An Open Letter on the Dignity Act of 2025: A Bipartisan Start

To Representatives María Elvira Salazar (R-FL), Veronica Escobar (D-TX), and all Americans:

In a time of partisan deadlock, your Dignity Act of 2025 (H.R. 4393) shows promise through bipartisan backing, including eleven Republicans and eleven Democrats. However, it risks failure because it repeats previous mistakes. As a commentator who recently completed a four-part series on immigration reform, I recommend that you focus on framing your bill strategically, prioritizing overhaul of the 1965 Immigration Act, and enforcement and reform of immigration related policies before legalization.

Where the Act Gets It Right

Your bill’s enforcement measures are robust. A $46.5 billion investment in barriers, technology, and ports of entry, along with 24/7 aerial surveillance and harsher penalties for smugglers and repeat offenders, demonstrates genuine seriousness. The phased rollout of mandatory E-Verify is vital. These measures echo my call for “relentless enforcement” at the border and in the interior as the non-negotiable precondition for any agreement.

Your asylum reforms are equally important. Humanitarian camps to process claims within 60 days, penalties for fraud, and regional processing centers abroad are practical steps to prevent abuse of the asylum system. If executed correctly, as part of broader reforms, these changes could help close the “catch and release” loophole and restore trust in our asylum laws.

I also see value in the Dignity Act’s restitution requirements. Requiring undocumented immigrants to pay $7,000 over seven years, undergo biometrics, check in regularly, and remain ineligible for federal benefits acknowledges that legalization must be earned, not handed out. These elements closely align with the Temporary Guest Resident and Special Legal Permanent Resident models I have proposed.

Where the Act Falls Short

Still, your bill falters on core lessons from history.

First, it adopts an omnibus approach that combines enforcement, visa modernization, and legalization into a single package. That sequence damages trust; legalization should not commence until enforcement benchmarks are met. Enforcement must come first, with precise and measurable results—such as fewer visa overstays, E-Verify compliance, and fully operational border systems—before moving on to legalization.

Second, it fails to end the chain migration system established by the 1965 Immigration Act. By expanding family visas and exempting spouses and minors from caps, the Act perpetuates a system that prioritizes extended family ties over national interests. A merit-based selection system that emphasizes skills, civic compatibility, and economic contribution is needed to replace the chain migration system.

Third, the bill offers Dreamers and many with Temporary Protected Status a clear path to citizenship. While this is politically popular, this provision faces strong conservative opposition that could weaken the bill's chances of success. Citizenship should not be a reward for entering or remaining in a country illegally. Instead, a permanent legal status without voting rights is a fair compromise—compassionate but respectful of sovereignty. Without this distinction, the bill risks collapsing under the “amnesty” critique.

Fourth, assimilation is often overlooked. Legal residency should require proficiency in English, a basic understanding of civics education, and active participation in American life. Promoting geographic dispersal can help prevent the creation of permanent ethnic enclaves that resist integration. Without these measures, we risk repeating the failures of European multiculturalism.

Finally, the Act overlooks deeper demographic, economic, and technological realities that require a flexible system. With U.S. fertility at 1.6, which is well below the replacement level, America will need 2.5–3 million legal immigrants in the short term to sustain population and workforce stability. However, a sustainable plan must clearly connect immigration levels to demographic and economic needs, adjusting annually based on birth rates, labor shortages, and productivity gains from technology like AI.

Recommendations for Improvement

Your bipartisan proposal could be transformed into a lasting strategic solution by incorporating these essential reforms:

• Sequence enforcement before legalization, with measurable benchmarks for border control, E-Verify, and visa tracking.
• End chain migration and replace it with merit-based admissions tied to skills and assimilation potential. 
• Mandate assimilation: functional English, civic orientation, and geographic dispersion. 
• Clarify birthright citizenship prospectively, limiting automatic citizenship to children of citizens and legal residents. 
• Link immigration numbers to demographic and economic realities, adjusting annually for fertility, employment, and productivity.
• Cap humanitarian programs tightly, restoring them to narrow, exceptional use only. 
• Provide legal status without citizenship for long-term undocumented residents, balancing compassion with sovereignty. 

The Political Reality

Immigration reform will not move forward without President Trump’s support, because only he has the trust of enforcement-first voters to secure a deal that includes legalization. However, the bill, as it is now written, cannot gain that support. Representatives Salazar and Escobar should revise the bill to address the concerns mentioned above, prioritizing enforcement before legalization, limiting asylum and humanitarian programs, ending chain migration, and requiring assimilation.

Equally important, visible progress must come first: genuine enforcement successes in interior deportations and significant self-deportations are essential to your bill becoming law. Those benchmarks are being delayed by Democratic sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse cooperation, thereby hindering national enforcement and encouraging further illegal immigration. If those obstacles persist, the public will lose confidence in any new legalization process. Convincing local Democratic leaders to drop these policies is essential to overcoming the hurdles of doubt that your bill will not be just another 1986 amnesty without enforcement.

Time is limited. The window for comprehensive reform exists during Trump’s presidency. His successor—whether Republican or Democrat—may not be willing or able to pursue such an ambitious initiative. Representatives Salazar and Escobar must act quickly to craft a revised, bipartisan compromise that forms a center coalition strong enough to overcome resistance from both extremes. If they succeed, they will establish the only conditions under which lasting reform can occur.

The Path Forward

Representatives Salazar and Escobar, I commend your bravery in tackling this issue. Do not give up. Continue refining the Dignity Act to ensure it is durable, enforceable, and strategic. The passage may not happen today, but it is possible within three years. If you base it on merit, enforcement benchmarks, assimilation, and demographic realism, President Trump will have the credibility to help pass it and sign it into law. This will give America the kind of reform that truly matters: one that endures.

America deserves security, compassion, and renewal, not another cycle of broken promises and shattered trust. Let’s make the next reform the final one.

*******

My work on immigration reform is available at the following links:
Immigration Reform Part 1: Necessary and Possible
https://www.libertytakeseffort.com/2025/07/immigration-reform-part-1-necessary-and.html
Immigration Reform Part 2: Why We Keep Failing, and What It Will Take to Succeed
https://www.libertytakeseffort.com/2025/07/immigration-reform-part-2-why-we-keep.html
Immigration Reform Part 3: The Strategic Imperative
https://www.libertytakeseffort.com/2025/07/immigration-reform-part-3-strategic.html
Immigration Reform Part 4: From Strategy to Action
https://www.libertytakeseffort.com/2025/08/immigration-reform-part-4-from-strategy.html

------

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com

DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com. To see archived blog posts since 2014, visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.

DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.

Gerrymandering: The One Thing Democrats and Republicans Agree On

Gerrymandering is once again in the news. I first wrote about it in 2019, but since then what was once an occasional tactic has turned into a high-stakes battleground in the fight for power. In this post, I suggest one way to control the worst gerrymanders — by empowering federal courts to strike down maps that are grossly disproportionate.

In Texas, Republicans redrew maps to improve their chances in 2026, prompting Democrats to denounce the move as an attack on democracy. Meanwhile, in California, Governor Gavin Newsom aims to expand a heavily Democratic-leaning delegation, where a 22.3% distortion favoring Democrats, combined with the state’s 52-seat delegation, creates one of the most significant imbalances in the nation.

Gerrymandering has been a feature of American politics since the founding of the Republic and has long been a staple of the country's political landscape. In recent decades, however, the practice has become more advanced, more coordinated nationwide, and more central to partisan conflicts. Additionally, technology enables precise manipulation, and national leaders are now investing directly in state-level races.

A turning point occurred after 2010, when Republicans, through their REDMAP project, gained control of state legislatures and redrew district maps to their advantage. Democrats, badly hurt, promised never to let it happen again. They created the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC). Led by former Attorney General Eric Holder and supported by Democratic leaders such as Barack Obama, the NDRC has worked on flipping Republican-controlled legislatures and challenging GOP-drawn maps. However, critics argue that it overlooks Democratic gerrymanders in states like Illinois and California. The NDRC has achieved significant success in this endeavor. Republicans in Texas and elsewhere now openly defend their own actions as a response to this Democratic push.

The U.S. Constitution sets the number of House seats at 435, distributed among the states according to population after each census. This process determines how many seats each state gets, but not how district lines are drawn within states. That responsibility falls to the states themselves, usually through their legislatures. Some states use commissions, but in most cases, political majorities draw the districts to protect their own interests.

Nationally, seat totals roughly align with the 2024 partisan vote. However, this masks severe distortions at the state level, where millions of voters are denied fair representation. Within states, the distortions can be extreme, sometimes preventing large groups of voters from gaining meaningful representation.

The Supreme Court has long recognized the dangers of gerrymandering but has been hesitant to get involved in the political process. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), Chief Justice Roberts said that claims of partisan gerrymandering are nonjusticiable in federal courts because there is “no judicially discernible and manageable standard” for deciding when political considerations in map drawing cross the line. The Court left the issue to the states and Congress to address.

However, the Court has not entirely avoided the issue of redistricting. Under the Voting Rights Act, it continues to strike down maps that weaken the voting power of racial minorities. In those cases, Congress provided the Court with a clear standard to follow. The justices have essentially said: We will not create fairness rules for partisan advantage, but if Congress provides a straightforward test, we will enforce it.

That opens the door.

A Modest Legislative Fix: The 20% Distortion Rule

Congress could create a simple, clear rule for gross partisan disproportionality. Using the logic of the Voting Rights Act and the “one person, one vote” cases, the standard could be:

If a state’s seat share deviates from its statewide vote share by more than 20 percentage points, the map is presumptively unlawful.

The rule applies only to states with three or more House seats.

Courts do not draw maps. They declare the map invalid and order the legislature to try again.

 This provides the courts with what they saw as lacking in Rucho: a practical judicial standard. It does not require perfection. It allows minor imbalances, acknowledging that geography and clustering can produce skewed results. However, it limits the most serious abuses.

Enforcing a 20% rule would not suddenly fix Congress or determine who wins elections. It is not intended to decide outcomes beforehand. Instead, it would create a more level playing field by forcing states to draw maps that better reflect their overall partisan balance. After that, elections would still be influenced by the usual factors: incumbency, fundraising, local issues, candidate quality, and changing voter attitudes.

The rule makes sure that districts are drawn to allow for competitive chances. Instead of one party gaining artificial dominance through manipulated maps, voters would have a real opportunity to hold politicians accountable at the ballot box.

The table below shows the 18 states where distortions exceed 20% — nine favor Democrats, nine favor Republicans. The last columns show how many seats would shift toward competition if the 20% rule applied.  

By establishing a universal standard, the rule would restore balance across all states, from the largest to the smallest, and give voters in every state a fairer chance to choose their representatives. Democracy does not demand perfect math. It demands limits. Congress can set tolerances for partisan distortion.

Critics argue that in states like Massachusetts, which has a 9-0 Democratic congressional map, voter geography rather than intentional gerrymandering is to blame; Republican support is too spread out to form competitive districts without breaking compactness rules. However, my analysis, which aligns with recent reporting in The New York Times, indicates that two relatively contiguous, competitive Republican-leaning districts could be created by carefully grouping municipalities. By clustering towns in southeastern Massachusetts and the Merrimack Valley, districts with Trump vote shares of 51.7% and 50.1% could be formed. If courts ordered Massachusetts to address its 37% skew under a 20% standard, these districts could offer fairer representation without extensive map manipulation, using nonpartisan criteria such as municipal boundaries.

Fair districting is essential for a healthy democracy because it encourages participation from both sides' voters. When districts create single-party monopolies, minority voices are effectively silenced, leading to lower voter turnout. In Massachusetts, Democrats hold all nine House seats despite Republicans receiving 37% of the 2024 presidential vote. In Arkansas, Republicans control all four seats with 66% of the vote, leaving Democrats without representation. In both cases, voters who feel excluded become disengaged, participation drops, and politics become echo chambers. By setting boundaries to reduce extreme distortions, such as a 20% rule, Congress could restore competition, keep more citizens engaged, and strengthen the legitimacy of representation nationwide.

Gerrymandering has always existed and will continue to do so. However, we don't have to accept its most extreme forms. By establishing a clear 20% rule, Congress could provide courts with the necessary tools to strike down only the most unfair maps, without pretending that politics can ever be completely removed from the redistricting process.

Politics will always shape districts. But politics should never be allowed to warp representation beyond recognition. A 20% rule draws the line.

--------

In 2019, I wrote two posts about apportionment and gerrymandering. They are available at the links below for anyone who might be interested:

Census Controversyand Gerrymandering before the Supreme Court - Part 1: Apportionment

Census Controversyand Gerrymandering before the Supreme Court - Part 2: Gerrymandering

****

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com
DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com To see archived blog posts since 2014 visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.
DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.

Immigration Reform Part 4: From Strategy to Action

For decades, Washington has traded promises of border security “tomorrow” for leniency “today.” In Reagan’s 1986 Act, legalization proceeded, but enforcement never followed. Americans now understand that promises alone do not secure borders—only laws, resources, and tangible results do. This plan changes that history by first rebuilding laws, institutions, and enforcement, while registering illegal immigrants only after legislative changes are put in place. Legalization will only begin once the new system has demonstrated its effectiveness.

A Demographic Reality We Can’t Ignore

America faces a fertility crisis. Our fertility rate, at 1.6 compared to the 2.1 needed for stability, risks a 25% population decline by 2085, resulting in a drop from 334 million to 251 million. This would shrink the workforce and decrease economic output. Unless fertility rates rise significantly, immigration will be the most effective way to stabilize the population, requiring 2.5–3 million legal immigrants annually.

But immigration alone is not a solution. The economy of the 21st century will be shaped by automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence, which will boost productivity and decrease the need for certain types of labor while increasing demand for others. This means immigration must be managed carefully, not just in terms of volume, but also in terms of composition, balancing birth rates, economic needs, and technological progress. When done correctly, immigration can offer both stability and flexibility during times of demographic decline and rapid change.

The Republican Prerequisites

Immigration needs to be smarter, not just bigger. The 1965 Immigration Act treated immigration as a feel-good process, spreading visas across countries for “fairness” rather than aligning with America’s needs. The result was a system out of step with economic realities. Today, we require a merit-based approach that uses immigration as a precise tool—bringing in skilled workers, encouraging assimilation, and adjusting quotas based on national data.

For Republicans, any discussion of legalizing illegal immigrants must first establish a system that accomplishes these goals. Unlike previous failed attempts, Trump’s unmatched credibility with enforcement-focused voters means he can deliver Republican support for this compromise in ways no other leader could.