2020: Fitzpatrick Voted For Repealing Trump's Travel Bans And
Prohibiting Religious Discrimination In The Process Of Issuing Visas.
In July 2020, Fitzpatrick voted for the No Ban Act that would, according
to Congressional Quarterly, "terminate a number of executive orders and
proclamations by the president restricting entry into the United States
from certain countries, including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,
Syria and Yemen. It would explicitly prohibit discrimination based on
religion with regard to individuals seeking entry into the United
States. It would limit the president's ability to restrict entry of a
class of foreign nationals, including to require that such restrictions
be temporary, narrowly tailored and subject to a State Department
determination that they are in the interest of U.S. public safety or
international stability. It would allow individuals present in the
United States who are harmed by entry restrictions in violation of the
bill's provisions to seek relief." The vote was on a motion to concur
in the Senate amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of
233-183. The bill never became law. [House Vote 153,
7/22/20; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/22/20;
Congressional Actions,
H.R.2486]
The Bill Repealed The Trump Administration's Ban On Travel
Restrictions From Certain Nations And Prohibited Future Presidents
From Implementing Bans Based On Race Or Religion. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "The House passed a measure Wednesday that
would repeal the Trump administration's ban on restricting travel
from targeted nations and prohibit future presidents from
implementing bans based on race or religion. [...] The legislation
would lift restrictions President Donald Trump has put on numerous
countries over the years, including travel limits initially placed
on a group of predominantly Muslim nations." [Congressional
Quarterly, 7/22/20]
The Bill Strengthened The Immigration Nationality Act By
Prohibiting Religious Discrimination In The Process Of Issuing
Visas. According to Vox, "The bill would also strengthen existing
prohibitions on religious discrimination in visa applications, which
are guaranteed by the Immigration Nationality Act (INA). Immigrant
advocates have praised the House's measure as a means of protecting
the rights of American Muslims [...] The INA currently bans
discrimination in the issuance of visas only on the basis of 'race,
sex, nationality, place of birth and place of residence.' There is
no provision prohibiting religious discrimination, which made it
more difficult for immigrant advocates to argue that the travel ban
was unlawful." [Vox,
7/22/20]
The Bill Placed Stricter Restrictions On Future Travel Bans.
According to Vox, "The No Ban Act would amend the current law to
require that any travel ban be temporary, based on credible
evidence, subject to congressional oversight, and be created only in
response to specific actions foreign entities have taken to threaten
the US. The bill also states that a ban must also advance a
compelling government interest in the least restrictive way
possible." [Vox,
7/22/20]
The Trump Administration Argued That The Bill Would Pose A Threat
To National Security And Specifically Hurt Recent Efforts In
Combatting COVID-19. According to Vox, "The Trump administration
has argued that the bill will pose a threat to US national security,
divert resources away from cooperating with foreign governments to
improve screening, and diminish what has recently been a critical
tool for combatting Covid-19. In recent months, Trump has blocked
all travelers who have been in China, Iran, Europe, and Brazil
within the last 14 days." [Vox,
7/22/20]
2017: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against Considering Legislation
Cancelling President Trump's Travel Ban. In January 2017, Fitzpatrick
voted for a motion to order the previous question on a rule that would,
according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for House floor
consideration of the joint resolution (H J Res 38) that would nullify
and disapprove of an Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement rule that requires surface coal mining operations, to the
extent possible, to avoid disturbing streams and land within 100 feet of
the streams." According to House Democratic leader, "The Democratic
previous question would amend the rule to allow for consideration of
H.R. 724, the statue of liberty values act of 2017, which provides that
President Trump's immigration executive order shall have no force or
effect." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The
House agreed to the motion, thereby preventing consideration of the
Democratic previous question, by a vote of 236 to 183. [House Vote 68,
1/31/17; Congressional
Quarterly, 1/31/17; 115th Congress
Previous Question,
1/10/17;
Congressional Actions,
1/30/17;
Congressional Actions, H.J. Res.
38;
Congressional Actions, H. Res.
70]
House Rules Committee Republican Staff: A Vote To Order The
Previous Question On A Rule Is "A Vote About What The House Should
Be Debating" Which "Does Have Substantive Policy Implications."
According to a 2010 memo written by the then-House Rules Committee's
minority staff, "This vote, the vote on whether to order the
previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural
vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the
opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan.
It is a vote about what the House should be debating. [...]
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have
substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available
tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and
allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an
alternative plan." ["The Vote on the Previous Question: What It
Really Means," House Rules Committee Minority Staff Memo,
3/18/10]
If The House Had Refused To Order The Previous Question, The
Minority Would Assume Control Of The House Floor For An Hour And
Could Offer A Germane Amendment To The Rule. According to a 2010
memo written by the then-House Rules Committee's minority staff,
"Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic majority
they will say 'the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on
whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution
... [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications
whatsoever.' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to
the definition of the previous question used in the Floor Procedures
Manual published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's 'American Congressional
Dictionary': 'If the previous question is defeated, control of
debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually the minority
Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a
germane amendment to the pending business.'" ["The Vote on the
Previous Question: What It Really Means," House Rules Committee
Minority Staff Memo,
3/18/10]