Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act
SB3009, titled the “Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act,” would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make advocacy for the imposition of Sharia law a ground for denying immigration benefits, visas, admission, and immigration relief. The bill applies only when the advocacy is described as occurring in a manner that would violate another person’s rights under the U.S. Constitution or federal or state law.
The bill also directs that an alien found to have engaged in such advocacy would have immigration benefits or visas revoked, be deemed inadmissible or deportable, and be subject to removal from the United States. It further adds a false-statement provision: if an alien lies to federal officials about such advocacy, that person would face the same immigration consequences. In addition, the bill states that certain determinations under the removal provision would be final and not subject to judicial review.
In practical terms, the bill would create a new immigration-based ground of inadmissibility and deportability tied to ideological advocacy, and it would amend the INA’s inadmissibility and deportation sections to include this category. It would affect applicants for visas, lawful permanent residents, and other noncitizens who are found to have advocated for Sharia law in the specified manner, as well as federal agencies responsible for immigration and visa adjudications.
The available context shows no committee debate or recorded votes, so there is no documented legislative sentiment from hearings or floor action. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a national-security and rights-protection proposal by its sponsor, but it is also likely to be controversial because it targets religiously associated advocacy and limits judicial review.
The main points of contention are likely to be whether the bill is constitutionally permissible, whether it is overbroad or vague in defining “advocates for the imposition of Sharia law,” and whether it improperly singles out religious belief or speech for immigration penalties. Supporters would likely emphasize protection of constitutional rights and public safety, while critics would likely focus on First Amendment concerns, due process, and potential discrimination against Muslims or people discussing Islamic legal concepts in nonviolent contexts.
The bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act by adding advocacy for the imposition of Sharia law, as defined in the bill, to the list of grounds for inadmissibility and deportability. It would require federal immigration and law-enforcement officials to deny or revoke immigration benefits, visas, admission, or relief for covered noncitizens and would authorize removal from the United States. It also adds conforming language to INA sections governing inadmissibility and deportation and attempts to bar judicial review of certain removal determinations.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided material, so no formal legislative sentiment can be measured from debate or roll call. The bill’s title and structure suggest the sponsor’s intent is to present the measure as a security- and rights-protection bill, but the absence of discussion means the broader chamber sentiment is not documented here. On its face, the proposal is likely to draw sharply divided reactions because it combines immigration enforcement with restrictions tied to advocacy about Sharia law.
The central controversy is the bill’s targeting of advocacy for Sharia law, which critics may view as religiously discriminatory, vague, or constitutionally suspect. Another likely point of dispute is the bill’s broad immigration consequences, including revocation of benefits, inadmissibility, deportability, and removal based on a determination by executive officials. The provision making certain determinations final and not subject to court review is also likely to be contested because it limits judicial oversight and due process protections.