In hopes of dispelling common misconceptions surrounding the legitimacy of religious discourse in politics, this research paper aims to comparatively analyze secularism and national identity politics via immigration policies in three countries. Using the United States, Turkey, and India as case studies, this paper contextualizes the aforementioned research interests within immigration policy creation that varies among each country. More specifically, a case study's respective secular context, cultural background, and political environment were notable factors in determining the level of religious appeal within politics and policy. The standard for which the countries were analyzed was with respect to constitutional secularism and modern-day political leadership. This work relied on primary research in order to arrive at data-based conclusions. The primary research in question encompassed various interviews across a range of academic scholars whose expertise focused on the case study nations; supplementary research included official language of relevant immigration policies that assisted with my data analysis. It is ultimately concluded that despite the influence that religious nationalism has on constructing national identity, more frequent displays of religious rhetoric do not inherently lead to restrictive immigration policies, as in the case of Turkey. Moreover, a nation's secular identity is fragile, and varied political interpretations allow for religious nationalism to shape policy agenda despite secular applicability in constitutional writing. Although policy recommendations prove difficult when targeting deeply ingrained societal identities, political leadership and subsequent policies should consider a secular balance in which free religious expression exists without imposing rigid religious national identities to a polity.
Andrea Ochoa (Tue,) studied this question.