The Dignity Act: Two Futures for American Immigration

By Anne Webster | Editorial credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

The United States stands at a precipitous crossroads on immigration policy, facing two fundamentally irreconcilable visions for the nation’s future. The user query at the heart of this analysis posits a “Dignity Act, proposed by President Trump, in 2025.” This premise, while understandable amidst a contentious political landscape, contains a critical factual error that must be corrected to enable a meaningful analysis. The Dignity Act is not a Trump administration proposal; it is a comprehensive, bipartisan piece of legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL) and Congresswoman Veronica Escobar (D-TX). It represents a complex attempt at a grand legislative bargain, trading enhanced border security and enforcement for pathways to legal status for the long-term undocumented population.   

In stark opposition stands the immigration agenda of a potential second Trump administration, which is not embodied by the Dignity Act but is meticulously detailed in the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership”. This 920-page playbook outlines a plan to radically restrict nearly all forms of immigration, dismantle existing humanitarian protections, and execute the “single largest Mass Deportation Program in History” through the aggressive use of executive power, largely circumventing the legislative process.   

Therefore, to fully address the user’s inquiry into the future of U.S. immigration, this report will conduct a parallel analysis of these two competing frameworks. It will first deconstruct the intricate legislative architecture of the Dignity Act, examining its framework of “enforcement-for-legalization.” It will then pivot to the antithetical philosophy of Project 2025, which champions executive-led dismantlement and restriction. Finally, the report will assess the political viability of the Dignity Act and provide a data-driven comparative impact analysis, evaluating how each path would profoundly reshape the lives of immigrants and their families, the U.S. economy, and the very fabric of American society. The choice between these two paths is not merely a matter of policy preference; it is a decision that will define the nation’s economic trajectory and its character for a generation.

Section I: The Dignity Act: Anatomy of a Bipartisan Grand Bargain

The Dignity Act, officially titled the “Dignity for Immigrants while Guarding our Nation to Ignite and Deliver the American Dream Act,” is one of the most comprehensive immigration reform bills introduced in Congress in years. It is structured as a classic legislative “grand bargain,” attempting to build a broad coalition by combining stringent enforcement measures favored by conservatives with legalization provisions sought by Democrats and immigrant advocates. A core feature designed to broaden its appeal is its unique funding mechanism; unlike past efforts, the bill is designed to be fully funded through restitution payments and application fees paid by immigrants themselves, requiring no new taxpayer dollars and even projecting a net surplus for the U.S. Treasury. The legislation rests on two central pillars: a massive investment in border security and enforcement, and the creation of new pathways for undocumented immigrants to gain legal status.   

Pillar I – Border Security and Enforcement Overhaul

The first half of the Dignity Act’s bargain is a robust set of enforcement-first policies designed to secure the border, reform the asylum system, and curtail illegal employment. These provisions are intended to demonstrate a commitment to “law and order” and win the support of Republicans who argue that no legalization can occur until the border is under control.   

Funding and Infrastructure

The bill authorizes a significant infusion of capital to modernize the nation’s border infrastructure. It allocates between $25 billion and $35 billion for physical barriers, advanced surveillance technology such as drones and sensors, and critical upgrades to aging ports of entry. This funding is directed toward achieving “situational awareness and operational advantage” at the border. Critically, to ensure these projects are not mired in litigation or bureaucratic delays, the bill grants the Secretary of Homeland Security broad authority to waive any legal requirements deemed necessary to expedite the construction and deployment of this infrastructure. This provision aims to deliver tangible security results quickly, a key demand of enforcement proponents.   

Personnel and Enforcement

Beyond physical infrastructure, the act addresses personnel and legal enforcement. It seeks to tackle the high attrition and recruitment challenges faced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) by increasing the minimum pay for Border Patrol agents by at least 14% and authorizing retention bonuses for those serving in remote or hard-to-fill locations. The legislation also toughens legal deterrents. It significantly increases the criminal penalties for individuals who re-enter the U.S. illegally after a prior deportation, raising the maximum prison sentence from two years to ten. Furthermore, it creates new criminal offenses targeting “illicit spotters”—individuals who track Border Patrol movements to aid drug and human smuggling operations—and enhances penalties for those caught with firearms during smuggling attempts. These measures are designed to disrupt the operations of transnational criminal organizations.   

Asylum System Reform

A cornerstone of the enforcement pillar is a fundamental restructuring of the asylum process, aimed squarely at ending the practice often labeled “catch-and-release”. The bill mandates the creation of three to five large-scale “Humanitarian Campuses” along the southern border. Asylum-seeking adults and families apprehended at the border would be taken to these facilities rather than being released into the country’s interior.   

Inside these campuses, the asylum process would be dramatically accelerated. After a mandatory 72-hour rest period, migrants would undergo screening and a credible fear interview within the first 15 days. Final asylum determinations would then be made by trained asylum officers—not immigration judges—with the goal of completing the entire process within 60 days. This shift from the backlogged immigration court system to an administrative process within DHS is intended to deliver timely and credible outcomes. While detained, migrants would have access to medical staff, social workers, and legal counsel. In a novel provision designed to address due process concerns, the bill incentivizes legal representation by offering to forgive 75% of federal law school loans for attorneys who commit to working at these campuses for four years.   

Mandatory E-Verify

To address the economic “pull factor” of jobs, the Dignity Act mandates the nationwide implementation of a new Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS), effectively making the current E-Verify program mandatory for all U.S. employers. The system would be phased in gradually, with different timelines for businesses of varying sizes, but would ultimately require every employer to verify the legal work authorization of new hires under penalty of perjury. The bill establishes severe civil penalties for employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers or submit false information, aiming to close off the U.S. labor market to those without legal status.   

Pillar II – Pathways to Legal Status and Economic Integration

The second half of the grand bargain offers a series of provisions to legalize and integrate the nation’s long-term undocumented population. These measures are designed to secure the support of Democrats, business groups, and faith leaders by providing a pragmatic solution for the estimated 11 million people living in the U.S. without authorization.   

The Dignity Program

The centerpiece of the legalization pillar is the “Dignity Program,” a 7-year pathway for undocumented individuals who have been continuously present in the U.S. for at least five years. To be eligible, applicants must come forward, admit their unlawful presence, pass a criminal background check, pay any outstanding taxes, and begin paying a total of $5,000 in restitution over the seven years of the program.   

Upon acceptance into the program, participants are granted deferred action, protecting them from deportation, and receive legal work authorization. This allows them to work legally, pay taxes openly, and live without the constant fear of removal. This program is the primary mechanism through which the bill seeks to bring the undocumented population out of the shadows and into the formal economy.   

Dignity Status

Upon successful completion of the 7-year Dignity Program, individuals transition to a new “Dignity Status.” This is a renewable legal status that grants them the right to continue living and working in the United States indefinitely, as well as the ability to travel internationally. However, in a crucial political compromise, this status explicitly does not provide a special path to citizenship. This provision is a significant departure from the 2023 version of the bill, which had included an optional “Redemption Program” that offered a pathway to a green card and eventual citizenship.   

The removal of a path to citizenship is a calculated political trade. Past comprehensive immigration reform efforts have often failed due to conservative opposition to what is labeled “amnesty.” By repeatedly emphasizing “No amnesty. No citizenship,” the bill’s sponsors are attempting to neutralize this potent line of attack and make the legislation more palatable to hardline skeptics. In exchange for this potential political viability, however, the bill proposes the creation of what would effectively be a permanent, legal, but non-citizen class. These individuals would pay taxes, including an additional 1.5% levy on their income, and contribute restitution fees, but would be barred from receiving federal benefits and denied the right to vote or hold office. This decoupling of long-term legal residency from the promise of political integration represents a paradigm shift in American immigration policy, raising profound questions about the future of social cohesion and civic participation.   

Protections for Dreamers

The Dignity Act makes a notable exception for one specific group: Dreamers. The bill incorporates key provisions of the Dream Act, creating a separate and more generous pathway for individuals who were brought to the U.S. as children, including current recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Eligible Dreamers would be able to obtain Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status—a green card—and, subsequently, a path to U.S. citizenship, provided they meet certain educational, military service, or employment requirements. This special carve-out acknowledges the unique circumstances and broad public support for this population.   

Family Unity and Legal Immigration Reform

Finally, the bill addresses long-standing issues within the legal immigration system. It incorporates the American Families United Act, which grants the Department of Homeland Security discretionary authority to prevent the separation of mixed-status families where one member is a U.S. citizen. More broadly, it tackles the enormous backlogs in the family-based and employment-based visa systems. The legislation mandates a reduction in the legal visa backlog to a maximum of ten years and raises the per-country caps on visas from 7% to 15%. These changes would have a massive positive economic impact by allowing millions of vetted and sponsored individuals who have waited for years to finally immigrate, fill critical jobs, and reunite with family.   

The pairing of the mandatory E-Verify system with the Dignity Program is a particularly sophisticated piece of legislative design. On its own, a nationwide E-Verify mandate would be economically catastrophic, instantly rendering millions of workers in critical sectors like agriculture, construction, and hospitality unemployable. This would create chaos for businesses and workers alike. The Dignity Act avoids this by linking the “stick” of E-Verify with the “carrot” of the Dignity Program. This structure creates a powerful, self-enforcing incentive for compliance. Businesses that rely on immigrant labor are compelled to support the bill because it provides the only viable mechanism to retain their workforce legally. Undocumented workers are simultaneously pushed toward the program as their only option for continued employment. In this way, the bill co-opts the business community into becoming a partner in immigration enforcement, aligning the economic interests of major industries with the government’s goal of registering the entire undocumented population.   

Section II: The Antithesis: President Trump’s Project 2025 Immigration Mandate

In direct opposition to the legislative compromise embodied by the Dignity Act stands the immigration agenda detailed in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. This document serves as the explicit policy playbook for a potential second Trump administration and outlines a vision not of reform, but of radical restriction and dismantlement. Its core philosophy is the maximization of executive authority to circumvent Congress and the courts, fundamentally re-engineering the U.S. immigration system to drive immigration levels to unprecedented lows.   

The Centralization of Power and Administrative Sabotage

The foundational strategy of Project 2025 is to achieve its goals without relying on new legislation from a gridlocked Congress. The plan details how a new administration would use executive orders, reinterpretations of existing statutes, and the weaponization of the federal bureaucracy to enact its agenda. A key component is the politicization of the federal civil service, replacing career officials with political loyalists to ensure that policies are implemented without resistance or moderation.   

This approach of administrative sabotage is evident in its specific proposals. For example, rather than seeking a legislative repeal of DACA, the plan instructs the administration to simply eliminate staff time for reviewing and processing renewal applications, effectively terminating the program by administrative fiat and stripping legal status from over 500,000 Dreamers. Similarly, it proposes using administrative backlogs—which could be intentionally engineered by reassigning staff—as a trigger to automatically suspend the intake of applications for entire categories of legal immigration, grinding the system to a halt. This is not policy reform; it is a blueprint for the deconstruction of the U.S. immigration system from within, representing a fundamental assault on the separation of powers and the norms of American governance. Such a strategy would replace legislative compromise with executive fiat, creating a precedent for extreme policy whiplash with every change of administration.   

The “Largest Mass Deportation Program in History”

At the heart of Project 2025 is the promise to orchestrate the “largest Mass Deportation Program in History”. The plan calls for the round-up and removal of millions of undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. To achieve this, it proposes a series of legally dubious and aggressive tactics.   

A central proposal is to invoke sections of the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, specifically the Alien Enemies Act, to bypass the standard due process of immigration courts and conduct rapid deportations. The plan would also expand the use of “expedited removal”—a fast-track deportation process normally used only at the border—to apply to any undocumented individual encountered anywhere in the country, allowing for removal without a hearing before a judge. Further, it calls for eliminating protections for “sensitive locations,” which would authorize Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to conduct raids at schools, hospitals, places of worship, and community centers.   

Dismantling Humanitarian and Legal Immigration Pathways

The Project 2025 agenda extends far beyond targeting the undocumented, mounting a comprehensive assault on nearly every form of humanitarian and legal immigration.

• Ending Protections: The plan explicitly calls for the termination of DACA and the repeal of all existing Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations. This single action would strip legal status and work authorization from nearly 700,000 individuals from countries like Ukraine, El Salvador, and Haiti, many of whom have lived and worked legally in the U.S. for decades.   
• Ending Birthright Citizenship: The playbook includes a renewed push to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. This would require a radical reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment and, while facing immense legal hurdles, would aim to create a permanent, hereditary underclass of stateless individuals within the United States.   
• Crippling Legal Immigration: Project 2025 proposes a wholesale attack on the legal immigration system. It calls for eliminating the Diversity Visa lottery, severely curtailing family-based immigration (derided as “chain migration”), and systematically winding down temporary worker programs like the H-2A and H-2B visas, which are the lifeblood of the American agricultural and hospitality industries. It also seeks to restrict T and U visas, which protect victims of human trafficking and violent crimes who cooperate with law enforcement, thereby undermining public safety.   
• Expanding Travel Bans: The plan involves reviving and expanding the travel ban from the first Trump term. It would restrict entry from a wider list of countries based not only on security concerns but also on subjective ideological screening, with the stated goal of blocking applicants deemed to be “Marxists”.   

This comprehensive attack on legal and temporary worker visas reveals an ideology that is not merely anti-illegal immigration, but anti-immigration in general. It marks a radical break from the traditional pro-business wing of the conservative movement, which has long relied on immigrant labor to fuel economic growth. This creates a deep internal conflict within the Republican coalition, pitting a nationalist, restrictionist agenda against the vital economic interests of key constituencies in agriculture, construction, and technology. A Trump administration implementing Project 2025 would be actively working against the interests of these sectors, likely triggering intense political and economic battles.

Section III: The Political Gauntlet: Assessing the Dignity Act’s Prospects for Passage

Despite its carefully crafted bipartisan structure and broad coalition of support from business, agriculture, and faith communities, the Dignity Act faces a treacherous path to becoming law. Its prospects are constrained by immense procedural hurdles, a deeply polarized political environment, and an electoral landscape that may not be conducive to grand legislative bargains.   

The Procedural Labyrinth

The sheer scope and complexity of the Dignity Act make it a procedural nightmare. Upon its introduction in the House, the bill was referred to twelve different committees, including Judiciary, Homeland Security, Ways and Means, and Agriculture. Each committee holds jurisdiction over a piece of the bill and represents a potential veto point where it can be delayed, amended into oblivion, or killed outright. Navigating this labyrinth requires a level of bipartisan cooperation and leadership commitment that has been absent on this issue for decades. The history of comprehensive immigration reform in the 21st century is a graveyard of failed attempts, with Congress remaining paralyzed on the issue despite widespread agreement that the system is broken.   

The Polarized Political Environment

The Dignity Act attempts to stake out a middle ground on an issue where the middle has all but disappeared. The bill is a legislative solution designed for a political reality that may no longer exist—one where both parties contain factions willing to compromise for the sake of a national solution. In today’s hyper-partisan climate, the bill’s greatest strength—its comprehensive, all-of-the-above approach—may also be its greatest weakness.

For the hard-right wing of the Republican party, any provision that grants legal status to undocumented immigrants, regardless of the enforcement measures attached, is likely to be decried as “amnesty” and rejected out of hand. Conversely, for the progressive wing of the Democratic party, the bill’s tough enforcement provisions, the creation of large-scale detention facilities (“Humanitarian Campuses”), and the explicit denial of a path to citizenship for most participants may be seen as unacceptably harsh and inhumane. The bill risks being a compromise that pleases no one, attacked from the right as too lenient and from the left as too punitive.

Public opinion on immigration presents a confounding paradox for the bill’s sponsors. Recent polling shows that a vast majority of Americans—nearly 9 in 10—now favor a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who meet certain requirements, with support from a majority of Republicans as well. Yet, the Dignity Act was specifically amended to remove this popular provision in an attempt to win over conservative politicians. At the same time, public support for expanding the border wall has increased significantly, even among Hispanic and Black Americans, which could lend momentum to the bill’s enforcement-first messaging.   

The 2025-2026 Electoral Landscape

Ultimately, the fate of the Dignity Act is entirely contingent on the partisan control of the White House and Congress following the 2024 and 2026 elections.

• Scenario A: Unified Republican Government. In this scenario, the Dignity Act is almost certainly dead on arrival. A second Trump administration, guided by the principles of Project 2025, would have no interest in a bipartisan compromise. It would instead pursue its radical restrictionist agenda through executive action while pressuring Congress to pass enforcement-only legislation and provide massive funding for its deportation machine.   
• Scenario B: Unified Democratic Government. This scenario also presents significant obstacles. While more open to reform, a unified Democratic government would likely pursue its own, more liberal immigration bill—one with a clear and direct path to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants and far fewer of the Dignity Act’s stringent enforcement mechanisms. They would see little need to make the concessions to the right that are central to the Dignity Act’s design.
• Scenario C: Divided Government. This is the only political alignment in which the Dignity Act has a plausible, albeit narrow, path forward. In a situation where neither party can enact its ideal policy, a grand bargain like the Dignity Act could emerge as the only viable legislative option. However, even here, the challenges are immense. The political will required to shepherd such a complex and controversial bill through a divided Congress would be extraordinary. Furthermore, polling conducted in 2025 suggests that voters may expect Republicans to retain control of Congress in the 2026 midterms, which could disincentivize the GOP from making the necessary compromises.   

The success or failure of the Dignity Act will serve as a powerful bellwether for the future of American governance. If a bill with such a pragmatic design and a broad coalition of stakeholder support cannot pass, it may signal that large-scale, comprehensive legislating on contentious issues is no longer possible. In that event, immigration policy would likely be decided by a perpetual tug-of-war between executive orders and judicial challenges, making the chaotic, unstable model envisioned by Project 2025 the de facto reality, regardless of which party holds the presidency.

Section IV: A Tale of Two Futures: Comparative Impact Analysis

The choice between the Dignity Act and the Project 2025 agenda is a choice between two profoundly different futures for the United States. The divergence is not merely ideological; it is quantifiable in terms of economic growth, social stability, and the well-being of millions of families. This section provides a data-driven comparison of the projected national impacts of these two competing frameworks, translating abstract policy into tangible outcomes.

The Dignity Act – A Framework for Economic Growth and Social Stability

The economic case for the Dignity Act is overwhelmingly positive, centered on the principles of expanding the legal labor force, increasing consumer demand, and resolving critical workforce shortages.

• Economic Impact: Independent analyses project that the bill would unleash a massive wave of economic growth. The Bipartisan Policy Center calculates that simply clearing the existing legal visa backlogs, as the bill proposes, would increase U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $3.9 trillion over ten years. Representative Salazar’s office cites an even more optimistic projection of over   

$10 trillion in GDP growth from the bill’s green card reforms alone. Bringing millions of undocumented workers into the formal economy would immediately boost the tax base and increase consumer spending. Furthermore, in a nation with an aging population and a declining birth rate, legal immigration is a critical tool for addressing chronic labor shortages and ensuring the solvency of vital social programs like Social Security and Medicare. The bill is designed to be a net fiscal positive for the country.   

• Social Impact: On a human level, the bill would provide profound relief and stability for up to 11 million people who have built their lives in the United States over many years. Gaining legal status would allow them to work, travel, and live without the constant threat of family separation and deportation. This would bring a huge population “out of the shadows” and into the fold of American civic life. This stability, however, comes with the aforementioned social cost of creating a permanent non-citizen class, a long-term experiment with uncertain consequences for social integration and equality.   

Project 2025 – A Blueprint for Economic Contraction and Social Upheaval

In stark contrast, the economic and social consequences of implementing the Project 2025 agenda are projected to be nothing short of catastrophic. The economic debate is not about whether immigration is good or bad, but whether the United States chooses a path of managed growth or a path of self-inflicted recession.

• Economic Impact: The consensus among economists is that a mass deportation campaign would trigger a severe economic contraction. Estimates suggest that such a policy would reduce U.S. GDP by 2.6% to 7.4%—a shock comparable to or worse than the 4.3% GDP decline during the Great Recession. The policy is based on the “lump of labor” fallacy—the mistaken belief that every job held by an immigrant, if vacated, would be filled by a native-born worker. Decades of economic research prove this false. Instead, deportations destroy jobs for U.S.-born workers whose employment is complementary to immigrant labor; for example, fewer immigrant construction laborers means fewer jobs for U.S.-born construction managers, electricians, and plumbers.   

Estimates project that a mass deportation policy would eliminate up to 2.6 million jobs held by U.S.-born workers. It would trigger acute labor shortages in critical industries, leading to business closures, reduced production, and sharp price increases for consumers. Economists project that deporting 8.3 million people would cause prices to rise by   

9.1%. Key sectors like agriculture, construction, and hospitality would be decimated, with construction alone projected to lose 1.4 million immigrant workers and 861,000 U.S.-born workers. Finally, the plan would blow a massive hole in federal revenues, both by shrinking the economy and by removing millions of taxpayers. The loss of payroll tax contributions would cut funding for Social Security by an estimated   

$23 billion per year and for Medicare by $6 billion per year.   

• Social Impact: The social consequences would be equally devastating. The plan would result in family separation on an unprecedented scale, tearing apart mixed-status families and leaving U.S.-citizen children without parents. It would create a pervasive climate of terror in immigrant communities, driving people further into the shadows and destroying trust in public institutions like schools and hospitals. The proposal to bar U.S. citizens from federal housing subsidies if they live with an undocumented family member would directly punish American citizens for their family ties. The systematic erosion of due process, the use of mass detention camps, and the targeting of vulnerable populations would inflict deep and lasting trauma on communities and undermine the nation’s commitment to fundamental legal and human rights. The implementation of Project 2025 could permanently damage the trajectory of the U.S. economy, with scarring effects that diminish America’s prosperity and global competitiveness for a generation.   

Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations

This analysis reveals that the Dignity Act and the Project 2025 agenda are not merely different policy options; they represent two fundamentally irreconcilable futures for the United States. The choice confronting the nation in 2025 is between a pragmatic, if imperfect, legislative compromise aimed at managed immigration, economic growth, and social integration, and a radical, executive-led agenda of unprecedented restriction, social disruption, and severe economic contraction.

The Dignity Act, for all its political challenges and controversial compromises, is a serious attempt to govern. It acknowledges the complex reality of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. and seeks to integrate them into a legal, taxable, and regulated system. Its framework is built on a pro-growth economic logic that recognizes the vital role of immigrant labor in an aging society. While the creation of a permanent non-citizen class raises valid concerns about long-term social equity, the bill’s primary impact would be to provide stability to millions of families and a significant boost to the American economy.

Project 2025, in contrast, is a blueprint for demolition. It is an ideological crusade that prioritizes the radical reduction of the foreign-born population above all other considerations, including economic prosperity, social stability, and the rule of law. Its implementation would inflict a catastrophic blow to the U.S. economy, trigger a deep recession, and tear apart the social fabric of communities across the country. It represents a departure not only from decades of U.S. immigration policy but also from the foundational principles of American governance, favoring executive fiat over legislative consensus and due process.

Based on this comprehensive analysis, the following strategic recommendations are offered to policymakers:

1. Prioritize Economic Reality Over Political Rhetoric: Policymakers must recognize the indisputable economic data showing that legal immigration is a powerful driver of GDP growth and essential for long-term fiscal solvency. The severe economic costs of a mass deportation strategy—lost jobs, higher inflation, and a shrinking economy—must be at the forefront of any policy debate.
2. Acknowledge the Imperative of a Legal Workforce: In an era of persistent labor shortages, the primary policy goal should be to create pathways for workers to enter and remain in the legal labor force. The Dignity Act’s model of pairing mandatory work verification with a legalization program offers a pragmatic template for achieving this, providing stability for both employers and employees.
3. Defend the Legislative Process: The attempt to circumvent Congress and the courts to implement radical policy changes, as outlined in Project 2025, poses a threat that transcends immigration. Policymakers across the political spectrum should defend the role of the legislative branch in setting national policy and resist the concentration of unchecked power in the executive.
4. Seek Incremental Progress if Comprehensive Reform Fails: If a grand bargain like the Dignity Act proves politically impossible, policymakers should pursue targeted, incremental reforms that can command bipartisan support. This could include standalone legislation to provide permanent protection for Dreamers, measures to clear the legal visa backlogs, or reforms to temporary agricultural worker programs—all of which have broad support and significant economic benefits.

The path chosen on immigration in 2025 will be a defining moment for the nation. It will determine whether the United States embraces a future of managed growth and integration or one of self-inflicted decline and social strife. The evidence strongly suggests that the former path, however difficult, is the only one consistent with the nation’s long-term prosperity and its core values.