In many countries today, immigration policy is increasingly framed around control.
More inspections.
More reporting systems.
More deportations.
These measures are often presented as proof of “seriousness.”
But seriousness alone does not equal legitimacy.
There is a fundamental question we must ask:
Can a system enforce rules effectively without first earning trust?
1. The Illusion of Strength
Across Europe, the rhetoric of “remigration” has entered mainstream political discourse.
Mass deportations are framed as demographic defense.
In Japan, too, enforcement tools are expanding.
Public reporting mechanisms.
Stricter oversight of employers.
Stronger penalties.
On the surface, this appears decisive.
But enforcement detached from trust produces something else:
fear-driven compliance.
Fear can create temporary order.
It cannot create durable stability.
2. What Enforcement Misses
In my daily work handling residence applications, I see a recurring pattern.
Foreign nationals who have worked sincerely.
Paid taxes.
Contributed quietly.
Yet when residence renewal approaches, problems surface — not always because of their conduct, but because of structural inconsistencies:
- Incomplete social insurance enrollment
- Informal employment practices
- Poor documentation
- Employer negligence
When enforcement intensifies without correcting these structural distortions, the burden shifts disproportionately onto the individual worker.
The state punishes the visible actor.
The structural flaw remains untouched.
This is not governance.
It is displacement.
3. The Trust Deficit
If foreign residents perceive that:
- Reporting systems are weaponized socially
- Employers face little accountability
- Minor technical defects outweigh substantive contribution
Then compliance becomes fragile.
People comply not because they believe in the system,
but because they fear it.
Fear-based systems generate three long-term risks:
- Underground economies expand.
- Malicious brokers flourish.
- Social polarization deepens.
Enforcement without trust unintentionally strengthens exactly what it seeks to eliminate.
4. Balanced Coexistence Requires Symmetry
The Balanced Coexistence Model is not anti-enforcement.
Rules must exist.
Illegal employment should not be tolerated.
Abuse must be addressed.
But enforcement must be symmetrical.
If workers are penalized for irregularities,
employers must face equal scrutiny.
If reporting systems are introduced,
false reporting and malicious targeting must carry consequences.
If compliance is demanded,
the state must ensure accessible language support, transparent procedures, and predictable standards.
Coexistence is not softness.
It is structured reciprocity.
5. From Control to Credibility
A system earns credibility when:
- Law is applied consistently.
- Responsibility is shared proportionately.
- Human dignity is preserved during enforcement.
Security and coexistence are not opposites.
But security without credibility becomes coercion.
And coercion erodes legitimacy.
The question is not whether to enforce.
The question is how to enforce in a way that strengthens social cohesion rather than weakening it.
Balanced coexistence demands more than power.
It demands equilibrium.