How would the Dignity Act’s funding mechanism (fees and 1% payroll levy) be implemented and audited?
Executive summary
The Dignity Act channels mandatory payments from program participants — described in versions of the bill as a payroll levy (commonly cited at 1% of pay) and additional fees/restitution — into a newly created Immigration Infrastructure Fund and related accounts to pay for the Act’s implementation and workforce programs [1] [2] [3]. The bill text and authors’ materials set out deposit destinations and several audit and compliance requirements (for E‑Verify rollout, procurement and program implementation), but do not publish a single unified, detailed financial-audit protocol for the levy itself, leaving important enforcement and transparency questions to implementing regulations and existing federal audit regimes [4] [5] [6].
1. How the levy and fees are collected: paycheck withholding and program restitution
The Dignity Act’s revenue language directs that a percentage of earnings for individuals granted work authorization under the Dignity Program be withheld as a levy — public descriptions of the 2023 and reintroduced bills explicitly state “a 1% levy will be deducted from the paychecks” of those workers and other versions reference 1.5% in earlier summaries, while additional “restitution” or program fees are levied during participation [1] [2] [7]. The mechanism described in outreach materials is ordinary payroll withholding from wages of authorized workers, and fees/installment payments are administered during program check‑ins [7], but the bill snippets in the public summaries do not provide a step‑by‑step payroll collection protocol in the text excerpts provided here [5] [6].
2. Where the money is deposited and how it is allocated
All versions cited create dedicated accounts: an “Immigration Infrastructure Fund” or an “Immigration Infrastructure & Debt Reduction Fund” (and in later drafts an American Worker Fund) to receive the levy and restitution proceeds, which are then earmarked to cover border and program costs, E‑Verify national deployment, workforce grants and apprenticeship programs, and to reduce federal debt as described by sponsors and bill summaries [1] [2] [3] [7]. The text also contains technical directions for channeling certain restitution payments into existing accounts such as an H‑1B nonimmigrant petitioner account before disbursement, showing some integration with established federal trust accounts [6].
3. Statutory oversight and auditing provisions inside the bill
The legislative language builds in multiple oversight hooks: a nationwide audit/certification requirement tied to E‑Verify implementation within five years, mandatory audits and compliance checks for acquisitions under Federal Acquisition Regulation standards, and direction for DHS to adopt acquisition and contractor‑performance plans and staffing models — all intended to create detectable compliance milestones [4] [5]. The bill also conditions certain immigration benefits on completion of enforcement prerequisites (E‑Verify, border certification), which creates policy levers that can be audited administratively [4] [8].
4. External audit regimes and grant recipient accountability that would apply
Once deposited and disbursed, funds flowing as federal grants or to program partners would be governed by existing federal audit standards — for example, entities spending $750,000 or more in federal grant funds are subject to “single audit” requirements and other federal grant compliance audits, a regime that the bill would implicitly invoke for grantees and state partners [9]. The bill’s direction to deposit certain fees into existing federal accounts further pulls those receipts under Treasury and appropriations oversight, Inspectors General review, and routine audit mechanisms already used across DHS and Labor [6] [5].
5. Gaps, risks and political context that shape implementation
Despite multiple oversight clauses, public summaries and section‑by‑section materials available do not present a consolidated auditing blueprint that specifies audit frequency for the levy itself, which agency will reconcile payroll with Treasury receipts, or what public reporting format will be required — gaps that mean much depends on implementing regulations, agency capacity, and Inspector General priorities [4] [5] [6]. Political stakes are high: sponsors frame the levy as self‑funding reform and workforce investment [1] [7], while critics warn about administrative complexity and conditional benefits; both views affect how aggressively Congress and oversight bodies demand transparent, frequent audits [8]. Where the bill is specific, it leverages established audit regimes and procurement compliance rules [5] [9]; where it is silent, the ultimate implementation and public transparency will rest on DHS, Treasury, and federal auditors to write rules, track withholdings, reconcile accounts and publish results.