More than a month after US President Donald Trump’s mandate, the Immigration and Asylum campaign has already affected countless people. The law application carried out mass raids throughout the United States, where they collected people. Tens of thousands were deported, and the path was banned to resort to tens of other thousands.

In the face of this attack, people collectively mobilize to protect weak groups at local and national levels. A legislation can make a difference in this conflict: the anti -discrimination law based on the national origin of non -immigrants (without a ban), submitted to the US Congress on February 6 by actor Judy Chu and Senator Chris Konz. The draft law will create restrictions and accountability that affects any president who intends to ban refugees categorically, asylum seekers, or people of religions or nationalities specified by the entry of the United States.

Why is this required today? Since there is an increasing fear that Trump puts the way for the famous Muslim and African ban in his first term.

Eight years ago, as a new president opened, Trump issued an executive order to fulfill his promise in his campaign to “complete and complete Muslims enter the United States.” Within hours of decree, thousands of travelers from Muslim countries were often arrested for hours at airports throughout the country, as Federal agents have struggled to dismantle their encryption who could enter and who will prevent.

Hundreds of families were separated, and Trump later expanded the ban to include Tanzania, Sudan, Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan and Nigeria – called “African Ban”. Thus, people fleeing war, hunger and other humanitarian disasters were cut off from a shelter in the United States.

More than 40,000 people were deprived of visas due to the ban on Muslim and African, causing 94 percent of acceptance of Muslim refugees between January and November 2017.

The shocking effects of the Islamic and African embargo, currently canceled, remain, remaining after years: separate families, depriving persons deprived of critical medical treatment, lost travel and visa fees expenses, anti -immigrant and anti -Muslims.

Among the affected people, Mara Tabrizi, who was deprived of supporting her family when she needed her more. When March was pregnant in 2018, her parents applied for tourist visas to see the birth of their first grandson. Her father’s request was suspended in administrative treatment, and while they waited, the Islamic ban was approved by the Supreme Court, and parents’ visas were rejected.

March was deprived of her parents’ support during pregnancy and postpartum. With a connective tissue disorder in making incredibly painful daily tasks, Mara found it impossible to return to the speed that was hoping. She suffered from depression after birth due to the pain and sadness that this caused and was on antidepressants for more than a year. Her parents will never be able to meet her husband’s father, who died while waiting to come to the United States.

March was a prosecutor in decisive suits that sought to force the government to reconsider the visa requests affected by the ban. Our organization, Muslim defenders, participating in the case. As a result of the lawsuit, the court ordered the government to provide nearly 25,000 individuals affected by the prohibition of the process of reviewing the compensated visa, which is still ongoing today.

However, President Trump is ready to age a broader travel ban and may be targeted by individuals with the legal status of interrogation and monitoring just because they are citizens in the banned countries or because his administration considers them “hostile”.

For this reason since 2019, Muslim defenders and our partners have ever defended the Muslim ban on the ban on actor Chu and Senator Konsa. If it is approved, this legislation will extend to religion the provisions of non -discrimination under the Immigration Law that already covers race, sex and nationality. This may also require any restrictions on travel imposed under the Immigration and Nationality Law (INA) on Section 212 (and) on specific and credible facts, and in a narrow manner that is tightly handled by convincing government interest. This will require the US State Department secretaries and American internal security to make a notice of Congress before any such restrictions, and to be briefed within 48 hours.

Without the restrictions of the law not to prohibit, the presidents will continue to misuse their authority by arbitrarily closing our borders or on the basis of religious or racist hatred. Only last year, then President Joe Biden used the same INA 212 (f) authority to close the border, in a reasonable violation of the American Immigration Law. Trump called 212 (f) when he closed the southern border in January. It restricts a law that does not prohibit such cruelty and represents an alternative to the hatred and racism it feeds.

In a world full of human disasters, our decisions today can mean the difference between life and death for countless people. Once again in 2017, the No Asslim alliance was formed at all from the movement that appeared at the airports, where people from all aspects of life are close to protesting the first Islamic ban. Today, legislators must also take a bold position to the highest aspirations in our country in religious freedom and resort to overwhelming leaders and pass the law not to prohibit.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the editorial island.