Inhibiting Militant Adversarial Mullahs Act
HB8905 would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to bar certain religious leaders from being admitted to the United States under the R-1 religious worker visa category. Specifically, it would make individuals with the titles imam, grand imam, shaykha, mufti, grand mufti, ayatollah, or grand ayatollah ineligible for admission under section 101(a)(15)(R). The bill is framed as a targeted restriction on religious immigration, and its short title is the “Inhibiting Militant Adversarial Mullahs Act.”
If enacted, the bill would change federal immigration law by adding a new limitation to section 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The practical effect would be to exclude certain Muslim religious leaders, and potentially some Shia clerical leaders in particular, from qualifying for R visas regardless of whether they otherwise meet the requirements for religious worker admission. The measure would affect visa applicants, religious institutions seeking to sponsor foreign clergy, and immigration adjudicators responsible for R-visa determinations.
The bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act by creating a categorical prohibition on R-visa admission for applicants holding specified religious titles. This would narrow the pool of eligible religious workers under section 101(a)(15)(R) and could require immigration officials to deny admission based on title alone, rather than on the applicant’s actual duties or qualifications. It would most directly affect foreign clergy, sponsoring religious organizations, and the Department of Homeland Security and State Department officials who administer visa admissions.
Based on the bill text and its introduction history, the measure appears highly partisan and likely controversial, with a restrictive and adversarial tone toward the targeted religious denominations. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, so there is no evidence of bipartisan support or negotiated compromise. The title and categorical exclusions suggest the bill was introduced to provoke or signal opposition to certain religious leaders rather than to make a broadly supported immigration policy adjustment.
The main point of contention is the bill’s explicit targeting of specific religious titles associated with Muslim and Shia leadership, which raises concerns about religious discrimination, equal treatment under immigration law, and possible First Amendment or religious-liberty implications. Supporters, if any, would likely argue the bill is a national-security or anti-extremism measure aimed at preventing entry by hostile actors, while opponents would likely view it as discriminatory profiling based on religion and clerical status. Because no committee debate or vote record is provided, the precise arguments of members are not available, but the text itself makes the central dispute clear.