how to burst a bubble

The past election season made me painfully aware of Americans’ collective inability to actually listen to folks we disagree with. I say we because I’m not immune—every time I “unfollow,” “unfriend,” or pick the cable news channel of my leaning, I fortify my “bubble.”

This bubble effect not only produced mass shock on November 8th, but has characterized the political gridlock that now seems so commonplace in Washington. A contributing factor, I’d wager, is our misdirected discourse. We speak different languages on opposite sides of the aisle and usually fail to make our messages palatable to the other side or concede anything short of our full agenda. 

       One example concerns a hot-button issue in this year’s election: immigration—more specifically, refugee resettlement. One side uses a mixture of reason and fear to argue that all resettlement should be halted until…[fill in the blank]. The other side appeals emotionally about the victimhood of refugees, but also casts plenty of stones at the perceived xenophobia of the first side. If we learned to communicate on the same wavelength, I think we could take a few small steps toward progress. 

       This message is mainly for my fellow progressives: If you really care about refugees, learn to speak Republican. There’s common ground to be found with a little empathy.

       Historically speaking, the conservative perspective concerning immigration has generally focused on three things: families, economics, and safety. The US has tended to favor immigrants who are a part of a family (the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act eliminated the country of origin quota system and gave entry preference to immediate family members), who work hard (Reagan’s ’86 legislation granted legal status to unauthorized laborers who had been working for at least 90 days), and who pose no danger (remember Japanese internment camps?). When talking to your conservative friends about immigration, these are three areas you’ll want to mention!

       Let’s start with security. First of all, even GOP stances on national security and the threat posed by outsiders have shifted wildly in the last 30 years. See this video comparing immigration views of Republican primary frontrunners in 1980 and 2016.

       A common concern is that refugees (especially from the middle east) are being hurried through the screening process and insufficiently patted down for criminal histories or ties to terrorism. This is where many conservatives use reason over emotion, or as the Alabama Governor put it, “My heart tells me to let these people in, but my head tells me I must protect the people of Alabama.” Progressives appreciate security too and should meet this type of rhetoric not with dismissal, but with reason of their own. You can familiarize yourself with the vetting process here.

       The other way progressives can appeal to conservatives is by talking money and values. Syrian refugees (the group most scrutinized right now) are more educated than the average American, with nearly 20% having a graduate degree. These are potential entrepreneurs, researchers, doctors, and professionals. This web page from USCRI (US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants) showcases the economic benefits of settling refugees, including work ethic, retention, loyalty, family focus, paying taxes, spending locally, trade skills, diversity, and language skills.

       I think we have more in common than we realize. I just need to pop my bubble every once in a while to see it. I hope you’ll join me.

-->