Stephen Miller ripped into the bipartisan “Dignidad Act,” arguing it hands blanket amnesty to millions, endangers communities, and runs counter to the immigration policy he and other conservatives favor.

A bipartisan group of 20 Republicans and 20 Democrats is backing the so-called “Dignity Act,” which supporters list under the formal name “Dignidad Act.” The proposal would, critics say, provide broad legal status to millions of people in the country without addressing criminal vetting, border control, or public costs. The math and the politics matter: when both parties sign on in this way, the policy stakes are national and immediate.

The bill is described by opponents as a sweeping amnesty that would include people who entered illegally, and it has drawn attention because it appears to cover individuals with criminal records. Names that have been cited in the debate include Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an alleged MS-13 member and reported human trafficker, which opponents use as an example of the law’s potential consequences. Those examples are part of a broader argument that immigration policy must squarely address security as well as compassion.

Trump administration official Stephen Miller publicly condemned the legislation, calling it a move that would weaken the country and erode the changes his team pushed on enforcement. Miller tied the fight over this proposal to the larger disagreement about the kind of immigration America should have, insisting that merit and security must drive policy choices. His comments landed hard in conservative circles already skeptical of bipartisan compromises on this issue.

“You know that this administration opposes amnesty,” Miller said. “President Trump has always been clear his opposition to amnesty, and, of course, you know my own views.”

“I want to reframe this whole conversation … to something that President Trump has been very focused on for a long time. And that’s about having the kind of immigration to this country that makes it stronger, not weaker. I think this conversation gets siloed too often, when we have to look at the whole picture,” Miller continued.

“You saw the recent tragic case where an illegal alien from Haiti bludgeoned a woman to death in broad daylight with a hammer, smashing her skull in, one hammer blow after another. That’s what happens when you have open borders to this country from some of the most dangerous parts of the world,” Miller said. “That’s one person that Biden let in, the Democrats let in, to maim and murder our citizens. But there are thousands more.”

“Largely, for five decades, before President Trump, we had open migration from the most dangerous places in the world. How do your schools work? How do your hospitals work? How does your economy work? How do you have a society that can win all these great civilizational struggles against your adversaries around the world if you have to feed, house, clothe, educate, support, and give affirmative action to millions and millions of people from failed states around the world?” Miller asked.

Miller returned to the core Republican stance that immigration policy should be selective and aimed at national benefit, not blanket regularization. He argued that the country must prioritize “high-value migration” that strengthens the economy, national security, and civic cohesion. For him, that means enforcing the rule of law and ensuring newcomers contribute rather than siphon resources.

“So President Trump has said we want to have high-value migration into this country, not low-value migration,” Miller said. “And we have to deal with the fact that we have millions of people here who are on welfare, who are not contributing, who commit a lot of crime, who consume a lot of public resources, and it’s in the best interest of this country for those people to be humanely returned home.”

“That’s the big conversation, and so this old Washington conversation about amnesty is missing the whole point,” Miller continued, “the real conversation is: how do we have an immigration policy that makes America stronger and more unified, not weaker and more divided.” Those words frame the GOP critique: oppose wide amnesty, insist on secure borders, and reshape legal migration to favor integration and national interest.