Bipartisan duo introduces bill to give some migrant workers protected status amid Trump's crackdown
Under the legislation from Reps. Maria Elvira Salazar, R-Fla., and Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, called the Dignity Act of 2025, undocumented immigrants who have been in the United States since before 2021 would be able to apply for up to seven years of legal status with work authorization. They would have to pay restitution and check in regularly with the Department of Homeland Security, and the legal status would not allow for any federal benefits or a path to citizenship.
The provision is specifically aimed at addressing the Trump administration's immigration crackdown, which has heavily affected farms and food service providers.
The bill would also seek to beef up security measures at the border and require employers nationwide to use E-Verify, the government system for checking whether workers are in the country legally.
Members of Congress have been working for decades on a comprehensive immigration solution. Salazar said she's hopeful that because her proposal with Escobar does not include amnesty or a path to citizenship, it will open the door to a bipartisan compromise.
'For 40 years, every president and Congress has looked the other way while millions have lived here illegally, many working in key industries that keep our economy running. It's the Achilles' heel no one wants to fix,' Salazar said in a statement. 'The Dignity Act offers a commonsense solution: certain undocumented immigrants can earn legal status — not citizenship — by working, paying taxes, and contributing to our country. No handouts. No shortcuts. Just accountability and a path to stability for our economy and our future.'
The plan would be paid for with restitution and payroll fees by the participants.
The Trump administration has already begun a process to try to provide a layer of protection for migrant workers. The Department of Labor has reshaped its immigration policy department with the goal of making it easier for migrant workers to apply for work visas and temporary status.
At the end of June, Trump said he was working on a way for some migrant laborers to remain in the country.
'We're working on it right now. We're going to work it so that some kind of a temporary pass where people pay taxes, where the farmer can have a little control, as opposed to you walk in and take everybody away,' Trump told Fox News. 'What we're going to do is we're going to do something for farmers, where we can let the farmer sort of be in charge. The farmer knows. He's not going to hire a murderer.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
The biggest political fights over Trump's megabill are converging in Nevada
When it comes to President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill, ' few places could be impacted more significantly than Nevada — one of the country's most closely divided swing states. For starters, Nevada is expecting the law's changes to Medicaid and food assistance to boot hundreds of thousands of residents from crucial social safety net programs. Like other states in similar predicaments, lawmakers will have to scramble to figure out how to find money in the state budget to keep many of those people covered. But the impacts of the law on that budget and the state's broader finances could be even more significant than in many others because Nevada has no state income tax, and therefore is extremely limited in how it can find new revenues. Then there are the new law's tax provisions related to tipped employees and gamblers that will have an outsize effect on a state whose economy relies almost exclusively on casinos and hospitality. The implementation of the new law in the coming months and years will occur as Nevada is set to play a key role in the next midterm and presidential elections. In 2026, Gov. Joe Lombardo — who has walked a fine line between offering praise for certain aspects of the megabill while pushing back against others — is seen as the most vulnerable Republican governor up for re-election. And Nevada's battleground 3rd District, represented by Democratic Rep. Susie Lee, will be a key race in the fight for the House majority. And in 2028, Nevada will likely again host critical contests for the White House and Senate. Democrats are already eager to go on offense against the law. State Rep. Steve Yeager, the Democratic speaker of the state Assembly, said he's already been contacted by many constituents who have expressed 'concern about what this bill might mean for them' and how they could be impacted by its changes to Medicaid, food assistance, energy credits, taxes on tips and gambling. Yeager added he was going 'to make sure that every single voter who goes to the ballot box here next year in 2026 knows about this bill and knows about the impact.' 'A low-revenue state' Approximately 1 in 3 Nevadans are on Medicaid, according to data from the state and KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research group, due in part to a massive expansion of the program back in 2013 by then-Gov. Brian Sandoval, one of the first Republican governors to embark on Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. Trump's law will institute steep cuts to Medicaid and food aid benefits mostly by establishing new work requirements, restrict state-levied fees on health care providers that are mostly used to fund Medicaid, and preclude the federal government from being responsible for reimbursing states any longer. In Nevada, as many as 100,000 people could fall off Medicaid as a result, according to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. But unlike some other states, which may be able to shift funds around in their budgets to build financial support for affected residents, Nevada's hands are largely tied. It has no state income tax and has a state constitutional provision requiring a two-thirds majority to raise revenue. 'We don't have the funds to be able to fill these critical gaps,' Yeager said. 'We're a low-revenue state. … We're in a really tough place.' Nevada is also likely to be uniquely impacted by a pair of tax provisions. Starting in 2026, gamblers will have to pay more taxes under the GOP's new law. That's because the law will limit what gamblers can deduct from their yearly taxes to 90% of their losses. Bettors can currently deduct the entirety of their losses — up until their winnings. Bettors have expressed concerns that the provision could cause professional gambling in the U.S. to fold. And Nevada Democrats say it's all but certain to impact the bustling and crucial industry in the casino-laden state. 'This means if someone wins a big jackpot in Las Vegas and then loses that one jackpot later on, they would still be liable for 10% in taxes on gaming 'income,' even though they had not brought home anything,' Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., said last week on the chamber floor. 'That's not just bad math, it's bad policy.' Meanwhile, Trump and Republicans have boasted of the law's provision that they call 'no tax on tips.' Trump unveiled the concept during a 2024 campaign event in Nevada, which is among the states with the highest concentration of service workers who rely on tips. 'If you're a restaurant worker, a server, a valet, a bellhop, a bartender, one of my caddies … your tips will be 100% yours,' Trump said of the policy idea during a January visit to Las Vegas shortly after he was sworn in for his second term. The law allows for a deduction on federal taxes of up to $25,000 in tipped income. At first glance, it appears it could be a boon for workers who rely heavily on tips. But economists at the Yale Budget Lab have written that 37% of all tipped workers don't earn enough money to even pay federal income tax, meaning that these people wouldn't gain from the new deduction. In addition, critics note the cap is relatively small and that it phases out once workers enter a higher income bracket ($150,000 per year). Plus, the provision only runs through 2028. Democrats also note that the law froze nearly all of the clean energy funds the state had received under President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. Nevada, where scorching temperatures have led to soaring energy costs for voters and businesses, was among the states that claimed the most IRA funds used to incentivize clean energy investments and jobs, as well as home energy rebates. As those funds dry up, so too could financial relief for residents and businesses. 'With the undoing of some of the Inflation Reduction Act, losing monies that were in the bill, we're going to lose solar jobs — and I am confident that our power bills are going to increase,' Yeager said. A key gubernatorial race Those impacts will loom particularly large in next year's governor's race in Nevada. Even before Trump enacted the law, Lombardo, who won his 2022 election over Democrat Steve Sisolak by just 1.5 percentage points, was the only Republican governor up for re-election next year whose race was rated by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report as a 'toss-up.' Nevada Democrats have already aggressively sought to link Lombardo to the 'big, beautiful bill.' 'Lombardo will have to reckon with the damage done to Nevadans' lives and livelihoods because he was too cowardly to stand up to Trump,' said Nevada Democratic Party Chair Daniele Monroe-Moreno. Lombardo, for his part, has praised some of the tax provisions in the law, but he also warned Congress not to make changes to Medicaid funding ahead of its passage. 'While my administration continues to assess this bill as it moves to get signed into law, Nevadans should be excited about the potential impacts of tax cuts, investments in small businesses and American manufacturing, and efforts to help secure our border,' Lombardo wrote on X the day before Trump signed it into law. A spokesperson for Lombardo declined to comment for this story but referred to that post on X, in which Lombardo also lauded the law's 'no tax on tips' provision. The spokesperson also referred to the letters Lombardo wrote to Congress and state legislators expressing his concerns about the bill's impact on Medicaid, plus a letter he wrote to Trump urging him to reconsider the gambling losses provision. Lombardo was also among just seven Republican governors who did not sign a May letter in support of Trump's proposed 'big, beautiful bill.' That tension underscores the bind many Republican incumbents are likely to find themselves in during next year's midterms as they seek to take credit for some of the tax-saving mechanisms of the bill while distancing themselves from the cuts that Democrats are already hammering them on — all while trying to avoid running afoul of Trump. Responding to questions about the political impacts of the law, John Burke, a spokesperson for the Lombardo-supporting Better Nevada state PAC, said in an email, 'Under Governor Lombardo's leadership, Nevada is finally getting back on track, and the people of our state are seeing results.' He pointed specifically to accomplishments on affordable housing and education. 'The Governor has been vocal about his support for eliminating taxes on tips and supports a return to previous law on gambling losses,' Burke added. State Attorney General Aaron Ford, who is so far the only Democrat who's entered the race against Lombardo, slammed the law for its impacts on health care and food assistance. He said 'servers and bartenders and hospitality workers are going to be getting played' by Republicans' 'no tax on tips' claims.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Trump signs order creating new federal worker classification for at-will, political appointees
Trump signed an executive order on Thursday creating a new classification of federal employees who would be subject to hiring and firing by the president, Schedule G, for employees working on policy, in the latest action by his administration to reshape the federal workforce. The non-career classified employees will be expected to leave in changing presidential administrations, with the order claiming it will 'improve operations, particularly in agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs, by streamlining appointments for key policy roles'. The order did not cite how many employees would fall under the new classification. 'President Trump is delivering on his promise to dismantle the deep state and reclaim our government from Washington corruption,' the White House said in a fact sheet on the order. The classification appears similar to Schedule C, which refers to temporary federal employees working on policy issues. 'We already have Schedule F (turning career civil servants into at-will employees). Now Trump is announcing Schedule G: Opens space at top ranks of govt for Trump loyalists as policymakers, with no limit on hires. Continues pattern of politicization,' wrote Don Moynihan, a public policy professor at the University of Michigan, on social media in response to the executive order. Schedule F, which Trump tried to implement near the end of his first term in office, was revived earlier this year. It strips civil service protections afforded to other federal employee classifications, making it easier to fire these employees at-will. Since Trump took office, his administration has sought to strip civil service protections for large swaths of federal employees, eliminate collective bargaining rights, and make it easier for the administration to fire federal employees at-will and without cause. Culling the civil service is a key plank of Project 2025, the conservative manifesto that outlined plans for a second Trump administration. In each agency chapter, the project suggests ways to make more positions political appointments instead of nonpartisan career roles, forming a federal government more beholden to its executive and less likely to push back. Max Stier, the president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, said the new classification is 'another misguided attempt by the administration to further politicize the federal workforce'. The new classification will make the civil service system more confusing, he said, adding that the president can already make hundreds of political appointments through Schedule C and other existing authorities. 'At the end of the day, the main mission of our government is to serve and protect the public,' Stier said. 'Our nonpartisan civil service is critical to keeping the services we rely on running continuously, even when political administrations change. Adding even more political appointees – who will only be in government for a few years – means that effective, stable service delivery will suffer. It's the American people who will pay the ultimate price.'
NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
Trump DOJ order on Jeffrey Epstein could create legal and ethical challenges
President Donald Trump has directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to "produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony" in the Jeffrey Epstein case — but it's unclear what's in that material, or whether a judge will even allow it to be released. The Justice Department filed the motion in federal court in New York late Friday afternoon, calling on a judge to "release the associated grand jury transcripts" of cases having to do with Epstein "and lift any preexisting protective orders." The president handed down the directive on the case Thursday night, hours after The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump sent a "bawdy" 50th birthday letter to Epstein in 2003. NBC News has not independently verified the documents, and Trump denied sending such a letter. The president filed a lawsuit on Friday against the newspaper's publisher, two of its reporters and News Corp founder Rupert Murdoch. A Dow Jones spokesperson said in a statement, 'We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit.' The president in recent days has sought to brush off the growing pressure, including from some of his closest supporters, to release more information on the case. Epstein's criminal case and 2019 death have long been the subject of conspiracy theories. "Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval. This SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!" he wrote. Bondi responded almost immediately, writing on X that the DOJ was "ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcripts." Experts told NBC News such a move could create legal and ethical issues, given laws protecting grand jury secrecy. The Justice Department said in its filing the move is necessary given "longstanding and legitimate" public interest in the Epstein case. The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The White House referred NBC News to Trump's Truth Social posts. Here's a look at what to expect next, and what — if anything —might be revealed. What comes next? The Justice Department filed its motion in federal court in Manhattan, where the grand jury that charged Epstein was convened. Epstein was found dead in his jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. A medical examiner ruled his death a suicide. While Trump directed the DOJ to ask to unseal "pertinent" information about the case, its filing goes a bit further, asking the judge to unseal apparently all of "the underlying grand jury transcripts in United States v. Epstein, subject to appropriate redactions of victim-related and other personal identifying information." The filing, signed by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, also Trump's former personal attorney, indicates a similar motion may be filed in Florida. Epstein had previously been investigated in the mid-2000s by federal and state authorities in Florida, where he struck a much-scrutinized deal that allowed him to plead guilty to state solicitation charges involving a single underage victim, despite investigations into dozens of others. Federal prosecutors now say he "harmed over 1,000 victims." Legal experts said any future hearings on the filing may be heard in closed court under seal, meaning the public would not be able to see what is specifically requested by the DOJ, at least at first. Grand jury transcripts can include testimony from any potential witnesses and victims, as well as members of state, local or federal law enforcement who may have played an investigatory role in the case. The material that could be released is expected to focus on Epstein and his former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, because prosecutors primarily present evidence against the individuals they are trying to indict, according to a former federal prosecutor in New York, who spoke to NBC News on the condition of anonymity. Other individuals are typically mentioned in the broader case file that includes documents produced throughout the investigation. Maxwell, the only other person who has been charged in the probe, was convicted on sex trafficking charges in Manhattan in 2021 and sentenced to 20 years in prison. She is appealing her sentence. Why can't the DOJ just release the transcripts? By law, grand jury testimony is secret. Those involved in a grand jury matter generally may not disclose information or material from the grand jury, with some exceptions: Witnesses can discuss their testimony, and the government can share information with people who are working on the case or a related matter. There are other exceptions as well, related to matters involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, national security and foreign affairs — none of which appear to apply in this case. Prosecutors have one edge with the proceedings being held in New York. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — the federal court that oversees appeals in New York's Southern District — has held that judges have inherent authority to release grand jury materials in special or exceptional circumstances. Whether this situation is considered a special or exceptional circumstance is unclear. Among the factors the court said judges should consider are 'historical interest' and the passage of time, including whether people involved in the case are still alive. While Epstein is dead, Maxwell is alive and appealing her conviction to the Supreme Court. The DOJ filing maintains that the materials should be made public anyway. 'While the Government recognizes that Maxwell's case is currently pending before the Supreme Court on a petition for a writ of certiorari, it nonetheless moves this Court for relief due to the intense public scrutiny into this matter,' the filing says. Other circuit courts have disagreed with the 2nd Circuit's position on disclosure, and the high court has not weighed in on the issue. Will the 'client list' finally become public? The current uproar began after the Justice Department and FBI released a joint memo saying it had conducted an "exhaustive" review of the Epstein case. Contrary to the conspiracy theories championed by the right, the report said the politically connected financier didn't have a "client list" of associates, that no other parties were facing charges, and that his death was in fact a suicide. The grand jury testimony is not expected to shed much, if any, light on those issues, because it would not include FBI 302s (a form filled out by FBI agents describing details of interviews with individuals involved in a case), photo or video evidence, or unredacted names of individuals not directly involved in the grand jury testimony. It also wouldn't include flight logs of people who had flown on Epstein's plane — logs released in 2021 as part of Maxwell's trial showed Trump, former President Bill Clinto n and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. were among those who traveled on the plane. All three have denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and have not been charged in relation to the case. Trump denied last year that he'd ever been on Epstein's plane. Kristy Greenberg, a legal analyst for MSNBC and a former federal prosecutor, called the Trump-Bondi move a 'red herring.' 'Trump knows SDNY prosecutors seeking to indict Epstein and Maxwell didn't ask questions about him in their grand jury presentations while he was POTUS. It's a red herring to distract from the evidence that matters: witness interview notes, videos, photos, etc.,' she wrote in a post on X. The former New York federal prosecutor agreed that records describing the information collected by investigators — not grand jury testimony — are more likely to contain the information that some have been demanding. "It's those case files that are likely to contain financial transactions, phone numbers and other information about friends and associates of Epstein," said the former prosecutor. But the former prosecutor said that he believed his former colleagues would have pursued cases against any individuals if there were clear evidence that they engaged in sex trafficking or broke other federal laws. "I would be surprised if there was anything federally prosecutable that was not charged," said the former prosecutor, who added that some forms of misconduct are not federal offenses. "There are a lot of things that are unsavory that are not federal crimes." Former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg, an NBC News analyst, warned that releasing grand jury information could lead down a slippery slope. "Rules aside, it is fundamentally unfair to dump subject names in the public domain" because those individuals may have "done nothing wrong" and also "have no real forum to rebut accusations." "If they have done something wrong, then they ought to be charged in a forum where they can contest the charges," he added. "If DOJ has something to say, they ought to say it in court. Otherwise, they should say nothing." Rosenberg also issued a similar warning regarding bipartisan calls to release all of the FBI's investigative files in the case. "It is fundamentally a bad practice to release unredacted investigative files into the public domain," he said. "In every case, investigative files contain lots of information — some vetted, some unvetted, some accurate, some inaccurate, some resolved, some unresolved."
