Is garbage. Needs to be voted down.

Okay, I'll do that.

Waffledynamics said:

---

Okay, I'll do that.

---

OK I WILL DO THAT

Let me Gemini that for you:

The Dignity Act (often referred to as the DIGNIDAD Act) is a major bipartisan immigration reform bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is led by Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL) and Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX).
The bill is designed as a "grand bargain": it pairs strict border security and enforcement with a pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants already in the country.
Core Summary of the Act

The bill rests on four main "pillars":

1. Border Security: Allocates $35 billion for physical barriers, advanced surveillance technology (drones, sensors), and hiring more Border Patrol agents.
2. The "Dignity Program": Undocumented immigrants who have been in the U.S. for 5+ years can apply for a renewable 7-year legal status. To qualify, they must pass a criminal background check, pay $5,000 in restitution fees, and pay all back taxes.
3. Asylum Reform: Creates "Humanitarian Campuses" at the border to process asylum claims within 60 days, aiming to end the "catch and release" practice.
4. Legal Immigration: Expedites visa backlogs, protects "Dreamers" (DACA recipients), and creates new legal pathways for agricultural and seasonal workers.


Republican Talking Points

Support for the bill among Republicans generally comes from the moderate and business-leaning wings, while the "MAGA" or hardline wing often opposes it.
Pro-Dignity Act (Moderate/Pro-Business Republicans)
"Earned" Status, Not Amnesty: They argue it isn't "amnesty" because immigrants must pay thousands of dollars in fines, undergo background checks, and stay in "good standing."
Economic Necessity: Proponents argue that mass deportations would crash the economy, particularly in agriculture and construction. They see this as a way to "get people out of the shadows" to fill labor shortages.
Law and Order: They emphasize that the bill mandates E-Verify (checking work eligibility) and funds the wall/technology to stop future illegal crossings.
Anti-Dignity Act (Hardline/Conservative Republicans)
"Amnesty" by Another Name: Critics argue that allowing people who broke the law to stayeven with a fineincentivizes more illegal immigration.
Enforcement First: They often argue that no legal status should be discussed until the border is completely "shut down" and current laws are fully enforced.
The "Magnet" Effect: Opponents claim the bill will encourage a new surge of migrants hoping for a similar deal in the future.

Democratic Talking Points

Similarly, Democrats are split between those who see it as a pragmatic compromise and those who feel it concedes too much to the right.
Pro-Dignity Act (Moderate/Pragmatic Democrats)
Humanitarian Solution: They emphasize that the bill provides immediate protection from deportation for millions of people, allowing families to stay together.
Practicality: They argue that bipartisan compromise is the only way to pass any immigration reform after decades of gridlock.
Dreamers: A major win for them is the permanent solution for "Dreamers," who would have a direct path to citizenship (unlike the broader Dignity Program, which is permanent legal status but not necessarily citizenship).
Anti-Dignity Act (Progressive Democrats)
"Humanitarian Campuses" are Prisons: Some progressives argue that the proposed border centers are essentially detention camps that will lead to more human rights concerns.
The "Second Class" Citizen: Critics on the left dislike that the Dignity Program creates a permanent class of residents who work and pay taxes but may never be allowed to vote or access federal benefits.
Too Much Border Funding: They argue that the $35 billion for "walls and drones" is a waste of money that should be spent on social services or processing centers.

For the TLDR:




It's all the **** the democrats want that they claimed were wild conspiracy theories by white people on the right.

They claim it's bipartisan because I'm sure some R loon is backing it.

Why has an act that has been in committee for 9 months and most likely won't make it out of committee been getting so much publicity lately?

According to the Googletron:

Quote:

---

Key Components of the Dignity Act

• Border Security: Invests in technology and infrastructure to achieve operational control of the southern border and ends "catch-and-release".
• The "Dignity Program": Provides a 10-year, renewable legal status for undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. Participants must pass background checks, pay restitution ($5,000 over 10 years), pay taxes, and stay employed.
• Redemption Program: Following the Dignity Program, participants can enter a secondary program to seek permanent legal status (green card) by performing community service and paying additional restitution.
• Asylum Reform: Reforms the asylum process, establishes regional processing centers, and increases hiring for immigration personnel.
• E-Verify: Mandates the use of E-Verify nationwide to ensure legal hiring.
• Dreamers: Provides a pathway to legal status for Dreamers (individuals brought to the U.S. as children).

Current Status and Reception

• Status: Introduced in July 2025 and referred to multiple House committees.
• Reception: While presented as a balanced bipartisan solution, it faces scrutiny from various sides, with some critics labeling it "amnesty" and others viewing it as tough enforcement, reflecting the challenges of passing comprehensive reform.

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

Why has an act that has been in committee for 9 months and most likely won't make it out of committee been getting so much publicity lately?

---

It's author and some of her cosponsors are currently on a tour to promote it.

Garbage.

Folks may not realize this is an illegal alien amnesty bill supported by 19 (to date) RINOs including Monica de la Cruz of Texas CD 15

Na

Considering that there are way too many competing interests in this country and that we can't even agree on basic common sense things anymore, every "bipartisan bill" is always a giant pile of crap.

It is amnesty. To argue that simply because someone doesn't murder and rape that they should be a reward is asinine. They shouldn't receive special privileges for achieving minimum societal standards that the rest of us strive for. I've lived through multiple amnesties during my live. Every one of them said we will tighten and enforce the immigration laws, and as soon as the Democrats are in power, they simply stop enforcing the laws. That's how we got were we are currently.

What makes anyone think this time will be different? Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice shame on us.

Salazar and Escobar huh?

Yeah, how are they going to calculate all these back taxes, when most of them are hired with fake SSN or just cash under table? Why is it only $5,000? But also, the liberals will whine this is all too much and we need to get rid of these provisions once reality sets in most illegals cant meet these requirements..

Compromising with dems means Republicans lose.

You guys do realize that the current status quo means a constant swing between the chaos of a democratic president creating border chaos and a republican president creating interior enforcement chaos?

The immigration restriction provisions in this seems good to me -- better border security infrastructure and more personnel is always welcome. An actual legislative fix to the insane asylum laws that we are currently governed by. Eliminate the "demand side" of mass illegal immigration through universal E-Verify?

It also fixes the labor side of immigration enforcement. You guys know that the construction business would collapse if all the illegal aliens suddenly disappeared. You think home prices are high now? But this law accommodates that reality by allowing the most "harmless" of those illegals, who have been keeping their noses clean and just putting in the hours in the concrete crew, to continue to make those contributions to our economy while requiring a nominal penalty for the fact that they did, in fact, break the law.

We're also, in case you haven't noticed, facing a demographic crisis of declining fertility and an aging population. The dreamer pathway that this provides prevents us from deepening that by shipping off the demographic segment that we need most.

This law contains so many accommodations to restrictionist priorities, and the pro-immigrant provisions are so obviously accommodations to the basic realities (which would prevent a political backlash to restrictionist policies by preventing the downsides from materializing), that this opposition baffles me.

It gives Democrats what they want: More seats. Vote it down.

Here's a novel idea: democrats could just put America first and enforce the law.

solishu said:

---

This law contains so many accommodations to restrictionist priorities, and the pro-immigrant provisions are so obviously accommodations to the basic realities (which would prevent a political backlash to restrictionist policies by preventing the downsides from materializing), that this opposition baffles me.

---

I reject the labeling notion that you're either a "restrictionist" or "pro-immigration."

I support legal immigration. I want the US government to determine how many immigrants we need annually to support the economy and sustain our population. Pick a number. If it's ten million per year, then let in ten million people... legally. Be sure to vet them to ensure we're not letting in criminals or terrorists.

But turn back those who try to come in illegally and round up and deport those who did come in illegally. They need to get in line and come in legally just like all the others did.

That's a very simple and reasonable approach. Problem is, the Dems won't go for that because they want to keep the existing illegals because they believe it benefits their chances in the voting booth. Very shameful.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

solishu said:

---

This law contains so many accommodations to restrictionist priorities, and the pro-immigrant provisions are so obviously accommodations to the basic realities (which would prevent a political backlash to restrictionist policies by preventing the downsides from materializing), that this opposition baffles me.

---

I reject the labeling notion that you're either a "restrictionist" or "pro-immigration."

I support legal immigration. I want the US government to determine how many immigrants we need annually to support the economy and sustain our population. Pick a number. If it's ten million per year, then let in ten million people... legally. Be sure to vet them to ensure we're not letting in criminals or terrorists.

But turn back those who try to come in illegally and round up and deport those who did come in illegally. They need to get in line and come in legally just like all the others did.

That's a very simple and reasonable approach. Problem is, the Dems won't go for that because they want to keep the existing illegals because they believe it benefits their chances in the voting booth. Very shameful.

---

Would you support this if it also included a VoterID system to ensure that none of the illegal aliens who are here could vote?

Also, I agree with you in principle, but I believe that at this point there would be tremendous downsides of the kind of zero-tolerance-round-them-all-up-and-send-them-home policy that you're talking about. Again, the construction industry, one of the pillars of the economy, literally could not survive without illegal immigrant labor. You think it's worth driving us into a recession to demand zero-tolerance enforcement of these laws? That's certainly a tradeoff that we could choose to make as a nation. I just think it's the wrong one.

solishu said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

solishu said:

---

This law contains so many accommodations to restrictionist priorities, and the pro-immigrant provisions are so obviously accommodations to the basic realities (which would prevent a political backlash to restrictionist policies by preventing the downsides from materializing), that this opposition baffles me.

---

I reject the labeling notion that you're either a "restrictionist" or "pro-immigration."

I support legal immigration. I want the US government to determine how many immigrants we need annually to support the economy and sustain our population. Pick a number. If it's ten million per year, then let in ten million people... legally. Be sure to vet them to ensure we're not letting in criminals or terrorists.

But turn back those who try to come in illegally and round up and deport those who did come in illegally. They need to get in line and come in legally just like all the others did.

That's a very simple and reasonable approach. Problem is, the Dems won't go for that because they want to keep the existing illegals because they believe it benefits their chances in the voting booth. Very shameful.

---

Would you support this if it also included a VoterID system to ensure that none of the illegal aliens who are here could vote?

---

No, those are two separate issues.

Illegals need to become "legals." You don't reward people who cut in line by saying "ok, you can keep your place in line." Go to the back of the line like everybody else and wait your turn.

Voter ID makes sense as-is and should be law. ID is already required for all kinds of things. I can live with the outcome of elections if I believe it was fair and every vote was authentic. There is no logical reason to oppose voter ID unless you believe your political party benefits from fraudulent voting.

The only tie of illegal immigrants to voter ID is once they get in line the right way, come in legally, eventually apply for citizenship and earn it, then they will need an ID to vote as a US citizen.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

solishu said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

solishu said:

---

This law contains so many accommodations to restrictionist priorities, and the pro-immigrant provisions are so obviously accommodations to the basic realities (which would prevent a political backlash to restrictionist policies by preventing the downsides from materializing), that this opposition baffles me.

---

I reject the labeling notion that you're either a "restrictionist" or "pro-immigration."

I support legal immigration. I want the US government to determine how many immigrants we need annually to support the economy and sustain our population. Pick a number. If it's ten million per year, then let in ten million people... legally. Be sure to vet them to ensure we're not letting in criminals or terrorists.

But turn back those who try to come in illegally and round up and deport those who did come in illegally. They need to get in line and come in legally just like all the others did.

That's a very simple and reasonable approach. Problem is, the Dems won't go for that because they want to keep the existing illegals because they believe it benefits their chances in the voting booth. Very shameful.

---

Would you support this if it also included a VoterID system to ensure that none of the illegal aliens who are here could vote?

---

No, those are two separate issues.

Illegals need to become "legals." You don't reward people who cut in line by saying "ok, you can keep your place in line." Go to the back of the line like everybody else and wait your turn.

Voter ID makes sense as-is and should be law. ID is already required for all kinds of things. I can live with the outcome of elections if I believe it was fair and every vote was authentic. There is no logical reason to oppose voter ID unless you believe your political party benefits from fraudulent voting.

The only tie of illegal immigrants to voter ID is once they get in line the right way, come in legally, eventually apply for citizenship and earn it, then they will need an ID to vote as a US citizen.

---

OK -- but you're the one that combined the issue by stating, "The Dems won't go for that because they want to keep the existing illegals because they believe it benefits their chances in the voting booth. Very shameful."

solishu said:

---

Also, I agree with you in principle, but I believe that at this point there would be tremendous downsides of the kind of zero-tolerance-round-them-all-up-and-send-them-home policy that you're talking about.

---

Again, labels matter. It's not "zero tolerance." It is following the law.

Labeling following the law as zero tolerance implies that some level of law-breaking is ok and should be normalized.

Why should anybody else comply with the law if it's ok for others to flaunt the law?

solishu said:

---

OK -- but you're the one that combined the issue by stating, "The Dems won't go for that because they want to keep the existing illegals because they believe it benefits their chances in the voting booth. Very shameful."

---

Yes, I did. I understand why you linked them.

Already a thread on this.

solishu said:

---

You guys do realize that the current status quo means a constant swing between the chaos of a democratic president creating border chaos and a republican president creating interior enforcement chaos?

The immigration restriction provisions in this seems good to me -- better border security infrastructure and more personnel is always welcome. An actual legislative fix to the insane asylum laws that we are currently governed by. Eliminate the "demand side" of mass illegal immigration through universal E-Verify?

It also fixes the labor side of immigration enforcement. You guys know that the construction business would collapse if all the illegal aliens suddenly disappeared. You think home prices are high now? But this law accommodates that reality by allowing the most "harmless" of those illegals, who have been keeping their noses clean and just putting in the hours in the concrete crew, to continue to make those contributions to our economy while requiring a nominal penalty for the fact that they did, in fact, break the law.

We're also, in case you haven't noticed, facing a demographic crisis of declining fertility and an aging population. The dreamer pathway that this provides prevents us from deepening that by shipping off the demographic segment that we need most.

This law contains so many accommodations to restrictionist priorities, and the pro-immigrant provisions are so obviously accommodations to the basic realities (which would prevent a political backlash to restrictionist policies by preventing the downsides from materializing), that this opposition baffles me.

---

You do realize that any democrat administration will ignore anything that restricts masses of illegal from crossing the border again. They ignored the laws before, they will ignore them again.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

solishu said:

---

Also, I agree with you in principle, but I believe that at this point there would be tremendous downsides of the kind of zero-tolerance-round-them-all-up-and-send-them-home policy that you're talking about.

---

Again, labels matter. It's not "zero tolerance." It is following the law.

Labeling following the law as zero tolerance implies that some level of law-breaking is ok and should be normalized.

Why should anybody else comply with the law if it's ok for others to flaunt the law?

---

Fine. You can label it whatever you like. "Gold-star-legal-compliance." Whatever. The economic consequences are the ones that will hurt (and again, lead to undermining public support for enforcement in the future, giving cover to future democratic administrations to play fast and loose again with the laws.)

American Hardwood said:

---

solishu said:

---

You guys do realize that the current status quo means a constant swing between the chaos of a democratic president creating border chaos and a republican president creating interior enforcement chaos?

The immigration restriction provisions in this seems good to me -- better border security infrastructure and more personnel is always welcome. An actual legislative fix to the insane asylum laws that we are currently governed by. Eliminate the "demand side" of mass illegal immigration through universal E-Verify?

It also fixes the labor side of immigration enforcement. You guys know that the construction business would collapse if all the illegal aliens suddenly disappeared. You think home prices are high now? But this law accommodates that reality by allowing the most "harmless" of those illegals, who have been keeping their noses clean and just putting in the hours in the concrete crew, to continue to make those contributions to our economy while requiring a nominal penalty for the fact that they did, in fact, break the law.

We're also, in case you haven't noticed, facing a demographic crisis of declining fertility and an aging population. The dreamer pathway that this provides prevents us from deepening that by shipping off the demographic segment that we need most.

This law contains so many accommodations to restrictionist priorities, and the pro-immigrant provisions are so obviously accommodations to the basic realities (which would prevent a political backlash to restrictionist policies by preventing the downsides from materializing), that this opposition baffles me.

---

You do realize that any democrat administration will ignore anything that restricts masses of illegal from crossing the border again. They ignored the laws before, they will ignore them again.

---

The stronger the laws are the less likely that is to be the case. One way they did that during the Biden term, for example, was claiming that they didn't have the funding to enforce the law. Well look-this law drops a big chunk of cash on border enforcement!

Nope. Leftists refuse to follow laws that are good for America.

solishu said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

solishu said:

---

Also, I agree with you in principle, but I believe that at this point there would be tremendous downsides of the kind of zero-tolerance-round-them-all-up-and-send-them-home policy that you're talking about.

---

Again, labels matter. It's not "zero tolerance." It is following the law.

Labeling following the law as zero tolerance implies that some level of law-breaking is ok and should be normalized.

Why should anybody else comply with the law if it's ok for others to flaunt the law?

---

Fine. You can label it whatever you like. "Gold-star-legal-compliance." Whatever. The economic consequences are the ones that will hurt (and again, lead to undermining public support for enforcement in the future, giving cover to future democratic administrations to play fast and loose again with the laws.)

---

It's a very slippery slope to say that we should waive legal compliance because of the economic impact. You could make that case for hundreds of laws.

If you want to do something different than the law, then change the law through our democratic process.

But turning a blind eye to the law just because you like the outcome isn't right.

Selective law enforcement is the issue here, and it applies much broader than just the immigration topic.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

solishu said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

solishu said:

---

Also, I agree with you in principle, but I believe that at this point there would be tremendous downsides of the kind of zero-tolerance-round-them-all-up-and-send-them-home policy that you're talking about.

---

Again, labels matter. It's not "zero tolerance." It is following the law.

Labeling following the law as zero tolerance implies that some level of law-breaking is ok and should be normalized.

Why should anybody else comply with the law if it's ok for others to flaunt the law?

---

Fine. You can label it whatever you like. "Gold-star-legal-compliance." Whatever. The economic consequences are the ones that will hurt (and again, lead to undermining public support for enforcement in the future, giving cover to future democratic administrations to play fast and loose again with the laws.)

---

It's a very slippery slope to say that we should waive legal compliance because of the economic impact. You could make that case for hundreds of laws.

If you want to do something different than the law, then change the law through our democratic process.

But turning a blind eye to the law just because you like the outcome isn't right.

Selective law enforcement is the issue here, and it applies much broader than just the immigration topic.

---

Aren't we talking about The Dignity ACT?

CrackerJackAg said:

---

For the TLDR:




It's all the **** the democrats want that they claimed were wild conspiracy theories by white people on the right.

They claim it's bipartisan because I'm sure some R loon is backing it.

---

Programs like this been done in the past. These same people we are reporting had 20 years to do simple paperwork and never do it. Then they end up as a sob story as they get deported.