PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 181.
Congressional Research Service
Version 25 · Reported to Senate · Aug 16, 2019
Secure and Protect Act of 2019
This bill makes changes to the handling of unaccompanied alien children and asylum applications.
The Flores settlement (a court settlement imposing conditions on the treatment of detained alien minors) shall not restrict any activities. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shall have sole discretion as to detention standards of alien minors.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Statutory provisions governing the handling of unaccompanied alien children from U.S.-bordering countries shall now govern all unaccompanied alien children. The bill provides for requirements relating to the handling of such alien children. Certain immigration officer determinations relating to unaccompanied alien children shall be unreviewable.
DHS may detain accompanied alien children pending the completion of removal proceedings (some courts have ruled that Flores limits the detention of certain alien children to 20 days). States may not impose licensing requirements for family detention facilities.
An unaccompanied alien child shall not be released from custody while immigration or removal proceedings are pending, with some exceptions.
The bill limits asylum eligibility to aliens entering the United States at a designated port of entry and provides for additional grounds for asylum ineligibility. A credible fear of persecution is redefined to mean that it is more likely than not that the alien would be able to establish eligibility for asylum.
The Department of State shall establish refugee application and processing centers in Mexico and Central America. The bill requires the hiring of additional immigration judges, support staff, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys.
People & committees
Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC] · R–SC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 181.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Graham under authority of the order of the Senate of 08/01/2019 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Graham under authority of the order of the Senate of 08/01/2019 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
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 10, 2026. 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 S.1494 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 S.1494 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 S.1494 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 S.1494 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.