The Dignity Act is a Bipartisan Attempt at Immigrant Protections. Can it pass?

Two Latina legislators are risking it all politically to protect workers in the community.

In the charged atmosphere of Donald Trump’s second presidency, with mass deportations already underway and ICE raids targeting workplaces across the country, an unlikely alliance has emerged. Representatives Maria Elvira Salazar, a Cuban American Republican from Florida, and Veronica Escobar, a Democrat from Texas, have introduced the Dignity Act of 2025, a bipartisan attempt to address one of America’s most intractable policy challenges.

The legislation represents a fascinating political calculation: offer legal status without citizenship, demand accountability without amnesty, and create worker protections amid an administration committed to deportation. But in today’s hyper-partisan environment, even this carefully crafted compromise faces steep political headwinds from both sides of the aisle.

The Dignity Act targets the approximately 10.5 million (Pew Research) undocumented immigrants who arrived before 2021, offering up to seven years of legal status with work authorization in exchange for restitution payments and regular DHS check-ins. Crucially, it explicitly excludes federal benefits and any path to citizenship, a deliberate attempt to avoid the “amnesty” label that has doomed previous reform efforts.

I think there’s an important point that bears mentioning. In the most difficult issue of our age - immigration- it is Latinos who have begun to build a bipartisan consensus. Perhaps more interesting, it is Latinas (women) who are taking the lead. As I explained in my book “The Latino Century”, Latinos are the moderates in both parties.

Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy

These two Latinas are risking a lot politically, where anything short of alligators is considered amnesty. Both are courageously putting their name to a bill knowing they will be attacked by their parties, but fully aware that if they don’t, real people will suffer.

Notably, while Congresswoman Salazar frequently invokes Ronald Reagan in advocating for this framework, the Dignity Act represents a marked departure from Reagan’s approach to immigration reform. Reagan famously accomplished the last comprehensive immigration reform measure with the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in 1986.

Central to Reagan’s reform was the granting of amnesty to approximately 6 million Latinos, a number that, to put in perspective, is larger than the entire current Cuban American diaspora today. The contrast is striking: where Reagan embraced full amnesty as both a practical and moral necessity, today’s “Reaganesque” Republicans advocate for permanent legal limbo.

This worker protection program emerges from a stark economic reality. Agriculture and food service industries, already struggling with labor shortages, face devastating disruption from Trump’s deportation campaign. According to a Newsweek report, California farmers (who produce a third of the country's vegetables and over three-quarters of the country's fruits and nuts, CDFA) are already reporting significant crop losses and food waste, with recent ICE raids in Southern California agriculture facilities resulting in over 200 arrests, highlighting the collision between enforcement priorities and economic necessity.

The bill’s sponsors understand this tension. By framing their proposal around economic stability rather than humanitarian concerns, they’re attempting to thread the needle between Trump’s enforcement agenda and the business community's needs. The inclusion of enhanced border security measures and mandatory E-Verify nationwide further signals their recognition that any immigration reform must address conservative concerns about border control.

For Republicans, the Dignity Act presents a complex political calculus. Salazar’s involvement is particularly significant, as a Cuban American Republican from Florida, she brings credibility with a constituency that has historically supported tough immigration enforcement while understanding the immigrant experience firsthand.
The GOP’s challenge lies in reconciling Trump’s populist base, which demands aggressive deportation, with business interests that depend on immigrant labor. Agriculture, construction, and hospitality sectors, core Republican constituencies, face potential economic catastrophe if current enforcement continues unchecked. The bill’s “no citizenship” provision offers Republicans political cover, allowing them to support worker protections without appearing to reward illegal entry.

However, the Trump administration’s own mixed signals complicate Republican positioning. While the president has suggested working on “temporary passes” for agricultural workers, his administration continues workplace raids that terrorize the very communities this legislation aims to protect. Republicans supporting the Dignity Act risk appearing to undermine their own president’s signature campaign promise.

Democrats face equally treacherous political terrain. Progressive activists will likely criticize the bill’s exclusion of citizenship pathways, viewing it as an insufficient half-measure that creates a permanent underclass of workers without full rights. The requirement for restitution payments and regular government check-ins may strike some as punitive rather than protective.

More fundamentally, Democrats must grapple with whether supporting this compromise legitimizes Trump’s broader immigration agenda. By accepting enhanced border security and mandatory E-Verify as trade-offs, they risk normalizing policies they’ve historically opposed. The political optics of partnering with Republicans on immigration while families face separation through deportation campaigns present significant challenges for Democratic legislators.

Escobar’s participation is strategically important, as a Texas Democrat representing a border district, she brings firsthand understanding of immigration’s complexities. Her involvement signals that pragmatic border-state Democrats recognize the need for immediate worker protections, even if the solution falls short of comprehensive reform.

Both parties face risks that extend beyond their traditional bases. For Republicans, supporting any form of legal status for undocumented immigrants invites primary challenges from Trump loyalists who view such measures as betrayal. The timing is particularly problematic, with the administration’s deportation efforts generating headlines about enforcement success. Democrats risk alienating immigrant advocacy groups and progressive donors who have spent decades pushing for comprehensive reform, including citizenship pathways. Supporting a “status quo plus” solution may undermine future efforts to achieve more ambitious goals.

The broader political environment complicates both parties’ calculations. With Trump’s deportation agenda already facing legal challenges and practical limitations, legislators must consider whether this represents a genuine opportunity for progress or merely political theater designed to provide cover for inaction. The Dignity Act’s success depends on whether economic pragmatism can overcome political polarization. Salazar and Escobar’s partnership demonstrates that bipartisan cooperation remains possible, even on immigration. Their emphasis on worker protections rather than broader reform may provide the narrow focus necessary for legislative success.

However, the fundamental tension remains: any meaningful immigration reform requires acknowledging that millions of undocumented immigrants are permanently embedded in American communities and the economy (undocumented immigrants generated $96.7 billion in tax revenue in 2022 alone). The question isn’t whether they’ll remain, but under what conditions.

The Dignity Act represents a modest but potentially significant step toward that acknowledgment. Whether it can survive the political crossfire depends on legislators’ willingness to prioritize economic stability over partisan positioning, a proposition that remains very much in doubt