PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S3256; text: CR S2356-3258)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 5, 2019
Protecting Families and Improving Immigration Procedures Act
This bill establishes limitations on separating alien children from parents and on detaining families, and also addresses other immigration-related matters.
A child may be separated from a parent or legal guardian at or near a port of entry or U.S. border only if (1) a state court has made a relevant ruling, such as terminating the parent's rights; (2) a qualified child welfare agency official has ruled that separation is in the child's best interest; or (3) a specified official makes certain determinations, such as concluding that a child is a trafficking victim.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
A child may not be separated from a parent or guardian solely to deter migration or promote compliance with immigration laws.
This bill establishes presumptions (1) in favor of family unity and keeping siblings together, and (2) against detention.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shall (1) document all child separations, (2) develop training for officers handling separations, (3) publish guidance on how to locate a separated child, (4) periodically provide a parent or guardian information about a separated child, and (5) pay for counsel to represent unaccompanied alien children in removal proceedings.
The Flores settlement (an agreement imposing conditions on the treatment of detained alien minors) and a related court holding shall apply to the detention of families.
The Department of Justice shall increase the number of immigration judges and support staff. Immigration judges may suspend removal proceedings in certain instances, such as when the alien appears to be prima facie eligible for another immigration benefit.
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.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S3256; text: CR S2356-3258)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.1733 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.1733 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.1733 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.1733 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.