Fourteen Arizona voters — an equal number of Democrats and Republicans — gathered in a room at Arizona State University to talk about immigration for five hours straight.
Not only did they talk about contentious policies, but they also came up with seven distinct reform ideas.
Many participants walked out of the “Constituent Conversation,” held by Braver Angels, a nonprofit focused on political depolarization, feeling surprised and more open-minded, according to three people who attended.
The participants were joined by Rep. Greg Stanton, D-Ariz., who emphasized the need for such conversations.
“Civil dialogue must be a fundamental principle if we want our democracy to truly work for the American people,” he said.
The Democratic Arizona congressman had been in Washington, D.C., on Friday, April 3, the night before the workshop. After casting a midnight vote, he took a 7 a.m. flight to Phoenix. Landing at 9 a.m., he joined a No Kings rally before arriving at ASU.
Is there a solution to division on immigration?
In a statement following, Stanton said he appreciated the Braver Angels workshop for bringing him together with his constituents, who held diverse perspectives and engaged “on a timely topic during a particularly challenging moment for our country.”
According to a 2026 poll from Dignity.us, 83% of Americans worry about division, which is just shy of the 86% who worry about the cost of living.
The workshop, said Stanton, “created space for thoughtful conversations in search of pragmatic solutions to the challenges affecting our communities here at home,” adding that he is grateful to take these learnings back to Washington, D.C.
Another participant, Cody Bollum, a power trader and among the Reds — what Braver Angels calls conservative-leaning voters — for this dialogue, said the biggest thing that stood out to him about Stanton’s time with the group was the congressman’s praise for President Donald Trump’s handling of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Bollum said the 181 immigration-specific executive actions Trump has signed guarantee an extremely secure border.
Regardless of what people think about Trump, he managed to accomplish what no one has in several generations, said Bollum.
Shelly Gordon, a retired public relations official who participated as a Blue — or progressive-leaning voters, in Braver Angels lingo — didn’t exactly agree with this perspective, but still acknowledged Stanton as thoughtful and sincere in his efforts. “I would love to do (this workshop) with a Republican, too,” she added.
How to get people with different views to talk
According to Brooks Hilliard, the Phoenix-Alliance co-chair at Braver Angels, who sat in as the moderator, “These workshops are designed to build up trust.”
“We had a good mix of folks from the progressive end to the conservative … and a good mix of ages, largely between the 30s and 70s,” he said.
Among them were people who had dealt with the immigration system, including a naturalized citizen with dual citizenship in the U.K. and the U.S., as well as those like Charlotte Prado, also retired and from the Blue group, who has a bilingual husband and relatives who are immigrants.
She said she left the workshop feeling hopeful and positive.
Many of these details arose during the first part of the workshop when participants shared a bit about themselves.
Then, the “Blues” and “Reds” took turns presenting their thoughts on the immigration debate while the other group listened. The two groups then took turns reflecting on mutual agreements and disagreements. The concerns from the Blues centered around humanitarian issues, while the Reds were more focused on fiscal policy and security.
Then, in mixed groups, they found a middle ground between the groups’ initial positions. Participants worked to resolve disagreements and aimed for unanimously approved solutions.
A few surprising solutions
Here are the seven solutions the group came up with, according to a document from the workshop shared with the Deseret News:
- A path to permanent residency for those who have been here for at least six years.
- Employers of all sizes must have uniform hiring procedures to determine eligibility to work, including expanding and mandating E-Verify.
- Reduce the cost of becoming a legal resident. This includes filing and lawyers’ fees.
- Streamline the asylum process with more resources at the border.
- Immigration legislation must have longevity that exceeds presidential election cycles.
- Ban country-specific immigration parole.
- Increased penalties for a second offense of illegal entry.
Hilliard kept his participants on track to try to be as specific as possible and later “congratulated the group on essentially coming up with the same things as think tanks and lobbying groups, mostly based in Washington, D.C.”
Stanton did not commit to advocating for any of the ideas the group came up with, but he agreed with pretty much all of them, said Brooks.
The natural compromise
Significant compromises emerged on many topics, such as creating permanent residency eligibility for immigrants living in the country illegally. However, if they could not come to a consensus on a policy item, it would be discarded.
That wasn’t always the case. In one instance, the Reds proposed that an immigrant living in the country illegally for seven years with no criminal record should be eligible for permanent residency. But the Blues argued for permanent residency within five years.
“When one group said five and the other said seven, I said, ‘Do I smell a compromise here?’” recalled Hilliard, who largely allowed the group to guide the discussion, only chiming in to help “reach unanimity.”
“They both tried to hold out for their own for a while, and finally they said, ‘No, we can go along with’” permanent residency after six years, the moderator said.
Stanton pushed back on permanent residency within six years and thought 10 years was more doable.
To Prado, the “total agreement about a pathway to permanent residency” came as a surprise.
She said she has come across thousands of asylum-seekers over the course of a decade while volunteering for Latino churches, helping with meal services and clothing donation drives, among other things. Prado said the workshop didn’t change her political opinions — she stood firm on those — but her perspective on other people shifted.
“So often I’ll get in a group and think, ‘Are they like me, or are they one of the others?’” the retired Mesa resident explained.
“This softened my outlook on other people: that we have more in common than we disagree on. It’s just that we’re so loud about what we disagree on.”
‘Conversation breeds understanding’
Bollum said he expected a lot more head-butting and disagreement. The workshop platform asked participants to have an open mind, be willing to listen, and compromise, he said.
It makes the participants think, “We are all in the same boat — that boat being the United States — and we all want similar things, even if there are different objectives to get to where we want to be.”
“Go into it with an open mind,” said Bollum. “There is a compromise on 99.9% of things for 99.9% of people. There are going to be those sticks in the mud, the ones that are so far left or right that they’re unwilling to bend or compromise.”
At the end of the day, he said, “Conversation breeds understanding.”