What This Bill Does
The SECURE America Act would overhaul how refugees are admitted to the United States by requiring Congress to set the annual refugee cap through a joint resolution before admissions can begin. It would also add new notice, review, and vetting requirements, including congressional review of refugee eligibility determinations, FBI background checks, and annual and monthly reporting to Congress. The bill would restrict parole authority, let states block refugee resettlement in their territory, and make certain refugees ineligible or removable if they commit a crime of violence. These changes would affect refugees, federal immigration agencies, and state governments.
- Congress would have to pass a joint resolution setting the refugee cap before admissions can begin.
- DHS must give Congress 30 days’ notice before refugee eligibility determinations.
- The FBI must certify a thorough background investigation before refugee admission.
- States could block refugee resettlement in their state after receiving notice.
- Refugees convicted of a crime of violence would be ineligible or removable.
Who This Bill Affects
For the general public, this bill would likely reduce the number of refugees admitted and make the process slower and more restrictive. Refugees and asylum-related applicants would face additional FBI vetting, congressional review, monthly reporting, and possible state-level rejection of resettlement, while people already admitted as refugees could face removal or loss of status if convicted of a crime of violence. It would also limit DHS parole authority for people without immigration status.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Border security and immigration restriction advocates They would likely argue the bill restores democratic control over refugee admissions by requiring Congress to approve the annual cap and by limiting parole authority. They may see the added FBI, DHS, and congressional review steps as necessary safeguards against security risks.
- State officials concerned about local resettlement decisions They may support the provision allowing a state to refuse refugee placement after notice, saying state governments should have a direct say in whether resettlement occurs within their borders. The bill gives governors or other chief executives a formal veto over placement decisions.
- Security-focused voters and some law enforcement stakeholders They may favor the bill’s emphasis on background investigations, annual Inspector General review, and removal of refugees who commit crimes of violence. The monthly reporting and unanimous concurrence requirements are framed as tools to prevent dangerous admissions.
- Refugee resettlement organizations They would likely argue the bill would sharply slow or reduce refugee admissions by making Congress approve every annual cap and by adding multiple layers of certification and reporting. They may also object to state veto power, which could disrupt national resettlement planning and humanitarian admissions.
- Immigrant rights advocates They may oppose the new inadmissibility ground based on broad “views incompatible with the principles of the United States,” arguing it could be applied too subjectively. They would likely say the bill risks excluding people based on beliefs, language ability, or religion-related views rather than conduct.
- Faith-based and humanitarian groups They may argue the bill undermines the traditional U.S. refugee protection system by making admission dependent on political approval and expansive security screening. They could also object to the provision that bars parole for people without immigration status, which reduces flexibility in urgent humanitarian cases.
Key Implications
-
““no refugees may be admitted… until such time as a joint resolution is enacted””
This means annual refugee admissions would require an affirmative act of Congress before anyone can be admitted under the refugee cap. It shifts the final decision from the executive branch to the legislative branch.
-
““submit to Congress a notice… 30 days before””
DHS would have to alert Congress before refugee eligibility determinations are finalized. That creates an extra layer of oversight and could delay admissions while Congress reviews the notice.
-
““unanimous concurrence of the Director of the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence””
A refugee could not be admitted unless both top security officials agree. This is a very high bar and gives national security agencies direct veto power over admissions.
-
““the chief executive of the State… does not accede””
A state governor or other chief executive could stop refugee placement in that state. That would give states a formal role in resettlement decisions that are currently handled federally.
-
““may not parole into the United States any alien who has not been granted status””
This would sharply limit DHS’s ability to use parole for people without immigration status. In practice, it reduces a discretionary tool often used for urgent or humanitarian entry.
Latest Status
November 1, 2022
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship.
Will It Pass?
1% estimated chance of becoming law
This is an introduced House bill, referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on October 12, 2021, and later referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship on November 1, 2022. It was introduced by Rep. Matthew M. Rosendale, a Republican from Montana, and the context shows 20 cosponsors. As a refugee-admissions bill, it falls in a policy area where major changes are often contentious and historically difficult to enact, especially when they shift power from the executive branch to Congress and add new admissibility limits.
Pass percentages are model estimates and may be inaccurate.
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.