Bipartisan immigration reform package? Some California lawmakers back it, but will Congress pass it?

When Rep. Mike Levin thinks about immigration, particularly “Dreamers,” it’s his grandparents who come to mind.

His grandparents, his mother’s parents, came to the U.S. from Mexico as young kids, without formal education, money or the ability to speak English, Levin said. But they worked hard, paid taxes, contributed to their community. His grandfather became a U.S. citizen at the age of 50; his grandmother remained a permanent resident until her death.

Levin, D-San Juan Capistrano, has drawn on his grandparents’ stories and their role in their communities as he has worked on the Dignity Act of 2025, a massive bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform package recently unveiled again this year.

The bill, spearheaded by Reps. María Elvira Salazar, R-Florida, and Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, has been negotiated for two years. It counts 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats as sponsors.

It addresses border security, asylum seekers, protections for “Dreamers” (the term for young immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children), and legal status for undocumented immigrants, among a myriad of other issues.

Rep. Young Kim, R-Anaheim Hills, said the bill has gotten her support because it encourages legal immigration and stronger border security. The bill addresses immigration, she said, “in a fair, legal and compassionate way.”

But the comprehensive package also raises the question: Are lawmakers — especially amid a backdrop of the Trump administration’s ramped-up enforcements and deportations around the country — quite ready to shake up the country’s immigration system?

It might be too early to tell, lawmakers and experts said.

But they’re still counting the bipartisan effort as a win in the column for comprehensive immigration reform, something that hasn’t happened in decades.

$7,000 and temporary legal status

The Dignity Act stands at 261 pages, a hefty size, albeit slightly less voluminous than the president’s massive tax and spending cuts package he recently signed into law.

Among its provisions is something called the “Dignity Program,” the framework for how undocumented immigrants could earn legal status.

It’s a seven-year program that provides temporary legal status, protection from removal proceedings and travel and work authorization — as long as certain conditions are met. To qualify, applicants would need to pass a criminal background check and pay income taxes as well as any back taxes owed.

Once in the program, participants would be on the hook for a $7,000 restitution fee, to be paid during the program. They would need to check in with the Department of Homeland Security every two years and remain in good public standing. Those in the program are not eligible for federal means-based benefits or entitlements.

After those seven years, if the program is completed successfully, participants would be able to receive an indefinitely renewable “dignity status” to maintain their legal status and work authorization. They would still not be eligible for federal benefits.

The bill also gives permanent resident status, on a conditional basis, for “Dreamers” and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival recipients who have been in the U.S. continuously since 2021 and were under the age of 19 when they were brought into the country.

To qualify, one must have completed high school or a GED or still be enrolled in secondary school. They must also undergo a criminal background check and register for the Selective Service, if eligible.

There are restrictions for those who have felony offenses, multiple misdemeanors, domestic violence convictions or criminal gang affiliations, although waivers may be granted for certain misdemeanors if there are no other convictions during a set number of years.

And then there’s asylum reform.

The bill creates what it calls “humanitarian campuses” near the southern border, meant to expedite the processing of asylum cases. They would be staffed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Office of Refugee Resettlement workers.

These campuses would also include medical staff, mental health care professionals, licensed social workers and child advocates, the bill stipulates, and would keep families together “in a non-carceral setting.”

The bill also seeks to establish these centers in Latin America so people can be pre-screened and processed without having to come to the southern border.

The idea, the bill said, is to adjudicate most asylum claims within 60 days, with an initial screening within 15 days, and end what’s been called the “catch and release policy,” where migrants are released into the U.S. while they await immigration court hearings.

Other components of the bill include:

• Additional border security, including physical barriers, infrastructure and technology along the southern border;

• Higher minimum rates of pay for Border Patrol agents by at least 14%;

• An “American Worker Fund” to put money toward workforce education initiatives for U.S. citizens who are looking for work or wanting to change careers;

• An option for someone who has been waiting in a visa backlog with an approved petition for at least 10 years to be provided a visa if they pay a premium processing fee of $50,000;

• A path for people who earn doctorate degrees in science, engineering, math or technology fields, as well as medicine or health care, to be recognized as “having extraordinary ability” so they can apply for another visa to remain in the U.S. for work after graduation;

• Removal of the provision for international student visa applicants to demonstrate they intend to leave the U.S. after school is finished.

‘Accountability, not amnesty’

Recent, high-profile fights in Congress give the impression that getting 20 House members — much less, equally divided among the two parties — to agree on a significant, massive bill is quite the feat.

“Every time we talk about immigration, people immediately have this adverse reaction,” said Kim, who represents Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. “This is not an amnesty program; it’s an accountability issue. We’re giving individuals the dignity to participate in our workforce, pay taxes, to become contributing members of our society.”

Levin, the Democrat who represents Orange and San Diego counties, said he believes the bill would pass if it’s placed on the House floor — especially if President Donald Trump would throw some of his weight behind it.

“It’s too early to say about this Congress,” Levin said. He pointed to recent polling that suggests Trump is losing support for his immigration policies among Americans.

“If the president wants to come to that realization (about public opinion) and is willing to work with us to reform the system in a humane way, then I think we could really get somewhere,” Levin said.

A White House spokesperson declined to comment Friday afternoon, instead pointing to press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s comments earlier in the week.

Leavitt, when asked about the bill during a Thursday press briefing, said she did not believe Trump had read through the bill yet because he had been focused on his tax and spending cuts effort. “But the president has made it very clear, he will not support amnesty for illegal aliens in any way.”

Trump has, though, recently floated a “temporary pass” for migrant workers in certain industries, including farmworkers. He has previously said he supports a pathway to citizenship for “Dreamers” and “a road toward citizenship” for other immigrants.

Louis DeSipio, a UC Irvine professor whose research includes immigration and U.S. electoral politics, is less optimistic about the bill’s chances of passage. Still, there’s a silver lining, he said.

“It is important even if it goes nowhere,” DeSipio said. “Some members of the House are looking for a bipartisan solution for what has been a challenge for the country for 30 to 40 years, at this point. The current political environment, with the mass deportations and ICE raids, makes it all the more pressing.”

It’s a positive, he said, that lawmakers are talking about new solutions, including that “dignity program” that provides temporary legal status.

“They’re proposing something quite new in American immigration history,” DeSipio said, describing that program as a sort of “permanent, second-tier” status. “We’ve never really had that before.”

The negative, he said, is that the bill faces very long odds. Progressive Democrats probably would not be comfortable with the “dignity program,” he said, and Republicans have a long history of blocking any type of immigration reform, including in more moderate Congresses.

But Levin said Republicans’ involvement in the package, including new members, is good news.

For Kim, a Republican, the bill’s handling of legal status versus citizenship is a plus.

“It’s not a handout,” she said. “This is not supporting the illegal immigrants to become citizens immediately. There is a path to it, but it’s not automatic citizenship, and it’s not amnesty as a result.”

“So I think we have a better chance of getting this discussed, considered, debated and getting it into law.”

Levin said it’s personal for him, given his grandparents’ story.

“Could their story even happen today? We need to figure out how to get that balance right, between security and humanity,” he said. “That’s really important to me and the other 19.”

Aside from Kim and Levin, California Reps. Salud Carbajal, D-Santa Barbara, Adam Gray, D-Merced, and David Valadao, R-Hanford, have signed onto the Dignity Act.

Other sponsors include Reps. Jake Auchincloss, D-Massachusetts; Don Bacon, R-Nebraska; Nikki Budzinski, D-Illinois; Adriano Espaillat, D-New York; Gabe Evans, R-Colorado; Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pennsylvania; Laura Gillen, D-New York; Mike Kelly, R-Pennsylvania; Mike Lawler, R-New York; Susie Lee, D-Nevada; Dan Newhouse, R-Washington; Hillary Scholeten, D-Michigan; and Marlin Stutzman, R-Indiana.