PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 9, 2005
Securing America's Future through Enforcement Reform Act of 2005 (SAFER Act) - Increases the number of personnel assigned to combat alien smuggling. Requires enhanced penalties for certain smuggling-related offenses.
Authorizes the use of military personnel for border enforcement.
Increases the number of full-time inspectors within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to require Visa Waiver Program (VWP) participants to have machine-readable passports by October 1, 2005.
Requires consular officers to conduct in-person interviews of visa applicants.
Recodifies and amends grounds of inadmissibility and removability.
Applies attestation requirements concerning nondisplacement of U.S. workers to all employers of H-1B (specialty occupation) nonimmigrants.
Requires implementation of an integrated entry-exit system at all land border ports of entry by October 26, 2005.
Directs institutions of higher education to provide information on courses taken by foreign students.
Requires lawful permanent residents to register with the Secretary annually and other aliens to register every three months.
Authorizes visa term compliance bonds for nonimmigrants.
Addresses the removal of alien terrorists, criminals, and serious human rights violators.
Requires aliens to use secure travel and identification documents.
Makes the employment eligibility verification system applicable to all employers.
Requires the expedited removal of undocumented aliens who have not been continuously physically present in the United States for five years (except criminal aliens and asylum seekers).
Establishes criminal and civil penalties for aliens who are knowingly unlawfully present.
Makes government agencies that prohibit employees from sharing immigration status information with DHS ineligible for Federal law enforcement grants.
Authorizes the Secretary to grant asylum to alien refugees. Places the burden of proof on asylum applicants. Requires corroborating evidence where reasonable.
Eliminates review of determinations regarding the withholding of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Limits review of asylum decisions and orders of removal against criminal aliens.
Temporarily suspends the VWP, adjustment of status applications, and renewals of temporary protected status. Discontinues nonimmigrant visas for aliens from countries that deny or delay repatriation.
Prohibits the issuance of most visas to aliens from countries determined to be state sponsors of terrorism.
Limits visa preference allocations for family-sponsored immigrants. Removes unskilled workers from the allocation for employment-based immigrants. Eliminates diversity visas.
Requires congressional approval of refugee quotas that exceed the combined total of refugees accepted by other countries.
Increases sponsorship levels for immigration applications.
Repeals certain adjustment of status provisions of INA.
Requires congressional approval for temporary protected status for undocumented aliens.
People & committees
Rep. Barrett, J. Gresham [R-SC-3] · R–SC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 15, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.688 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.688 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.688 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.688 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.