PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5363-5366)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 25, 2018
Humane Treatment of Migrant Children Act
This bill prohibits an agent or officer of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), or the Department of Health and Human Services from removing a child (i.e., an individual who has not reached the age of 18 and has no permanent immigration status) from a parent or legal guardian at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the U.S. border unless: (1) a state court determines that such removal is in the best interests of the child, (2) a state child welfare agency makes a similar determination because the child is in danger or abuse or neglect, or (3) the Chief Patrol Agent or the Area Port Director authorizes separation based on a finding that the child is a victim of trafficking or is in danger of abuse or neglect.
The bill establishes a strong presumption in favor of family unity and a presumption that detention is not in the best interest of families and children. It further requires DHS to ensure that sibling groups remain intact.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
DHS must: (1) publish final public guidance that describes the manner in which a parent or legal guardian may locate a child who has become separated; (2) provide the parent or legal guardian of a separated child basic information about the child's activities, education and health, and immigration status; and (3) report to Congress annually on family separation.
The Government Accountability Office must study, and report on, the prosecution of asylum seekers during the period beginning on January 1, 2008, and ending on December 31, 2018.
The bill requires that unaccompanied alien children be provided free legal counsel in immigration proceedings and that DHS provide access to counsel for all aliens detained in immigration detention facilities.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement shall use its resources to detain aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety. Aliens shall not be detained if they are known to be suffering from serious physical or mental illness, have a disability, are elderly, pregnant, or nursing, are minors, are the primary caretakers of a minor or an inform person, or that their detention is otherwise not in the public interest.
DHS must provide sufficient funding to cover alternatives to detention programs. DOJ must increase the total number of immigration judges and DHS must increase the number of its personnel responsible for processing refugee applications.
People & committees
Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL] · D–IL
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. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5363-5366)
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.3263 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.3263 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.3263 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.3263 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.