Religious Freedom or National Sovereignty? Why Visa Rules Should Be Honored
Poonam Sharma
The growing controversy in the United States over foreign missionaries, visa restrictions and religious activity in India raises a question that goes beyond Christianity or any particular religious group: How far can a foreign national exercise religious freedom in another country, and where does the sovereign right of that country to regulate immigration begin ?
Religious freedom is definitely a fundamental value in any democratic society. People should be able to exercise their faith, express their beliefs and take part in religious life within the framework of the law. At the same time, religious freedom does not necessarily mean that a foreign national entering another country can ignore the rules of immigration or the particular conditions attached to his or her visa.
That principle must be universal – not only for India but for every sovereign nation.
Under the visa regime of India, foreign nationals are required to adhere to the purpose for which visa has been granted to them. If a certain visa category has restrictions on religious activities like preaching or propagation, then it is expected to comply with those terms.” India also has a separate Missionary Visa category for eligible missionary activities. Thus, the system does not necessarily create an outright ban on foreign missionary work but rather establishes a regulatory regime under which such activities are to be carried out.
This is a significant difference. Immigration and sovereignty are two sides of the same coin
Every country has the sovereign right to determine who may enter its territory, for what purpose and under what conditions. A visa does not give you an absolute right to enter and operate without limitations. It is an authorization given on certain terms.
Take a simple example. A person coming into a country on a student visa is expected to study and abide by the rules of that visa. If somebody comes on a tourist visa, the main reason is tourism. A foreign national wishing to engage in professional, commercial or other specialized activities may require an appropriate visa category.
This basic principle is not automatically exempt from religious activity.
The same should be true for foreign religious workers. Where a country has a specific visa category for missionary work, those who wish to do such work should take the legal route and meet its conditions.
This is not really an anti-religion argument. It is an argument for rule of law.What we’re really talking about are the boundaries of foreign activity
Critics of India’s stance say limits on foreign missionaries can impact religious freedom and create hurdles for Christian organizations. Their concerns should not just be dismissed. Religious freedom is an important democratic value and any curtailment of legitimate religious practice should be open to public scrutiny.
But the other side of the coin is equally important.
Foreign organizations and persons operating in a foreign country are not operating in a legal vacuum. They are guests in that country, and must obey its laws. The fact that an activity is religious in nature does not automatically mean that it is exempt from immigration rules. The debate is especially sensitive where the religious activity involves preaching, organized conversion activity, foreign funding, or large-scale institutional activity. These issues may overlap with issues of public order, transparency, immigration control and foreign influence.
A democratic country therefore has a legitimate interest in the conduct of foreign nationals within the legal limits established by the state.
One standard for India, another for the West? There is also an uncomfortable question to be considered in the India–U.S. debate:
Would the United States permit foreign religious workers to violate the conditions attached to their visas?
America, like any sovereign nation, has its own immigration laws, visa categories and restrictions on foreign nationals. Other democracies and European countries also regulate the activities of those coming from abroad. So the principle should not differ depending on which country we are talking about.
If the US expects foreigners to heed American immigration laws, India should expect foreigners to heed Indian laws. Similarly, Indian nationals traveling abroad cannot reasonably expect to be exempt from the laws of the country they visit simply because those laws are different from Indian practice. Respect for sovereignty must be reciprocal. Religious freedom and national sovereignty can coexist. The solution need not be a choice between religious freedom and national sovereignty. Both are possible when the law is transparent, consistently applied and respects legitimate rights.
India has the ability to control foreign religious activity and preserve religious freedom. Foreign missionary organizations can continue to do legitimate work provided they are in the right visa category. And critics can continue to challenge government policies through democratic and legal means.
What should not be acceptable is the concept of a foreign national entering a country under one category, only to purposely engage in activities that fall outside the conditions of that permission.
“That principle is bigger than India, bigger than Christianity, bigger than the India-U.S. relationship.
This is about a basic rule of international behavior: when we enter another sovereign country, we respect its laws.
Religious policy is controversial. They may disagree over conversion, missionary work, and the boundaries of religious activity. Such disagreements are valid. But disagreeing with a law does not give a foreign visitor the right to ignore it. If a visa condition is unfair, the right course is to challenge it through diplomatic, judicial or democratic means – not to ignore it. Mutual respect is the foundation of a healthy international order.
Religious freedom needs to be protected, but so does sovereignty and immigration law.
“No country should be looking for compliance with its own laws while questioning the right of another country to enforce legitimate immigration laws.
The basic principle should be simple and universal: whether in India, the United States or anywhere else, foreign religious workers should be free to engage in legitimate activities within the law – but they must also respect the visa conditions and legal framework of the country which has allowed them entry.
