Good versus Good: The Arizona Immigration Law Debate
Imagine a room full of angry Arizonans discussing SB 1070—you know, the law that says government officials should inquire about the immigration status of any individual they think might be in the country illegally, and opens those officials to criminal penalties and civil lawsuits if they don’t. Some talk about family members lost; some tell of economic hardship, here (US) or there (Mexico); some evoke Nazi images; some hold American flags. Each time a new person takes the mic, the entire room is engaged—but only until the speaker’s side becomes clear. Then half tune out, and half start nodding in agreement.
You know how the story ends: some people leave even more confident in the ideas they came in with—and some leave even more fearful of the other side. The policy debate hasn’t budged…but stress, fear, and anger are growing nicely. It’s enough to make a citizen check out entirely.
But what if the ending were different? What if, halfway though, the moderator walked to the whiteboard? “Let’s step back for a moment. This room is full of good, important points of view. The problem is seeing how they might fit together. Can we think of a way to group all the concerns that we’ve heard so far?”
No one knows yet how the moderator would vote; he might even really be neutral. So people are actually listening, with curiosity, as he begins to write down single words: Life. Belief. Society. Stability. When he reaches the word “Fairness,” a nasal, irate voice breaks in: “Yes, sir! Darn it, that’s what we’re here for.” From another corner, a deep voice intones, “Si.”
The moderator stops writing and asks one question: “These are all good things. Think about your whole life—not just this issue, not even just politics. As you see it, which one of these good things is most important?” The answers are all over the map. About a third of the people raise their hands for Life. A quarter say Belief. Society and Growth get the next most votes, then Stability, and Individuality. A couple say Joy or Fairness.
Then the moderator asks his final question: “Probably all eight of these goods have something to do with immigration. But for our whole society, in making this one decision, which of the eight is most important?” Comments start to flow—but the room feels different. For each comment, the moderator puts a checkmark by one of the eight words. Soon there are many checkmarks next to just one or two of the words. The moderator steps back from the board. He gazes at the words, then at the audience. Already a look of comprehension is crossing the faces of some in the room. The rest need a little more explanation.
What if everyone is really trying to be “good” in this debate? What if the conflict isn’t good vs. bad, but good vs. good? And what if we had a way of thinking about that conflict together?
It all starts with good
Of course, most people want to be good. We don’t think of it in those words. Since we humans can only pay attention to a limited number of things, we’ve become very good at developing shorthand decision rules: “If the berry is red and if it is not a strawberry, it may not be good to eat.” Or, “Since stability is good, letting a lot of new people into the country, without any control at all, is bad.” Our rules, which we don’t even notice, may not be one hundred percent correct one hundred percent of the time, but they save us a lot of detailed analysis. For most of human history, that has been not only good enough, but best.
The problem comes with complex decisions influenced by many, many people. What Good you start with tends to make the decision simple…for you. But as we saw in that Arizona meeting, most people start with a different good. And they—we—end up arguing past each other. Your view of immigration policy is probably different from mine. We’re both trying to achieve the highest good. But we’re working from individual, basically subconscious decisions. We aren’t transparent about the good behind our decision rules. We barely think about them, so we almost never recognize the “goodness” in an algorithm different from our own.
So when we disagree, we do it from the goodness of our hearts. And yet, perhaps because our hearts are involved, the disagreement brings out the worst in us. And increasingly it gets us nowhere.
It’s possible to do much better. We’ve conducted research (currently a survey of over 2000 people from 15 different nationalities) to broadly identify the “goods” people really care about—the values that top their lists. You can cover essentially everyone, in any population I’ve surveyed, with only eight: Life, Society, Stability, Growth, Joy, Individuality, Belief, and Fairness.
The Greatest Dramas in Life
And they are all goods. Each of us cares about each of them. Look at the dramas we pay to live through: IMDB’s top 30 films almost invariably feature a major theme involving at least one (and in most cases all) of these Eight Greats. We can’t take our eyes off the screen when Tim Robbins chooses his dignity (Individuality) over Life by fighting off “the sisters” in Shawshank Redemption. Marlon Brando seeks to preserve his place in mafia Society and values his Belief system over economic Growth when he turns down the chance to get into the narcotics trade. We are on the edge of our seats as Grace Kelly in Rear Window climbs through a neighbor’s open casement to look for a dead body; risking her Life to put right the inequity of an unresolved murder (Fairness) and potentially to preserve justice (Stability) in her community.
We are naturally fascinated by all of these Goods in general, but the stuff of legend is having to choose between them. Our literature is full of these trade-offs, because we all know how it feels to choose. We all wonder if next time we’ll get it right. And while we all hate making the choice, we also feel something right in having to decide which is the most important. It’s not easy, but we know it’s what is needed. Wouldn’t it be great if public decisions felt that way?
And make no mistake, though it’s harder to dramatize, choosing between these Goods is definitely a public activity. Small groups of people, communities of every size, even whole nations are driven by these priorities. Some of the most important conflicts in human history have been over how to array the Eight Great Goods – the American Revolution, Cambodia’s Killing Fields, religious revolutions from the Protestant Reformation to Islamic Jihads. The decisiveness of a great leader, the unambiguous strategic direction of an excellent company, perhaps even the strength of unusually focused countries can be attributed to the consistency of the highest-level priority in an algorithm tree. If that priority is clear, then a choice can simply be made, with much less need to debate, to dither, to delve deeper. Groups that can move quickly and decisively get the same kind of advantage that makes our individual, intuitive decision-making process so universal among humans.
I don’t understand …It’s all good, yet still irreconcilable
But can an entire nation really agree on how to rank the Goods?
Absolutely not. Our survey of a representative sample of Americans asked them to rank the Eight Great Goods for their personal decision-making. Shockingly, the result was 872 unique patterns—from only 943 respondents. In other words, less than 10 percent shared their particular pattern with even one other person. We all see the perfect mix of goodness in completely different ways…
…which brings us back to the troublesome Arizona law. As we saw in that meeting room, there are many perspectives on the issue, and each person might evaluate the whole mix differently, yet with great passion. This has split the state into two camps that really don’t understand each other at all. Thousands of people have gathered and marched in favor of and in opposition to the bill. Homes of outspoken advocates of one side or the other have been vandalized. Hate mail is common. People strongly believe that those opposing their point of view on this law are evil and wrong.
But we can get beyond that. Because if we’re serious about reaching the best public decision, we don’t have to agree on the whole list of Goods, or how they play in this particular debate. Instead, we can use the perspective of the Eight Great Goods to focus on what the real, driving tradeoffs are. Surprisingly, that may be something we can agree on. Often, certainly in the case of the Arizona law, just two or three Goods are clearly the most central. And that leads to surprising opportunities. Let’s run down the list:
Life. More people name this one Greatest than any other Good. Even if we don’t say it explicitly, the first step most of us take in any decision is to assess whether it is “life or death.” And here we begin to see the power of focusing on that Arizona moderator’s second question, “for our whole society, in making this one decision, which of the eight is most important?” The fact is, there are no great life-death implications to the Immigration Law. Yes, illegal immigrants risk their lives to get across the border, but there is very little likelihood of them losing their lives during a deportation. There are potential “livelihood” implications of jobs and the ability to make a living, but no truly life-death implications.
The one place I found a bit of real “fear for my life” mentality in all of this was in a conversation with a middle-class lesbian couple who would be considered liberal on any political scale, but firmly support SB 1070. They live in a neighborhood that is mostly Hispanic. That is not a problem for them – they chose to live there–but that neighborhood now boasts an increasingly transient and drug-gang quality. The couple blames this on illegal immigration. And now, shootings and gunfire in the neighborhood have them, to some extent, afraid for their lives.
Growth. Growth has long since become taken for granted as a Good unto itself. Economic well-being (above subsistence level) and material gain are parts of Growth. Every major economic system is based on Growth and most of our modern lives are designed around this Good. (Isn’t it interesting that the term is “gainful” employment – not “needful” employment?)
It’s certainly relevant to the immigration debate. The main reason that illegal immigrants come to the US is economic Growth – jobs that pay a lot better than in their home countries. People charged under this law would lose that chance for economic Growth. Illegal aliens’ presence in the job market also results in Growth for US citizens: while it may bring down the wage levels for certain job categories, it actually seems to increase wage levels in other categories.
Society. Humans are social beings. Most of us love to be around other people. We depend on them as children, expect to be depended upon for much of our lives, and then have to depend again as we reach old age. And while our basic food and sex needs could be accomplished without much sociability (individuals could just loot and rape), even anti-socials such as pirates tend to band together. Most of us see family, schools, corporations, communities, and nations (or if we happen to belong, pirate gangs) as very good things. We accept and work within the natural trappings of Society (hierarchy, power, etc.).
The majority of those marching in the streets to overturn Arizona’s new law probably value Society above all else in this debate. Many of them know and love someone who is an illegal alien. Take Luis, for example: he doesn’t march in the streets, but nothing has made him angrier than this law. As a US citizen with an MBA from a top school and a great job, his position is safe, but his mother and father (who have been living in Arizona as long as he has), a couple of his siblings, and his uncles could be identified and deported at any moment.
Another portion of those opposing this law do so because it is just “unkind” to people who live in our communities already. They point out that the law’s passage only sends a message of hatred and divides the community.
Stability. We seem to need the sense that tomorrow will be pretty much the same as today. Humans are surprisingly good at coping with change (it is why we have survived – even thrived – in every climate on earth), but we don’t like it to be constant and unpredictable. Stability brings with it a set of rules, laws, or customs that govern our individual and social worlds. With a sense of security and predictability, we can begin to focus more on the other Great Goods.
Many of those fiercely supporting Arizona’s new law do so because they value Stability. True, federal law on immigration is not too different from the new state law. But the law’s advocates hope that SB 1070 will send a message to Washington, bringing stronger enforcement, which they assume will mean less law breaking and more Stability.
Joy. Having fun is more important than we usually admit. The Roman poet Juvenal, in 100 AD, said that all the populace cared about was bread and games. Putting his analysis into our vernacular, the people of Rome cared most about Life and Joy. Juvenal may have been criticizing his countrymen as shallow, but he was right not only about ancient Romans but also about most other people even in our time.
Joy has almost nothing to do with support or opposition to SB 1070. Deportation of a loved one would no doubt cause a dearth of happiness, but it is not a motivating force for opposing the law. There are those who support the law out of mean-spirited “fun,” but again, a tiny group.
Individuality. The flip side of Society is the sense of Individuality. This tension is at the heart of our most valued legal rights. We depend on Society for nourishment and safety and companionship, but we still fight for our “place” in that Society. We want to establish a unique personality, preserve our dignity, and make an individual mark on the world around us.
For SB 1070, Individuality has become an increasingly important issue. There are both conservatives and liberals who oppose the law because of Individuality, saying things like “No one has a right to ask you or me to ‘produce papers’.”
Belief. Many of us have a basic need to believe in something larger than our own lives. Some find it in religion; others in causes with no supernatural component. The way people treat each other is often founded in belief, because human to human interaction often mimics the perceived relationship with a higher being.
Belief plays almost no part in the immigration debate; except for the interesting and confused role of the Mormon Church. The Bill’s main sponsor is Senator Russell Pearce, who has cited the Church’s Articles of Faith as part of the rationale for the bill. Mormon Church leaders have officially remained neutral. But the Church’s missionary efforts (which largely rely on immigrant populations in the US for growth) are being stymied as word spreads in Hispanic communities that a Church member was the author of this legislation.
Fairness. Somewhere between Society and Individuality lies Fairness. We want to be in Society (which seems to imply hierarchy), but we don’t want to be treated that differently from others (we hate inequity). We hope for equal rights or at least rights that we perceive as fair even if they are not exactly the same. Americans, historically, have especially held Fairness as one of the most basic of life’s Goods.
This good shows us how the Eight Great can cut through the noise and allow some convergence on seemingly endless debates. Many of those supporting the rule that the police check papers see the issue as Fairness; so do many of those opposing the law. And this leads to potential head-on conflict. Arizonans who support the bill for Fairness’ sake don’t want to lose out on jobs because someone in the US illegally can work cheaply. Arizonans who oppose the bill for Fairness’ sake think that it is unfair that someone could be asked to produce papers just because of their skin color or their accent. The people with the biggest gripes about their opponents are those who support or oppose the law for the exact same Greatest Good reason.
Here, then, is also an opportunity. What if both sides – for just one day – could understand that they are both arguing for Fairness? What if they could talk about policies that would make the outcome more fair, as both sides define it. Maybe both sides could agree that first-order Fairness is jobs going first to those legally in the country. Then laws could be built to protect that Fairness. If that were in place, couldn’t both sides agree that it is unfair to bother someone just because of how they talk or look? This wouldn’t satisfy everyone, of course. But it might be enough to diffuse the tension and turn the usual shouting match into a real conversation.
Putting it to the test
But there is one more way that the Great Goods can be useful in making a decision. It is a simple tool: which starts with agreeing on a proper order of the Eight Great. Since the Goods will come into conflict a certain times, you can do away with a lot of the sturm and drang of social life simply by having a mutually acceptable ordering of the Eight Great Goods. In the US we believe in Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness – but in what order? Many of our court cases and laws are about which of these come first. If we simply established that the priority will always be life … then liberty … then happiness, we would go a long way toward removing ambiguity in our national decision processes. (But some lawyers might be put out of business because the average person would understand the law a lot better.) Let me illustrate
In the hot-temperature and hot-tempered room of proponents and opponents of the Arizona law, the moderator stands in front of the board where he has listed the eight good in the order in which the group had voted at the beginning of the meeting. He asks the room if they are comfortable with the order. The only major disagreement is the idea that Belief (in either a religion or an ethical system) should come in second place. Tempers flare momentarily. The moderator intervenes and asks the group to temporarily leave Belief in second place: “If that ordering has a big influence on the ultimate outcome, we can revisit this debate.” Relative calm returns to the room. With the prioritization agreed upon, the moderator turns back to the board and adds a separate column and proceeds to write a summary of the discussion just completed:
Ranking of Good Interpretation of Bill
Life very slightly FOR
Belief non-issue
Growth no real impact – although there is a fear of negative growth
driving some opposition
Society strongly AGAINST
Stability strongly FOR
Individuality strongly AGAINST
Joy non-issue
Fairness STRONG arguments on both sides
The moderator points out that Belief, in this analysis, has very little to say for or against the law. So the disagreement over its prioritization means little.
Stepping back from the board and looking at it carefully, he notes what almost everyone else in the room is already beginning to understand: “Overall, it appears that this Eight Great Goods analysis would argue for opposing the law; with two of the Goods strongly against the Bill and one strongly for the bill. Life (which is very, very important) has a very small, but not insignificant role in supporting the Immigration Law.”
A raised arm and calm voice from the audience wonders aloud, “If Life is such a potentially important swing vote in this decision, could legislation be rewritten to focus on enhancing the enforcement of all laws in neighborhoods where there is an abnormally high threat to life?”
Oddly, even the most vehement proponents of the law do not raise their voices against this idea. And there is a sense of general acceptance around the room.
The moderator looks at the group, “Most of you came into this room arguing one side or the other of the fairness debate. Fairness is important – it is one of the greatest goods in any society – but we all agreed that it may be less important than some other goods on the list.”
“Now, some of you probably disagree with Fairness’ low priority. If the fairness issue is still really important to you, I hope that you can at least see that both sides of the fairness question are really about good things – the other side is not necessarily evil. You both want fairness. But you want fairness for your particular side … and is that really ‘fair?’”
“But according to our democratically agreed upon prioritization in this room, society and stability and individuality all come much higher that fairness. If we can shift the debate to those goods that we believe are more important, we may actually resolve this in a way that is satisfactory to all. And we can understand that for the greatest good of our state, there may be some different and clearer ways to resolve the great immigration debate.”
The crowd disperses from the room into the hot desert air, but tempers have cooled considerably. There is a general atmosphere of understanding – if not acceptance – of the other side’s position and a growing appreciation of how much each side ultimately wants to be good.
