Back to Bills

Deny Immigration for Sharia Advocacy

Full Title:
BOOT Sharia Law Act

Summary#

This bill adds new immigration bars and penalties tied to support for Sharia law, protest activity that opposes the U.S. Constitution or government, and use of force to promote Islamist goals. It changes rules for who counts as lacking “good moral character,” who is excluded from refugee or asylum protection, who can adjust to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status, and when LPR status can be rescinded. The broad policy goal in the bill text is to deny immigration benefits to noncitizens the bill describes as supporting Sharia law in harmful ways or supporting entities that oppose the United States.

  • Main change: People who “adhere to” or “advocate” Sharia law in a way that would violate others’ rights can be found not to have good moral character and thus face limits on citizenship and other immigration benefits.
  • The bill adds exclusions from the refugee definition and asylum eligibility for people who used force, coercion, violence, or terror to enforce Sharia, force conversions, pursue Islamist political goals, or make Islam the state religion.
  • Refugees and asylees may be denied later adjustment to LPR status if, after admission, they continue to adhere to or use force in support of Sharia law as defined in the bill.
  • LPR status can be rescinded within 10 years if DHS or DOJ find the person was ineligible or participated in protests or activities supporting state sponsors of terrorism, groups that carried out terrorist acts against the U.S., or groups that oppose the Constitution or U.S. form of government.
  • What is unclear: the bill does not define “Sharia law,” “adhere to,” or how peaceful political or religious speech is distinguished from disqualifying conduct.

What it means for you#

  • Asylum seekers and refugees: The bill would let authorities bar people from asylum or refugee status if there are reasonable grounds to believe they adhere to or advocate Sharia law in ways the bill describes, or if they used coercion, force, violence, or terror for certain Islamist aims. This could lead to denials of protection for some applicants.
  • People admitted as refugees or granted asylum: They could be denied later adjustment to lawful permanent resident status if officials find post‑admission adherence to or use of force in support of Sharia or related goals.
  • Lawful permanent residents (green card holders): LPR status could be rescinded within 10 years after adjustment if DHS or the Attorney General determine the person was ineligible or took part in protests or activities supporting certain foreign terrorist sponsors, groups that have attacked the U.S., or groups that oppose U.S. government principles. A removal order can serve to rescind status.
  • Applicants for U.S. citizenship or other benefits requiring “good moral character”: The bill expands the list of behaviors that count against good moral character to include adherence to or advocacy for Sharia law that would violate others’ rights and participation in certain protests or demonstrations. This could make it harder for some noncitizens to meet the good moral character requirement.
  • Government agencies (DHS, DOJ, immigration courts): Agencies would carry responsibility for investigating, finding “reasonable grounds to believe,” and carrying out rescissions and removals under the new rules. This could change how asylum, refugee, and naturalization applications are reviewed.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill would likely increase work for DHS, the Department of Justice, and immigration courts because they must investigate, make findings, and pursue rescissions or removals.
  • There may be added administrative, legal, and enforcement costs from more hearings, appeals, or investigations.
  • There is no cost estimate or fiscal note in the bill text provided.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to prevent people who would use Sharia law to violate others’ rights or who support hostile foreign actors from receiving immigration benefits.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that it strengthens screening for asylum, refugee, and naturalization benefits by tying eligibility to conduct that threatens constitutional rights or national security.
  • The bill also appears aimed at excluding from protection those who have used violence or terror to advance Islamist political goals.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the bill does not define key terms such as “Sharia law,” “adhere to,” or what level of advocacy would disqualify someone. This vagueness could make the rule hard to apply fairly.
  • One concern is that peaceful religious practice or political speech could be caught if authorities treat advocacy of Sharia or participation in protests as disqualifying without clear limits. That raises questions about how to protect lawful expression and religious exercise.
  • The bill uses the “reasonable grounds to believe” standard in several places. One concern is that this lower‑threshold standard could lead to denials or rescissions based on limited or weak evidence.
  • One concern is that agencies will face extra investigations, legal challenges, and court proceedings, creating administrative and enforcement burdens not quantified in the bill.
  • It is unclear how the new bars would interact with existing legal protections for refugees, asylum seekers, and religious freedom, because the bill does not explain how to distinguish nonviolent advocacy from disqualifying conduct.