CRUSADE Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 12, 2026
Bottom line
This bill introduces a new ideological and legal requirement for special immigrant visa applicants, mandating a disavowal of sharia law and an oath to the Constitution.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to impose new eligibility requirements for aliens seeking special immigrant visas (SIVs). Specifically, it mandates that SIV applicants must disavow sharia law and take an oath to uphold the United States Constitution, adding an ideological and legal test to the existing criteria.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this measure is crucial for national security and to ensure that individuals granted special immigrant visas are fully committed to American constitutional principles. They contend that it prevents the entry of individuals who might adhere to legal systems deemed incompatible with U.S. law, thereby safeguarding the nation's legal framework and cultural values.
Opponents contend
Opponents assert that this bill is discriminatory, unconstitutional, and based on a prejudiced view of sharia law, which has diverse interpretations. They argue it constitutes an unconstitutional religious test for immigration, potentially violating the First Amendment, and could undermine humanitarian efforts for SIV recipients who often face severe threats due to their assistance to the U.S. government.
The bill is exceptionally brief and can be read and understood in a matter of minutes, making it highly accessible for public scrutiny.
Section 2, amending Section 203(b)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(4))
Special Immigrant Visa Oath and Disavowal Requirement
This provision mandates that any alien applying for a special immigrant visa (SIV) must explicitly disavow sharia law and swear an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. This adds two new, specific conditions to the existing eligibility criteria for SIVs, which are typically granted to individuals who have provided significant assistance to the U.S. government abroad, often in conflict zones, and face threats as a result.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision is essential to ensure that SIV recipients are fully aligned with American legal principles and do not harbor intentions to introduce or prioritize foreign legal codes over the U.S. Constitution. They believe it serves as a critical safeguard for national security and constitutional integrity.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that this provision is discriminatory and unconstitutional, effectively imposing a religious test on a specific group of immigrants. They argue it could unjustly bar deserving allies who have aided the U.S. from receiving protection and sets a dangerous precedent for ideological screening in immigration.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between perceived national security and constitutional fidelity concerns on one hand, and principles of religious freedom, non-discrimination, and the humanitarian purpose of SIV programs on the other. It creates a potential conflict between ideological screening and the practical need to protect vulnerable allies.