In a rare and refreshing display of bipartisan collaboration, Reps. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) and Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) have joined forces to introduce a wide-ranging immigration reform bill.

At a time when immigration has become a deeply polarizing issue, rife with partisan stunts and fearmongering, their efforts to reach across the aisle represent a commendable and genuine commitment to finding solutions.

The bill, coined The Dignity Act, hearkens back to the bipartisan immigration reform bill proposed and ultimately passed by the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” in 2013. Although that effort fell short in the House of Representatives, it managed to demonstrate the potential for unity on what has too long been regarded as the third rail of American politics.

Now, Salazar and Escobar’s bill presents a renewed opportunity for expansive reform that paves the way for a fair, humane and orderly immigration system — one that stands in stark contrast both to House Republicans’ draconian messaging bill and to the legislation introduced by Sen. Krysten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), to extend asylum restrictions by granting Title 42-like expulsion authority to border officials.

The Dignity Act, spanning nearly 500 pages, tackles various aspects of the immigration system that have long needed reform, such as asylum processing, visa backlogs and a path to legal status for millions of undocumented immigrants. This includes essential farmworkers, Temporary Protected Status recipients and Dreamers brought to the U.S. as children — a long-overdue recognition of the contributions and potential of these young individuals, who have grown up as Americans and deserve the opportunity to fully participate in our society.

In response to an asylum processes strained by the realities of an unprecedented global displacement crisis, the bill would establish so-called “humanitarian campuses” equipped with necessary resources, such as medical staff and legal orientation programs, with the aim of ensuring a more efficient and compassionate handling of asylum claims. The central challenge of revamping asylum, however, will be balancing efficiency and due process; while the federal government must clear the record backlog that has now reached 1.6 million cases — one that leaves vulnerable asylum seekers uncertain about their futures for an average of more than four years, and sometimes for an entire decade — it must not trample upon the legal rights of asylum seekers in order to do so.

The bill also addresses pressing visa backlogs and proposes measures to alleviate the wait times for individuals seeking legal immigration pathways. By raising the limits on certain types of green cards and exempting minor children and spouses from caps, The Dignity Act seeks to mitigate the prolonged delays that have hindered families from reuniting and individuals from fully integrating into American society. The economic imperative for this kind of reform is particularly compelling amid nationwide labor shortages, as nearly 10 million unfilled jobs threaten to exacerbate inflation.

While this bipartisan effort is promising, it will undoubtedly face a steep uphill battle in a divided Congress, particularly during a presidential election cycle. Republicans may have concerns regarding provisions that provide legal status to undocumented immigrants, while Democrats may be hesitant to allocate vast sums of funding to border security, or to put a $5,000 price tag on a path to legal status, which could be interpreted as a cost-prohibitive wealth test.

Despite the herculean challenges posed by the current political landscape, a more evenly divided Congress may present a unique opportunity to bridge partisan divides by drawing on recent bipartisan successes in other policy areas, such as gun safety, electoral reform and U.S. competition with China.

In the absence of meaningful congressional action, however, the federal court system has instead become the primary battleground for immigration policy. At every turn, Republican attorneys general have sued the Biden administration over its attempts at reform within the confines of a deeply dysfunctional system. These lawsuits include challenges to protections for Dreamers; a temporary humanitarian program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans; the release of asylum seekers without a court date, to avoid overcrowding in border facilities; and, as of this week, the use of the CBP One smartphone application for migrants to request appointments at U.S. ports of entry. This is not a sustainable dynamic for implementing policy solutions, and the whiplash of ever-shifting court rulings is poised to cause real harm to families desperately seeking safety and stability.

Lawmakers must instead seize this opportunity to move beyond political posturing and work toward practical solutions that align with the humanitarian values and economic needs of our nation. There is no such thing as a perfect bill, and any progress will require compromises. But the last several decades of failed deterrence policies have shown that there is no viable alternative to bold reform — other than an unacceptable abdication of U.S. humanitarian leadership and economic stagnation.

Reps. Salazar and Escobar deserve commendation for their willingness to tackle this divisive issue together. Their bipartisan approach sets an example for their colleagues and reminds us that progress is possible when we prioritize the well-being and dignity of all, regardless of immigration status.

Krish O’Mara Vignarajah is the president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.