DIGNIDAD (Dignity) Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27]
- Committees
- Homeland Security Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 16, 2025
Bottom line
The DIGNIDAD Act of 2025 seeks to balance increased border enforcement and mandatory E-Verify with new legal status programs and reforms to family and employment-based immigration, funded in part by fees and payments from immigrants.
What it actually does
This bill proposes a comprehensive overhaul of U.S. immigration law, combining enhanced border security measures with new pathways to legal status for certain undocumented immigrants and reforms to the legal immigration system. It mandates E-Verify for all employers, establishes 'humanitarian campuses' for asylum processing, creates a 'Dignity Program' for undocumented individuals to gain temporary legal status and work authorization through restitution payments, and offers a conditional path to permanent residency for 'Dreamers'.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill offers a pragmatic, bipartisan solution to the nation's long-standing immigration challenges by simultaneously securing the border, modernizing the asylum system, and providing a structured path to legal status for millions of undocumented individuals who have contributed to American society. They contend that the bill's blend of enforcement and earned legalization, coupled with reforms to address backlogs and protect children, represents a comprehensive approach that is both tough and humane, while also supporting American workers through dedicated funding.
Opponents contend
Critics may argue that the bill's enforcement provisions are overly harsh or insufficient, depending on their perspective. Some may contend that the 'Dignity Program' imposes excessive financial burdens on undocumented individuals without a clear path to citizenship, effectively creating a second-class status. Others might argue that the legalization pathways are too broad or that the bill does not adequately address the root causes of migration, while some may raise concerns about the mandatory E-Verify system's potential impact on small businesses or its reliability.
The bill is extensive and highly complex, requiring significant time for a thorough review. Given its omnibus nature, a casual reading would miss many critical details and implications.
Division A, Title I, Sec. 1111
Strengthening Southern Border Barriers and Technology
This section amends existing law to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to design, test, construct, install, deploy, integrate, and operate physical barriers, tactical infrastructure, and technology along the U.S. southern border. It emphasizes achieving situational awareness and operational advantage, prioritizing technology deployment, and includes a broad waiver authority for legal requirements to expedite construction and maintenance. It also defines terms like 'high traffic areas' and various technologies.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that these provisions are essential for national security, deterring illegal crossings, and combating drug and human trafficking. The broad waiver authority is presented as necessary to overcome bureaucratic hurdles and expedite critical infrastructure projects, ensuring agents have the tools they need to secure the border effectively.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that extensive physical barriers are ineffective, environmentally destructive, and infringe on private property rights. They might also contend that broad waiver authorities undermine environmental protections and community input, leading to rushed and poorly planned projects that harm local populations and ecosystems.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the imperative for border security with concerns about environmental protection, property rights, and community impact. The broad waiver authority aims for efficiency but creates tension with established legal and regulatory processes.
Division A, Title I, Sec. 1120
Higher Minimum Rates of Pay for Border Patrol Agents
This section mandates that the Director of the Office of Personnel Management increase the minimum rate of pay for United States Border Patrol agents at the GS-12 grade by at least 14 percent. It also requires harmonization of pay levels between Border Patrol agents and CBP officers and allows for increases in other grades or levels.
Division A, Title II, Sec. 1201
Ports of Entry Infrastructure Expansion and Modernization
This section authorizes the Administrator of General Services to construct new ports of entry along the northern and southern borders and to expand or modernize high-priority southern border ports of entry. It prioritizes the expansion and modernization of existing ports before constructing new ones, with a focus on reducing wait times and enhancing security. Consultation with various federal, state, local, tribal, and property owners is required.
Division A, Title III, Sec. 1304
Revised Penalties for Illegal Reentry
This section significantly amends Section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, increasing penalties for illegal reentry after removal. It establishes a tiered penalty structure, with longer prison sentences (up to 30 years) for aliens with prior convictions for felonies or multiple misdemeanors, and for those removed multiple times. It also clarifies definitions like 'crosses the border' and 'official restraint' and makes prior convictions elements of the crime that must be proven.
Division A, Title IV, Sec. 1402-1414
Mandatory E-Verify System Implementation
This title, known as the 'Legal Workforce Act,' mandates the use of the E-Verify system for all employers in the United States, phased in based on employer size over 6 to 24 months, with a 30-month delay for agricultural labor. It outlines new verification and reverification procedures, establishes penalties for non-compliance and fraud, and creates programs to block misused Social Security numbers and allow individuals to suspend their numbers to prevent identity theft. It also repeals the existing E-Verify pilot program.
Division A, Title V, Sec. 1501
Establishment of Humanitarian Campuses for Asylum Processing
This section mandates the establishment of at least three 'humanitarian campuses' along the southern border within 12 months. These campuses will conduct comprehensive processing for asylum seekers, including criminal history checks, biometrics, medical screenings, asylum interviews, and credible/reasonable fear determinations. They are designed to provide sufficient personnel (CBP, ICE, FEMA, USCIS, ORR, medical staff, social workers, child advocates), consumables, recreational space, and access to legal resources and non-governmental organizations.
Division A, Title V, Sec. 1502
Expedited Asylum Determinations
This section establishes new expedited asylum determination procedures for aliens entering without lawful status after the bill's enactment. It includes a mandatory 72-hour rest period, an initial screening within 15 days, and a secondary screening by a two-person asylum officer panel within 45 days for those who pass a credible fear interview. Cases can be approved, denied, or referred to an immigration judge. Denied cases are subject to expedited appeal or additional review for vulnerable populations or new evidence. Aliens referred to an immigration judge are released into a case management program with electronic monitoring.
Division B, Title I, Sec. 2102-2104
Conditional Permanent Resident Status for Dreamers (DREAM Act)
This title establishes a path to conditional permanent resident status for eligible 'Dreamers' (aliens who entered the U.S. as children, have been continuously present since January 1, 2021, and meet educational or military service requirements). After 10 years in conditional status, or immediately if requirements are met at application, they can apply to remove the condition and gain full lawful permanent residency, provided they meet further educational, military, or earned income criteria, and pass background checks. Waivers for certain inadmissibility grounds and misdemeanors are available.
Division B, Title III, Sec. 2301-2305
Establishment of the Dignity Program
This title establishes the 'Dignity Program' for eligible undocumented aliens who have been continuously present in the U.S. since December 31, 2020. Participants receive deferred action on removal, employment authorization, and travel authorization for 7 years. They must register, submit biometrics, pay a $1,000 restitution fee every two years (totaling $7,000), comply with laws, maintain employment or education, pay taxes (including a new 1% adjusted gross income levy), support dependents, and maintain health coverage. Upon completion, they receive 'Dignity Status' (renewable 7-year nonimmigrant status with work/travel authorization) and are considered inspected and admitted for future status adjustments, but remain ineligible for federal means-tested benefits.
Division B, Title IV, Sec. 2401-2409
Contribution to American Workers through Workforce Development Grants
This title directs restitution payments from the Dignity Program (Division B, Title III) to the H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account, with 90% of these funds made available to the Secretary of Labor. These funds are then used to award grants to eligible partnerships (industry or sector partnerships) to promote apprenticeships and other work-based learning programs for small- and medium-sized businesses in high-demand industry sectors. Grants support business engagement, curriculum development, and comprehensive support services for workers, including post-employment support, childcare, and transportation.
Division C, Title I, Sec. 3112
Discretionary Authority for Family Members of U.S. Citizens
This section grants the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security new discretionary authority to terminate removal proceedings, decline to order removal, grant permission to reapply for admission, or waive grounds of inadmissibility/deportability for spouses and children of U.S. citizens. This discretion can be exercised if removal or denial of benefits would result in hardship to the U.S. citizen family member, with a presumption that family separation constitutes hardship. It also includes special provisions for widows and orphans of deceased U.S. citizens.
Division C, Title II, Sec. 3201-3203
Legal Immigration Backlog Reduction and Child Status Protection
This title addresses legal immigration backlogs by raising per-country caps for immigrant visas from 7% to 15%. It also creates new categories of numerically exempt visas for beneficiaries of approved petitions with priority dates over 10 years old (with a $20,000 premium processing fee or a phased allocation over 10 years) and for certain long-term dependent children of nonimmigrant workers. It modernizes child status protection by basing age determinations on the petition filing date and allowing derivative beneficiaries to retain priority dates, with retroactive effect for some 'age-out' cases.
Division C, Title III, Sec. 3304
Modernizing Visas for Students (Dual Intent for F-1 Visas)
This section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow F-1 student visa holders to have 'dual intent,' meaning they can pursue temporary study in the U.S. while also harboring an intent to seek permanent residence without it being a disqualifying factor for their nonimmigrant status. It removes the requirement that F-1 students must have a residence in a foreign country which they have no intention of abandoning, and explicitly states that seeking permanent residence does not preclude obtaining or maintaining certain nonimmigrant visas (E, F, H, L, O, P, R, V).
Terminates asylum status for aliens who return to their home country within 5 years of being granted asylum, absent changed country conditions or a compelling reason waiver. This does not apply to lawful permanent residents.
Division A, Title V, Sec. 1505
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing statutes. However, its placement within a larger asylum reform title might lead a casual reader to overlook its specific implications for asylum recipients' future travel.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision prevents abuse of the asylum system by ensuring that individuals granted protection genuinely fear returning to their home country. If conditions are safe enough to return, the basis for asylum no longer exists.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this provision could deter asylum seekers from visiting family or attending to urgent matters in their home country, even if their fear of persecution remains. They may also contend that determining 'compelling reasons' for return could be subjective and lead to unfair terminations.
Estimated impact: Potentially impacts asylum recipients who wish to travel internationally, particularly to their country of origin, within the first five years of receiving asylum status.
Imposes a new tax equal to 1 percent of the adjusted gross income on every Dignity Program participant, to be deposited into the Immigration Infrastructure and Debt Reduction Fund.
Division B, Title III, Sec. 2304(b)(9)
Why it matters:This is a tactical maneuver to fund the program and other initiatives through direct contributions from participants, potentially making the program appear 'self-sufficient' or 'contributory' without explicitly labeling it as a new tax burden in a prominent section.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures Dignity Program participants contribute financially to the country's infrastructure and debt reduction, demonstrating their commitment and offsetting potential costs. It's framed as an 'earned' status.
Case against: Opponents would argue this constitutes an additional, potentially regressive, tax burden on a population that may already be financially vulnerable, on top of the restitution payments. They might see it as an unfair penalty for seeking legal status.
Estimated impact: Generates a new revenue stream for the Immigration Infrastructure and Debt Reduction Fund, impacting the disposable income of all Dignity Program participants.
Creates a new category of numerically exempt immigrant visas for beneficiaries of approved petitions with priority dates more than 10 years old, but requires them to deposit a premium processing fee of $20,000 into the Immigration Infrastructure and Debt Reduction Fund.
Division C, Title II, Sec. 3201(F)(ii)
Why it matters:The fee is a significant financial requirement that could be easily overlooked amidst the broader policy change of backlog reduction. Placing it as a condition for a numerically exempt visa category rather than a general processing fee might be a tactical choice to make it seem like an optional, expedited service.
Case for: Proponents argue this offers a fast track for long-suffering applicants to finally receive their visas, while simultaneously generating substantial revenue for border security and debt reduction. It provides an option for those who can afford it to bypass lengthy queues.
Case against: Opponents would argue this creates a two-tiered immigration system where wealth determines access to relief, undermining principles of fairness and equity. They might contend it's an exorbitant fee that disproportionately benefits the wealthy and penalizes those with fewer resources.
Estimated impact: Potentially generates significant revenue for the Immigration Infrastructure and Debt Reduction Fund and allows a subset of long-waiting immigrants to expedite their visa process.