Verbal jabs fly at ‘immigration solutions’ forum

PHOENIX — Audience members at an “Immigration Solutions Forum” held at ASU’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism & Mass Communication found that their keynote event was a little short on, well, solutions.

The forum was the first sponsored by Voices for Civil Dialogue, a 5-month-old initiative that aims to address complex public policy issues locally through guided “dialogue and deliberation.”

The project is the brainchild of former Congressional candidate Annie Lloyd, who said the purpose of the forum was to “look for a common ground” and to “gain insight, understanding, and to learn together.”

The problem was not a shortage of citizens looking for insight. Thirty minutes before the forum began, the lecture hall buzzed steadily as a patchwork crowd of teachers, teachers, political interns, students, and neighbors assembled and quickly filled the empty seats.

Mesa resident Jerry Heikens said he was most interested in the humanitarian aspect of the immigration situation. He hoped the forum addressed issues like sex trafficking across the border.

Carmen Mercer, vice president for volunteer border patrol group Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, was also looking for answers about physical and sexual abuse, and said she “seconded” Heikens’ call for education “on both sides of the border.”

José Olagues, a reverend at the Presbytery of Grand Canyon in Phoenix, said he was pushing for reform of an immigration policy system that has been “broken for years.” He wanted discussion of family reunification and “humane treatment” of unauthorized citizens.

Karen Wilson said she came to find out how to develop “unequivocal respect” between those squabbling over approaches to such a contentious issue.

Only Wilson got what she came for.

For the better part of two hours, the seven-member panel skirted proposal of actual solutions in favor of discussing how to come up with a solution.

Panel members Johndennis Govert, Genoveva Acosta-Bueno, and Ron Wakabayashi all underscored the importance of looking at the issue in the context of a larger framework. They highlighted the need to truly understand the forces of globalization and diversity before being able to communicate about immigration effectively.

Deedra Abboud, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation of Arizona, began by defining effective communication itself.

“The biggest misconception about communication is the belief that it actually happens,” she said. “We think because words come out of our mouths it means that we’ve communicated. But communication is also listening, responding, validating.”

Abboud also warned against the danger of acting based on assumptions, including those that stem from racial or ethnic stereotypes.

“Look at me,” she said, “I’m Muslim, I’ve had many people tell me to ‘go back where I came from.’ And I’m from Arkansas! Misinformation doesn’t help anyone.”

Sheridan Bailey, founder of Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform, said he believes such a tendency to pigeonhole originates at a very primitive level of human nature. When we’re responding to other cultures, he said, “our physical constitution automatically reacts to things that are different as a threat.”

This tendency can greatly hinder decision-making in regard to immigration, he said, when the mere idea of undocumented immigrants having a “place at the table” in negotiation “enflames those who are threatened by the exaggeration of a ‘cultural invasion.’”

Jean Tennyson, president of Navigating Our Future (NOF), agreed. “Humans are wired for survival,” she said. “When we feel we or those we love are threatened, we fight back.”

But Tennyson did not see this as an excuse to exclude immigrants in constructive dialogue. Rather, she emphasized overcoming such instinctive resistance and making sure all “stakeholders” are represented.

Julie Erfle said she became one such stakeholder in the immigration issue “suddenly” and “not by choice.” Erfle began actively working with politicians, law enforcement, and church leaders after her husband, Phoenix police Officer Nick Erfle, was shot and killed last September by an undocumented immigrant.

In discussing her work, she was the only panel member who ventured into a projected solution, albeit briefly.

“When you talk to law enforcement, they aren’t looking for amnesty,” she said. “What they’re talking about is legalization. People pay upwards of $3,000 to coyotes,” she said, referring to individuals specializing in smuggling people across the border. “Many law enforcement officials have suggested that, instead of paying $3,000 to a coyote, the federal government take that $3,000 and use it to implement a guest worker plan so people can come over legally to work.”

The crowd quickly came unraveled at Erfle’s suggestion.

“Whether you call it legalization, amnesty, it’s the same thing, and $3,000 won’t help unless there is enforcement on both sides,” said a woman in the audience who introduced herself as Sandy.

Her voice rising, she said she was frustrated with a nation who seemed to ignore the fact that undocumented immigrants are a “total Pandora’s box.”

As Sandy began attacking the panel for doing the same, moderators abruptly cut her off, reminding her that the purpose of the dialogue was to respectfully explore the decision-making process, not fight about specific past or future policy decisions.

That didn’t stop Heikens from standing up and bluntly asking if the issues he cared about – coyote exploitation of immigrants, slavery, and human trafficking – would actually be addressed.

They were not. The question-and-answer session ended with hands still in the air and an almost palpable tension.

After the session, most audience members lingered, forming small groups to discuss their views – views they felt had largely been ignored. But Annie Lloyd, who planned the event and handpicked the panelists, was not upset.

“Tonight was not about solutions, it was about a beginning,” she said. The goal was to “address how to create opportunities for expanding civic engagement,” and the fact that panelists’ comments got the audience thinking and questioning meant the forum was a success, even if those questions went unanswered, she said.