Bill Overview
Title: DIGNIDAD (Dignity) Act
Description: This bill addresses immigration-related issues, such as requiring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to resume construction of barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border and providing removal deferral for eligible non-U.S. nationals ( aliens under federal law). For example, the bill requires DHS to resume all barrier construction activities along the southern border that were underway or being planned prior to January 20, 2021; authorizes DHS to request National Guard support to secure the southern border; requires the hiring of additional U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel; provides funding for border infrastructure and equipment; provides statutory authority for the Flores settlement, which established policies pertaining to the treatment of minors without lawful immigration status by DHS; requires employers to verify the immigration status of individuals using an electronic employment eligibility confirmation system modeled after the E-Verify system; provides a path to permanent resident status to eligible individuals without lawful immigration status who entered the United States as minors (commonly referred to as Dreamers); establishes the Dignity Program, which defers the removal of eligible individuals without lawful immigration status who meet various requirements, including paying into a fund to provide training to U.S. workers; establishes the Redemption Program, which provides a path to permanent resident status to individuals who complete the Dignity Program and meet various requirements, including making additional payments into the U.S. worker fund; and requires the Department of State to implement a strategy to address the key factors contributing to individuals from Central America traveling to the United States.
Sponsors: Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals without lawful immigration status in the U.S.
Estimated Size: 11000000
- The bill directly affects individuals without lawful immigration status in the U.S., including those who entered as minors (Dreamers) and those eligible for the Dignity and Redemption Programs.
- Individuals in Central America may be impacted by the bill's strategy to address factors contributing to migration to the U.S., which could influence immigration patterns.
- U.S. citizens may be affected through employment verification systems, potentially impacting businesses and workers.
- The bill involves the construction of border barriers, which may impact residents and ecosystems along the southern U.S. border.
- DHS personnel and National Guard may see changes in duties and deployments as a result of this bill.
Reasoning
- Given the budget constraints, not all undocumented immigrants will be able to participate in the Dignity and Redemption Programs, especially in the first year, limiting the initial number of beneficiaries.
- Dreamers, although a substantial group, will have more clear pathways under this policy, potentially leading to increased wellbeing scores for them over time.
- Individuals residing near the southern border may experience increased disturbance or benefit from enhanced security measures, depending on their perspective.
- The impact of the policy across the U.S. population will vary significantly, with those directly affected by immigration status policies experiencing the most change.
- Verification systems may streamline employment processes for some businesses but could introduce stressors for workers who are undocumented.
Simulated Interviews
Construction Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The DIGNIDAD Act could provide me with a chance to gain lawful status through the Dignity Program.
- If I can eventually become a permanent resident, it would change my life and my family's future positively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 1 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 1 |
College Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have been waiting for a path to permanent residency all my life.
- This act could finally ensure my future in the U.S. without fear.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 3 |
Border Patrol Agent (San Diego, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased funding and personnel will help us do our jobs more effectively.
- I'm concerned about the human aspects at the border and hope this addresses those humanely.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (San Antonio, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about how new verification systems might complicate hiring.
- The policy has good intentions, but I fear added bureaucracy might impact small businesses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Teacher (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen the border situation from various angles, as a teacher and activist.
- The DIGNIDAD Act looks promising but must be executed with sensitivity to human rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
IT Specialist (Houston, TX)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support pathways to residency for Dreamers which will ultimately strengthen our community.
- The policy seems comprehensive, but proper execution is key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
HR Manager (Miami, FL)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The transition to a new employment eligibility system might initially be challenging.
- Ultimately, a robust system ensures compliance and fairness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (El Paso, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The border barrier construction could have drastic effects on local wildlife and ecosystems.
- While security is important, environmental considerations mustn't be overlooked.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Activist (New York, NY)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act is a step forward for immigrant rights, especially for Dreamers and those without status.
- Continued pressure is needed to ensure it meets its humanitarian intentions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Public Policy Analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the goals of the policy are ambitious, actual impact depends on execution.
- Metrics should be in place to assess successes or setbacks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000000 (Low: $4500000000, High: $5500000000)
Year 2: $4500000000 (Low: $4000000000, High: $5000000000)
Year 3: $4000000000 (Low: $3500000000, High: $4500000000)
Year 5: $3000000000 (Low: $2500000000, High: $3500000000)
Year 10: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Key Considerations
- The scale of border barrier construction and its environmental impact.
- Balanced distribution of costs and benefits across federal and state entities.
- Impact on local economies and communities along the southern border due to construction.
- Ensuring effective implementation and management of the Dignity and Redemption Programs.
- Potential for social integration of previously undocumented immigrants into the economy.