SB 4542, titled the “BOOT Sharia Law Act,” would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make certain conduct related to Sharia law, support for terrorist-designated entities, and opposition to the U.S. Constitution or form of government relevant to immigration eligibility. The bill would add new bars to a finding of good moral character, expand asylum and refugee ineligibility, and restrict adjustment to lawful permanent resident status for people the government believes have adhered to or advocated for Sharia law in a way that violates constitutional or legal rights, or who have used coercion, force, violence, or terror to enforce Islamic values, conversions, political goals, or Islam as a state religion.
The bill would also authorize rescission of lawful permanent resident status within 10 years of adjustment if the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines the person was ineligible or participated in demonstrations, protests, riots, or other activities supporting entities that are state sponsors of terrorism, have attacked the United States or U.S. forces, or oppose the U.S. Constitution, form of government, or principles. In practical terms, it would create new immigration consequences tied to ideological support, protest activity, and alleged adherence to Sharia law, affecting asylum seekers, refugees, and some permanent residents.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text and available context is strongly restrictive and security-oriented, with the measure framed as a response to terrorism, anti-constitutional activity, and perceived threats from Sharia law. There were no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided, so there is no evidence of formal debate, amendments, or bipartisan support in the available record.
The main points of contention are likely to center on the bill’s broad and potentially subjective standards, especially the use of terms such as “adheres to,” “advocates,” “reasonable grounds to believe,” and participation in protests or demonstrations. Critics would likely argue that the bill could sweep in protected speech, religious belief, or political expression, while supporters would likely view it as a national security and immigration integrity measure aimed at excluding individuals associated with extremist or anti-U.S. conduct.
The bill would amend multiple sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act, including provisions governing good moral character, refugee definitions, asylum bars, adjustment of status, and rescission of lawful permanent resident status. It would add new grounds for inadmissibility or ineligibility based on support for Sharia law as defined in the bill, participation in certain protests or demonstrations, and conduct tied to coercion, violence, or terrorism. These changes would affect asylum applicants, refugees, and lawful permanent residents, and would expand the authority of the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to deny, revoke, or rescind immigration benefits.
The bill’s tone is highly adversarial toward Sharia law and toward individuals associated with organizations or governments the bill characterizes as hostile to the United States. The available context shows no recorded committee discussion or vote history, so there is no direct evidence of legislative support or opposition beyond the bill’s text. Based on the drafting, the measure appears intended to appeal to security-focused and anti-extremism concerns rather than to balance immigration policy considerations.
The most notable contention is the bill’s breadth and the possibility that it targets protected religious belief, political advocacy, and protest activity rather than only violent conduct. Opponents would likely object to the bill’s references to Sharia law and its use of ideological criteria in immigration decisions, while supporters would likely argue that the bill is necessary to prevent entry or retention of status by individuals who support terrorism or reject constitutional governance. The undefined or expansive standards such as “reasonable grounds to believe” and support for entities that “oppose the form of government” could also be disputed as overly vague or prone to inconsistent enforcement.