Summary#
This bill would change U.S. immigration law to deny visas and admission to people the government finds responsible for serious violations of religious freedom. It expands who can be barred, and it requires the State Department to publish the names of people found inadmissible and the places where the violations occurred, with a narrow exception for foreign-policy reasons. The stated goal is to block entry to perpetrators of religious persecution and make those determinations public.
- Main change: Replaces the existing text of a specific inadmissibility rule to bar any non‑U.S. person who directed, authorized, significantly supported, participated in, was responsible for, or carried out particularly severe violations of religious freedom (or violations defined elsewhere) from receiving visas or entering the U.S.
- Public list: Requires the Secretary of State to post the names of people found inadmissible under this rule and the country or location where the violations took place.
- Exception: The Secretary may withhold a name from the public list for foreign‑policy reasons, at the Secretary’s sole and unreviewable discretion, but must report to Congress every six months explaining such exclusions.
- Definitions referenced: The bill relies on definitions of “particularly severe violations of religious freedom” and “violations of religious freedom” from the International Religious Freedom Act; those actual definitions are not printed in this bill.
What is unclear: The bill does not show the procedures, evidence standards, appeal rights, or how this rule interacts with other immigration exceptions or waivers.
What it means for you#
- Visa applicants / prospective immigrants: If the U.S. determines you directed or took part in serious religious persecution abroad, you could be denied a visa or entry. Your name may be posted on the State Department website unless an exception applies.
- Foreign government officials: The bill explicitly covers officials who, while serving in office, were responsible for or directly carried out particularly severe violations of religious freedom.
- Families and travelers: Relatives or associates of named individuals are not directly listed, but those individuals could be prevented from traveling to or entering the United States.
- U.S. State Department and consular offices: Must identify and document cases, post and maintain a public list, and produce semiannual reports to Congress when names are withheld.
- U.S. public / general: There is no direct change to most people’s daily lives, but the list could affect diplomatic relations or public information about foreign individuals.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
- The bill itself does not include a fiscal note or cost estimate in the provided material.
- This could mean additional administrative work and likely added staff time, legal review, website maintenance, and reporting duties for the State Department to make determinations, publish names, and provide semiannual reports.
- Any costs for consular checks, recordkeeping, or potential legal challenges are not estimated in the material provided.
Proponents' View#
- The bill appears intended to prevent people who commit or enable religious persecution from entering the United States.
- Supporters may argue it increases accountability by publicly naming those found to have carried out violations of religious freedom.
- It could be seen as reinforcing U.S. commitment to protecting religious freedom abroad by using visa restrictions as a consequence.
- The public‑posting requirement could be viewed as a transparency measure, showing where violations occurred.
Opponents' View#
- One concern is that the bill relies on definitions in another law; it is unclear from this text how “particularly severe violations” or other key terms are applied in practice.
- The bill does not explain the standard of proof, procedural steps, or whether those named have any chance to contest the determination.
- Giving the Secretary of State “sole and unreviewable” discretion to withhold names raises questions about oversight and consistent application.
- Publishing names could create diplomatic or security risks; the bill allows withholding for foreign‑policy reasons but does not define when that should occur.
- The bill may increase administrative and legal costs for the State Department, but no cost estimate is provided.