Arizona Voters Engage in Constructive Dialogue on Immigration
Fourteen voters in Arizona, equally representing both Democrats and Republicans, convened at Arizona State University for an extended, five-hour discussion on immigration. This gathering was marked not only by the exploration of contentious policies but also by the presentation of seven distinct reform proposals.
Participants emerged from the Constitution-Makers Dialogue, organized by Braver Angels—a nonprofit dedicated to mitigating political polarization—with feelings of surprise and optimism. Among the attendees was Representative Greg Stanton, a Democrat from Arizona, who underscored the importance of fostering such dialogue.
Stanton remarked that for democracy to truly function for the American populace, civil dialogue must be foundational. Just prior to the workshop on April 3, he was in Washington, D.C., and after a late-night vote, he flew back to Phoenix to engage with his constituents directly.
Exploring a Path Forward on Immigration Division
In a follow-up statement, Stanton expressed gratitude for the Braver Angels workshop, which brought together voters with varying viewpoints to address timely issues during a turbulent period for the nation. A recent poll by Dignity.us revealed that 83% of Americans are concerned about division, closely trailing the 86% who are worried about rising living costs.
Stanton noted that the workshop fostered thoughtful conversations aimed at finding practical solutions to issues affecting local communities. This dialogue, he added, would be beneficial to carry back to Washington, D.C.
Among the attendees was Cody Borum, a conservative participant who felt that the most significant takeaway from Stanton’s remarks was the congressman’s acknowledgment of President Donald Trump’s approach to border security. Borum highlighted Trump’s record of signing 181 immigration-specific executive actions, which he believes have contributed to a more secure border.
Fostering Communication Across Political Lines
“These workshops are designed to build trust,” stated Brooks Hilliard, co-chair of Braver Angels Phoenix Alliance and moderator of the event. He characterized the group as diverse, encompassing a wide range of political beliefs and age demographics. Participants included those with firsthand experience in the immigration system, including naturalized citizens and individuals with immigrant backgrounds.
Charlotte Prado, a retired member of the Blue group, left feeling hopeful and positive about the outcomes of the dialogue. The workshop began with participants sharing personal stories, laying the groundwork for open communication.
Afterward, the Blues and Reds alternated in presenting their views on immigration, with a focus on listening to each other before identifying areas of agreement and disagreement. While the Blues concentrated on humanitarian issues, the Reds emphasized fiscal responsibility and security. The mixed groups then collaborated to find common ground and develop solutions that could gain unanimous support.
Unconventional Solutions Emerged from Dialogue
Workshop documents revealed that participants proposed seven solutions for immigration reform. These included establishing a pathway to permanent residency for individuals residing in the U.S. for at least six years, requiring uniform hiring practices for employers, and streamlining the asylum process by allocating more resources to the border.
Hilliard kept the conversation focused and praised the group for developing proposals that mirrored those of established think tanks and lobbying groups in Washington, D.C. Notably, while Stanton did not endorse the ideas outright, he expressed agreement with many of them.
Finding Common Ground Through Compromise
Significant compromises materialized on several issues, particularly regarding permanent residency for undocumented immigrants. There was an initial proposal from the Reds to grant undocumented individuals without criminal records who had been in the country for seven years eligibility for residency, while the Blues pushed for five years. Hilliard seized this moment to highlight the potential for compromise.
Even though discussions sometimes took a defensive turn, participants ultimately expressed a willingness to find middle ground, indicating a notable change in atmosphere. One participant’s insistence on a longer timeframe for residency was met with understanding from others, who eventually agreed on a compromise of six years—previously unimagined by some attendees.
Transformative Conversations Lead to Greater Understanding
Bolm, another participant, anticipated more contention but instead found the workshop’s framework encouraged openness and a willingness to listen. He reflected on how participants recognized their shared aspirations, even if their approaches varied.
He urged future participants to approach such discussions with open minds, acknowledging that compromise is often attainable. The workshop reinforced his belief that “conversation produces understanding.” Indeed, it became clear that while participants might hold divergent views, their fundamental desires often align, fostering a more nuanced perspective on immigration and related policies.
