Can regular citizens find common ground on reforming or enforcing American immigration law?
It is a daunting question. The U.S. Immigration system is widely considered the second most complex body of law in the country, trailing only the tax code. Today, five different Federal agencies handle its execution, the backlog of pending cases in immigration court has skyrocketed to 3.3 million, and the paperwork required has grown exponentially.
This has all occurred since President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986. Nearly 3 million undocumented immigrants who could prove continued residence since January 1, 1982, were granted amnesty. We have been reforming, changing, ignoring, underfunding, understaffing and politicizing immigration ever since, not to mention confounding lawful and unlawful immigration to suit different interest groups.
Adding to this mix are the two latest Supreme Court rulings, handed down on June 29:
- The government can block asylum-seekers at the southern border.
- The Temporary Protected Status for those already in the United States, particularly Haitians and Syrians, can be ended.
A grassroots approach
Unraveling and restructuring this system is a monumental task. Yet, that is exactly what a group of 22 citizens from across San Diego County recently gathered to do. Under the auspices of Braver Angels, a national organization dedicated to bridging the partisan divide, we met as part of their nationwide Citizens Commission on Immigration.
A San Diego Braver Angel workshop was part of this national process. Red (leaning conservative) and blue (leaning liberal) participants engaged in messy discussions. What emerged was an interesting set of agreements ─ about values, concerns and policy recommendations.
But there was another interesting layer about getting from here to there. The immigration chasm and how it might be bridged merited both an overview (what we call newsworthy) and how participants on both sides viewed that process (what can be learned by the conversation).
Let’s look first at several of the points of agreement in the summary statement.
Values that had unanimous agreement: Controlled borders; economics are important (acknowledge limited resources); enforcement of the law; due process is important; resource allocation to Americans first; and the importance of immigrants to society.
Concerns that had unanimous agreement: Economic burden (medical, legal, education, court services overload); massive influx overwhelming the system; chain immigration (beyond immediate family; fraudulent immigration claims; safe communities; inhumane enforcement; fair treatment for Dreamers; coherent and timely pathway to legal status; and accountability of our community leaders and elected officials to enforce existing laws.
Solutions or Policies that had unanimous agreement: Enforce e-verify; limit the number of people from each country according to our country’s need, and other countries’ humanitarian situation; hire personnel necessary to expeditiously process immigration case backlogs; resolve the legality of sanctuary states and cities; enforce existing laws; develop a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers; show legal identification of immigration agents during enforcement; and protect immigration agents from unlawful interference with their duties.
There were many more points that did not reach unanimous agreement.
Engagement across the divide
The authors of this column decided at the beginning of our workshop that it was worth discussing how we tangled with the process of what remained and what was taken off the immigration ‘consensus’ platform.
We faced a challenging task. As we began to look seriously at solutions and policies, the discussions became more intense. The difficulty lay in meshing diverse opinions with the mechanics of proposed solutions. Surprisingly we were successful in detaching the ideals of political parties from what we as individuals wanted to see addressed. Wordsmithing for a limited number of statements was the final hurdle.
But realistically, can regular citizens find common ground on reforming, or enforcing, American immigration law?
Admittedly, we did not have a comprehensive view. We focused on high-profile issues: criteria for entry and exit, immigrant integration, creating legal categories, and dealing with unlawful immigration.
As participants, we decided to memorialize this process. We were engaged and wondered, perhaps a bit of hoping as well, that the perceived divide could actually be bridged.
What we discovered
We weren’t surprised that many specific issues were contentious: ICE activity as well as the treatment of ICE by protesters; whether deportation should be limited to only the worst criminals or include anyone who illegally entered the country; what to do about Dreamers; whether anyone being admitted should be a positive contributing member of society and be self-sufficient; and how to deal with the massive influx already here.
To our shared surprise, the “reds” and “blues” in the room reached genuine common ground on many issues. We found immediate consensus on controversial ones that usually stall out in Washington: enforcing existing laws, securing and controlling the borders, treating every individual with respect and dignity, and dramatically increasing funding for staff and immigration judges to handle the crushing demand.
But the process affected each of us differently.
Joe’s View:
“I was surprised at finding ready agreement on enforcing existing laws. Perhaps this had to do with the selection of moderate participants. Early on, someone remarked that this sounded like a ‘sensible’ group where extremists weren’t included. While that made our day successful, it leaves me with a lingering concern: will our concluding agreements simply be canceled out by the larger public? Not necessarily by ‘extremists,’ but by those so stuck on their foundational values that compromise feels like defeat. That is likely as true of members of Congress as it is of the wider population.”
Barbara’s View:
“The back-and-forth process of exchanging ideas, honestly looking for compromise, and willingly wordsmithing text was incredibly hard work. Yet, everyone embraced it. We kept refining each recommended remedy until it either went too far afield or hit the mark to everyone’s satisfaction. I felt no animosity from ‘the other side,’ nor did I exhibit it. Instead, I witnessed a profound effort to listen, to understand, and to reach consensus as individual humans rather than party representatives. What we shared was a desire to find solutions to an old but increasingly monumental challenge.”
The road ahead
Our experience wasn’t isolated. Across the country, Braver Angels is holding dozens of online and onsite discussion groups, giving Americans a venue to proffer real solutions to a major problem. Ultimately, these findings of common ground on immigration will be presented directly to the Congressional Problem Solvers Caucus, lawmakers such as San Diego’s Scott Peters who have committed to favoring policy over partisan politics.
As the two of us look back on those five hours, we agree that the process of finding common ground has its own value, one that Braver Angels advocates on our behalf, whether a perfect final agreement is reached or not.
Too often, everyday citizens are left in an unpleasant societal limbo, wondering if our political divide will permanently paralyze our leadership. Our experience in San Diego gave us some hope. If a handful of disparate-thinking people can sit in a room and agree on paths forward for our nation’s most complex crisis, our leaders can, too. Immigration reform cannot be delayed for future generations.
For further information about this national movement, visit Braverangels.org.
Joe Nalven is an adviser to the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation and a former associate director of the Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias at San Diego State University. Barbara Tooker is a published writer and workshop facilitator who served on the Temecula Valley Unified School District Governing Board for 17 years.
