refugees could still enter the country if they applied in person, or by phone or by mail, without fear of retaliation from the governments they are fleeing.
It would also mean that there is no risk of a “war on terror” when they apply to enter the United STATES, a clear departure from the previous administration’s policy.
The bill also includes a provision that would allow the Department of Homeland Security to temporarily suspend the refugee resettlement program, which was in place under the Obama administration, until the administration could figure out how to fix the problems the executive action caused.
This would give the government time to find a solution.
McGovern also says the bill is an “all-of-the-above” immigration bill, meaning it would not impose any new requirements on Americans.
The House bill also contains an amendment that would exempt certain religious minorities from the ban.
That amendment was introduced by Rep. Ted Lieu (D–Calif.), who was among those who filed a lawsuit challenging the original travel ban.
The amendment would allow for religious exemptions for a handful of religious groups, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, and members of Zoroastrianism.
Lieu, who is also Muslim, said the amendment is “good for America” because it protects Muslims, as well as other religious minorities.
The bill’s supporters have argued that the religious exemption is needed because the new version of Trump’s travel ban would allow people from Iran to return to the country even if they were arrested for terrorism.
But others, including a bipartisan group of senators, say this is not a good idea.
“This amendment does not serve the best interest of our country by allowing countries of origin to remain under the ban,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) said in statement.
“It is bad policy for America, bad policy when it comes to protecting the safety of Americans and bad policy in general.”
The bill’s passage means that the Senate can get on with the job of repealing the executive orders ban.
It will also give the Senate more