[Blog]What Is the Dignity Act? — Immigration Policy Balancing Enforcement and Human Dignity through the Balanced Coexistence Model

2026-08-27

Must Mercy and the Rule of Law Be in Conflict?

In “Keep mercy in the immigration debate,” published by the Carolina Journal, Christina Taylor argues that while borders, laws, and public order matter in immigration policy, we must not lose sight of the individual human beings affected by the system. One proposal she highlights is the bipartisan “Dignity Act” introduced in the U.S. Congress. What makes this proposal particularly interesting is that it does not frame immigration policy as a choice between compassion and enforcement. Instead, it attempts to incorporate both “accountability” and “human dignity” into a single institutional framework. In this respect, it has significant similarities with the Balanced Coexistence Model.

What Is the Dignity Act?

The Dignity Act of 2025 (H.R. 4393) is a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill introduced on July 15, 2025, by Republican Representative María Elvira Salazar, Democratic Representative Veronica Escobar, and other lawmakers. Its full title is the “Dignity for Immigrants while Guarding our Nation to Ignite and Deliver the American Dream Act.” The name itself reflects an attempt to protect both the dignity of immigrants and the security of the nation. It should be emphasized that, as of August 2026, the Dignity Act remains a bill before Congress and has not become law.

Stronger Border Enforcement Is Also a Central Pillar

The Dignity Act is not simply a proposal to relax immigration restrictions. It seeks to strengthen physical barriers, surveillance technology, drones, and other infrastructure along the southern border, while increasing efforts against human trafficking and unlawful entry. It would also make E-Verify mandatory nationwide, requiring employers to verify workers’ authorization to work and thereby addressing unauthorized employment from the demand side. The bill also proposes reforms to the asylum system, including humanitarian campuses intended to process cases within approximately 60 days and mechanisms for screening certain applicants in Latin America before they reach the U.S. border. In other words, the proposal is not based on the idea that migrants should be protected instead of enforcing the border. Stronger border management and a functioning legal immigration system are part of the same package.

The “Dignity Program” for Long-Term Undocumented Immigrants

At the same time, the bill recognizes the reality that many undocumented immigrants have already lived and worked in American society for years. The proposed “Dignity Program” would apply to certain undocumented immigrants who have been continuously present in the United States since before December 31, 2020. Participants would be required to undergo criminal background checks, pay outstanding taxes and continue paying taxes, pay $7,000 in restitution over seven years, and regularly report to the Department of Homeland Security. In return, qualifying participants would receive legal status allowing them to work in the United States during the program. Those who successfully complete the seven-year process could obtain a renewable Dignity Status providing protection from removal, authorization to work, and the ability to travel abroad under specified conditions.

Not an Unconditional “Amnesty”

An important feature of this framework is that it is not designed as a simple unconditional amnesty. Participation in the ordinary Dignity Program does not by itself create a pathway to permanent residence or U.S. citizenship, and participants would not become eligible for certain means-tested federal benefits. Legal compliance, payment of taxes, background screening, and financial contributions are required in exchange for greater stability within society. At the same time, the legislation provides a separate pathway for certain Dreamers who were brought to the United States as children, subject to requirements involving education, employment, military service, or other qualifying activities. This distinction reflects an attempt to design legal outcomes according to differing individual circumstances rather than treating all undocumented migrants as a single category.

First Connection with the Balanced Coexistence Model: Rejecting the Binary Choice

This is where one of the strongest connections with the Balanced Coexistence Model can be found. The Balanced Coexistence Model does not begin with the binary question of whether foreigners should simply be “accepted” or “excluded.” A state has both the authority and the responsibility to determine who may enter, who may remain, and how violations of immigration law should be addressed. At the same time, treating people who have already lived, worked, paid taxes, and formed families within society solely as an abstract category of “illegal immigrants” may itself create instability and additional social costs. The Dignity Act similarly attempts to pursue both law and order and human dignity as legitimate policy objectives.

Second Connection: Linking Rights with Responsibilities

Under the Balanced Coexistence Model, coexistence does not mean granting rights to foreign residents without corresponding responsibilities. Foreign residents are expected to comply with laws, pay taxes and social insurance contributions, and observe the conditions attached to their immigration status. In return, governments and receiving societies have a responsibility to establish transparent and predictable institutions so that those who comply with the rules are not unnecessarily trapped in prolonged instability. The structure of the Dignity Program resembles this principle of mutual obligation: greater legal stability and the ability to participate openly in society are provided in exchange for background screening, tax compliance, continued observance of the law, and financial responsibility.

Third Connection: Institutionalizing the Interests of Citizens

Another particularly interesting element is the proposed American Worker Fund. Funds collected from participants in the Dignity Program would be used to support job training and reskilling for American workers. The proposal therefore attempts to distribute the benefits and costs associated with immigration through the institutional design itself rather than assigning them entirely to immigrants or entirely to citizens. The Balanced Coexistence Model similarly holds that sustainable coexistence cannot be built by emphasizing only the economic or social benefits of accepting foreign residents while dismissing the concerns and burdens experienced by the receiving population. Immigration policy must also create visible benefits, protections, and reassurance for the existing population.

Turning “Mercy” into an Institution

Taylor evaluates the Dignity Act partly through the Christian concept of “mercy.” From an institutional perspective, however, the proposal raises an even broader question. Instead of leaving humanitarian considerations entirely to discretionary decisions by individual officials, it attempts to establish rules defining who may qualify, what obligations they must fulfill, and what degree of legal stability they may obtain. This is closely related to the Balanced Coexistence Model’s emphasis on transparency, consistency, and predictability. Humanitarian considerations do not require the law to become vague. On the contrary, incorporating humanitarian considerations into clearly defined conditions and procedures may increase predictability both for migrants and for society.

Lessons for Japanese Immigration Policy

The United States and Japan obviously face very different immigration environments, and the Dignity Act cannot simply be transplanted into Japan. Nevertheless, its underlying policy philosophy offers several lessons. If immigration controls are tightened, governments should explain what interests those restrictions are intended to protect. At the same time, when foreign residents have lived in society for a substantial period and consistently fulfilled their obligations, the accumulation of such conduct should contribute to greater legal stability. Finally, governments should make both the benefits and the burdens of immigration visible and incorporate the interests of the receiving population into immigration policy itself. These three elements need to be considered together.

Not “Enforcement or Coexistence,” but “Enforcement That Enables Coexistence”

The most important question raised by the Dignity Act is therefore not whether immigration policy should choose order or mercy. The real question is how institutions can reconcile the two. Strong border enforcement and respect for human dignity are not necessarily contradictory. Ignoring immigration violations is not coexistence, just as automatically excluding every person who has violated immigration rules is not the only possible form of order. A sustainable system requires clear rules, identifiable responsibilities, a structured route back into lawful participation where appropriate, and legal stability for those who successfully fulfill those obligations. Regardless of whether the Dignity Act ultimately becomes law, it presents an important attempt to design “enforcement” and “coexistence” within the same institutional framework. In this respect, it closely reflects the direction advocated by the Balanced Coexistence Model: moving beyond the question of “enforcement or coexistence” toward a system in which appropriate and predictable enforcement makes sustainable coexistence possible.