A “KCTS Connects” show recently presented a forum on immigration. Held in Yakima, there were many references to fruit growers needing pickers. But other issues were raised as well. In fact, about a dozen points of view were expressed. Some, like whether to close the Mexican border, were in direct opposition to each other. We were left with the full realization that this is a complex subject.

Several people who spoke for disadvantaged groups such as migrant workers and illegal immigrants asked that those voices be listened to and the Mexican consul almost pleaded for Mexico to be allowed into the decision-making about the border. And rightly so. All the stakeholders need to be part of the discussion if we’re to achieve a resolution that has lasting effect. But that only increases the complexity.

How in the world can we coordinate so many diverse views? Right now we have various groups trying to get their perspectives before politicians and the public. Are we going to take our usual route of listening to the loudest voices, or even the most seemingly sensible ones? If we do that, we can, perhaps, shift the situation for 10 or 15 years, if that long. Then our system of immigration will adjust to the minor changes we’ve made and come back close to where we are right now. One thing we know about systems is they move toward maintaining the status quo. When we try to “solve a problem” by addressing one or two symptoms, we have very little long term effect.

Instead, I think we should bring together representatives of the many points of view for an attempt at “resolving” those views. In a conflict resolution process moderated by an experienced mediator, each view is allowed to be expressed without argument or interruption. The entire group then works to understand the values that underlie each view. The values in this issue might include: economic security, generosity toward the underprivileged, fairness, reduction of crime, etc.

Once the values are understood, the members of the group begin to realize that all the values are worthy of being included in a solution. At this point they often throw up their hands in dismay at the difficulty of such a task. The skill of the mediator then is important. He or she will attempt to get the group to use its creativity. When the group members begin to pool their energies instead of opposing each other, they can often come up with a plan that addresses all of the values that are major concerns.

This is a “resolution” of a current situation that meets the needs of a diverse citizenry. And when a broad spectrum of our population have their needs met, they will actively support and maintain such a resolution until some major shift in the situation requires a new effort. That’s the positive side of a conflict resolution. However, there can be some practical difficulties that interfere with such a positive outcome.

A group that attempts a resolution is best convened with the power to make decisions. If it is formed as an “advisory” committee, the results can get very compromised. We have an example of such a split in authority with the 2006 Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton Commission.)

The commission’s report included 79 recommendations; a complex plan for a complex situation. President Bush and his advisers have taken those recommendations, not as a carefully researched and coordinated plan, but as a list of suggestions from which they can choose based on their values. They rejected, for instance, diplomatic talks with Syria and Iran and are going against the recommendation that American troop levels not be enhanced.

This kind of overriding of the resolution process will likely discourage future committees from doing such time-consuming work. Also, if an executive or legislature changes some parts of a resolution, sending them back to the committee, it can be very difficult to gather the same people again, especially if some are volunteers or represent poorly funded groups.

I believe, though, that as more people experience the benefits of a resolution approach to difficult issues, our elected representatives will have more respect for the outcomes. And if we publicly pay the expenses of participants, it will allow those with fewer resources to stay at the table over what could be months of deliberation.

We have a chance to try the resolution approach with the issue of immigration. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if, instead of a great deal of wrangling to get our views heard, we each could feel assured that our values will be listened to, understood and included in the final plan?

Sonja Larson, who holds a master’s degree in whole systems design, lives in Mill Creek.