At 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday night, about 20 undergraduates gathered in a lecture hall for a moderated discussion and question-and-answer session from a panel of immigration experts, a discussion whose most compelling part was probably its calm, perhaps even mild, tone. The panel followed a catered dinner during which students were able to encounter the speakers in a less formal context before the event proper. The four experts, Irasmena Coronado, Simon Hankinson, Jim Robb, and Jessica Vaughan, all have had considerable careers in different parts of the immigration sector, from partnering with groups that welcome and work to integrate deportees in Mexico to conducting visa interviews and advocating for significantly stricter immigration policy. 

However, despite these gulfs of difference in experience and perspective, the panelists spent the majority of their time expressing mutual concerns and frustrations with the current system. They decried the ways in which immigration enforcement, no matter the administration, largely ignores the employers that knowingly and illegally target and recruit undocumented workers, often with the goal of underpaying them and denying them benefits while enriching themselves off of their labor. This issue was salient for the liberal wing because of the exploitation faced by these laborers, while the conservative speakers emphasized the ways in which economic incentives were, in their experience, the single largest driver of immigration, especially illegal immigration, and that cracking down on the employers would be an effective measure to decrease incoming populations. 

Furthermore, no matter their position, all were deeply dissatisfied with the fact that the laws governing immigration were largely written a century ago and fail to reflect the current state of migration at a fundamental level. This mismatch, paired with what was described by Vaughan as an all-or-nothing political approach that prevents even policies that are popular across the board, such as universal employer E-verification, from being codified into law. As Robb put it, legislators are so caught up in “fighting the last war” that little progress gets made, and whatever is made happens in small, shadowy meetings without the consultation of experts. The panelists attributed this phenomenon to a lack of trust, both between members of Congress and between Congress and the public, which led to policy being developed secretly and then debuted in press conferences without ever having been seen by those who have experience in relevant fields. 

In short, the issue with the resulting proposals is, at its core, not politics but efficacy. Inevitably, these bills fail, and the next cycle of politicians must face not only the perils of the existing political landscape but the added burden of previous failures and their resulting bitterness.

“Political debates on this campus have me on edge…it was nice to see people not screaming at each other and answering questions from the crowd.”

After the event, students expressed both their appreciation of the event’s diversity of perspective and the ability to speak with the panelists before it, which they felt lowered the temperature of the discussion and led to more good-faith conversations, and their surprise with just how many of said conversations there were. One student expressed to me that he was “kind of expecting more dissonance” and that “political debates on this campus have me on edge…it was nice to see people not screaming at each other and answering questions from the crowd.” Another student noted that he was impressed by the willingness of peers he knew from outside interactions to have quite strong opinions (in a variety of directions) to interact respectfully with not only the panelists but each other as well. However, some also felt that, while the chance to engage with opinions they did not necessarily agree with was appreciated and a rarity on campus, the panel leaned more conservative than actual U.S. discourse on immigration, and that they would have appreciated more of a liberal voice in the conversation. 

Still, the sense of relief I observed from my interactions with attendees led me to reflect on the need for the conscious creation of more spaces for disagreement, divorced from diatribe. Activism and disagreement are, of course, an essential part of campus life and politics, but all the activism in the world can do very little in the absence of an ability to converse with those who disagree. Moreover, it seems, if nothing else, a bit sad that so many undergraduates were genuinely surprised at their ability to have such a contentious, important discussion (and to disagree with each other quite strongly) without anyone metaphorically flipping the Monopoly board. Maybe, just maybe, all of us preachers could do with a little more time away from our choirs.

Edited by: Emily Villa and Nason Li

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Amyyfory