Those most skeptical of immigration argue that all undocumented immigrants who arrived as adults should be deported rather than given a chance to earn legal status or left here without status. Earned legal status, they maintain, is still a form of amnesty. Restrictionists contend that it sets a dangerous precedent by indicating to prospective migrants that the US does not treat illegal immigration as a serious crime. They argue that legal presence is not a commodity that can be purchased for a $7,000 fee. Restrictionists maintain that many won’t even pay the fee because future administrations are likely to waive it. They further argue that the limited non-citizen status granted under the Dignity Act will be upgraded to a path to citizenship by a future Congress. In fact, they note that Representative Salazar, the sponsor of the Dignity Act, has publicly predicted as much. Restrictionists conclude that legal status is a profound privilege that should be reserved for those who respect the nation’s sovereignty and laws from day one. 

Those who support the Dignity Act and oppose removal or leaving the undocumented here without status argue that this legislation is the most practical and fair way to resolve the status of those who arrived as adults. They contend that it is not amnesty because it comes with restitution fees and consequences, provides no federal benefits, and offers no route to a Green Card or citizenship.

Dignity Act advocates argue that its rigorous provisions ensure that those who qualify have a clearly positive net effect on the economy, since it limits their ability to collect government benefits. Keeping these productive, law-abiding immigrants in the workforce, supporters emphasize, is critical to filling essential jobs where we already face chronic worker shortages, including childcare, healthcare, and agriculture. These shortages, they note, will become far more pronounced in the coming years given the unprecedented challenges of our aging population.

The case for the Dignity Act, supporters add, is far more than economic. Shared American moral principles, they argue, call for an opportunity for restitution for those who have lived here for decades productively without committing crimes, and for keeping families together.

Dignity Act supporters also argue that both alternatives are clearly worse. The nation’s recent experience with mass deportation, they contend, demonstrates that removing all undocumented immigrants requires methods incompatible with the American value of treating those who have lived and worked among us with dignity and respect. It is inhumane and immoral, they argue, to break up families by deporting those without status. Leaving them here in limbo without status, advocates add, is unfair and subjects them to the dangers that go with it.

Few make a strong affirmative argument for having those who arrived here as adults stay here without status. Instead, some simply observe that it is the only realistic option. Congress is unlikely, they suggest, to agree on whom to deport and whom to grant status. They also observe that deporting them all is impractical, costly, contrary to our nation’s values, and would remove millions of essential workers from core jobs in the economy without providing any plan to replace their contributions. 

Some immigrant supporters oppose all three options of removal, the Dignity Act, and leaving them here without status because they believe each does not treat those without status with as much respect as they deserve. They make the same arguments against removal that Dignity Act supporters make. However, they contend that the Dignity Act itself is too restrictive and punitive toward millions who have lived and worked among us productively 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, these advocates say, 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 population of second-class residents who can never attain the rights and responsibilities of being an American. We should offer them a route to obtain a Green Card and ultimately citizenship, they conclude, rather than permanently barring them, and certainly rather than deporting them or leaving them in limbo.