ARRIVED AS ADULTS

ESTABLISH PROCESS FOR EARNING LEGAL STATUS

Proposals for Congress to grant some form of legal status to the most deserving of the estimated 8 – 10 million undocumented immigrants who came here as adults have been made for decades. The Dignity Act is the bipartisan proposal to do this that is currently receiving the most serious bipartisan consideration in Congress.

The Dignity Act has additional provisions, but the “Dignity Program” focuses on undocumented immigrants who came here as adults. Those who have been here for at least five years can earn limited legal status through a two-step process.

  • Conditional Dignity Period—Those who qualify can obtain a conditional “Dignity Status” that protects against deportation and provides full work and travel authorization. They are required to pay federal income taxes, as well as state and local taxes. They do not pay Social Security and Medicare taxes (and do not receive those benefits) but do pay a 1.5% Immigration Infrastructure Levy that helps fund the physical wall and high-tech surveillance at the border, humanitarian campuses for asylum seekers, and grants for retraining and upskilling US citizens for high-demand jobs. They are required to maintain non-government, unsubsidized health insurance through an employer or a private insurer. They are also required to pay a $7,000 restitution fee, which can be paid with an up-front $1,000 and annual $1,000 payments. They are prohibited from voting. To obtain this limited status, applicants must provide biometric and biographic data. That information is used to check an extensive set of databases to ensure that:
  • Standard Immigration Admissibility—They are admissible under the current Immigration and Nationality Act, which includes verification that they don’t have any of the standard criminal violations that prohibit legal entry into the country, in addition to:
    • No Security Risk—Including suspicion of involvement in terrorism, espionage, or belonging to a “totalitarian party.”
    • Are Self-sufficient—Have sufficient means to take care of themselves without federal benefits.
    • No Additional Criminal Violations—Beyond the extensive set of criminal violations checked for in standard immigration admissibility, they cannot have any of the following:
      • Felonies
      • Significant Misdemeanors
        • Domestic violence
        • Sexual abuse or exploitation
        • Burglary
        • Unlawful possession of a firearm
        • Drug distribution or sales
        • DUI
        • Misdemeanors for which the individual was sentenced to more than 90 days in jail
    •  No New Violations during Seven-year Period—Once accepted, they are enrolled in the FBI’s Rap Back Service, which provides real-time alerts to DHS. Any violation of the requirements results in immediate revocation of their legal status and the beginning of removal proceedings.
  •  Dignity Status—Those who successfully complete the seven-year conditional period transition to a legal status that is renewable every five years as long as they remain in good legal standing, including not committing the prohibited crimes and continuing to maintain unsubsidized private health insurance. They can live, work, and travel freely in the US, but they cannot apply for a Green Card or to naturalize as a citizen. They cannot vote and cannot sponsor family or friends for Green Cards or citizenship.

The Case For 

Proponents of granting those who came here as adults limited legal status through the Dignity Act suggest that it is the most pragmatic way of resolving their status without resorting to mass deportation. They also argue that it does not amount to amnesty, since it does not provide a Green Card status. Supporters contend that the nation’s recent experience with the mass deportation, policy demonstrates that the practical requirements of fully implementing it are incompatible with American values of treating the millions who have lived and worked among us productively without committing crimes with dignity and respect. They observe that most of them have family members with legal status. They contend it is inhumane and immoral to break these families up by deporting those who don’t have status.

 

Advocates argue that the act’s rigorous provisions ensure that those who qualify have a clearly net-positive effect on the economy. Supporters emphasize that keeping these productive, law-abiding immigrants in the workforce is critical to filling the many essential jobs for which we already have chronic worker shortages, including in agriculture and healthcare. They note that these shortages will become far more pronounced in the coming years, given the unprecedented demographic challenges posed by our aging population. Supporters also argue that the case for the Dignity Act is far more than a merely economic one. They argue that shared American moral principles call for an opportunity for restitution for those who have lived here for decades productively without committing crimes, and the ability to keep families together.

The Case Against

Most arguments against granting limited status to those who came here as adults are made from two opposing perspectives. The first is a skeptical perspective on immigration. They argue that it is still a form of amnesty. They observe that it sets a dangerous precedent by indicating to prospective migrants that the US does not treat illegal immigration as a serious crime. Beyond that, these opponents argue it breaks our social contract. They contend that legal presence is not a commodity that can be purchased for a $7,000 fee. Instead, they believe it is a profound privilege reserved strictly for those who respect the nation’s sovereignty and laws from day one.

 

The second perspective from which arguments against granting limited status to those who came here as adults are made is by those supportive of immigrants without status. They take the arguments of Dignity Act proponents further, contending that the current version of the Dignity Act is too restrictive and punitive toward millions who have lived and worked among us productively and without committing crimes. If we are going to keep them in our communities, benefit from their labor and contributions to our economy, and make them subject to our laws, it is unfair and beneath our values to bar them from even the most arduous path to citizenship. The US, they argue, should not have a permanent second class of citizens who cannot attain the rights and responsibilities of being an American.