2020: Schweikert Voted Against Repealing Trump's Travel Bans And Prohibiting Religious Discrimination In The Process Of Issuing Visas. In July 2020, Schweikert voted against 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The Bill Repealed The Trump Administration's Ban On Travel Restrictions From Certain Nations And Prohibited Future Presidents From Implementing Bans Based On Race Or Religion.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: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Considering Legislation Cancelling President Trump's Travel Ban. In January 2017, Schweikert 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]