The White House has firmly rejected Rep. María Elvira Salazar’s (R-FL) latest immigration proposal, which astonishingly invoked divine intervention as a rationale for President Donald Trump to support sweeping amnesty and increased migration.
Salazar, speaking at a Capitol Hill press conference on July 15, claimed that God saved Trump from death during a campaign rally incident in Pennsylvania and “put [him] back in the Oval Office,” suggesting that the President now has a moral obligation to legalize millions of illegal immigrants. “You have been called to do this… It’s in your hands, Mr. President. May the Lord guide you,” she said.
Just in: Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has announced that President Trump is completely opposed to Maria Salazar’s Dignity Act which would give mass amnesty to illegal immigrants:
“The president made it clear he will not support amnesty for illegal aliens in any way.” pic.twitter.com/isVz2i3SNt
— The Calvin Coolidge Project (@TheCalvinCooli1) July 17, 2025
But the White House wasted no time in dismissing both the message and the method.
“The president made it clear he will not support amnesty for illegal aliens in any way,” said Trump press secretary Karoline Leavitt. “From my understanding, neither the White House nor the President has actually read through this legislation.”
Salazar’s approach — which attempted to wrap amnesty in religious language — was widely criticized as politically tone-deaf. Immigration policy expert Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies described the pitch as “insulting,” calling it a mix of flattery and miscalculation. “He doesn’t need these people — they’re never going to agree with him on any of his immigration policy goals,” Vaughan added.
The legislation in question, pushed by Salazar alongside members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and a minority of pro-business GOP lawmakers, would drastically increase both legal and illegal migration pathways, including:
-
Providing illegal immigrants with indefinite legal work authorization under a 7-year status program.
-
Doubling employment-based visas by excluding spouses and children from annual caps.
-
Establishing “migration centers” in Latin America to expand pre-screening and work pipelines.
-
Fast-tracking visa applicants through $20,000 “premium processing” fees.
-
Loosening student visa restrictions and facilitating long-term residency.
Salazar even compared Trump’s potential role in immigration to Abraham Lincoln’s leadership on slavery and Ronald Reagan’s battle against communism — framing mass migration as a historic opportunity for moral and economic leadership. But the contrast with Trump’s own message was stark.
Trump has repeatedly promised to revive the American Dream by reducing migration, protecting wages, lowering housing costs, and restoring job access for American workers — particularly in an economy where inflation and interest rates have left many Americans struggling to buy homes and provide for families.
During the 2024 campaign, Trump stated:
“We will make housing much more affordable… so young people will be able to buy a home again and be part of the American Dream.”
And in August, he doubled down:
“20 million people came over the border during the Biden-Harris administration… Now you have people dying financially… they can’t buy food, they can’t do anything… and they’re living horribly in our country right now.”
Salazar’s bill, by contrast, is being propped up by what critics are calling an “unholy alliance” of immigration advocacy groups and big business interests seeking cheap labor and expanded employment pipelines. Several GOP co-sponsors of the bill — including Reps. Mike Lawler (R-NY), Dan Newhouse (R-WA), and David Valadao (R-CA) — represent agricultural or corporate districts where foreign labor is in high demand.
But the base of the Republican Party has shifted — and shifted decisively — against mass migration, whether legal or illegal. The America First wing, led by Trump, is focused on labor market fairness, border security, and national sovereignty — not appeasing donor class priorities or importing a low-wage workforce.
