Background
H.R. 4393, the Dignity for Immigrants while Guarding our Nation to Ignite and Deliver the American Dream Act of 2025, otherwise known as the “DIGNIDAD” (Dignity) Act of 2025, was reintroduced by Representative Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL) on July 15, 2025. The bill’s sponsor claims that this is “the first serious bipartisan immigration solution proposed by Congress in decades.”
But is providing amnesty for tens of millions of illegal immigrants in exchange for minor border security reforms truly a solution? Or does it create an even greater problem?
While versions of the bill have been introduced since 2022, the legislation has gained greater notice due to the latest news that 19 other Republicans have joined as cosponsors, doubling previous efforts. While this remains a small fraction of the Republican conference, this latest push includes support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, giving supporters cover from big business interests. While it’s an open secret that big business has often pushed for more liberal immigration policies to keep wages low, the cost of amnesty would hit all Americans during a time of increased sensitivity to cost-of-living increases.
What’s in the bill?
The bill is divided into three divisions: A, B, and C.
Division A provides modest improvements for border security personnel and infrastructure, including funding to increase salaries for border patrol and deploy “physical barriers, tactical infrastructure, and technology” along the border. This division would enhance criminal penalties related to crimes committed along or during border crossings and for illegal alien voting. Notably, this division also includes provisions for the deployment of E-Verify and reforms to the asylum process. While a positive element in the bill, these elements fall short of the strong statutory updates found in House Republicans’ H.R. 2 border security package, and much of the funding is duplicative of investments made in the One Big Beautiful bill.
Division B provides several forms of mass amnesty. We address this division below.
Division C expands programs for temporary and permanent visa programs for the family members of U.S. citizens, including a new 90-day visitor visa that allows certain individuals to get in line for reconsideration of permanent legal status. Further, the bill would largely expand the number of student and temporary employment visas by reducing certain requirements like having a job offer, changing the nature of these temporary programs to operate as on-ramps toward permanent status, and exempting large numbers of individuals from established caps based on certain criteria. While amnesty remains the troubling headline, these provisions to massively import foreign workers and codify new ways to exploit the U.S. visa process should be enough for reasonable members of Congress to avoid this bill.
All the Types of Amnesty in the DIGNITY Act
Division B of the Dignity Act is the mass amnesty wish list that Democrats have been demanding for decades.
Division B, Part 1 of 4: DREAM Act Amnesty
The first of the four titles in Division B is a version of Democrats’ DREAM Act to provide legal status and a pathway to citizenship for certain aliens who entered the U.S. as minors, whether they came into the country illegally, received DACA under the Obama administration, were the children of those on a visa program, or included under a host of other programs to provide temporary status. Those who apply under this provision would be given conditional status for 10 years and a pathway to full permanent residence.
However, this provision does not only apply to those who take the initiative to opt in, but also as a legal means to anyone who might be eligible and is subject to deportation by providing waiver authority for grounds of inadmissibility. Thus, making any illegal alien subject to deportation able to stop their removal until they have a chance to apply and have their case reviewed, during which they would be given work authorization papers.
Division B, Part 2 of 4: Rules Regarding Amnesty
The second part of Division B (Title II) gives greater details regarding the conditions and documentation necessary for the processing of amnesty applications. Importantly, there are provisions that would prohibit the sharing of any information with immigration enforcement. This means that if an application for amnesty, even under the extremely loose requirements in the bill, is not accepted and the illegal alien remains deportable, the relevant offices would be prohibited from sharing this information with immigration enforcement. Creating new prohibitions on government sharing pertinent information with law enforcement creates the same problems that we see plaguing sanctuary cities, but this would raise the stakes by codifying the prohibitions in federal law.
Division B, Part 3 of 4: The Dignity Program (More Amnesty)
Division B: The third part (Title III) and core policy of the Dignity Act would create the “Dignity Program.” Unlike the DREAM Act, which is limited to certain populations that arrived in the U.S. as children, the Dignity Program would be available to any illegal alien who has been present in the country since December 31, 2020, before the start of the Biden border surge, which is an estimated group of over 10 million people. Those granted “dignity status” under this program would receive seven years of legal status, including authorizations to work and travel in and out of the United States on the condition they check in every two years, pay additional “restitution” fees ($7,000) and additional payroll taxes (1%), and agree to be ineligible for federal means-tested benefits like SNAP.
“Dignity Status” eligibility could be rejected for prior criminal felonies or multiple misdemeanors, with exceptions for certain non-violent crimes, including drug possession. However, the bill explicitly outlines that those who were previously deported for unlawful presence remain eligible for Dignity status.
Similar to the DREAM Act provisions, this program would not only apply to those who take the initiative to opt in, but also as a legal means to anyone who might be eligible and is subject to deportation by providing waiver authority for grounds of inadmissibility. Thus, granting any illegal alien subject to deportation a 24-month amnesty until they have a chance to apply and have their case reviewed.
The bill does not automatically give a pathway to citizenship for this new category of migrants, but it gives these individuals the specific legal pretext by being considered inspected and admitted for purposes of adjustment of status that would more than likely be used under a Democratic administration to adjust for permanent status.
Division B, Part 4 of 4: Employment Training Benefits
While proponents of expanded immigration will always claim that immigration operates as a “net positive” for GDP and that immigrants “only take jobs that Americans are not willing to do,” the American people know well that immigration displaces workers, especially those without a college degree.
While not admitting this reality directly, the fourth title of Division B directs funds from the fees charged under the dignity program to be used for American worker retraining, apprenticeships, and other work-based learning programs. These programs would be funded through Department of Labor grants to states to disburse for eligible partnerships. However, there appears to be no concrete rules to guard direct these programs towards Americans impacted by immigration and would not prohibit the same individuals receiving amnesty to take a slot in the American worker trainings.
Conclusion
The Dignity Act dangles minor border security investments as an exchange for major amnesty and immigration expansions that would severely handicap President Trump's mass deportation mandate. Rather than operating as a “solution,” this bill would be a historically destructive amnesty proposal with the largest amnesty lookback ever. The legislation hides the long-term costs on the American taxpayer and acknowledges but does nothing to improve the undermining of wages for American workers.
Members of Congress should speak out against and certainly NOT cosponsor this legislation. Any member who is currently on the bill as a cosponsor can remove themselves from the bill by going to the House floor and requesting to be removed, as was done by a brave member who recognized his mistake back in 2022.