Download - Public thinking about the new challenges of american immigration

A KETTERING FOUNDATION REPORTNovember 2005P r e p a r e d b y J o h n D o b l e R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t e s

An Analysis of Results from the 2003-2005 National Issues Forums

P U B L I C T H I N K I N G A B O U T

The New Challenges of

American Immigration

Copyright © 2005 by the Kettering Foundation

The Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation, chartered in 1927, that does not make grants but welcomes partnerships with other institutions (or groups of institutions) and individuals who are actively working on problems of communities, politics, and education. The interpretations and conclusions contained in this publication, unless expressly stated to the contrary, represent the views of the author or authors and not necessarily those of the foundation, its trustees, or officers.

www.kettering.org

About the Forums: A Framework for Public Deliberation 1

Key Findings 3

Forum Results: Toward a Common Ground for Action 7

Highlights from: Special Outreach Forums 14

The Nature of Public Thinking: How Citizens Approach Complex Policy Issues 16

The Effects of Deliberation: The Impact of Forums on People’s Thinking 20

Appendices:A. National Survey and Post-forum Questionnaires 22B. National Survey and Forum Questionnaires 24C. Post-forum Questionnaire Results 27D. Demographics 30E. Methodology 31F. Forum Transcript Excerpts 34G. Developing the Issue Book and Linking NIF

to Public Television (PBS) 37H. Issue Map 38

About Doble Research Associates 40About National Issues Forums 41About the Kettering Foundation 42

Contents

November 2005

Public Thinking about the New Challenges of American Immigration

1

This report examines the public’sthinking about immigration—the thoughts, insights, and valuesexpressed by more than 1,073 every-day Americans in deliberative forumsorganized around the country by the National Issues Forums (NIF) network. Between mid-2003 and mid-2005, these forums brought peopletogether in high schools, colleges,community colleges, ESL classrooms,churches, synagogues and mosques,community and senior centers, public libraries, service organizations,private homes, and even prisons todeliberate about how to deal with thenew challenges posed by Americanimmigration.

Forum results aren’t better thanpoll results. They’re different frompoll results. Rather than provide asnapshot of public opinion as it exists,they offer a chance to understandwhat public opinion might be if peo-ple worked through an issue. They aredifferent because they suggest whatthe boundaries of political permissionmight be if people had the oppor-tunity to deliberate on an issue andconsider the costs and consequencesof different courses of action. Ratherthan specific actions, they suggest thetypes of actions the public might be willing to support. That journey, from what public opinion is to whatpublic opinion could be, is called public thinking.

An Analysis of Public ThinkingWhen people come together in a

National Issues Forum, they delib-erate for up to three hours with atrained, impartial moderator. Thedeliberation takes place within aframework designed to present anarray of approaches, choices, or broadstrategies for dealing with a complexissue, along with the costs and conse-quences of each one. National IssuesForums are designed to help peoplesee that even the most complex issuescan be approached, understood, delib-erated about, and addressed by ordi-nary Americans who lack specialexpertise or a policy background.

Although the people who attendNational Issues Forums comprise ageographically and demographicallydiverse group of Americans from anarray of backgrounds, they are not, as pollsters often seek, a random (ornational probability) sample.1 As afurther distinction, while pollsterscommonly sample opinion over a fewdays, these forums take place overmany months. Consequently, theresults of forums and of polls funda-mentally differ. While a poll providesa clear snapshot of public opinion at a

About the Forums:

A Framework forPublic Deliberation

1See Demographics and Methodology at the end of thisreport for a description of the 1,073 people who filled inquestionnaires, among the many who attended one of theseforums. For purposes of comparison, we also conducted a series of research forums or focus groups in four sites,along with a random sample survey of 403 Americans. See pages 30–33 for details.

Forum results aren’t better than

poll results. They’re different

from poll results. Rather than

provide a snapshot of public

opinion as it exists, they offer a

chance to understand what

public opinion might be if people

worked through an issue.

Forums enable us to explore the

“public’s mind”—to analyze

and map people’s thinking by

revealing the values people draw

on as they struggle with an issue

over a long period of time.

The forum results suggest the

broad outlines of what the

eminent social scientist Dan

Yankelovich terms “the bound-

aries of political permission,”

the course of action that

Americans are willing to take

along with the tradeoffs they

see as acceptable.

slashing illegal immigration,restricting the number of othernewcomers, and looking moreclosely at how their arrival affects the well-being of thosealready here.

During the deliberations, peopleconsidered each approach. At the end of the forum, moderators andrecorders asked the groups to con-sider what they had agreed on andwhat common ground for action, ifany, they had identified.

The Boundaries of Political PermissionThe outcomes of these forums

reveal important insights about thenature of the public’s thinking aboutthe issue of immigration—how peoplereason together and how lasting pub-lic views about questions of politicsand policy take shape—in short, howtypical Americans struggle with diffi-cult public issues. Together, the forumresults suggest the broad outlines ofwhat the eminent social scientist DanYankelovich terms “the boundaries ofpolitical permission,” the course ofaction that Americans are willing totake, along with the tradeoffs they see as acceptable. It is unrealistic andunwise, Yankelovich writes, to expectthe average citizen to acquire theexpert’s level of knowledge or in-depthunderstanding and then provide dictates for the enactment of publicpolicy. However, a “deliberative public,” a public with the opportunityto learn and deliberate about even the most complex issues, can establisha set of clearly recognizable bound-aries within which policy-makers’ initiatives will enjoy solid public support. This report outlines some ofthe boundaries of political permissionforum participants established for the new challenges of American immigration. 2 Kettering Foundation


given point in time, forums yield amore stable, differentiated, and oftenricher set of results. Forums enable us to explore the “public’s mind”—toanalyze and map people’s thinking by revealing the values people drawon as they struggle with an issue overa long period of time, including the tension points in people’s thinking asthey deliberate about complex issues.

The Framework Forum participants across the

country used an identical frameworkand considered the same three broadapproaches to the issue of immigra-tion. As noted, each approach waspresented with pro and con argumentsalong with an array of costs and con-sequences. Every direction or courseof action involved risks, uncertainties,and tradeoffs. Thus, preferences wereassociated with costs.

Using an issue book and startervideo, people considered three perspectives:

• Immigration is a looming identitycrisis. At the present rate, increas-ing diversity threatens to break the bonds of unity—the commonideals of language and democracy— that define our political insti-tutions. Immigration should beslowed to allow time for immi-grants to assimilate into Americanculture.

• Open immigration has been thebackbone of America’s strength.Combining diverse cultures yieldsa uniquely strong and rich societyand, overall, immigration offers far more to American society thanit takes from it. America must continue to welcome newcomersdespite the costs.

• Immigrants strain the public purse,compete for jobs, and exceed ourcarrying capacity. The nationwould benefit economically by

Numerous public-opinion surveys

and comments by political

insiders and pundits suggest that

Americans want to slam the

door on immigration.

But when people deliberate

about the issue as they did in

these NIF forums, they said they

welcomed newcomers who

came here legally, and they

referred to this country as a

“nation of immigrants.”

3November 2005


Numerous public-opinion surveysand comments by political insidersand pundits suggest that Americanswant to slam the door on immigra-tion. Some even feel that, as they havedone sometimes in the past, nativistsentiments are spreading like wildfire.

But when people deliberate aboutthe issue as they did in these NIFforums, they said they welcomednewcomers who come here legally,and they referred to this country as a“nation of immigrants.” Indeed, mostparticipants saw both legal and illegalimmigrants as hard-working, decentpeople who came here to escape per-secution or in search of a better life.Instead of limiting legal immigration,most wanted to keep family immigra-tion at current levels, while increasingthe number of political refugees andimmigrants with special skills. Thebenefits of legal immigration far outweigh the costs, they said. Asdescribed in this report, participants’views about illegal immigrants werecomplex and sometimes at odds withconventional wisdom.

How People Approached the IssueInitially, forum participants who

were not first- or second-generationAmericans focused on immigration’seffects on themselves and their communities. But as the forums pro-gressed, these participants oftenstepped back to reflect on the issue interms of their ancestors’ experience,

describing, for example, the strugglespeople faced coming to and establish-ing themselves in this country. Manyshared stories about the journeys oftheir grandparents and great-grand-parents. African Americans alsoshared stories about their ancestorswho, instead of fleeing persecution orseeking a better life, came to thiscountry in chains, as enslaved peopleabducted from their homelands andas people who were seen as outsidersby a great many of those who camehere long afterward.

As they deliberated, participantsalso began to think in broader, nation-al terms weighing, for example, whatis fair to other communities. Manyfavored helping communities andregions where immigration has hadprofound effects. Finally, participantsapproached the issue on a humanlevel, often commenting that immi-grants, including those trying to enterthe country illegally, are humanbeings with families, hopes anddreams, and basic needs, instead of an abstract concept or stereotype.

llegal ImmigrationWhile people in many forums

were concerned about losing controlof our borders and the effects of largenumbers of illegal immigrants enter-ing the country, they also saw the economic benefits from this group.Participants talked about the value ofillegal immigrants’ contributions in

Key Findings

Many leaders define immigration

as a national security issue and

accordingly favor stricter border

controls. While polls show this is

also a public concern, terrorism-

related immigration was not an

urgent issue in these forums. In a

number of forums, participants

pointed out that the 9/11 terror-

ists were in this country legally.

Others said the Latinos crossing

the country’s southern border are

not the ones who pose a threat

to the country’s national security.

4 Kettering Foundation


terms of providing high-quality, low-wage work, often in the undergroundeconomy, and filling jobs thatAmericans may not want at the wagebeing offered by employers. After seeing videotaped excerpts of theseforums, Dan Griswold of the CatoInstitute said, “I think one of the bestpoints that the participants made is‘where is the line of people standingout to apply for the jobs of pluckingchickens or picking lettuce in the hotsun in California or scrubbing toiletsat a discount store at night?’ They’renot there.”

TerrorismMany leaders define immigration

as a national security issue andaccordingly favor stricter border controls. While polls show this is alsoa public concern, terrorism-relatedimmigration was not an urgent issuein these forums. In a number offorums, participants pointed out thatthe 9/11 terrorists were in this coun-try legally. Others said the Latinoscrossing the country’s southern borderare not the ones who pose a threat to the country’s national security.Commenting on the forums, RichardHarwood, president of the HarwoodInstitute pointed out that “a lot ofthese [immigrants] are part and parcelof [participants’] daily lives. That isdifferent than the folks they may fearwho are going to come into this coun-try and do terrorist acts.” In short, theproblem of immigration was not seenas a problem of terrorism.

What People ValueA number of values were at play:

TOLERANCE. Participants repeatedlysaid they welcome diversity, sayingthis country is stronger because of its differences. While a great many

liked the metaphor of a “melting pot,”forum participants also said that newcomers should not relinquishtheir culture, traditions, religiousbeliefs, or even—as long as they speakEnglish—their native language.Immigrants should feel free to honoror celebrate their heritage, partici-pants said, because that is whatAmerica is all about.

E PLURIBUS UNUM. Participants felt strongly that newcomers shouldlearn English and become citizens and full-fledged Americans as soon aspossible. Though diverse, the UnitedStates, they said, is one country thatshould not be divided by separatismor filled with ethnic enclaves.

EQUITY. Participants wanted toensure that the process of enteringthis country is fair. Also, they wereconcerned about how immigrationmight impact different U.S. regionsand communities. Finally, they wereconcerned about what taxpayers canafford in terms of social services forillegal immigrants.

COMPASSION. Participants respectedthe courage and drive of those whorisked so much to enter this countryillegally. Participants said someemployers take advantage of illegalimmigrants; especially in the South-west, participants were concernedabout illegal immigrants beingexploited by “coyotes,” those whosmuggle in illegal immigrants at a price.

PRAGMATISM. Taking in more immigrants with special skills, manyparticipants said, would benefit thecountry as a whole. And there was a general recognition that illegalimmigrants come because so manywelcome the cheap labor they offer.

Beyond learning more about the

issue, participants’ views seemed

to be less polarized than the views

of the general public.

Participants overwhelmingly said

that newcomers should become

part of the larger culture as quickly

as possible.

Whether seeing the U.S. as a

melting pot or a tapestry, forum

participants took pride in the

country’s tradition of accepting

outsiders and incorporating them

into society.

While many participants, especially

in the Southwest, wanted to limit

or even slash illegal immigration,

most were stumped on how to

accomplish the goal. Ideas like

building a wall, using the National

Guard, or relying on citizen volun-

teers, such as the Minute Men,

were usually rejected.

The forum results suggest that

the American people are misin-

formed about key aspects of

the issue and have a sketchy,

incomplete understanding of

others. In many respects, public

opinion here has not jelled.

5November 2005


THE AMERICAN DREAM. Again and again, participants said this country is unique because it is “anation of immigrants.” This heritage,they added, is the source of ourstrength and durability.

The Effects of DeliberationBeyond learning more about the

issue, participants’ views seemed tobe less polarized than the views of thegeneral public. In a national survey,using the same questions as in thepost-forum questionnaire, the generalpublic was more likely to “strongly”favor or oppose a number of state-ments related to this issue whileforum participants’ responses weremore measured. Also, having had theopportunity to weigh the pros andcons of each approach, participantswere more inclined to favor certaintradeoffs than was the general public,including providing financial relief tostates and communities with especial-ly large numbers of immigrants. Insum, the questionnaire results suggestthat participants were far more will-ing to look for a common-groundsolution to the issue.

The Common Ground for ActionParticipants overwhelmingly said

that newcomers should become partof the larger culture as quickly as possible. And while people agreed, for the most part, that immigrantsshould learn English, in the post-forum questionnaire they rejectedeliminating bilingual education.

Forum participants also agreedabout the value of diversity. Differ-ences make the country strong, theysaid. Whether seeing the U.S. as amelting pot or a tapestry, forum par-ticipants took pride in the country’stradition of accepting outsiders andincorporating them into society.

When participants distinguishedbetween the types of immigrantsentering the country, they overwhelm-ingly favored continuing admission offamily immigrants, with participantsdescribing the economic and culturalbenefits they bring to the country. Butwhile refusing to cut the number offamily immigrants being admitted,neither did they want to increase it.

Many did want to increase thenumber of refugees being admitted,with some saying the U.S. should bemore flexible and admit more peoplefleeing from economic as well as political persecution, especially fromcountries like Sudan. Many also want-ed to admit more immigrants withspecial skills.

While many participants, especiallyin the Southwest, wanted to limit oreven slash illegal immigration, mostwere stumped on how to accomplishthe goal. Ideas like building a wall,using the National Guard, or relyingon citizen volunteers, such as theMinute Men, were usually rejected.Helping Mexico develop its economyso that it would become more pros-perous was a popular idea, but mostalso saw this as a solution that wouldtake a decade or more to implement.At the same time, a great many saidthat illegal immigrants fill jobs at lowwages that Americans don’t want and,in the process, help producers andkeep prices down for consumers.

Where Are We Now? The forum results suggest that

the American people are misinformedabout key aspects of the issue andhave a sketchy, incomplete under-standing of others. In many respects,public opinion here has not jelled or been, to borrow a phrase from DanielYankelovich, “worked through.” For

Participants in many other forums

seemed to be groping for some

kind of practical, middle-ground

solution that was in some respects

similar to currently proposed

legislation.

We should also emphasize that

the public has reached one rock

hard judgment about the issue:

that legal immigrants are wel-

comed into the United States,

not only because immigration is

our heritage, but also because

immigrants are a principal source

of this country’s creativity, vigor,

and strength.

The forums suggest that policy-

makers wishing to take the issue

of a Visa or a guest-worker

program to the public have work

to do.



example, participants often had ablurred view of “immigrants,” withmany not distinguishing betweenthose who enter legally and illegally.Others overestimated the social service benefits that immigrants are eligible for while underestimating the Social Security and Medicare taxesthey pay but will never collect.

Acknowledging that our wide-spread use of illegal immigrant laboris at odds with immigration law,many who knew about guest-workeror Visa proposals favored them, whileothers saw them as promising alterna-tives after they learned more.Participants in many other forumsseemed to be groping for some kindof practical, middle-ground solutionthat was in some respects similar to currently proposed legislation.However, in most forums, there waslittle talk about any type of guest-worker program, let alone the idea’spros and cons.

Various poll results suggest thatthe American people as a whole mayhave more polarized views than didforum participants. That is, partici-pating in a NIF forum may have ledpeople to be more open to looking fora common-ground solution.

We should also emphasize that thepublic has reached one rock hardjudgment about the issue: that legalimmigrants are welcomed into theUnited States, not only because immi-gration is our heritage, but alsobecause immigrants are a principalsource of this country’s creativity,vigor, and strength.

What‘s Next?The forums suggest that policy-

makers wishing to take the issue of aVisa or a guest-worker program to thepublic have work to do. While manyAmericans may be open to the ideawhen they learn more, they currentlyknow little or nothing about it. Also,since people often do not distinguishbetween legal and illegal immigrants,there are misconceptions to correct.On the other hand, since the Americanpeople welcome newcomers, takegreat pride in the country’s traditionas a nation of immigrants, and arecommitted to the ideas of diversityand tolerance, there is much to build on.

I come from a family of

immigrants.

— Seattle, Washington

One of [this country’s] founding

values ... is that we are a

melting pot; we accept all faiths,

all races.

— Mesa, Arizona

The Chinese came over here,

busted their tails building the

railroads, and [the non-Chinese

living here] still hated them.

— Scottsdale, Arizona

7November 2005


Far from turning their backs onimmigrants, participants who took upthe “New Challenges of AmericanImmigration” in National IssuesForums in 2003-2005 saw great bene-fits from newcomers, saying immi-grants and their families enrich thiscountry socially and economically.New arrivals are generally family-ori-ented, forum participants said, withadmirable values, a strong work ethic,and a deep desire to improve their lot.A typical report came from a modera-tor in Boonville, Missouri, who saidparticipants there “saw immigrationhistorically as a source of the coun-try’s strength.”

Many NIF participants were first- or second-generation Americans,while others described the strugglestheir grandparents or great-grandpar-ents had overcome in establishingthemselves in this country. A womanin Seattle talked about her parentscoming from the Philippines whenshe was three months old, saying “Icome from a family of immigrants.” A man in Scottsdale, Arizona, said hisMexican-born mother still does notspeak English but that he and his siblings who were born in the U.S. allhave solid careers after graduatingfrom college. Long Island high-schoolstudents reminisced about why theirancestors came to the U.S., mention-ing job opportunities, political andreligious freedom, and family reunifi-cation.

A great many NIF participants saw the country as a melting pot, amixture of different ethnic and racialgroups that gives it a personality,diversity, and strength of characterunmatched by any other. A moderatorfrom Moorhead, Minnesota, said hergroup felt that “American culture is agreat blend of ingredients.” A man ina Mesa, Arizona, forum said, “One of[this country’s] founding values … isthat we are a melting pot; we acceptall faiths, all races.” People in otherforums saw the country more as a tap-estry or mosaic. A woman fromCharlottesville, Virginia, said people in the U.S. are part of “a crazy quilt.”But whether viewing the U.S. as amelting pot or a quilt, NIF partici-pants returned to one theme againand again: “The United States is anation of immigrants.”

Without ignoring this country’slong history of slavery, racial discrimi-nation, and treatment of NativeAmericans, many participants saidAmerica’s founding, by people fleeingreligious persecution, was rooted inthe idea of tolerance, a tradition thatdeepens and grows even as we contin-ue to struggle with prejudice. Thestruggle facing Latinos today is notunique, a Hispanic man in Scottsdale,Arizona, said, adding, “The Chinesecame over here, busted their tailsbuilding the railroads, and [the non-Chinese living here] still hated them.”A woman in a Seattle forum described

Forum Results:

Toward a CommonGround for Action

Although Germans had an

extremely difficult time here after

the first World War, as you can

imagine, and also after the sec-

ond, my family—being white,

Anglo-Saxon, Protestant—had

an easier time assimilating

[and] … did not face the same

problems as people who are

black or Spanish. I’m fully

aware of that.


Participants also wanted immi-

grants to embrace American

values—and the most important

step toward becoming an

American was to learn English.

In Grand Rapids, Michigan, and

Des Moines, Iowa, participants

said up to 60 different languages

are spoken in their local public

schools.

Language definitely opened up

the door for my brothers and me

to be part of and engage in this

society.

— Georgetown, Delaware

The strength of a nation is in its

homogeneity.… In the past,

immigrants have come [here] to

have a better life. [But] it’s the

opposite now … the immigrants

who are coming now want to

change us rather than change

[themselves].

— El Paso, Texas



what happened to her grandparentsfrom Germany:

Although Germans had an extremelydifficult time here after the first WorldWar, as you can imagine, and alsoafter the second, my family—beingwhite, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant—hadan easier time assimilating [and] …did not face the same problems as people who are black or Spanish. I’mfully aware of that.

Becoming an “American”Forum participants were not

concerned that new arrivals wouldseparate themselves or live in ethnicenclaves. Again and again, they saidthat, even though immigrants mightlive apart at first, their children andgrandchildren will rapidly assimilatejust as earlier waves of immigrantshave done. However, participants also wanted immigrants to embraceAmerican values—and the mostimportant step toward becoming anAmerican was to learn English.

Immigrants should learn Englishfor a variety of reasons. A woman inEl Paso, Texas, said that when “peoplegot off the boat [in the past], they didtwo things: they got a library card and they signed up for English classesat night. And then they got a job.” A woman in Sumter, South Carolina,said immigrants “need to see the im-portance of one [national] language” that unifies the country. Forum partic-ipants in Charlottesville, Virginia,offered a third reason, saying Englishis important so that immigrants canread signs and understand warnings.In Grand Rapids, Michigan, and DesMoines, Iowa, participants said up to60 different languages are spoken intheir local public schools.

Interestingly, many recent immi-grants, including a great manyLatinos, agreed that new arrivalsshould quickly learn English. AGeorgetown, Delaware, woman who

arrived eight years ago put it thisway: “Language definitely opened upthe door for my brothers and me to bepart of and engage in this society,” shesaid. At the same time, most peoplewho filled out the post-forum ques-tionnaire, opposed the total elimina-tion of bilingual education.

A few participants expressed con-cern about the increasing diversitythat accompanies immigration, sayingnewcomers are reshaping the cultureinstead of assimilating. A man fromWest Islip, New York, said that while“diversity is America and America is diversity … a concentration of a certain racial group isn’t good. Thereneeds to be a balance.” A woman in El Paso, Texas, said:

The strength of a nation is in its homogeneity.… In the past, immi-grants have come [here] to have a better life. [But] it’s the opposite now… the immigrants who are comingnow want to change us rather thanchange [themselves].

But the prevailing sentiment by farwas that “becoming an American” didnot mean denying one’s heritage orcultural traditions. Some called ethnicholidays a cause for celebration, not acelebration of division, adding thatthe idea of a melting pot did not mean losing a sense of who we are orwhere we came from. In Rindge, NewHampshire, participants said thatwhile the cultural “melting” shouldoccur as soon as possible, special holi-days, cultural events, and a family’sheritage and history should never be lost. Participants overwhelminglyaffirmed the importance of racial, ethnic, and cultural differences, sayingthey enjoyed learning about andexploring other traditions, arts andcrafts, music, histories, and most ofall, foods. A woman in Rapid City,South Dakota, said, “We have somany things to learn from eachother.” A man in Salt Lake City, Utah,

We need to be thinking

globally; we’re an international

market now.

— Panama City, Florida

We had Mexican immigrants

living with my family when we

lived in Idaho.… I’ve never

seen people work harder in

my life.

— Salt Lake City, Utah

In most forums, people talked

about immigrants as if they

were a single group, without

realizing that there are different

classifications.

proudly described how his area celebrates diversity:

We have October Fest up in Snowbird,the Greek festival downtown, Cinco deMayo in Vail. Every school has amulti-cultural assembly, black aware-ness month, Hispanic-Americanmonth, Asian-American month. [Inthe Salt Lake City area] we recognizeand even promote diversity.

The Impact of ImmigrationA number of participants discussed

the contributions people from othercountries make to the U.S. Somestressed the economic value of bilin-gual citizens, with a woman inPanama City, Florida, saying, “Weneed to be thinking globally; we’re an international market now.” Awoman in West Islip, New York, saidher mother’s company recruits peoplewho can speak English and Spanish.Others talked about shrinking bordersfor business, saying a diverse popula-tion makes the U.S. more competitivein a global economy.

As participants deliberated, it wasclear that they saw immigrants asfamily-oriented people who workhard and have admirable core values.A woman in Salt Lake City, Utah,said, “We had Mexican immigrantsliving with my family when we livedin Idaho.… I’ve never seen peoplework harder in my life.” A man inPanama City, Florida, who had super-vised a construction crew of 23Mexicans said, “They were the hard-est working people I’d ever met.”

More generally, immigrants wereseen as morally upstanding, religiouspeople who honor their parents andteach their children right from wrong.A moderator from Centerville, Ohio,said her group agreed that immigrants“exemplify what is most positive inour society—hard work and family.”A man in a forum in Rapid City, South Dakota, said, “They’re good

9November 2005


[people].” In Moorhead, Minnesota,participants said immigrants respecttheir elders and appreciate educa-tional opportunities.

Different Types of ImmigrantsIn most forums, people talked

about immigrants as if they were asingle group, without realizing thatthere are different classifications. In addition, participants’ views were influenced by where they live.Participants in the Southwest focusedon illegal immigrants while in Seattle,participants mainly talked about newcomers from Asia. Migrant or seasonal workers were the principaltopic in Georgetown, Delaware, anagricultural area and large poultryproducer, while in Grand Rapids,Michigan, participants focused on the Sudanese the community hastaken in, and in Minnesota, partici-pants talked about Hmong and otherSoutheast-Asian people and Somaliswho have been relocated there. Iowaparticipants, on the other hand, saidtheir state has a “welcome mat” out for new arrivals because native-born residents continue moving out inrecord numbers.

As they listened to other people’sviews and considered informationprovided in the course of the forum,participants expressed different viewsabout various immigrant groups.Most said the country is admittingabout the right number of familyimmigrants. While there was little callto increase that number, neither didmany want to reduce it. A woman inEl Paso, Texas, said, “It’s probably a sound basis for immigration that afamily is able to come in, rather thanone wage-earner that may get into alot of trouble because his family’s not there to anchor them.” Similarly, a man in Salt Lake City, Utah, said:

African Americans … feel

foreigners are treated better

than American blacks.

— Grand Rapids, Michigan

Our biggest problem is …

illegals … draining the [social]

services [and] not contributing

to the society.

— Arizona



I don’t think [family immigrants are]the problem. These people have a foun-dation in the United States. And theirfamily is more than willing to putthem up in jobs and school and to edu-cate them and teach them the culture,[and help them] to assimilate.

Participants were proud of thecountry’s tradition of taking in politi-cal refugees, and many favoredincreasing the number. Some wantedto take in more people fleeing eco-nomic deprivation as well as politicalpersecution, especially from placeslike Sudan. Some also wanted the U.S. to treat all potential refugeesequally and not give preference to, for example, Cubans over Haitians.

Many participants favored admit-ting more skilled workers: medicalpersonnel, engineers, skilled profes-sionals, workers with advanceddegrees, and investors who plan toopen businesses that will employ U.S. workers. Skilled workers pro-vide essential services and make a significant social and economic contribution, participants said.“We’re lucky to have them,” said aparticipant from Troy, New York.Participants in Sumter, SouthCarolina, and Centerville, Ohio, talkedabout the need for more health-careworkers in underserved, rural areas.In the post-forum questionnaires, participants favored letting in moreskilled workers by a margin of aboutthree-to-one, although during thedeliberation some voiced concern thatwe are not sending enough of ourown young citizens to graduateschools to train for certain professions,such as engineering and medicine.

At the same time, we heard othervoices. Some participants said immi-grants receive preferential treatmentin terms of social services. A womanin Grand Rapids, Michigan, said,“African Americans … feel foreignersare treated better than American

blacks.” Participants in Dayton, Ohio;Georgetown, Delaware; and WestIslip, New York, voiced similar views.Others said illegal immigrants withfew skills will accept very low wagesand thereby take jobs away fromAmericans struggling to work theirway up. Participants in Charlottes-ville, Virginia, complained aboutrecruiters traveling to the Philippinesto recruit nurses when employers arecutting nurses’ benefits in Virginia,and a number of participants wereconcerned about a “brain drain” that“robs” a native country of some of itsmost talented and skilled citizens.

Illegal Immigration The most controversial issue in

these forums involved people enter-ing the country illegally. Some complained that illegal immigrantsuse social services at the expense oftaxpayers. An Arizona man grumbledthat “our biggest problem is … ille-gals … draining the [social] services[and] not contributing to the society.”Without acknowledging the taxes thatillegal immigrants do pay (i.e. underfalse ID numbers to Social Securityand Medicare), participants at a seniorcenter in St. Cloud, Minnesota, echoedthis view, saying illegal immigrantsuse the local public schools and thehealth-care system without paying for them. A San Diego woman added,“Immigrants can get loans that [citizens] aren’t eligible for.”

Others fretted that, since immi-grants and seasonal workers send somuch money back home, they have little left for their own needs, leavingthem without auto or health insur-ance. As a result, one woman said,immigrants drive without insurance,and if they’re in a car accident, cannotpay the cost of repair or may evenleave the scene rather than risk beingdeported. Summarizing the views of

This country has limits to what

we can afford; we’re not unlim-

ited in that we can just allow

anybody in the world to come

here because they’re in need.

— Cedar Rapids, Iowa

They treat [illegal immigrants]

like field hands.…“They’re

not paying them the minimum

wage.

— Sumter, South Carolina

I don’t care how much money

you have for enforcement—

until you can address the rea-

sons why people want to come

to this country you’re not going

to solve the problem.


If somebody comes here and

wants to work in a chicken

factory, whose job are they

taking? Is there a line of

Americans standing in line to

work in a chicken factory?


11November 2005


several participants, a Cedar Rapids,Iowa, man said, “This country has limits to what we can afford; we’renot unlimited in that we can justallow anybody in the world to comehere because they’re in need.”

Some were cynical about the government’s willingness to crackdown on illegal immigration, sayingcorporations profit from cheap labor.In Sumter, South Carolina, partici-pants said the companies that hireillegal immigrants need to be heldaccountable. “They treat [illegal immi-grants] like field hands,” a man theresaid. “They’re not paying them theminimum wage.” An El Paso, Texas, man said Hondurans who work inPennsylvania picking produce arerecruited by a local man who promis-es them jobs as long as they can getthere.

While many participants wanted to cut, some drastically, the number ofillegal immigrants entering the coun-try each year, most were at a loss as tohow to do it. Some favored tighterborder controls. A Utah man wantedthe National Guard to patrol theMexican border, until someone elsepointed out that the Guard is nowfighting two wars; only a few saw awall or fence along the border as aserious proposal. Nor did many warmto the idea of citizen-led efforts tocurb illegal immigration. Finally, the idea of working with Mexico toimprove that country’s economyappealed to some participants, includ-ing a man in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, whosaid, “I don’t care how much moneyyou have for enforcement—until youcan address the reasons why peoplewant to come to this country you’renot going to solve the problem.” Butimproving the Mexican economy, others said, is at best a remedy thatwill take years.

As people deliberated and listenedto other points of view, the thinking of many participants, including evensome who wanted to drastically cutdown on illegal immigration, becamemore nuanced. The reason so manyillegal immigrants come to this coun-try is because they have few alterna-tives, participants said. A man inGeorgetown, Delaware, said:

The stricter [the U.S. is], the moreundocumented or what some call them illegal aliens [will enter the country]. People are seeking work,they’re seeking opportunity. That’s the … underside of … tighteningthings up.

As they deliberated, more andmore participants in forum afterforum observed that immigrants pro-vide valuable or even essential laborat bargain rates to agriculture, smallbusinesses, and even homeowners. A woman in Mesa, Arizona, said, “Weneed really cheap labor. These peoplehave to be here for us to live the waywe live.” A man in Panama City,Florida, said, “The lazy ones aren’tcoming across the border,” while aSeattle, Washington, man described hisexperience with immigrant workers:

They do fantastic work. A couple of them wound up staying in mygrandmother’s house … for maybe amonth and a half … They actuallyremodeled her kitchen [and] … savedmy grandmother a ton of money.

Others said immigrants take onjobs that Americans will not. “If somebody comes here and wants towork in a chicken factory, whose jobare they taking? Is there a line ofAmericans standing in line to work ina chicken factory?” asked a man fromGeorgetown, Delaware. A woman in Charleston, West Virginia, asked,“Why do we get so upset about immi-grants ‘taking our jobs’ if we haven’ttaken them?” Others talked about alax work ethic, especially among the

There was a time in our history

when we needed … cheap

labor. We’re at a time like that

again.

— Charleston, West Virginia

Why doesn’t the government

go after employers who exploit

illegal immigrants by providing

low, non-living wages?

— Charleston, West Virginia

They ought to skin those

coyotes—those people who …

leave [groups of people trying

to enter illegally] in a van in

the middle of the desert!

— Scottsdale, Arizona

Many of us are frightened for our

lives and our safety, and I think

that is one of the problems that

surrounds this particular issue.

— El Paso, Texas

younger generation, a man in Sumter,South Carolina, said. “Immigrantsapply themselves to the job becausethey want to get to the top.”

Some pointed out that low-wageworkers keep prices low for both consumers and businesses. If we eliminate illegal immigration, said aman in Sumter, South Carolina, priceswill rise dramatically. A man inCharleston, West Virginia, said “Therewas a time in our history when weneeded … cheap labor. We’re at a timelike that again.”

But there were other indirect out-comes from illegal immigrants thatparticipants in the forums noted posi-tively. Some said that undocumentedworkers pay sales tax and often SocialSecurity tax, which they will nevercollect. Contributed indirectly, suchmoney helps alleviate this country’slong-term problem with that program.Others pointed out that immigrantsare eligible for far fewer social servicesthan is commonly believed. Andbeyond the economic issues, manyexpressed humanitarian sentimentsand compassion. In Georgetown,Delaware, some were concerned about landlords exploiting migrantswho don’t understand their rights and have nowhere to turn for help. A student in Charleston, WestVirginia, wondered why the govern-ment doesn’t go after employers who “exploit illegal immigrants byproviding low, non-living wages?”

In a number of cases, participantsexpressed sympathy for those whorisked so much to come to this coun-try. A high-school student in WestIslip, New York, said an illegal immi-grant he worked with in a gardeningjob “walked 12 hours across thedesert, then hitchhiked to New York”to take it. Even in the Southwest,where anti-illegal immigrant senti-ment was most pronounced, partici-



pants expressed compassion for thosetrying to get across the border. AScottsdale, Arizona, man said, “Theyought to skin those coyotes—thosepeople who … leave [groups of peopletrying to enter illegally] in a van inthe middle of the desert!” Othersadmired those who would risk every-thing to come to this country, such as a woman who carried her childrenacross the desert. Even a San Diegowoman, who had wanted to close theborder to all immigrants, legal andillegal, for at least ten years, also said:

The people that have immigrated hereare already here … So personally Iwould probably help them out becauseif they’re having problems [because]they’re not leaving; they’re going tocontinue to have a problem.

TerrorismA few in the forums saw terrorism

as a good reason to limit immigration.A woman in El Paso, Texas, said,“Many of us are frightened for ourlives and our safety, and I think that isone of the problems that surroundsthis particular issue.” Fears aboutimmigration are always around, said a Mesa, Arizona, man, “but what 9/11did was make it more concentrated.”

But what was striking about theseforums was how rarely terrorism wasmentioned. In a great many cases, itdid not come up at all. When it wasdiscussed, participants often talkedabout not overreacting or letting the“politics of fear” take over. A modera-tor from Grand Rapids, Michigan,said that while people there felt inse-cure after 9/11, they were also afraidof losing basic freedoms. Otherspointed out that the 9/11 terroristswere in this country legally and thatrestricting immigration would notaffect the problem of those who comeinto the country to commit terroristacts. Still others said the terroristthreat comes from Muslim extremists

When the idea of a guest-worker

program came up, few clearly

understood the formal proposals

that political leaders have

suggested.

As people deliberated about the

issue, many came to the view

that the country should provide

special help to states and commu-

nities that take in large numbers

of immigrants.

[This] issue is far deeper and

[more] multi-leveled than media

sources would have us believe.


If [you] listen to the media,

you’d think we have an unem-

ployment problem because there

are too many immigrants.…

[And that is] simply not true.

— Panama City, Florida

13November 2005


and Middle Easterners, not fromLatinos crossing the desert. And someworried about the internationaleffects, with a Mesa, Arizona, mansaying if the U.S. restricts immigrationin its efforts “to deal with [terrorism],you’re sending a signal to the rest of the world that folks are notwanted here.”

A Guest-worker ProgramWhen the idea of a guest-worker

program came up, few clearly under-stood the formal proposals that political leaders have suggested. In a small number of forums, however,whether or not participants actuallyunderstood the idea completely, manysupported or even suggested such aconcept, saying a Visa or guest-work-er program sounded like a promisingway to reduce the number of peoplecrossing the border illegally. Suchthinking appeared to be driven by dissatisfaction with what participantssaw as an apparently unenforceableimmigration policy at odds with the enticements offered for relativelycheap labor. Participants in Mesa,Arizona, were familiar with the idea,and supported it with near unanimity.Forum participants in La Porte,Indiana; Edison, New Jersey; GrandRapids, Michigan; Georgetown,Delaware; and Rindge, New Hamp-shire, also reacted positively to theidea, with one saying it “would helppeople come out of the shadows.”

On the other hand, some partici-pants were cynical about the proposal,including people in Charlottesville,Virginia, who saw a guest-worker program as a political ploy designedto get Latino votes. Still others said it would only “reward” those who arealready in the U.S. illegally at a timewhen other immigration applicantsare turned away or caught up in thebureaucracy.

Regional CostsAs people deliberated about the

issue, many came to the view that thecountry should provide special helpto states and communities that take inlarge numbers of immigrants. In thepost-forum questionnaire, participantsfavored providing financial relief toareas hard pressed by immigration by a margin of 55 percent to 31 per-cent. In Athens, Georgia, participantssaid the federal government shouldespecially help the public schoolswhenever there is a large influx ofnewcomers. A woman in El Paso,Texas, talked about the burden onhospitals that treat large numbers ofillegal immigrants, with a womanthere adding, “Only the federal budget has [enough] money that can help us along the border.”

The Role of the MediaAn issue that came up in a small

number of forums involved the role ofthe news media. As they deliberatedabout the issue and came to see it ingreater depth, some participants com-plained that the media tends to over-simplify the issue. A man in Seattle,Washington, said “[This] issue is fardeeper and [more] multi-leveled than media sources would have usbelieve.” A woman in that forum saidthe media focuses only on one aspect of the issue and “don’t talk about the legal immigration on the news.”And a man from Panama City,Florida, said, “If [you] listen to themedia, you’d think we have an unem-ployment problem because there aretoo many immigrants.… [And that is]simply not true.”

Participants acknowledged it is

not necessary to learn English to

function socially in that communi-

ty. But they also said that learning

English is needed to succeed

economically and become an

American citizen. Some added

that knowing English helps

parents “remain credible with

[our] children who will

learn it.”

“It’s much harder for the first

generation [to adjust],” adding

that “parents worry their kids

[will] go too far to the other

side” and become so completely

assimilated that they lose their

own heritage.

Moderators in these forums heard

undocumented workers discuss

how fearful they were about being

exploited at work or caught and

expelled. As a result, they seek

jobs only with other immigrants

and seek help from support

groups they trust.



Highlights from:

Special Outreach Forums

In 2004, special “outreachforums” were held in Missouri,Texas, New York, Michigan, andCalifornia to explore ways to bringmore diverse groups of people tothe National Issues Forums. Usingthe same issue book, these forums took particular care to reach out to immigrant communities, ulti-mately involving large numbers ofbilingual and Spanish-speakingparticipants.

Two forums in El Paso, Texas,were attended by large numbers of recent immigrants, including anumber of undocumented workers.Participants acknowledged it is notnecessary to learn English to func-tion socially in that community. Butthey also said that learning Englishis needed to succeed economicallyand become an American citizen.Some added that knowing Englishhelps parents “remain crediblewith [our] children who will learn it.”

In Long Island, New York, three forums were held with recentimmigrants and others, includingsome undocumented workers.Here, recent arrivals felt that theU.S. does not always live up to itsheritage and reputation for toler-ance and fairness. Immigrants alsotalked about limited opportunities

to learn English. At two forums, therewas discussion about how immigrantstend to “group” together and notlearn English because they can easilywork and live among their own peo-ple. Participants also discussed theidea that Latinos “may assimilate lessquickly” than did groups in the pastbecause so many of them share a com-mon language, and some reportedleading “double lives” as they strug-gle to maintain their native culturewhile working within the U.S. system.

In a forum in Michigan, newcom-ers said the government should “pro-vide more information and outreach.”A recent immigrant from Mexico alsosaid, “It’s much harder for the firstgeneration [to adjust],” adding that“parents worry their kids [will] go too far to the other side” and becomeso completely assimilated that theylose their own heritage.

Moderators in these forums heardundocumented workers discuss howfearful they were about being exploit-ed at work or caught and expelled.As a result, they seek jobs only withother immigrants and seek help fromsupport groups they trust. Some illegal immigrants also discussed how they were planning to return totheir native countries after they hadearned enough money. In Michigan, a woman in a bilingual forum said

Some moderators reported ten-

sion between African Americans

and Hispanics, with some African

Americans saying Hispanics are

getting jobs more easily than they

are or that society is more accept-

ing of newcomers than it has

been of African Americans.

There are strong emotions around

issues of race relations—fear of

the unfamiliar and of rejection.

— Michigan

Perhaps most striking were the

similarities between these forums

and what we heard in other

NIF forums across the country.

Newcomers in these forums

talked about the importance of

learning English in order to do

well economically, which partici-

pants generally also said was

essential.

15November 2005


most Americans “don’t realize thatpeople are risking their lives to come here.”

Finally, some moderators reportedtension between African Americansand Hispanics, with some AfricanAmericans saying Hispanics are getting jobs more easily than they are or that society is more accepting ofnewcomers than it has been of AfricanAmericans. There was particular tension about job competition withthose who are undocumented. Amoderator from one of the Michiganforums said, “There are strong emotions around issues of race rela-tions—fear of the unfamiliar and ofrejection.” While the forums suggestthat the idea of hostility towardsimmigrants may have been exag-gerated, these unusually frank anddeliberately gathered multi-ethnicforums made clear the existence of akind of mutual tension between this“fear of the unfamiliar” on the part ofcitizens and “of rejection” among theimmigrants.

Perhaps most striking were thesimilarities between these forums andwhat we heard in other NIF forumsacross the country. Newcomers inthese forums talked about the impor-tance of learning English in order todo well economically, which partici-pants generally also said was essential.These immigrants were willing towork hard in order to succeed. Finally,many saw the U.S. as the land ofopportunity and hoped that their children would become full-fledgedAmericans, while retaining the essen-tial aspects of their native culture.

Ordinary public opinion polls

provide a snapshot of what

people think at a given point in

time. If conducted with expertise

and rigor, the result is an excep-

tionally accurate snapshot of

public opinion. But with a com-

plex policy issue like immigration,

public opinion is more likely to

be in motion than fixed.

Many forum participants connect-

ed to the issue based on their

personal experience.

I am second-generation American.

My dad and my entire family

came up through the fields and

one of the things they’ve always

done … [was] be there for their

family [and] for this country.

—forum participant



The Nature of Public Thinking:

How Citizens ApproachComplex Policy Issues

Ordinary public-opinion polls pro-vide a snapshot of what people thinkat a given point in time. If conductedwith expertise and rigor, the result isan exceptionally accurate snapshot of public opinion. But with a complexpolicy issue like immigration, publicopinion is more likely to be in motionthan fixed. Dan Yankelovich has written that public opinion about such issues moves through a series of stages, from initial awareness inwhich people learn about an issue to a final stage of judgment in whichpeople understand the issue, havinghad time and opportunity to considerwhat to do about it after weighing thetradeoffs or costs and consequences of different courses of action througha process of deliberation.

Although participants in NationalIssues Forums cannot reach a finaljudgment about what to do about an issue in three hours or less, theybegin that journey. Through the use of a neutral, balanced framework thatintroduces distinctively differentapproaches for dealing with an issue,along with the tradeoffs, participantspublicly deliberate while approachingan issue realistically in different ways. The result is that, while publicopinion polls tell us what peoplethink, National Issues Forums enableus to explore people’s thinking, that is,

how people think about an issue asthey grapple with it.

Here we analyze the thinking of a diverse group of more than 1,073participants from 41 states plus theDistrict of Columbia as they deliber-ated about the issue of immigrationfor up to three hours.

A Personal ConnectionMany forum participants connect-

ed to the issue based on their personalexperience. Some were immigrantsthemselves. Others said their parentsor grandparents were first-generationnewcomers, often arriving in thiscountry with little or nothing, includ-ing no knowledge of English, beforesucceeding in raising a family andbecoming productive citizens. Oneman said, “I am second-generationAmerican. My dad and my entirefamily came up through the fields andone of the things they’ve always done… [was] be there for their family[and] for this country.” Many talkedabout their interactions with immi-grants who are their friends, neigh-bors, co-workers, employees oremployers, or people they encounterday to day.

Participants also connected to this issue in terms of where they live.While a great many participants

In Georgetown, Delaware, and

Grand Rapids, Michigan, partici-

pants said immigrants are taking

jobs that used to be filled by

African Americans.

As people deliberated and con-

sidered the views of others, their

perspectives often expanded from

a personal to a national or even

global point of view.

While there is talk among pundits

about how polarized Americans

have become on this issue, the

outcome of these forums suggests

that such polarization has been

exaggerated.

17November 2005


admired how hard immigrants workand their strong family values, sometalked about what they saw as thenegative effects of immigration ontheir community. In Georgetown,Delaware, and Grand Rapids,Michigan, participants said immi-grants are taking jobs that used to be filled by African Americans—although it was not clear how manyAfrican Americans wanted all of those jobs today. Some, especially inthe Southwest, complained about the cost of social services for illegalimmigrants. In other locations, partici-pants talked about refugees—Kurds,Bosnians, Hmong, Haitians, and Poles—that were relocated to theircommunities. And in some locations,including Boonville, Missouri, andCharleston, West Virginia, moderatorssaid the issue had not really impactedthe community.

National and Global ConnectionsAs people deliberated and con-

sidered the views of others, their perspectives often expanded from a personal to a national or even globalpoint of view. For example, manyfavored helping locales that take inlarge numbers of immigrants. In some forums, people discussed globalaspects of the issue, including the economic attraction this country holds for so many people around the world.Some talked about a “brain drain,”saying immigration “robs” immi-grants’ native countries of some oftheir most educated and talented indi-viduals. A student in West Islip, NewYork, warned that since we or ourancestors were all immigrants, overlystrict limits on immigration wouldsend the wrong message to the world.

Long-term ConsiderationsWhen most people initially con-

sider a complex public issue, they generally think about short-term,immediate solutions to the issue’simpact on them and their community.But when they publicly deliberateabout an issue, people inevitablybegin to consider an issue’s long-termimplications. Accordingly, while manyemphasized the importance of speak-ing English, they usually also saidthat the issue will work itself out overthe long term. A moderator fromGeorgetown, Delaware, reported howhis group felt: the first generationlimps by, the second speaks bothEnglish and their parents’ native lan-guage fluently, and the third tends toleave their ethnic language behindaltogether.

Participants’ views were endorsedby Dan Griswold of the Cato Instituteafter watching videotaped excerpts ofthe forums. “One citizen mentionedthe Irish,” he said. “They seemed very strange when they came overhere.… They felt the same way withthe Italians, and the Russian Jews, and the Poles. They were considereddifferent races at the time. But they[all] learned English. And in particu-lar their children learned English.”

Finding Middle GroundWhile there is talk among pundits

about how polarized Americans havebecome on this issue, the outcome of these forums suggests that suchpolarization has been exaggerated andthat, to a noticeable extent, publicdeliberation tends to reduce polariza-tion. For the most part, people in theforums did not gravitate toward

NIF participants were more likely

to be open to finding some kind

of common ground on which a

workable solution could be crafted

that would be broadly acceptable

or palatable, if not precisely the

first choice of a large majority.

These people [in the NIF forums]

do understand, and they under-

stand really more clearly than an

awful lot of our political class, it

would seem to me.

—Doris Meissner, Migration Policy Institute

Forum participants tended to

weigh the issue carefully. Concern

about “losing control of our bor-

ders” was balanced against the

benefits of taking in large num-

bers of low-wage, highly motivat-

ed workers.

We are seemingly unable to pay

the difference between fairness

and cheapness, and I find that

disturbing.”

—Cedar Rapids, Iowa



extreme positions or advance the kindof rhetoric that permeates some of the national dialogue. Instead, partici-pants tended to be reflective, whiletaking in new information and theopinions of others. A moderator inTroy, New York, said that while therewas great interest in the issue, the discussion was less acrimonious thanhe had expected. In the post-forumquestionnaire, NIF participants werefar less inclined than the public as a whole either to strongly favor or to strongly oppose a number of immigration measures. Instead, NIFparticipants were more likely to beopen to finding some kind of commonground on which a workable solutioncould be crafted that would be broad-ly acceptable or palatable, if not precisely the first choice of a largemajority.

Upon viewing taped excerpts of National Issues Forums, DorisMeissner, of the Migration PolicyInstitute and formerly Immigrationand Naturalization Services (INS)Commissioner said, “These people [inthe NIF forums] do understand, andthey understand really more clearlythan an awful lot of our political class,it would seem to me.”

BalancedForum participants tended to

weigh the issue carefully. Concernabout “losing control of our borders”was balanced against the benefits oftaking in large numbers of low-wage,highly motivated workers who play a vital role in the economy. Manytalked about seasonal or agriculturalworkers, without whom crops wouldbe far more expensive or perhaps notharvested at all. Others talked aboutillegal immigrants in the buildingtrades, especially construction, and

in the underground economy. Whendeciding what to do about this issue,the positives, participants said, needto be taken into consideration alongwith the negatives, such as the costsof providing social services.

Many were alarmed about the cost of social services for illegal immi-grants, but others pointed out thatundocumented workers who paytaxes to Social Security will never collect it. Also, while some partici-pants complained about the cost ofeducating the children of illegal immi-grants, others looked at the return on that investment; a woman in St.Cloud, Minnesota, said, for example,that while the first generation ofimmigrants may be burdensome, they add value to society and that“once you get to the third and fourthgenerations, they really add value.”

As the forums progressed, partici-pants wrestled with the complexitiesof the issue, including the pros andcons of limited resources. Many said some illegal immigrants willalways get through since the country’sborders are so vast and permeable. A moderator in Grand Rapids,Michigan, said people in a forumthere “struggled” with the issue,believing a balance must be struckbetween the numbers of immigrantsadmitted and our ability to help thosein greatest need, especially refugees.

Rich discussion involved consumerprices and wages for undocumentedimmigrants, with a woman in CedarRapids, Iowa, saying “We are seem-ingly unable to pay the differencebetween fairness and cheapness, and I find that disturbing.” According to former INS Commissioner DorisMeissner, “Our problem is that wehave jobs available in this country.[The people in the forums] stated it

“Our problem is that we have

jobs available in this country.

[The people in the forums] stated

it very well. We like our cheap

products; we particularly like our

cheap food. And what we have

[is] a policy … [that says] we

will fortify that border as much as

we can, but if you get past it

there is a job waiting for you.”

—Doris Meissner, Migration Policy Institute

A trait that becomes more

pronounced when people deliber-

ate … far from being indifferent,

the American people have tradi-

tionally been humane. Even

those who most strongly object

to illegal immigration expressed

concern about the safety of those

who cross the desert to enter

the U.S.

Americans have historically been

a pragmatic people.

Participants who were most

concerned about illegal immigra-

tion still did not necessarily think

putting the military on the border

was a workable solution.…

“We’re a nation of immigrants,

but most importantly we’re a

nation of laws.”

19November 2005


very well. We like our cheap products;we particularly like our cheap food.And what we have [is] a policy …[that says] we will fortify that borderas much as we can, but if you get pastit there is a job waiting for you.”

HumaneFar from being indifferent, the

American people have traditionallybeen humane, a trait that becomesmore pronounced when people deliberate. No matter where theystood on the issue, forum partici-pants empathized with immigrants,admired the courage it took them toget here, respected their work ethicand attitudes toward family, and wereconcerned they might be exploited.Even those who most strongly objectto illegal immigration expressed concern about the safety of those whocross the desert to enter the U.S.

Pragmatic Americans have historically been

a pragmatic people, but this qualitybecomes even more pronounced whenthey deliberate. When talking aboutthe importance of immigrants learn-ing English, they did not want children to fall hopelessly behind.Similarly, participants who were mostconcerned about illegal immigrationstill did not necessarily think puttingthe military on the border was aworkable solution, especially at thistime. A man in Cedar Rapids, Iowa,said “We’re a nation of immigrants,but most importantly we’re a nationof laws.”

After watching taped excerpts from these forums, Richard Harwoodsummed it up: “I think that what wesaw on these tapes today was theAmerican public’s ability and willing-ness to engage, to wrestle with thesechallenges, to acknowledge wherethey’re contradicting themselves, andto try and figure out to the best oftheir ability with the information thatthey have how we might be able tomove forward.”

Participants tended to say that

the forums had three effects: first,

it helped them see how complex

the issue is; second, it enhanced

their understanding of other

points of view; third, it left them

mulling over the issue and want-

ing to learn more.

I am more confused—I can see

validity to some things I may not

have before, and less validity to

others.


The forum opened my eyes to

different points of view, especially

from minorities, specifically

African Americans.




The Effects of Deliberation:

The Impact of Forumson People’s Thinking

Near the end of most NationalIssues Forums, participants are askedwhat impact the deliberation had ontheir thinking. Participants tended tosay that the forums had three effects:first, it helped them see how complexthe issue is; second, it enhanced theirunderstanding of other points ofview; third, it left them mulling overthe issue and wanting to learn more.

1) Many participants said the forumhelped them realize that the issue is more complex than theyoriginally thought. A man inPoughkeepsie, New York, said hecame to an “increased awareness of [the issue’s] complexity as wellas the need [to accept] tradeoffs[and make] compromises in formu-lating solutions.” A woman inSeattle, Washington, said she was“exposed to thinking about a moredifficult subject than most of usconcern ourselves with” on a day-to-day basis, adding that the forumwas “most enlightening.” A Seattleman said “I am more confused—I can see validity to some things Imay not have before, and lessvalidity to others.”

2) People left the forums with anenhanced understanding of otherpoints of view. Most forums wereattended by a diverse group ofpeople, including first-, second-and third-generation immigrantsfrom all over the world. In additionto those coming from the MiddleEast, Africa, Asia, and Australia, a great many Latin Americansattended these National IssuesForums. This wealth of diversity,along with people’s willingness to share their stories, led to rich,full, informative deliberations. Awoman in Georgetown, Delaware,said that although immigration“remains a very complex issue, theforum opened my eyes to differentpoints of view, especially fromminorities, specifically AfricanAmericans.” A Hofstra Universitystudent said, “The best part of the discussion was the large num-ber [in attendance] who wereimmigrants or direct descendants of immigrants … [which] put a[human] face on the issue [andgave me] a first-person point of view.”

I am more torn about the issue

because [of] all [the] sides that

I’ve been exposed to. I am not

sure where I stand, but I am

more informed.

— West Islip, New York

The more we talked, the less I

realized that I know. But I’m

really motivated now to learn

more.


21November 2005


3) The forums left people stewingabout the issue and wanting to learn more. Immigration is not anissue that can be easily solved, participants said; it will requiremore listening, thinking, and deliberating. A man in Rapid City,South Dakota, said we would not be able to solve the issue quicklybecause there are too many options—a reality, he added, that is the“tradeoff of democracy.” A studentin West Islip, New York, said “I ammore torn about the issue because[of] all [the] sides that I’ve beenexposed to. I am not sure where Istand, but I am more informed.”Participants in Moorhead,Minnesota, came out of that forumsaying they did not have enoughinformation, adding there’s a need for a lot more education onthis issue in their community.Summing up the views of manyparticipants, a man in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, said “The more wetalked, the less I realized that Iknow. But I’m really motivated now to learn more.”



Appendix A:

National Survey and Post-forumQuestionnaires

There was a modest differencebetween the two groups on one ques-tion: forum participants were a bitmore likely to agree that racial andethnic diversity is a source of thecountry’s strength, but both groupsoverwhelmingly endorsed the state-ment, with 83 percent of forum partic-ipants and 71 percent of the public inagreement.

On some other questions, thereseemed, at first glance, to be little differ-ence in the response patterns of thetwo groups. However, a closer lookreveals a more complex and sugges-tive pattern. For instance, even thoughabout two-thirds of both groups agreethat current levels of immigrationstrain social services, only 23 percentof forum participants “strongly” agreecompared to 47 percent of the public.Similarly, about 70 percent amongboth groups agree that the countryshould maintain a computerized sys-tem to track foreign students andworkers, but only 37 percent of forumparticipants are “strongly” in favorcompared to 59 percent of the public.Also, while large majorities of bothparticipants and the public believethat immigrants should be required tolearn English, the difference in thepercentage “strongly” voicing thisview is again pronounced, with 45percent of forum participants “strong-ly” agreeing compared to 72 percent

To compare the views of forumparticipants to those of the generalpublic, Braun Research, on behalf ofDoble Research, conducted telephoneinterviews with 403 randomly sam-pled Americans, asking them thesame questions that forum partici-pants answered in post-forum ques-tionnaires. Since forum participantsdo not comprise a random sample,sampling error between the twogroups cannot be determined withstatistical precision. However, theresults suggest some interestingtrends in the different ways the twogroups approached the issue.

First, however, the results show anumber of striking similarities. Bothforum participants and the publicrejected ending bilingual educationprograms in the schools if that made it harder for immigrant children to dowell at first. Only 27 percent of forumparticipants and 29 percent of thepublic were in favor and about two-thirds of both groups opposed. Bothgroups also felt that immigrants havea generally positive economic impact(73 percent among forum participantsand 64 percent among the public) andopposed reducing the number ofimmigrants admitted each year if thismeant keeping families apart andturning away refugees (65 percentamong participants and 61 percentamong the public).

The results suggest some

interesting trends in the different

ways the two groups approached

the issue.

The results show a number of

striking similarities.

Forum participants were a bit

more likely to agree that racial

and ethnic diversity is a source

of the country’s strength.

23November 2005


of the public. These results may sug-gest that, after hearing other points of view, forum participants may beless inclined to take an extreme posi-tion and more inclined to look for acommon-ground solution.

A third area of comparisoninvolves questions in which there are sharp differences between forum participants and the general public.Participants were far less likely tofavor drastically reducing the numberof immigrants admitted into the U.S. each year, with 33 percent infavor, compared to 55 percent of thepublic. Participants were also muchmore likely to favor admitting morerefugees fleeing persecution (68 percent versus 47 percent) and pro-viding financial relief to states withespecially large numbers of immi-grants (55 percent versus 34 percent).

Additionally, the national surveyresults indicate some strong differ-ences between younger people andolder people in their attitudes towardsimmigrants. In general, younger people tend to be more accepting ofnewcomers with, for example, 58 per-cent of people 65 and over agreeingthat the growing numbers of new-comers threaten American customsand values versus only 18 percent ofpeople in the 18-30 age group.

Taken together, these results suggest three things:

• On certain basic questions, forumparticipants are likely to holdviews that are generally in linewith the public as a whole.

• The forum process leaves peoplemore open to considering—notaccepting but willing to consider—measures to deal with a difficultpublic issue that are at least tolera-ble to people with opposing views.If this interpretation stands up, it

suggests that public deliberation in National Issues Forums reducespolarization, a result that hasimportant implications for a demo-cratic society in an era when people spend more and more time“cocooning” or “bowling alone”and getting their news fromsources that typically re-enforcetheir own points of view.

• Third, forums lead people tobecome more accepting of certaintradeoffs to solve pressing andcomplex public issues.

By publicly deliberating about anissue for up to three hours, hearingother people’s points of views, andweighing the pros and cons and trade-offs of various approaches, partici-pants’ thinking on this complex issuetended to become more flexible,reflective, and more open. The public,by contrast, tended to respond basedwith initial, top-of-the-head reactionsthat in some respects, were moreextreme. Additionally, the publicappeared to be less inclined to accepttradeoffs or look for common groundto deal with immigration.

These results may suggest that

after hearing other points of view,

forum participants may be less

inclined to take an extreme posi-

tion and more inclined to look for

a common-ground solution.

On certain basic questions, forum

participants are likely to hold

views that are generally in line

with the public as a whole.

The forum process leaves people

more open to considering meas-

ures to deal with a difficult public

issue that are at least tolerable to

people with opposing views.

Forums lead people to become

more accepting of certain trade-

offs to solve pressing and com-

plex public issues.

The public appeared to be less

inclined to accept tradeoffs or

look for common ground to deal

with immigration.



Appendix B:

National Survey andForum Questionnaires

Discontinue bilingual language programs in schools, EVEN IF this makes itharder for immigrant children to do well in school at first.

Questions in Which There Are Little or No Differences Between Responses

Table 1

TotalPercent

“Strongly/Somewhat Favor”

TotalPercent


Forum 27%

Survey 29%

Forum 36%

Survey 30%

Keep immigration at present levels, EVEN IF this means accepting moreunskilled workers who will need social services.

TotalPercent

“Strongly/Somewhat Agree”

Forum 46%

Survey 46%

Emphasizing cultural differences is more likely to drive Americans apartthan bring them together.

TotalPercent


Forum 24%

Survey 33%

Reduce the number of immigrants, EVEN IF this means keeping familiesapart and turning away refugees from persecution.

TotalPercent


Forum 73%

Survey 64%

Immigrants have a positive economic impact.

25November 2005


All immigrants should be required to learn English so they will be morequickly assimilated.

Questions in Which There Are Moderate Differences Between Responses

Table 2

TotalPercent


TotalPercent


Forum 77%

Survey 87%

Forum 83%

Survey 71%

Racial and ethnic diversity is a main source of the country’s strength.

TotalPercent


Forum 62%

Survey 69%

Current levels of immigration strain already overburdened social services.

TotalPercent


Forum 68%

Survey 74%

Maintain a computerized system to carefully track all foreign students and workers.

Percentages may not add up due to rounding.



Drastically reduce the number of immigrants we admit now.

Questions in Which There Are Sharp Differences Between Responses

Table 3

TotalPercent


TotalPercent


Forum 33%

Survey 55%

Forum 42%

Survey 59%

By working for lower pay, low-skilled immigrants displace U.S. workers.

TotalPercent


Forum 47%

Survey 65%

The main terrorist threat comes from persons arriving from abroad.

TotalPercent


Forum 55%

Survey 34%

Provide financial relief to states like California and Texas with especially large numbers of immigrants.

TotalPercent


Forum 72%

Survey 59%

Admit more skilled workers to fill critical occupations.

TotalPercent


Forum 68%

Survey 47%

Admit more refugees fleeing from religious and political persecution.


27November 2005


Appendix C:

Post-forumQuestionnaire Results

Total Total TotalPercent Percent Percent“Agree” “Disagree” “Not Sure”/NA

46% 47% 7%

47% 45% 8%

83% 12% 5%

73% 19% 8%

62% 27% 11%

42% 50% 8%

Do you agree or disagree with the statements below?

Emphasizing cultural differences is more likely to drive Americans apart than to bring them together.

The main terrorist threat to the U.S. comes from persons who arrive here from abroad.

The country’s racial and ethnic diversity is a main source of its strength.

Immigrants have a positive economic impact on this country.

Current levels of immigration strain already overburdenedsocial services such as education and health care.

By working for lower pay, low-skilled immigrants displace U.S. workers.

Table 4




Total Total TotalPercent Percent Percent“Favor” “Oppose” “Not Sure”/NA

68% 27% 5%

77% 20% 3%

68% 21% 10%

72% 21% 7%

33% 58% 10%

55% 31% 14%

Do you favor or oppose these actions?

The government should maintain a computerized system to carefully track all foreign students and workers.

All immigrants should be required to learn English so theywill be more quickly assimilated.

We should admit more refugees fleeing from religious andpolitical persecution.

We should admit more skilled workers to fill critical occupational shortages in fields like nursing.

The U.S. should drastically reduce the number ofimmigrants it admits now.

We should provide financial relief to states like Californiaand Texas that have especially large numbers of immigrants.

Table 5

Total Total TotalPercent Percent Percent“Favor” “Oppose” “Not Sure”/NA

27% 66% 7%

36% 48% 16%

24% 65% 11%

Do you favor or oppose the statements listed below?

We should discontinue bilingual language programs inschools, EVEN IF this makes it harder for immigrant children to do well in school at first.

We should keep immigration at present levels, EVEN IF this means accepting more unskilled workers who will need social services.

We should reduce the numbers of immigrants allowed into this country, EVEN IF this means keeping families apart and turning away refugees from persecution.

Table 6


29November 2005


Percent

81%

6%

3%

5%

6%

How many National Issues Forums have you attended, including this one?

1-3

4-6

7 or more

Not sure

No answer

Table 7


Appendix D:

Demographics

Age

Survey ForumPercent of Total Percent of Total

Female 51% 52%

Male 49% 44%

No answer 0% 5%

Gender

Ethnicity




17 or younger – 19%

18-30 25% 31%

31-45 32% 9%

46-64 28% 16%

65 or older 15% 21%

No answer – 4%


African American 11% 6%

Asian American 3% 3%

Hispanic 8% 8%

Native American 3% 3%

White/Caucasian 73% 73%

Other 2% 4%


31November 2005


Appendix E:

Methodology

National IssuesForums Methodology

In preparing this analysis of people’sthinking about The New Challenges ofAmerican Immigration: What Should We Do? Doble Research drew on a sample of forums in 41 states plus the District ofColumbia from the hundreds of forumsthat took place across the country. Sixresearch methods were used:

Moderator Interviews We conducted telephone interviews

with moderators who led forums in 23locations. We asked them to describe participants’ main concerns, their startingpoints on the issue, the costs and conse-

quences they took into consideration, and the shared understanding or commonground for action that emerged. Theforums were held at:1. Center for Undergraduate

Research, Athens, GA2. Centerville Public Library, Centerville,

OH3. Clemson University, Sumter, SC4. Cooper Center for Public Service,

Charlottesville, VA5. Donnelly Ctr. of Aquinas College,

Grand Rapids, MI6. Franklin Pierce College, Rindge, NH7. Heritage Hjemkomst Interpretive Ctr.,

Moorhead, MN8. Hudson Valley Comm. College,

Troy, NY

41 States& DC

Shaded States = Where forum participants live

People who participated in the NIF forums analyzed for this report are a sample of thousands of people who continue to deliberate about this issue in communitiesacross the country. Forum participants represented in this report came from the following states and communities:

Forum Observations We observed four National Issues

Forums, listening to initial concerns andlearning how deliberation influenced people’s thinking. In addition, we



interviewed two participants and the mod-erator after each forum. These forums wereheld at:1. Emmanuel Episcopal Church, Parish

Hall, Rapid City, SD2. Florida State University, Panama

City, FL3. Sumter Citizens Coalition, Sumter, SC4. West Islip High School, West Islip, NY

Videotaped ForumsWe analyzed five videotaped forums.

1. Cedar Rapids, IA2. El Paso, TX 3. Georgetown, DE4. Mesa, AZ5. Rindge, NH

Online DeliberationWe analyzed one online deliberation.

1. CYFERnet—A Centra Conference—April 20, 2004

Questionnaire ResultsAfter a forum, participants were asked

to fill out a questionnaire that frames the issue and identifies key tradeoffs fordifferent choices. We analyzed a total of1073 post-forum questionnaires along with a total of 403 telephone interviewswith a national probability sample ofAmerican adults, 18 and over.

Research ForumsWe conducted four research forums

or focus groups, each with a demographi-cally representative cross section of up to one dozen people. Sites were selected inareas where immigration is an importantissue and where NIF forums had not beenheld. The sessions paralleled NIF forums in that participants viewed the starter video,deliberated together about the three choicesfor about three hours and filled out thepost-forum questionnaires. Findings weresimilar to those in the NIF forums. Theresearch forums were held in:1. San Diego, CA—February 23, 20052. Scottsdale, AZ—February 24, 20053. Salt Lake City, UT—June 1, 20054. Seattle, WA—June 2, 2005

Special thanks to the convenors andmoderators who shared their forumreflections with us:

Barbara Brown, Joel Diemond,Michael D’Innocenzo, Joni Doherty,Connie Gahagan, Nancy Gansneder,Trish Hatfield, Reverend KarlHeimer, Ron Higginbotham, MelvinHines, Jr., Sandra Hodge, Terry Jack,Liz Keegan, Dean Larkin, BillMcGowan, Kevin McGowan,Dennis Minzes, Karen Nitzkorski,Carole Paterson, Cindy Pederson,Bernie Ronan, Mario Rosa, ReenaShetty, Rebecca Strong, Jim Walters,David Wilkinson, Anne Wolford,Ruth Yellowhawk, and VirginiaYork. Also, special thanks to MiltonHoffman Productions.

9. Immanuel Lutheran Assembly Hall,Boonville, MO

10. LaPorte County Public Library, LaPorte, IN

11. McHenry County College, CrystalLake, IL

12. Mesa Community College, Mesa, AZ13. Middlesex County College, Edison, NJ14. Montgomery College, Rockville, MD15. Montgomery County Library,

Blacksburg, VA16. Natl. Society for Experiential

Education Conf., Miami, FL17. Sorenson Inst. for Pol. Leadership,

Charlottesville, VA18. Spanish Christian Reformed Church,

Grand Rapids, MI19. State of Iowa Alcoholic Beverages

Div., Ankeny, IA20. St. Paul’s Episcopal Church,

Georgetown, DE21. West Virginia Center for Civic Life,

Charleston, WV22. Whitney Senior Center, St. Cloud, MN23. Wyatt Park Baptist Church, St. Joseph,

MO

33November 2005


National SurveyMethodology

Doble Research Associates engagedBraun Research of Princeton, New Jersey,to conduct a total of 403 telephone inter-views with a national probability or random sample of Americans betweenJune 28 and July 1, 2005. Details on thedesign, execution, and analysis of the sur-vey are discussed below. Braun Researchconducted 10-minute-long telephoneinterviews with 403 randomly sampledUnited States adult residents, age 18 andover, yielding a sampling error of plus or minus 4.9 percent.

Design and Data Collection ProceduresSample Design

The sample was designed to representthe U.S. adult population in telephonehouseholds. The telephone samples wereprovided by Braun Research and drawnusing standard list-assisted random digitdialing (RDD) methodology.

Questionnaire Development and Testing

The questionnaire was developed byDoble Research Associates. To improvethe quality of the data, the questionnairewas pre-tested with a small number ofrespondents using RDD methodology byBraun Research. The pre-test interviewswere monitored by Doble Research staffand conducted using experienced inter-viewers who could best judge the qualityof the answers given and what questionsmay have caused problems for therespondents. One change was made to the questionnaire after the pre-test, basedon the monitored pre-test interviews.

Contact ProceduresInterviews were conducted between

June 28 and July 1, 2005. As many as eightattempts were made to contact every sam-pled telephone number. Samples werereleased for interviewing in replicates,which are representative sub-samples ofthe larger sample. Using replicates to control the release of sample ensures thatcomplete call procedures are followed for the entire sample. It also ensures that

the geographic distribution of numbers is appropriate.

Calls were staggered over the days of the week to maximize the chance of making contact with potential respon-dents. Each household received at least six evening calls in an attempt to findsomeone at home. In each contactedhousehold, interviewers asked to speakwith the youngest male over 18 cur-rently at home. If no male was available, interviewers asked to speak with theyoungest female over 18. To qualify forthe interview, respondents had to be a resident of the United States.

Weighting and AnalysisWhile weighting is generally used

in survey analysis to compensate for pat-terns of non-response that might biasresults, this sample of all adults was notweighted to match U.S. parameters sincemost key demographics fell within themargin of error as confirmed by the 2000U.S. census.

VerificationTo verify the study, senior fieldwork

managers from Braun Research monitored14.1 percent of the interviews as callswere being made. In addition, BraunResearch randomly re-contacted 10 per-cent of the interviews. No re-contactedrespondents reported being unfamiliarwith the interviews.

Response RateThe response rate estimates the per-

centage of all eligible respondents in thesample that were ultimately interviewed.We calculated it by taking the product of two component rates.

Cooperation rate: the proportion ofcontacted numbers at which consentfor an interview was at least initiallyobtained, versus those who refusedwas 38.2 percent.Completion rate: the proportion of initially cooperating and eligible interviews that were completed was96.4 percent.Response rate: for this survey was 36.8 percent.



Appendix F:

Forum Transcript Excerpts

An Example of Deliberation about English and AssimilationEl Paso, Texas, January 2005

Female: People would assimilate quicker if they knew the language. A big part of assimilating in the United States is that you learn to speak English. And I know it’s more of a problem here on the borderthan it is in other parts of the country because we really don’t have to speak English to live in El Paso. I have a friend from South Americaand she never has to use English here.

Female: I think we’re defining our culture a lot of different ways.People are afraid to have their culture change. But there are somebasic values that are a part of who we are, and democracy and language are a part of that. We can assimilate a lot of things about a lot of different cultures and change the face of who we are, andthat’s a good thing, a positive thing, and an enriching thing. But thecore of our values doesn’t have to change as a result.

Male: You’ve got to examine why the people that come here fromother countries do come here. I mean, they’re seeking what we have.So there’s no reason to abandon your heritage or give up the historyof your family and where you came from, but there’s [also] no reasonto say: ‘We want to come here and then we want to change it to what we just left.’ A language is a big part of it. The trouble is as soonas you say, ‘I think you ought to learn English,’ the term ‘English Only’comes out.… English is something that binds us. It’s the most spokenlanguage in the country and I think those people that move here needto learn that. But that doesn’t mean that they should lose the languageof their heritage and such. President Bush, when he was governor ofTexas talked about English Plus. We should have English because that’sthe thing that binds us, but speak two or three languages—that’s great.

Male: Most immigrants by the second or third generation have adopted the language and the culture. American culture is just sostrong through TV, through movies that it overwhelms the immigrants’children eventually. So I don’t think it’s a problem. They’re worriedabout the Balkanization of the country, that it would threaten nationalunity. I think that’s a red herring.

35November 2005


An Example of Deliberation about Economic Benefits of ImmigrantsGeorgetown, Delaware, February 2005

Male: Immigrants in Georgetown have been an economic benefit to this community in … that they provide skilled or unskilled employees… particularly in the poultry industry [and] now in the constructionindustry.… If you’re a homebuyer and you want to talk to these construction crews about how they’re building your house, you needto take an interpreter with you.

Male: In … farming, you get the cheapest labor you can because youdon’t know what you’ll get when you take a product to the market.You’ll … get what someone wants to give you.… We are a nation of cheap, cheap food.… How does [that] happen? Because weimport from foreign countries where they have cheap labor, and theonly way [U.S. farmers] can stay in existence is we’ve got to come in with labor that’s comparable.

Male: Immigrants can actually help the United States … [because]we’re going to have to look to these people just to be able to compete. One-third of the people in India are making less than a buck a day, so let’s hope we have lots of immigrants come here thatwill work for less than $25 an hour if we want to save this nation.

Male: Talk about the economics. Well, if we were to try to stop the immigration, if we were to try to close our borders up more,that’s a cost in itself. How much does it cost to put people out on our borders to watch it, or put up a fence? You know they’ll find away to get through the fence anyway if they want it badly enough.

Female: You need a balance because if you bring only professionalimmigrants, you’re going to have immigrants teaching in universities[and] … in the medical fields, [and] in economics and science. And then what’s going to happen with the American people? Are they the ones who are going to work at the poultry plant? And then there’s … another problem.

Male: We’re also draining those countries of their skilled people, all the Filipino nurses here; there’s no Filipino nurses left in thePhilippines.… There’s definitely a brain drain.



An Example of Deliberation about Illegal ImmigrantsScottsdale, Arizona, March 2005

Male: What bothers me is people who will … hire illegals.… The illegals are the real problem because it’s a total drain everywhere.…I could go down to the corner and have some guys jump in the pickup,take care of my lawn.… But I absolutely refuse to [because they maynot be legal]. That’s just being part of the problem.

Male: I’d rather give them a job than have them steal from me. [They] need money to live, you know. There are two sides to thisthing.

Male: That is our biggest problem—the illegals. Not so much thelegals, but the illegals that are … draining the services and not contributing that to the society.

Male: We were rear ended by a guy.… He backs up and drove offbecause he’s illegal and has no license or insurance.… The cop says,oh, they’re Guatemalans, there’s a whole nest of illegals down there.

Female: But how’d this happen?

Male: They have what they call “coyote tours.”

Female: And they bring illegals.

Male: They drop people off from Mexico and illegally stash them.They drop them in a drop house or leave the van out in the middle of the desert and these people die.

Female: They try and get as much money [as possible]—[the illegalimmigrants] have already paid to come over and now they’re [trying]to get more money, [so they] keep them in a house until they can getsome more money to these coyotes.

Male: They ought to skin those coyotes, but that’s beside the point.

Male: Exactly, they get the money upfront and then they just, theydon’t care.

37November 2005


When the Public BroadcastingService (PBS) made plans to broadcastThe New Americans, a three-part docu-mentary that followed five families ofimmigrants from their countries oforigin to the U.S., the producers of theseries decided to put together anaccompanying outreach campaign toengage people around the nation inconstructive conversations aboutimmigration. Diane Eisenberg, theExecutive Director of the Council onPublic Policy Education (CPPE) and along-time associate of the KetteringFoundation, had approached GordonQuinn, the show’s producer, aboutcreating an NIF issue book on the sub-ject. Quinn recognized that the nation-wide NIF network would be an idealadjunct to the PBS series. From NIF’spoint of view, the opportunity to linkan issue book with a public televisionseries was a win-win situation.

Appendix G:

Developing the Issue Book and Linking NIF to Public Television (PBS)

Thus NIF became one of fourgroups involved in the outreach campaign to complement The NewAmericans. The others were: theIndependent Television Service, whichproduced an interactive Web site thatprovided downloadable outreachmaterials and a community engage-ment map; Active Voice, whichfocused on policy issues and develop-ing video modules and companionmaterials for advocates, teachers, andothers; and Outreach Extensions,which distributed outreach materialsdeveloped for Spanish-speaking com-munities, especially targeting newLatino immigrants.



Immigration built America.Yes, there are short-term costsbut, over the long run, immigration will keep usgreat. We cannot abandonrefugees who, like our fore-fathers, seek freedom. Wemust welcome newcomers,but find better ways to support them and help them grow into Americans.

What Should Be Done?• Admit more refugees.

• Give refugees a better chance to prove persecution.

• Expand family-sponsored immigration.

• Allow more skilled workers into the country.

• Negotiate a new immigration policy with Mexico.

Dangers, Drawbacks, Tradeoffs• Without limits, the lifeboat that is America could

capsize, drowning us all.

• Caring for and educating all of these newcomers costsAmerican taxpayers.

• Americans in low-wage jobs suffer.

• Citizens’ wages don’t go up because immigrants will work for less.

• Americans even lose jobs to immigrant competitors.

Approach TwoA Nation of Immigrants—Remembering America’s Heritage

Limit the number of new-comers. Otherwise, Americarisks losing its soul, its definition of itself. When people live in tight little ethnic communities, whenthey speak only a foreign language and call homeoften, they don’t assimilate. English is the commonlanguage of our culture. If we lose our language,we lose all our other bonds—including our shareddefinition of democracy. Besides, September 11,2001, proves that some immigrants wish ill uponAmerica.

What Should Be Done?• Admit fewer immigrants.

• Warn local communities of impending immigration, so they can plan.

• Subsidize local governments who aid large numbers ofimmigrants.

• Make immigrants, adults and children, learn to speakEnglish.

Dangers, Drawbacks, Tradeoffs• We may lose our definition of tolerance.

• English-only initiatives can create prejudice against immigrants.

• Immigrants always cling to the home country, but their children continue to adopt America’s culture.

• Immigrants keep our country vibrant and adaptable.

Approach OneAmerica’s Changing Face—Is There Too Much Difference?

Appendix H:

Issue Map

AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos

AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos

39November 2005


Limit the number of new-comers. Their arrival impactsthose who are already here.Immigration costs Americancitizens. Competition fromimmigrants keeps wagesdown and even takes jobsaway from Americans. Wepay higher taxes to supporteducation and social services for newcomers.

What Should Be Done?• Admit fewer immigrants.

• Keep out immigrants who would take jobs from Americans.

• Focus immigration on skilled workers.

• Help out taxpayers in communities where immigrants settle.

• Stop illegal immigration.

Dangers, Drawbacks, Tradeoffs• Immigrants get blamed for problems they do not cause.

• People will have no safe haven from tyranny.

• There will be no workers to do the unskilled jobs Americans refuse to accept.

• Immigrants are a critical part of the U.S. economy.

Approach ThreeA Matter of Priorities—Putting Economics First

AP/

Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos

The formation of public opinionabout complex issues is a dynamicprocess, a work in progress, not a finished product. Doble Research, a nonpartisan, public-interest consultingfirm, maps out people’s thinking by identifying what they think beforelearning more about an issue, then laying out how their thinking evolves

as they consider other points of view and have time to deliberate. We help clientsunderstand how and why people feel as they do—a map, not a snapshot.™



About Doble Research Associates

Clients and Partner Organizations:

Foundations Center for Crime, Communities, and

Culture (Open Society Institute/The Soros Foundation) Chiesman Foundation for Democracy Englewood Community Foundation Fetzer Institute Walter and Elise Haas Fund Hager Educational Foundation The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation W.K. Kellogg Foundation Kettering Foundation Charles Stewart Mott Foundation Peninsula Community Foundation The Pew Charitable Trust Public Life Foundation of Owensboro (PLFO) Seva Foundation

Government Agencies Board of Pardons and Parole, State of Georgia Department of Corrections, Cedar Rapids, Iowa Department of Corrections, State of Indiana Department of Corrections, State of Vermont Environmental Protection Agency The Governor’s Family Council, State of Delaware National Institute of Corrections (NIC) National Institute of Justice (NIJ) National Parks Service, Nebraska Vermont Commission on Public Healthcare

Values and Priorities The State of Vermont Department of Corrections

Public-service Organizations American Judicature Society Audubon Area Community Services,

Owensboro, Kentucky Buckeye Association for School Administrators Center for Community Corrections Center for Effective Public Policy Center for Sex Offender Management

(CSOM) Cleveland Summit on Education The Council of Governors’ Policy Advisors The Council of State Governments,

Eastern Regional Office The Crime & Justice InstituteThe Educational and Social Science Consortium General Federation of Women’s Clubs (GFWC) The Harwood Institute

International Research & Exchanges (IREX), Ukraine National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC) National Conference of State Legislatures National Academy of Social Insurance National Environmental Policy Institute (NEPI) National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI) The North Carolina Council of ChurchesThe North Carolina State-Centered Project The Oklahoma State-Centered Project The Pennsylvania Prison Society Points of Light Foundation Public Agenda The South Carolina State-Centered Project Southern Growth Policies Board Southern Regional Council Study Circle Resources Center (SCRC) The Upper Room Weavings, A Journal of the Christian Spiritual Life The West Virginia Center for Civic Life Western Governors’ Association

States The State of Indiana The State of New Hampshire The State of North Carolina (Sentencing

Commission) The State of Oregon The State of South Carolina

Colleges and Universities College of DuPage The Institute on Criminal Justice, University

of Minnesota The Mershon Center at The Ohio State University University of California at Davis University of Delaware

Corporations Clark, Martire & Bartolomeo, Inc.Simon and Schuster, Prentice Hall DivisionWeiner’s Stores, Inc.

41November 2005


National Issues Forums (NIF) is anonpartisan, nationwide network of locally sponsored public forums forthe consideration of public-policyissues. It is rooted in the simple notionthat people need to come together to reason and talk—to deliberate aboutcommon problems. Indeed, democ-racy requires an ongoing deliberativepublic dialogue.

These forums, organized by a variety of organizations, groups, andindividuals, bring people together totalk about public issues. They rangefrom small or large group gatheringssimilar to town hall meetings, tostudy circles held in public places or in people’s homes on an ongoingbasis.

Forums focus on an issue, such as health care, immigration, SocialSecurity, or ethnic and racial tensions.The forums provide a way for peopleof diverse views and experiences toseek a shared understanding of theproblem and to search for commonground for action. Forums are led by trained, neutral moderators and use an issue, discussion guide that frames the issue, presenting theoverall problem and then three or four broad approaches to the problem. Forum participants work through the issue by considering each approach; examining whatappeals to them or concerns themand what the costs, consequences, and tradeoffs may be that would beincurred in following that approach.

About National Issues Forums



The Charles F. Kettering Founda-tion was founded in 1927 “to sponsorand carry out scientific research forthe benefit of humanity.” Inspired by the open-mindedness and creativephilosophy of its founder, the Ameri-can inventor Charles F. Kettering, the foundation’s work has expandedto include research on education, community politics, and democracy.

A founder of DELCO, the DaytonEngineering Laboratories Company,Kettering’s innovative work broughthim more than 200 patents, the mostnotable of which is the electric auto-mobile self-starter. At the foundation,his conviction that new ideas can bestbe developed through a cooperativeteam effort was applied to a widevariety of problems—everything fromexplaining why grass is green tounderstanding how paint dries.Included in those interests were abroad range of social and politicalproblems, issues like world hungerand political instability.

Kettering believed in sticking withbig problems and taking them on in all their complexity, not breakingthem into pieces. One needed, he wasfond of saying, to “learn how to failintelligently”—to develop and testnew ideas and then to learn fromwhat happened. Few important ques-tions, he believed, were simple. Onehad to get at “the problem behind theproblem.” During Kettering’s lifetime,the foundation’s work focused onprojects he found interesting: basic

About the Kettering Foundation

scientific research on photosynthesisand cancer, as well as grants to pro-mote scientific education and work-study programs at colleges and universities.

Building on these varied interestsin the 1960s, the trustees began toexplore new areas like civic educationand governmental affairs. Major projects included I/D/E/A/ (Insti-tute for Development of EducationalActivities, Inc.), which worked to usethe latest theories of primary and secondary education to change theway children were taught, and theDartmouth Conferences, a series ofhigh-level discussions between promi-nent citizens of the United States andthe Soviet Union. (The foundationbegan to co-sponsor the conferences in 1969.)

In the early 1970s, Kettering reor-ganized itself as a private operatingfoundation. Instead of making grants,the foundation began conducting itsown research. Working with outsidecollaborators, Kettering staff beganexploring fields like education, urban affairs, science and technology,and international relations. As thatwork evolved, researchers at the foun-dation began to believe that lastingsolutions to the world’s problemswere increasingly social and politicalin nature rather than technical and scientific. Moving away from its tradition of basic scientific research,the foundation began to focus onbasic political research—striving tounderstand how citizens and politicalsystems can work together.

Since the early 1990s, the founda-tion has worked on strategies tostrengthen democracy. The primaryquestion addressed by its researchtoday is “What does it take to makedemocracy work as it should?”

200 Commons Road, Dayton, Ohio 45459-2799 (937) 434-7300; (800) 221-3657

444 North Capitol Street, N. W., Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 393-4478

6 East 39th Street, New York, New York 10016 (212) 686-7016

www.kettering.org

Download - Public thinking about the new challenges of american immigration

Top Related