Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia is the founding director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Penn State Law. She spoke with research editor Cherie Winner about her work and about some of the hot-button political issues involving immigration.
What do you think of proposals to bar potential immigrants based on their nationality or religion?
We already have per-country caps in our immigration system. With individuals who are seeking a permanent visa through employment or family, no more than ‘X’ percentage of these visas can go to nationals of a particular country. We have not historically seen an outright ban on an entire religion. That, in many ways, is unprecedented—and it raises a host of questions ranging from whether it’s constitutional to whether it can even work. I find it hard to believe that a court would uphold the constitutionality of a such a ban. Our refugee law protects people fleeing from persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group, so a ban would undercut our own principles around refugee protection. Many who are from countries like Syria are fleeing persecution, and we have obligations, both morally and legally, to protect them.
What about fears that some refugees could be terrorists?
Fear has never been a good foundation for making immigration law or policy. The public deserves to feel safe and to have faith that our government adequately screens individuals before they are admitted into the U.S. Having said that, a proposal that prohibits immigration based on someone’s religious practice is the wrong way to handle major questions of national security. We are not going to find the next terrorist by placing a religious test on people who are arriving in the U.S. In the case of refugees, they are the most-screened immigrant population to the U.S. Most refugees wait for two years or more before they are admitted. The refugee program would be the last program a terrorist would try to use.