Public thinking about the new challenges of american immigration

PUBLIC THINKING ABOUT

The New
Challenges of
American
Immigration
An Analysis of Results from the 2003-2005 National Issues Forums

A KETTERING FOUNDATION REPORT
November 2005
Prepared by John Doble Research Associates

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

Copyright © 2005 by the Kettering Foundation

Contents
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
B. National Survey and Forum Questionnaires
C. Post-forum Questionnaire Results
D. Demographics
E. Methodology
F. Forum Transcript Excerpts
G. Developing the Issue Book and Linking NIF
to Public Television (PBS)
H. Issue Map

37
38

About Doble Research Associates
About National Issues Forums
About the Kettering Foundation

40
41
42

22
24
27
30
31
34

Public Thinking about the New Challenges of American Immigration

About the Forums:

A Framework for
Public Deliberation
This report examines the public’s
thinking about immigration—
the thoughts, insights, and values
expressed by more than 1,073 everyday Americans in deliberative forums
organized around the country by
the National Issues Forums (NIF)
network. Between mid-2003 and mid2005, these forums brought people
together 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 to
deliberate about how to deal with the
new challenges posed by American
immigration.
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. They are
different because they suggest what
the boundaries of political permission
might be if people had the opportunity to deliberate on an issue and
consider the costs and consequences
of different courses of action. Rather
than specific actions, they suggest the
types of actions the public might
be willing to support. That journey,
from what public opinion is to what
public opinion could be, is called
public thinking.

An Analysis of Public Thinking
When people come together in a
National Issues Forum, they deliberate for up to three hours with a
trained, impartial moderator. The
deliberation takes place within a
framework designed to present an
array of approaches, choices, or broad
strategies for dealing with a complex
issue, along with the costs and consequences of each one. National Issues
Forums are designed to help people
see that even the most complex issues
can be approached, understood, deliberated about, and addressed by ordinary Americans who lack special
expertise or a policy background.
Although the people who attend
National Issues Forums comprise a
geographically and demographically
diverse group of Americans from an
array of backgrounds, they are not,
as pollsters often seek, a random (or
national probability) sample.1 As a
further distinction, while pollsters
commonly sample opinion over a few
days, these forums take place over
many months. Consequently, the
results of forums and of polls fundamentally differ. While a poll provides
a clear snapshot of public opinion at a

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.

1See

Demographics and Methodology at the end of this
report for a description of the 1,073 people who filled in
questionnaires, among the many who attended one of these
forums. 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.

November 2005

1


given point in time, forums yield a
more stable, differentiated, and often
richer set of results. 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, including the
tension points in people’s thinking as
they deliberate about complex issues.

The Framework
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 boundaries of political permission,”
the course of action that
Americans are willing to take
along with the tradeoffs they
see as acceptable.

Forum participants across the
country used an identical framework
and considered the same three broad
approaches to the issue of immigration. As noted, each approach was
presented with pro and con arguments
along with an array of costs and consequences. Every direction or course
of action involved risks, uncertainties,
and tradeoffs. Thus, preferences were
associated with costs.
Using an issue book and starter
video, people considered three
perspectives:
• Immigration is a looming identity
crisis. At the present rate, increasing diversity threatens to break
the bonds of unity—the common
ideals of language and democracy
— that define our political institutions. Immigration should be
slowed to allow time for immigrants to assimilate into American
culture.
• Open immigration has been the
backbone of America’s strength.
Combining diverse cultures yields
a uniquely strong and rich society
and, overall, immigration offers
far more to American society than
it takes from it. America must
continue to welcome newcomers
despite the costs.

2

Kettering Foundation

• Immigrants strain the public purse,
compete for jobs, and exceed our
carrying capacity. The nation
would benefit economically by

slashing illegal immigration,
restricting the number of other
newcomers, and looking more
closely at how their arrival
affects the well-being of those
already here.
During the deliberations, people
considered each approach. At the
end of the forum, moderators and
recorders asked the groups to consider what they had agreed on and
what common ground for action, if
any, they had identified.

The Boundaries of Political Permission
The outcomes of these forums
reveal important insights about the
nature of the public’s thinking about
the issue of immigration—how people
reason together and how lasting public views about questions of politics
and policy take shape—in short, how
typical Americans struggle with difficult public issues. Together, the forum
results suggest the broad outlines of
what the eminent social scientist Dan
Yankelovich terms “the boundaries of
political permission,” the course of
action that Americans are willing to
take, along with the tradeoffs they
see as acceptable. It is unrealistic and
unwise, Yankelovich writes, to expect
the average citizen to acquire the
expert’s level of knowledge or in-depth
understanding and then provide
dictates for the enactment of public
policy. However, a “deliberative
public,” a public with the opportunity
to learn and deliberate about even
the most complex issues, can establish
a set of clearly recognizable boundaries within which policy-makers’
initiatives will enjoy solid public
support. This report outlines some of
the boundaries of political permission
forum participants established for
the new challenges of American
immigration.


Key Findings

Numerous public-opinion surveys
and comments by political insiders
and pundits suggest that Americans
want to slam the door on immigration. Some even feel that, as they have
done sometimes in the past, nativist
sentiments are spreading like wildfire.
But when people deliberate about
the issue as they did in these NIF
forums, they said they welcomed
newcomers who come here legally,
and they referred to this country as a
“nation of immigrants.” Indeed, most
participants saw both legal and illegal
immigrants as hard-working, decent
people who came here to escape persecution or in search of a better life.
Instead of limiting legal immigration,
most wanted to keep family immigration at current levels, while increasing
the number of political refugees and
immigrants with special skills. The
benefits of legal immigration far
outweigh the costs, they said. As
described in this report, participants’
views about illegal immigrants were
complex and sometimes at odds with
conventional wisdom.

describing, for example, the struggles
people faced coming to and establishing themselves in this country. Many
shared stories about the journeys of
their grandparents and great-grandparents. African Americans also
shared stories about their ancestors
who, instead of fleeing persecution or
seeking a better life, came to this
country in chains, as enslaved people
abducted from their homelands and
as people who were seen as outsiders
by a great many of those who came
here long afterward.
As they deliberated, participants
also began to think in broader, national terms weighing, for example, what
is fair to other communities. Many
favored helping communities and
regions where immigration has had
profound effects. Finally, participants
approached the issue on a human
level, often commenting that immigrants, including those trying to enter
the country illegally, are human
beings with families, hopes and
dreams, and basic needs, instead of
an abstract concept or stereotype.

How People Approached the Issue

llegal Immigration

Initially, forum participants who
were not first- or second-generation
Americans focused on immigration’s
effects on themselves and their
communities. But as the forums progressed, these participants often
stepped back to reflect on the issue in
terms of their ancestors’ experience,

While people in many forums
were concerned about losing control
of our borders and the effects of large
numbers of illegal immigrants entering the country, they also saw the
economic benefits from this group.
Participants talked about the value of
illegal immigrants’ contributions in

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.”

November 2005

3


terms of providing high-quality, lowwage work, often in the underground
economy, and filling jobs that
Americans may not want at the wage
being offered by employers. After
seeing videotaped excerpts of these
forums, Dan Griswold of the Cato
Institute said, “I think one of the best
points that the participants made is
‘where is the line of people standing
out to apply for the jobs of plucking
chickens or picking lettuce in the hot
sun in California or scrubbing toilets
at a discount store at night?’ They’re
not there.”
Many leaders define immigration
as a national security issue and
accordingly favor stricter border
controls. While polls show this is
also a public concern, terrorismrelated immigration was not an
urgent issue in these forums. In a
number of forums, participants
pointed out that the 9/11 terrorists 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.

Terrorism
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 terrorists 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.
Commenting on the forums, Richard
Harwood, president of the Harwood
Institute pointed out that “a lot of
these [immigrants] are part and parcel
of [participants’] daily lives. That is
different than the folks they may fear
who are going to come into this country and do terrorist acts.” In short, the
problem of immigration was not seen
as a problem of terrorism.

What People Value
A number of values were at play:

4


TOLERANCE. Participants repeatedly
said they welcome diversity, saying
this 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 relinquish
their culture, traditions, religious
beliefs, or even—as long as they speak
English—their native language.
Immigrants should feel free to honor
or celebrate their heritage, participants said, because that is what
America is all about.
E PLURIBUS UNUM. Participants
felt strongly that newcomers should
learn English and become citizens
and full-fledged Americans as soon as
possible. Though diverse, the United
States, they said, is one country that
should not be divided by separatism
or filled with ethnic enclaves.
EQUITY. Participants wanted to
ensure that the process of entering
this country is fair. Also, they were
concerned about how immigration
might impact different U.S. regions
and communities. Finally, they were
concerned about what taxpayers can
afford in terms of social services for
illegal immigrants.
COMPASSION. Participants respected
the courage and drive of those who
risked so much to enter this country
illegally. Participants said some
employers take advantage of illegal
immigrants; especially in the Southwest, participants were concerned
about illegal immigrants being
exploited by “coyotes,” those who
smuggle in illegal immigrants at
a price.
PRAGMATISM. Taking in more
immigrants with special skills, many
participants said, would benefit the
country as a whole. And there was
a general recognition that illegal
immigrants come because so many
welcome the cheap labor they offer.


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

The Effects of Deliberation
Beyond learning more about the
issue, participants’ views seemed to
be less polarized than the views of the
general public. In a national survey,
using the same questions as in the
post-forum questionnaire, the general
public was more likely to “strongly”
favor or oppose a number of statements related to this issue while
forum participants’ responses were
more measured. Also, having had the
opportunity to weigh the pros and
cons of each approach, participants
were more inclined to favor certain
tradeoffs than was the general public,
including providing financial relief to
states and communities with especially large numbers of immigrants. In
sum, the questionnaire results suggest
that participants were far more willing to look for a common-ground
solution to the issue.

The Common Ground for Action
Participants overwhelmingly said
that newcomers should become part
of the larger culture as quickly as
possible. And while people agreed,
for the most part, that immigrants
should learn English, in the postforum questionnaire they rejected
eliminating bilingual education.
Forum participants also agreed
about the value of diversity. Differences make the country strong, they
said. 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.

When participants distinguished
between the types of immigrants
entering the country, they overwhelmingly favored continuing admission of
family immigrants, with participants
describing the economic and cultural
benefits they bring to the country. But
while refusing to cut the number of
family immigrants being admitted,
neither did they want to increase it.
Many did want to increase the
number of refugees being admitted,
with some saying the U.S. should be
more flexible and admit more people
fleeing from economic as well as
political persecution, especially from
countries like Sudan. Many also wanted to admit more immigrants with
special skills.
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 volunteers, such as the
Minute Men, were usually rejected.
Helping Mexico develop its economy
so that it would become more prosperous was a popular idea, but most
also saw this as a solution that would
take a decade or more to implement.
At the same time, a great many said
that illegal immigrants fill jobs at low
wages that Americans don’t want and,
in the process, help producers and
keep prices down for consumers.

Where Are We Now?
The forum results suggest that
the American people are misinformed
about key aspects of the issue and
have a sketchy, incomplete understanding of others. In many respects,
public opinion here has not jelled or
been, to borrow a phrase from Daniel
Yankelovich, “worked through.” For

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 volunteers, such as the Minute Men,
were usually rejected.

The forum results suggest that
the American people are misinformed about key aspects of
the issue and have a sketchy,
incomplete understanding of
others. In many respects, public
opinion here has not jelled.

November 2005

5


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 welcomed 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 policymakers wishing to take the issue
of a Visa or a guest-worker
program to the public have work
to do.

6


example, participants often had a
blurred view of “immigrants,” with
many not distinguishing between
those who enter legally and illegally.
Others overestimated the social
service benefits that immigrants are
eligible for while underestimating
the Social Security and Medicare taxes
they pay but will never collect.
Acknowledging that our widespread use of illegal immigrant labor
is at odds with immigration law,
many who knew about guest-worker
or Visa proposals favored them, while
others saw them as promising alternatives after they learned more.
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.
However, in most forums, there was
little talk about any type of guestworker program, let alone the idea’s
pros and cons.
Various poll results suggest that
the American people as a whole may
have more polarized views than did
forum participants. That is, participating in a NIF forum may have led
people to be more open to looking for
a common-ground solution.
We should also emphasize that the
public has reached one rock hard
judgment about the issue: that legal
immigrants are welcomed 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.

What‘s Next?
The forums suggest that policymakers wishing to take the issue of a
Visa or a guest-worker program to the
public have work to do. While many
Americans may be open to the idea
when they learn more, they currently
know little or nothing about it. Also,
since people often do not distinguish
between legal and illegal immigrants,
there are misconceptions to correct.
On the other hand, since the American
people welcome newcomers, take
great pride in the country’s tradition
as a nation of immigrants, and are
committed to the ideas of diversity
and tolerance, there is much to
build on.


Forum Results:

Toward a Common
Ground for Action
Far from turning their backs on
immigrants, participants who took up
the “New Challenges of American
Immigration” in National Issues
Forums in 2003-2005 saw great benefits from newcomers, saying immigrants and their families enrich this
country socially and economically.
New arrivals are generally family-oriented, forum participants said, with
admirable values, a strong work ethic,
and a deep desire to improve their lot.
A typical report came from a moderator in Boonville, Missouri, who said
participants there “saw immigration
historically as a source of the country’s strength.”
Many NIF participants were firstor second-generation Americans,
while others described the struggles
their grandparents or great-grandparents had overcome in establishing
themselves in this country. A woman
in Seattle talked about her parents
coming from the Philippines when
she was three months old, saying “I
come from a family of immigrants.”
A man in Scottsdale, Arizona, said his
Mexican-born mother still does not
speak English but that he and his
siblings who were born in the U.S. all
have solid careers after graduating
from college. Long Island high-school
students reminisced about why their
ancestors came to the U.S., mentioning job opportunities, political and
religious freedom, and family reunification.

A great many NIF participants
saw the country as a melting pot, a
mixture of different ethnic and racial
groups that gives it a personality,
diversity, and strength of character
unmatched by any other. A moderator
from Moorhead, Minnesota, said her
group felt that “American culture is a
great blend of ingredients.” A man in
a Mesa, Arizona, forum said, “One of
[this country’s] founding values … is
that we are a melting pot; we accept
all faiths, all races.” People in other
forums saw the country more as a tapestry or mosaic. A woman from
Charlottesville, Virginia, said people
in the U.S. are part of “a crazy quilt.”
But whether viewing the U.S. as a
melting pot or a quilt, NIF participants returned to one theme again
and again: “The United States is a
nation of immigrants.”
Without ignoring this country’s
long history of slavery, racial discrimination, and treatment of Native
Americans, many participants said
America’s founding, by people fleeing
religious persecution, was rooted in
the idea of tolerance, a tradition that
deepens and grows even as we continue to struggle with prejudice. The
struggle facing Latinos today is not
unique, a Hispanic man in Scottsdale,
Arizona, said, adding, “The Chinese
came over here, busted their tails
building the railroads, and [the nonChinese living here] still hated them.”
A woman in a Seattle forum described

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

November 2005

7


Although Germans had an
extremely difficult time here after
the first World War, as you can
imagine, and also after the second, my family—being white,
Anglo-Saxon, Protestant—had
an easier time assimilating

what happened to her grandparents
from Germany:
Although Germans had an extremely
difficult time here after the first World
War, as you can imagine, and also
after the second, 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.

[and] … did not face the same
problems as people who are

Becoming an “American”

black or Spanish. I’m fully

Forum participants were not
concerned that new arrivals would
separate themselves or live in ethnic
enclaves. Again and again, they said
that, even though immigrants might
live apart at first, their children and
grandchildren will rapidly assimilate
just as earlier waves of immigrants
have done. However, participants
also wanted immigrants to embrace
American values—and the most
important step toward becoming an
American was to learn English.
Immigrants should learn English
for a variety of reasons. A woman in
El Paso, Texas, said that when “people
got off the boat [in the past], they did
two things: they got a library card
and they signed up for English classes
at night. And then they got a job.”
A woman in Sumter, South Carolina,
said immigrants “need to see the importance of one [national] language”
that unifies the country. Forum participants in Charlottesville, Virginia,
offered a third reason, saying English
is important so that immigrants can
read signs and understand warnings.
In Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Des
Moines, Iowa, participants said up to
60 different languages are spoken in
their local public schools.
Interestingly, many recent immigrants, including a great many
Latinos, agreed that new arrivals
should quickly learn English. A
Georgetown, Delaware, woman who

aware of that.

Participants also wanted immigrants 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

8


arrived eight years ago put it this
way: “Language definitely opened up
the door for my brothers and me to be
part of and engage in this society,” she
said. At the same time, most people
who filled out the post-forum questionnaire, opposed the total elimination of bilingual education.
A few participants expressed concern about the increasing diversity
that accompanies immigration, saying
newcomers are reshaping the culture
instead of assimilating. A man from
West Islip, New York, said that while
“diversity is America and America
is diversity … a concentration of a
certain racial group isn’t good. There
needs to be a balance.” A woman in
El Paso, Texas, said:
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].
But the prevailing sentiment by far
was that “becoming an American” did
not mean denying one’s heritage or
cultural traditions. Some called ethnic
holidays a cause for celebration, not a
celebration of division, adding that
the idea of a melting pot did not
mean losing a sense of who we are or
where we came from. In Rindge, New
Hampshire, participants said that
while the cultural “melting” should
occur as soon as possible, special holidays, cultural events, and a family’s
heritage and history should never
be lost. Participants overwhelmingly
affirmed the importance of racial,
ethnic, and cultural differences, saying
they enjoyed learning about and
exploring other traditions, arts and
crafts, music, histories, and most of
all, foods. A woman in Rapid City,
South Dakota, said, “We have so
many things to learn from each
other.” A man in Salt Lake City, Utah,


proudly described how his area
celebrates diversity:
We have October Fest up in Snowbird,
the Greek festival downtown, Cinco de
Mayo in Vail. Every school has a
multi-cultural assembly, black awareness month, Hispanic-American
month, Asian-American month. [In
the Salt Lake City area] we recognize
and even promote diversity.

The Impact of Immigration
A number of participants discussed
the contributions people from other
countries make to the U.S. Some
stressed the economic value of bilingual citizens, with a woman in
Panama City, Florida, saying, “We
need to be thinking globally; we’re
an international market now.” A
woman in West Islip, New York, said
her mother’s company recruits people
who can speak English and Spanish.
Others talked about shrinking borders
for business, saying a diverse population makes the U.S. more competitive
in a global economy.
As participants deliberated, it was
clear that they saw immigrants as
family-oriented people who work
hard and have admirable core values.
A woman in Salt Lake City, Utah,
said, “We had Mexican immigrants
living with my family when we lived
in Idaho.… I’ve never seen people
work harder in my life.” A man in
Panama City, Florida, who had supervised a construction crew of 23
Mexicans said, “They were the hardest working people I’d ever met.”
More generally, immigrants were
seen as morally upstanding, religious
people who honor their parents and
teach their children right from wrong.
A moderator from Centerville, Ohio,
said her group agreed that immigrants
“exemplify what is most positive in
our society—hard work and family.”
A man in a forum in Rapid City,
South Dakota, said, “They’re good

[people].” In Moorhead, Minnesota,
participants said immigrants respect
their elders and appreciate educational opportunities.

Different Types of Immigrants
In most forums, people talked
about immigrants as if they were a
single group, without realizing that
there are different classifications.
In addition, participants’ views
were influenced by where they live.
Participants in the Southwest focused
on illegal immigrants while in Seattle,
participants mainly talked about
newcomers from Asia. Migrant or
seasonal workers were the principal
topic in Georgetown, Delaware, an
agricultural area and large poultry
producer, while in Grand Rapids,
Michigan, participants focused on
the Sudanese the community has
taken in, and in Minnesota, participants talked about Hmong and other
Southeast-Asian people and Somalis
who have been relocated there. Iowa
participants, on the other hand, said
their state has a “welcome mat” out
for new arrivals because native-born
residents continue moving out in
record numbers.
As they listened to other people’s
views and considered information
provided in the course of the forum,
participants expressed different views
about various immigrant groups.
Most said the country is admitting
about the right number of family
immigrants. While there was little call
to increase that number, neither did
many want to reduce it. A woman in
El Paso, Texas, said, “It’s probably
a sound basis for immigration that a
family is able to come in, rather than
one wage-earner that may get into a
lot of trouble because his family’s
not there to anchor them.” Similarly,
a man in Salt Lake City, Utah, said:

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.

November 2005

9


I don’t think [family immigrants are]
the problem. These people have a foundation in the United States. And their
family is more than willing to put
them up in jobs and school and to educate them and teach them the culture,
[and help them] to assimilate.

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

10


Participants were proud of the
country’s tradition of taking in political refugees, and many favored
increasing the number. Some wanted
to take in more people fleeing economic deprivation as well as political
persecution, especially from places
like Sudan. Some also wanted the
U.S. to treat all potential refugees
equally and not give preference to,
for example, Cubans over Haitians.
Many participants favored admitting more skilled workers: medical
personnel, engineers, skilled professionals, workers with advanced
degrees, and investors who plan to
open businesses that will employ
U.S. workers. Skilled workers provide essential services and make a
significant social and economic
contribution, participants said.
“We’re lucky to have them,” said a
participant from Troy, New York.
Participants in Sumter, South
Carolina, and Centerville, Ohio, talked
about the need for more health-care
workers in underserved, rural areas.
In the post-forum questionnaires,
participants favored letting in more
skilled workers by a margin of about
three-to-one, although during the
deliberation some voiced concern that
we are not sending enough of our
own young citizens to graduate
schools to train for certain professions,
such as engineering and medicine.
At the same time, we heard other
voices. Some participants said immigrants receive preferential treatment
in terms of social services. A woman
in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said,
“African Americans … feel foreigners
are treated better than American

blacks.” Participants in Dayton, Ohio;
Georgetown, Delaware; and West
Islip, New York, voiced similar views.
Others said illegal immigrants with
few skills will accept very low wages
and thereby take jobs away from
Americans struggling to work their
way up. Participants in Charlottesville, Virginia, complained about
recruiters traveling to the Philippines
to recruit nurses when employers are
cutting nurses’ benefits in Virginia,
and a number of participants were
concerned about a “brain drain” that
“robs” a native country of some of its
most talented and skilled citizens.

Illegal Immigration
The most controversial issue in
these forums involved people entering the country illegally. Some
complained that illegal immigrants
use social services at the expense of
taxpayers. An Arizona man grumbled
that “our biggest problem is … illegals … draining the [social] services
[and] not contributing to the society.”
Without acknowledging the taxes that
illegal immigrants do pay (i.e. under
false ID numbers to Social Security
and Medicare), participants at a senior
center in St. Cloud, Minnesota, echoed
this view, saying illegal immigrants
use the local public schools and the
health-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 immigrants and seasonal workers send so
much money back home, they have
little left for their own needs, leaving
them without auto or health insurance. As a result, one woman said,
immigrants drive without insurance,
and if they’re in a car accident, cannot
pay the cost of repair or may even
leave the scene rather than risk being
deported. Summarizing the views of


several participants, a Cedar Rapids,
Iowa, man said, “This country has
limits to what we can afford; we’re
not unlimited in that we can just
allow anybody in the world to come
here because they’re in need.”
Some were cynical about the
government’s willingness to crack
down on illegal immigration, saying
corporations profit from cheap labor.
In Sumter, South Carolina, participants said the companies that hire
illegal immigrants need to be held
accountable. “They treat [illegal immigrants] like field hands,” a man there
said. “They’re not paying them the
minimum wage.” An El Paso, Texas,
man said Hondurans who work in
Pennsylvania picking produce are
recruited by a local man who promises them jobs as long as they can get
there.
While many participants wanted
to cut, some drastically, the number of
illegal immigrants entering the country each year, most were at a loss as to
how to do it. Some favored tighter
border controls. A Utah man wanted
the National Guard to patrol the
Mexican border, until someone else
pointed out that the Guard is now
fighting two wars; only a few saw a
wall or fence along the border as a
serious proposal. Nor did many warm
to the idea of citizen-led efforts to
curb illegal immigration. Finally,
the idea of working with Mexico to
improve that country’s economy
appealed to some participants, including a man in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, who
said, “I don’t care how much money
you have for enforcement—until you
can address the reasons why people
want to come to this country you’re
not going to solve the problem.” But
improving the Mexican economy,
others said, is at best a remedy that
will take years.

As people deliberated and listened
to other points of view, the thinking
of many participants, including even
some who wanted to drastically cut
down on illegal immigration, became
more nuanced. The reason so many
illegal immigrants come to this country is because they have few alternatives, participants said. A man in
Georgetown, Delaware, said:
The stricter [the U.S. is], the more
undocumented or what some call
them illegal aliens [will enter the
country]. People are seeking work,
they’re seeking opportunity. That’s
the … underside of … tightening
things up.
As they deliberated, more and
more participants in forum after
forum observed that immigrants provide valuable or even essential labor
at bargain rates to agriculture, small
businesses, and even homeowners.
A woman in Mesa, Arizona, said, “We
need really cheap labor. These people
have to be here for us to live the way
we live.” A man in Panama City,
Florida, said, “The lazy ones aren’t
coming across the border,” while a
Seattle, Washington, man described his
experience with immigrant workers:
They do fantastic work. A couple
of them wound up staying in my
grandmother’s house … for maybe a
month and a half … They actually
remodeled her kitchen [and] … saved
my grandmother a ton of money.
Others said immigrants take on
jobs that Americans will not. “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?” asked a man from
Georgetown, Delaware. A woman
in Charleston, West Virginia, asked,
“Why do we get so upset about immigrants ‘taking our jobs’ if we haven’t
taken them?” Others talked about a
lax work ethic, especially among the

This country has limits to what
we can afford; we’re not unlimited 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 reasons 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?

November 2005

11


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

12


younger generation, a man in Sumter,
South Carolina, said. “Immigrants
apply themselves to the job because
they want to get to the top.”
Some pointed out that low-wage
workers keep prices low for both
consumers and businesses. If we
eliminate illegal immigration, said a
man in Sumter, South Carolina, prices
will rise dramatically. A man in
Charleston, West Virginia, said “There
was a time in our history when we
needed … cheap labor. We’re at a time
like that again.”
But there were other indirect outcomes from illegal immigrants that
participants in the forums noted positively. Some said that undocumented
workers pay sales tax and often Social
Security tax, which they will never
collect. Contributed indirectly, such
money helps alleviate this country’s
long-term problem with that program.
Others pointed out that immigrants
are eligible for far fewer social services
than is commonly believed. And
beyond the economic issues, many
expressed humanitarian sentiments
and compassion. In Georgetown,
Delaware, some were concerned
about landlords exploiting migrants
who don’t understand their rights
and have nowhere to turn for help.
A student in Charleston, West
Virginia, wondered why the government doesn’t go after employers
who “exploit illegal immigrants by
providing low, non-living wages?”
In a number of cases, participants
expressed sympathy for those who
risked so much to come to this country. A high-school student in West
Islip, New York, said an illegal immigrant he worked with in a gardening
job “walked 12 hours across the
desert, then hitchhiked to New York”
to take it. Even in the Southwest,
where anti-illegal immigrant sentiment was most pronounced, partici-

pants expressed compassion for those
trying to get across the border. A
Scottsdale, Arizona, man said, “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!” Others
admired those who would risk everything to come to this country, such as
a woman who carried her children
across the desert. Even a San Diego
woman, who had wanted to close the
border to all immigrants, legal and
illegal, for at least ten years, also said:
The people that have immigrated here
are already here … So personally I
would probably help them out because
if they’re having problems [because]
they’re not leaving; they’re going to
continue to have a problem.

Terrorism
A 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 our
lives and our safety, and I think that is
one of the problems that surrounds
this particular issue.” Fears about
immigration are always around, said
a Mesa, Arizona, man, “but what 9/11
did was make it more concentrated.”
But what was striking about these
forums was how rarely terrorism was
mentioned. In a great many cases, it
did not come up at all. When it was
discussed, participants often talked
about not overreacting or letting the
“politics of fear” take over. A moderator from Grand Rapids, Michigan,
said that while people there felt insecure after 9/11, they were also afraid
of losing basic freedoms. Others
pointed out that the 9/11 terrorists
were in this country legally and that
restricting immigration would not
affect the problem of those who come
into the country to commit terrorist
acts. Still others said the terrorist
threat comes from Muslim extremists


and Middle Easterners, not from
Latinos crossing the desert. And some
worried about the international
effects, with a Mesa, Arizona, man
saying if the U.S. restricts immigration
in its efforts “to deal with [terrorism],
you’re sending a signal to the
rest of the world that folks are not
wanted here.”

A Guest-worker Program
When the idea of a guest-worker
program came up, few clearly understood the formal proposals that
political leaders have suggested. In
a small number of forums, however,
whether or not participants actually
understood the idea completely, many
supported or even suggested such a
concept, saying a Visa or guest-worker program sounded like a promising
way to reduce the number of people
crossing the border illegally. Such
thinking appeared to be driven by
dissatisfaction with what participants
saw as an apparently unenforceable
immigration policy at odds with
the enticements offered for relatively
cheap 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; Grand
Rapids, Michigan; Georgetown,
Delaware; and Rindge, New Hampshire, also reacted positively to the
idea, with one saying it “would help
people come out of the shadows.”
On the other hand, some participants were cynical about the proposal,
including people in Charlottesville,
Virginia, who saw a guest-worker
program as a political ploy designed
to get Latino votes. Still others said
it would only “reward” those who are
already in the U.S. illegally at a time
when other immigration applicants
are turned away or caught up in the
bureaucracy.

Regional Costs
As people deliberated about the
issue, many came to the view that the
country should provide special help
to states and communities that take in
large numbers of immigrants. In the
post-forum questionnaire, participants
favored providing financial relief to
areas hard pressed by immigration
by a margin of 55 percent to 31 percent. In Athens, Georgia, participants
said the federal government should
especially help the public schools
whenever there is a large influx of
newcomers. A woman in El Paso,
Texas, talked about the burden on
hospitals that treat large numbers of
illegal immigrants, with a woman
there adding, “Only the federal
budget has [enough] money that
can help us along the border.”

The Role of the Media
An issue that came up in a small
number of forums involved the role of
the news media. As they deliberated
about the issue and came to see it in
greater depth, some participants complained that the media tends to oversimplify the issue. A man in Seattle,
Washington, said “[This] issue is far
deeper and [more] multi-leveled
than media sources would have us
believe.” A woman in that forum said
the 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 the
media, you’d think we have an unemployment problem because there are
too many immigrants.… [And that is]
simply not true.”

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 communities 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 unemployment problem because there
are too many immigrants.…
[And that is] simply not true.
— Panama City, Florida

November 2005

13


Highlights from:

Special Outreach
Forums

Participants acknowledged it is
not necessary to learn English to
function socially in that community. 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.

14


In 2004, special “outreach
forums” were held in Missouri,
Texas, New York, Michigan, and
California to explore ways to bring
more diverse groups of people to
the National Issues Forums. Using
the same issue book, these forums
took particular care to reach out
to immigrant communities, ultimately involving large numbers of
bilingual and Spanish-speaking
participants.
Two forums in El Paso, Texas,
were attended by large numbers
of recent immigrants, including a
number of undocumented workers.
Participants acknowledged it is not
necessary to learn English to function socially in that community. 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.”
In Long Island, New York,
three forums were held with recent
immigrants and others, including
some undocumented workers.
Here, recent arrivals felt that the
U.S. does not always live up to its
heritage and reputation for tolerance and fairness. Immigrants also
talked about limited opportunities

to learn English. At two forums, there
was discussion about how immigrants
tend to “group” together and not
learn English because they can easily
work and live among their own people. Participants also discussed the
idea that Latinos “may assimilate less
quickly” than did groups in the past
because so many of them share a common language, and some reported
leading “double lives” as they struggle to maintain their native culture
while working within the U.S. system.
In a forum in Michigan, newcomers said the government should “provide more information and outreach.”
A recent immigrant from Mexico also
said, “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. Some
illegal immigrants also discussed
how they were planning to return to
their native countries after they had
earned enough money. In Michigan,
a woman in a bilingual forum said


most Americans “don’t realize that
people are risking their lives to
come here.”
Finally, some moderators reported
tension between African Americans
and Hispanics, with some African
Americans saying Hispanics are
getting jobs more easily than they are
or that society is more accepting of
newcomers than it has been of African
Americans. There was particular
tension about job competition with
those who are undocumented. A
moderator from one of the Michigan
forums said, “There are strong
emotions around issues of race relations—fear of the unfamiliar and of
rejection.” While the forums suggest
that the idea of hostility towards
immigrants may have been exaggerated, these unusually frank and
deliberately gathered multi-ethnic
forums made clear the existence of a
kind of mutual tension between this
“fear of the unfamiliar” on the part of
citizens and “of rejection” among the
immigrants.

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 participants generally also said was essential.
These immigrants were willing to
work hard in order to succeed. Finally,
many saw the U.S. as the land of
opportunity and hoped that their
children would become full-fledged
Americans, while retaining the essential aspects of their native culture.

Some moderators reported tension between African Americans
and Hispanics, with some African
Americans saying Hispanics are
getting jobs more easily than they
are or that society is more accepting 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 participants generally also said was
essential.

November 2005

15


The Nature of Public Thinking:

How Citizens Approach
Complex Policy Issues
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 exceptionally accurate snapshot of
public opinion. But with a complex policy issue like immigration,
public opinion is more likely to
be in motion than fixed.

Many forum participants connected 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

16


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 exceptionally accurate snapshot
of public opinion. But with a complex
policy issue like immigration, public
opinion is more likely to be in motion
than fixed. Dan Yankelovich has
written that public opinion about
such issues moves through a series
of stages, from initial awareness in
which people learn about an issue to
a final stage of judgment in which
people understand the issue, having
had time and opportunity to consider
what to do about it after weighing the
tradeoffs or costs and consequences
of different courses of action through
a process of deliberation.
Although participants in National
Issues Forums cannot reach a final
judgment about what to do about
an issue in three hours or less, they
begin that journey. Through the use
of a neutral, balanced framework that
introduces distinctively different
approaches for dealing with an issue,
along with the tradeoffs, participants
publicly deliberate while approaching
an issue realistically in different
ways. The result is that, while public
opinion polls tell us what people
think, National Issues Forums enable
us to explore people’s thinking, that is,

how people think about an issue as
they grapple with it.
Here we analyze the thinking of
a diverse group of more than 1,073
participants from 41 states plus the
District of Columbia as they deliberated about the issue of immigration
for up to three hours.

A Personal Connection
Many forum participants connected to the issue based on their personal
experience. Some were immigrants
themselves. Others said their parents
or grandparents were first-generation
newcomers, often arriving in this
country with little or nothing, including no knowledge of English, before
succeeding in raising a family and
becoming productive citizens. One
man said, “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.” Many talked
about their interactions with immigrants who are their friends, neighbors, co-workers, employees or
employers, or people they encounter
day to day.
Participants also connected to
this issue in terms of where they live.
While a great many participants


admired how hard immigrants work
and their strong family values, some
talked about what they saw as the
negative effects of immigration on
their community. In Georgetown,
Delaware, and Grand Rapids,
Michigan, participants said immigrants are taking jobs that used to
be filled by African Americans—
although it was not clear how many
African Americans wanted all of
those jobs today. Some, especially in
the Southwest, complained about
the cost of social services for illegal
immigrants. In other locations, participants talked about refugees—Kurds,
Bosnians, Hmong, Haitians, and
Poles—that were relocated to their
communities. And in some locations,
including Boonville, Missouri, and
Charleston, West Virginia, moderators
said the issue had not really impacted
the community.

National and Global Connections
As people deliberated and considered the views of others, their
perspectives often expanded from a
personal to a national or even global
point of view. For example, many
favored helping locales that take in
large numbers of immigrants. In
some forums, people discussed global
aspects 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” immigrants’ native countries of some of
their most educated and talented individuals. A student in West Islip, New
York, warned that since we or our
ancestors were all immigrants, overly
strict limits on immigration would
send the wrong message to the world.

Long-term Considerations
When most people initially consider a complex public issue, they
generally think about short-term,
immediate solutions to the issue’s
impact on them and their community.
But when they publicly deliberate
about an issue, people inevitably
begin to consider an issue’s long-term
implications. Accordingly, while many
emphasized the importance of speaking English, they usually also said
that the issue will work itself out over
the long term. A moderator from
Georgetown, Delaware, reported how
his group felt: the first generation
limps by, the second speaks both
English and their parents’ native language fluently, and the third tends to
leave their ethnic language behind
altogether.
Participants’ views were endorsed
by Dan Griswold of the Cato Institute
after watching videotaped excerpts of
the forums. “One citizen mentioned
the Irish,” he said. “They seemed
very strange when they came over
here.… They felt the same way with
the Italians, and the Russian Jews,
and the Poles. They were considered
different races at the time. But they
[all] learned English. And in particular their children learned English.”

In Georgetown, Delaware, and
Grand Rapids, Michigan, participants said immigrants are taking
jobs that used to be filled by
African Americans.

As people deliberated and considered 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.

Finding Middle Ground
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 and
that, to a noticeable extent, public
deliberation tends to reduce polarization. For the most part, people in the
forums did not gravitate toward

November 2005

17


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 understand 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 borders” was balanced against the
benefits of taking in large numbers of low-wage, highly motivated workers.

We are seemingly unable to pay
the difference between fairness
and cheapness, and I find that
disturbing.”
—Cedar Rapids, Iowa

18


extreme positions or advance the kind
of rhetoric that permeates some of
the national dialogue. Instead, participants tended to be reflective, while
taking in new information and the
opinions of others. A moderator in
Troy, New York, said that while there
was great interest in the issue, the
discussion was less acrimonious than
he had expected. In the post-forum
questionnaire, NIF participants were
far less inclined than the public as
a whole either to strongly favor or
to strongly oppose a number of
immigration measures. Instead, 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.
Upon viewing taped excerpts
of National Issues Forums, Doris
Meissner, of the Migration Policy
Institute and formerly Immigration
and Naturalization Services (INS)
Commissioner said, “These people [in
the NIF forums] do understand, and
they understand really more clearly
than an awful lot of our political class,
it would seem to me.”

Balanced
Forum participants tended to
weigh the issue carefully. Concern
about “losing control of our borders”
was balanced against the benefits of
taking in large numbers of low-wage,
highly motivated workers who play
a vital role in the economy. Many
talked about seasonal or agricultural
workers, without whom crops would
be far more expensive or perhaps not
harvested at all. Others talked about
illegal immigrants in the building
trades, especially construction, and

in the underground economy. When
deciding what to do about this issue,
the positives, participants said, need
to be taken into consideration along
with the negatives, such as the costs
of providing social services.
Many were alarmed about the
cost of social services for illegal immigrants, but others pointed out that
undocumented workers who pay
taxes to Social Security will never
collect it. Also, while some participants complained about the cost of
educating the children of illegal immigrants, others looked at the return
on that investment; a woman in St.
Cloud, Minnesota, said, for example,
that while the first generation of
immigrants may be burdensome,
they add value to society and that
“once you get to the third and fourth
generations, they really add value.”
As the forums progressed, participants wrestled with the complexities
of the issue, including the pros and
cons of limited resources. Many
said some illegal immigrants will
always get through since the country’s
borders are so vast and permeable.
A moderator in Grand Rapids,
Michigan, said people in a forum
there “struggled” with the issue,
believing a balance must be struck
between the numbers of immigrants
admitted and our ability to help those
in greatest need, especially refugees.
Rich discussion involved consumer
prices and wages for undocumented
immigrants, with a woman in Cedar
Rapids, Iowa, saying “We are seemingly unable to pay the difference
between fairness and cheapness, and
I find that disturbing.” According
to former INS Commissioner Doris
Meissner, “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.”

Humane
Far from being indifferent, the
American people have traditionally
been humane, a trait that becomes
more pronounced when people
deliberate. No matter where they
stood on the issue, forum participants empathized with immigrants,
admired the courage it took them to
get here, respected their work ethic
and attitudes toward family, and were
concerned they might be exploited.
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.

Pragmatic
Americans have historically been
a pragmatic people, but this quality
becomes even more pronounced when
they deliberate. When talking about
the importance of immigrants learning English, they did not want
children to fall hopelessly behind.
Similarly, participants who were most
concerned about illegal immigration
still did not necessarily think putting
the military on the border was a
workable solution, especially at this
time. A man in Cedar Rapids, Iowa,
said “We’re a nation of immigrants,
but most importantly we’re a nation
of laws.”

After watching taped excerpts
from these forums, Richard Harwood
summed it up: “I think that what we
saw on these tapes today was the
American public’s ability and willingness to engage, to wrestle with these
challenges, to acknowledge where
they’re contradicting themselves, and
to try and figure out to the best of
their ability with the information that
they have how we might be able to
move forward.”

“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 deliberate … far from being indifferent,
the American people have traditionally 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 immigration 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.”

November 2005

19


The Effects of Deliberation:

The Impact of Forums
on People’s Thinking
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 wanting 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.

20


Near the end of most National
Issues Forums, participants are asked
what impact the deliberation had on
their thinking. 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 wanting to learn more.
1) Many participants said the forum
helped them realize that the
issue is more complex than they
originally thought. A man in
Poughkeepsie, New York, said he
came to an “increased awareness
of [the issue’s] complexity as well
as the need [to accept] tradeoffs
[and make] compromises in formulating solutions.” A woman in
Seattle, Washington, said she was
“exposed to thinking about a more
difficult subject than most of us
concern ourselves with” on a dayto-day basis, adding that the forum
was “most enlightening.” A Seattle
man said “I am more confused—
I can see validity to some things I
may not have before, and less
validity to others.”

2) People left the forums with an
enhanced understanding of other
points of view. Most forums were
attended by a diverse group of
people, including first-, secondand third-generation immigrants
from all over the world. In addition
to those coming from the Middle
East, Africa, Asia, and Australia,
a great many Latin Americans
attended these National Issues
Forums. This wealth of diversity,
along with people’s willingness
to share their stories, led to rich,
full, informative deliberations. A
woman in Georgetown, Delaware,
said that although immigration
“remains a very complex issue, the
forum opened my eyes to different
points of view, especially from
minorities, specifically African
Americans.” A Hofstra University
student said, “The best part of
the discussion was the large number [in attendance] who were
immigrants or direct descendants
of immigrants … [which] put a
[human] face on the issue [and
gave me] a first-person point
of view.”


3) The forums left people stewing
about the issue and wanting to
learn more. Immigration is not an
issue that can be easily solved,
participants said; it will require
more listening, thinking, and
deliberating. A man in Rapid City,
South Dakota, said we would not
be able to solve the issue quickly
because there are too many options
—a reality, he added, that is the
“tradeoff of democracy.” A student
in West Islip, New York, said “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.”
Participants in Moorhead,
Minnesota, came out of that forum
saying they did not have enough
information, adding there’s a
need for a lot more education on
this issue in their community.
Summing up the views of many
participants, a man in Cedar
Rapids, Iowa, said “The more we
talked, the less I realized that I
know. But I’m really motivated
now to learn more.”

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.

November 2005

21


Appendix A:

National Survey
and Post-forum
Questionnaires
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.

22


To compare the views of forum
participants to those of the general
public, Braun Research, on behalf of
Doble Research, conducted telephone
interviews with 403 randomly sampled Americans, asking them the
same questions that forum participants answered in post-forum questionnaires. Since forum participants
do not comprise a random sample,
sampling error between the two
groups cannot be determined with
statistical precision. However, the
results suggest some interesting
trends in the different ways the two
groups approached the issue.
First, however, the results show a
number of striking similarities. Both
forum participants and the public
rejected ending bilingual education
programs in the schools if that made
it harder for immigrant children to do
well at first. Only 27 percent of forum
participants and 29 percent of the
public were in favor and about twothirds of both groups opposed. Both
groups also felt that immigrants have
a generally positive economic impact
(73 percent among forum participants
and 64 percent among the public) and
opposed reducing the number of
immigrants admitted each year if this
meant keeping families apart and
turning away refugees (65 percent
among participants and 61 percent
among the public).

There was a modest difference
between the two groups on one question: forum participants were a bit
more likely to agree that racial and
ethnic diversity is a source of the
country’s strength, but both groups
overwhelmingly endorsed the statement, with 83 percent of forum participants and 71 percent of the public in
agreement.
On some other questions, there
seemed, at first glance, to be little difference in the response patterns of the
two groups. However, a closer look
reveals a more complex and suggestive pattern. For instance, even though
about two-thirds of both groups agree
that current levels of immigration
strain social services, only 23 percent
of forum participants “strongly” agree
compared to 47 percent of the public.
Similarly, about 70 percent among
both groups agree that the country
should maintain a computerized system to track foreign students and
workers, but only 37 percent of forum
participants are “strongly” in favor
compared to 59 percent of the public.
Also, while large majorities of both
participants and the public believe
that immigrants should be required to
learn English, the difference in the
percentage “strongly” voicing this
view is again pronounced, with 45
percent of forum participants “strongly” agreeing compared to 72 percent


of the public. These results may suggest that, after hearing other points
of view, forum participants may be
less inclined to take an extreme position and more inclined to look for a
common-ground solution.
A third area of comparison
involves questions in which there
are sharp differences between forum
participants and the general public.
Participants were far less likely to
favor drastically reducing the number
of immigrants admitted into the
U.S. each year, with 33 percent in
favor, compared to 55 percent of the
public. Participants were also much
more likely to favor admitting more
refugees fleeing persecution (68
percent versus 47 percent) and providing financial relief to states with
especially large numbers of immigrants (55 percent versus 34 percent).
Additionally, the national survey
results indicate some strong differences between younger people and
older people in their attitudes towards
immigrants. In general, younger
people tend to be more accepting of
newcomers with, for example, 58 percent of people 65 and over agreeing
that the growing numbers of newcomers threaten American customs
and values versus only 18 percent of
people in the 18-30 age group.
Taken together, these results
suggest three things:
• 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—not
accepting but willing to consider—
measures to deal with a difficult
public issue that are at least tolerable to people with opposing views.
If this interpretation stands up, it

suggests that public deliberation
in National Issues Forums reduces
polarization, a result that has
important implications for a democratic society in an era when
people spend more and more time
“cocooning” or “bowling alone”
and getting their news from
sources that typically re-enforce
their own points of view.
• Third, forums lead people to
become more accepting of certain
tradeoffs to solve pressing and
complex public issues.
By publicly deliberating about an
issue for up to three hours, hearing
other people’s points of views, and
weighing the pros and cons and tradeoffs of various approaches, participants’ thinking on this complex issue
tended to become more flexible,
reflective, and more open. The public,
by contrast, tended to respond based
with initial, top-of-the-head reactions
that in some respects, were more
extreme. Additionally, the public
appeared to be less inclined to accept
tradeoffs or look for common ground
to deal with immigration.

These results may suggest that
after hearing other points of view,
forum participants may be less
inclined to take an extreme position 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 measures 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 tradeoffs to solve pressing and complex public issues.

The public appeared to be less
inclined to accept tradeoffs or
look for common ground to deal
with immigration.

November 2005

23


Appendix B:

National Survey and
Forum Questionnaires
Table 1
Questions in Which There Are Little or No Differences Between Responses
Discontinue bilingual language programs in schools, EVEN IF this makes it
harder for immigrant children to do well in school at first.

Total
Percent
“Strongly/Somewhat Favor”

Forum

27%

Survey

29%
Total
Percent

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

Forum

36%

Survey

30%
Total
Percent
“Strongly/Somewhat Agree”

Immigrants have a positive economic impact.

Forum

73%

Survey

64%
Total
Percent

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

Forum

46%

Survey

46%
Total
Percent

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

Forum
Survey

24


24%
33%


Table 2
Questions in Which There Are Moderate Differences Between Responses
Total
Percent

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

Forum

77%

Survey

87%
Total
Percent

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

Forum

83%

Survey

71%
Total
Percent

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

Forum

68%

Survey

74%
Total
Percent

Current levels of immigration strain already overburdened
social services.

Forum

62%

Survey

69%

Percentages may not add up due to rounding.

November 2005

25


Table 3
Questions in Which There Are Sharp Differences Between Responses
Total
Percent

Drastically reduce the number of immigrants we admit now.

Forum

33%

Survey

55%
Total
Percent

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

Forum

42%

Survey

59%
Total
Percent

Admit more refugees fleeing from religious and political persecution.

Forum

68%

Survey

47%
Total
Percent

The main terrorist threat comes from persons arriving from abroad.

Forum

47%

Survey

65%
Total
Percent

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

Forum

55%

Survey

34%
Total
Percent

Admit more skilled workers to fill critical occupations.

Forum
Survey


26


72%
59%


Appendix C:

Post-forum
Questionnaire Results
Table 4
Do you agree or disagree with the statements below?

Total
Percent
“Agree”

Total
Percent
“Disagree”

Total
Percent
“Not Sure”/NA

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

46%

47%

7%

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

47%

45%

8%

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

83%

12%

5%

Immigrants have a positive economic impact on
this country.

73%

19%

8%

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

62%

27%

11%

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

42%

50%

8%


November 2005

27


Table 5
Total
Percent
“Favor”

Total
Percent
“Oppose”

Total
Percent
“Not Sure”/NA

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

68%

27%

5%

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

77%

20%

3%

We should admit more refugees fleeing from religious and
political persecution.

68%

21%

10%

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

72%

21%

7%

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

33%

58%

10%

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

55%

31%

14%

Total
Percent
“Favor”

Total
Percent
“Oppose”

Total
Percent
“Not Sure”/NA

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

27%

66%

7%

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

36%

48%

16%

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

24%

65%

11%

Do you favor or oppose these actions?

Table 6
Do you favor or oppose the statements listed below?


28



Table 7
How many National Issues Forums have you attended, including this one?

Percent

1-3

81%

4-6

6%

7 or more

3%

Not sure

5%

No answer

6%


November 2005

29


Appendix D:

Demographics
Gender

Survey
Percent of Total

Forum
Percent of Total

Female

51%

52%

Male

49%

44%

No answer

0%

5%

Ethnicity

Survey
Percent of Total

Forum
Percent of Total

11%

6%

Asian American

3%

3%

Hispanic

8%

8%

Native American

3%

3%

White/Caucasian

73%

73%

2%

4%

African American

Other

Survey
Percent of Total

Forum
Percent of Total

–

19%

18-30

25%

31%

31-45

32%

9%

46-64

28%

16%

65 or older

15%

21%

No answer

–

4%

Age
17 or younger


30



Appendix E:

Methodology
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 communities
across the country. Forum participants represented in this report came from the
following states and communities:

41 States
& DC

Shaded States = Where forum participants live

National Issues
Forums Methodology
In preparing this analysis of people’s
thinking about The New Challenges of
American Immigration: What Should We
Do? Doble Research drew on a sample
of forums in 41 states plus the District of
Columbia from the hundreds of forums
that took place across the country. Six
research methods were used:

Moderator Interviews
We conducted telephone interviews
with moderators who led forums in 23
locations. We asked them to describe
participants’ main concerns, their starting
points on the issue, the costs and conse-

quences they took into consideration,
and the shared understanding or common
ground for action that emerged. The
forums were held at:
1. Center for Undergraduate
Research, Athens, GA
2. Centerville Public Library, Centerville,
OH
3. Clemson University, Sumter, SC
4. Cooper Center for Public Service,
Charlottesville, VA
5. Donnelly Ctr. of Aquinas College,
Grand Rapids, MI
6. Franklin Pierce College, Rindge, NH
7. Heritage Hjemkomst Interpretive Ctr.,
Moorhead, MN
8. Hudson Valley Comm. College,
Troy, NY
November 2005

31


9. Immanuel Lutheran Assembly Hall,
Boonville, MO
10. LaPorte County Public Library,
LaPorte, IN
11. McHenry County College, Crystal
Lake, IL

interviewed two participants and the moderator after each forum. These forums were
held at:
1. Emmanuel Episcopal Church, Parish
Hall, Rapid City, SD

12. Mesa Community College, Mesa, AZ

2. Florida State University, Panama
City, FL

13. Middlesex County College, Edison, NJ

3. Sumter Citizens Coalition, Sumter, SC

14. Montgomery College, Rockville, MD

4. West Islip High School, West Islip, NY

15. Montgomery County Library,
Blacksburg, VA

Videotaped Forums

16. Natl. Society for Experiential
Education Conf., Miami, FL

We analyzed five videotaped forums.
1. Cedar Rapids, IA

17. Sorenson Inst. for Pol. Leadership,
Charlottesville, VA

2. El Paso, TX

18. Spanish Christian Reformed Church,
Grand Rapids, MI

4. Mesa, AZ

19. State of Iowa Alcoholic Beverages
Div., Ankeny, IA
20. St. Paul’s Episcopal Church,
Georgetown, DE

3. Georgetown, DE
5. Rindge, NH

Online Deliberation
We analyzed one online deliberation.

21. West Virginia Center for Civic Life,
Charleston, WV

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

22. Whitney Senior Center, St. Cloud, MN

Questionnaire Results

23. Wyatt Park Baptist Church, St. Joseph,
MO
Special thanks to the convenors and
moderators who shared their forum
reflections with us:
Barbara Brown, Joel Diemond,
Michael D’Innocenzo, Joni Doherty,
Connie Gahagan, Nancy Gansneder,
Trish Hatfield, Reverend Karl
Heimer, Ron Higginbotham, Melvin
Hines, Jr., Sandra Hodge, Terry Jack,
Liz Keegan, Dean Larkin, Bill
McGowan, Kevin McGowan,
Dennis Minzes, Karen Nitzkorski,
Carole Paterson, Cindy Pederson,
Bernie Ronan, Mario Rosa, Reena
Shetty, Rebecca Strong, Jim Walters,
David Wilkinson, Anne Wolford,
Ruth Yellowhawk, and Virginia
York. Also, special thanks to Milton
Hoffman Productions.

Forum Observations
We observed four National Issues
Forums, listening to initial concerns and
learning how deliberation influenced
people’s thinking. In addition, we
32


After a forum, participants were asked
to fill out a questionnaire that frames
the issue and identifies key tradeoffs for
different choices. We analyzed a total of
1073 post-forum questionnaires along
with a total of 403 telephone interviews
with a national probability sample of
American adults, 18 and over.

Research Forums
We conducted four research forums
or focus groups, each with a demographically representative cross section of up to
one dozen people. Sites were selected in
areas where immigration is an important
issue and where NIF forums had not been
held. The sessions paralleled NIF forums in
that participants viewed the starter video,
deliberated together about the three choices
for about three hours and filled out the
post-forum questionnaires. Findings were
similar to those in the NIF forums. The
research forums were held in:
1. San Diego, CA—February 23, 2005
2. Scottsdale, AZ—February 24, 2005
3. Salt Lake City, UT—June 1, 2005
4. Seattle, WA—June 2, 2005


National Survey
Methodology
Doble Research Associates engaged
Braun Research of Princeton, New Jersey,
to conduct a total of 403 telephone interviews with a national probability or
random sample of Americans between
June 28 and July 1, 2005. Details on the
design, execution, and analysis of the survey are discussed below. Braun Research
conducted 10-minute-long telephone
interviews with 403 randomly sampled
United States adult residents, age 18 and
over, yielding a sampling error of plus
or minus 4.9 percent.

Design and Data Collection Procedures
Sample Design
The sample was designed to represent
the U.S. adult population in telephone
households. The telephone samples were
provided by Braun Research and drawn
using standard list-assisted random digit
dialing (RDD) methodology.

Questionnaire Development
and Testing
The questionnaire was developed by
Doble Research Associates. To improve
the quality of the data, the questionnaire
was pre-tested with a small number of
respondents using RDD methodology by
Braun Research. The pre-test interviews
were monitored by Doble Research staff
and conducted using experienced interviewers who could best judge the quality
of the answers given and what questions
may have caused problems for the
respondents. One change was made to
the questionnaire after the pre-test, based
on the monitored pre-test interviews.

Contact Procedures
Interviews were conducted between
June 28 and July 1, 2005. As many as eight
attempts were made to contact every sampled telephone number. Samples were
released for interviewing in replicates,
which are representative sub-samples of
the larger sample. Using replicates to
control the release of sample ensures that
complete 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 respondents. Each household received at least
six evening calls in an attempt to find
someone at home. In each contacted
household, interviewers asked to speak
with the youngest male over 18 currently at home. If no male was available,
interviewers asked to speak with the
youngest female over 18. To qualify for
the interview, respondents had to be a
resident of the United States.

Weighting and Analysis
While weighting is generally used
in survey analysis to compensate for patterns of non-response that might bias
results, this sample of all adults was not
weighted to match U.S. parameters since
most key demographics fell within the
margin of error as confirmed by the 2000
U.S. census.

Verification
To verify the study, senior fieldwork
managers from Braun Research monitored
14.1 percent of the interviews as calls
were being made. In addition, Braun
Research randomly re-contacted 10 percent of the interviews. No re-contacted
respondents reported being unfamiliar
with the interviews.

Response Rate
The response rate estimates the percentage of all eligible respondents in the
sample that were ultimately interviewed.
We calculated it by taking the product
of two component rates.
Cooperation rate: the proportion of
contacted numbers at which consent
for an interview was at least initially
obtained, versus those who refused
was 38.2 percent.
Completion rate: the proportion of
initially cooperating and eligible
interviews that were completed was
96.4 percent.
Response rate: for this survey was
36.8 percent.

November 2005

33


Appendix F:

Forum Transcript Excerpts
An Example of Deliberation about English and Assimilation
El 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 border
than 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 America
and 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 some
basic 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, and
that’s a good thing, a positive thing, and an enriching thing. But the
core of our values doesn’t have to change as a result.
Male: You’ve got to examine why the people that come here from
other 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 history
of your family and where you came from, but there’s [also] no reason
to 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 soon
as 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 spoken
language in the country and I think those people that move here need
to learn that. But that doesn’t mean that they should lose the language
of their heritage and such. President Bush, when he was governor of
Texas talked about English Plus. We should have English because that’s
the 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 so
strong through TV, through movies that it overwhelms the immigrants’
children eventually. So I don’t think it’s a problem. They’re worried
about the Balkanization of the country, that it would threaten national
unity. I think that’s a red herring.

34



An Example of Deliberation about Economic Benefits of Immigrants
Georgetown, 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 construction
industry.… If you’re a homebuyer and you want to talk to these
construction crews about how they’re building your house, you need
to take an interpreter with you.
Male: In … farming, you get the cheapest labor you can because you
don’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 we
import from foreign countries where they have cheap labor, and the
only 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 that
will 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 a
way to get through the fence anyway if they want it badly enough.
Female: You need a balance because if you bring only professional
immigrants, 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 the
Philippines.… There’s definitely a brain drain.

November 2005

35


An Example of Deliberation about Illegal Immigrants
Scottsdale, 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 may
not 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 this
thing.
Male: That is our biggest problem—the illegals. Not so much the
legals, 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 off
because 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 illegal
immigrants] 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 get
some 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, they
don’t care.

36


Public thinking about the new challenges of american immigration

Public thinking about the new challenges of american immigration

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Public thinking about the new challenges of american immigration

Similaire à Public thinking about the new challenges of american immigration (19)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Public thinking about the new challenges of american immigration