PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 20, 1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS: Title I: Border Personnel, Training and Infrastructure Enhancement Title II: Asylum Reform Title III: Criminal Alien Deportation and Enhanced Prisoner Transfer Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 1993 - Title I: Border Personnel, Training and Infrastructure Enhancement - Improved Border Control and Narcotics Abatement Act - Authorizes appropriations and increases personnel levels for: (1) the Border Patrol; and (2) land border inspectors. Provides for: (1) primary deployment of such personnel on the Southwest border of the United States; (2) hiring preference for bilingual Border Patrol agents; and (3) improved training and improvement of border crossing infrastructure. Authorizes appropriations for Immigration and Naturalization Service technology and equipment acquisition. Establishes in the Treasury the Immigration Law Enforcement Fund. Creates a border crossing user fee. Title II: Asylum Reform - Executive Order Enhanced Consideration Revocation Act - Amends a specified Executive Order to partially revoke a provision with respect to asylum claims based upon birth control policies. Title III: Criminal Alien Deportation and Enhanced Prisoner Transfer - Criminal Alien Deportation and Enhanced Transfer Act of 1993 - Amends Federal criminal law to provide for a judicial order of deportation in the sentencing of an alien convicted of certain aggravated felonies. Authorizes the Secretary of State with the Attorney General to negotiate agreements with foreign countries for home-country incarceration of aliens subject to U.S. deportation. Authorizes appropriations. Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to: (1) make an alien convicted of an aggravated felony ineligible for suspension of deportation and status of adjustment; and (2) prohibit the waiver of exclusion for an alien convicted of an aggravated felony.
People & committees
Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S14012-14015)
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.1571 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.1571 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.1571 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.1571 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.