If you're like me, you're getting REALLY tired of the endless immigration debate. Given that Groundhog Day (February 2nd) occurs this week, I couldn't help but think of Bill Murray's classic "Groundhog Day" movie which, incidentally, celebrates its 25th anniversary this year.
The more I thought about it, the more I realized, "Groundhog Day" has some relevance to the immigration debate. In the movie Bill Murray plays Phil Connors, a cynical TV weatherman from Pittsburgh, asked by his station to cover Groundhog Day – AGAIN. It's the fourth time! He covers the event in a very half-hearted manner for his TV station. A big snowstorm occurs and Murray, along with his TV producer and cameraman, get stuck in Punxsatawney, PA, home of the groundhog. Then Groundhog Day repeats itself, over and over again. No matter what Murray's character does, the day repeats itself.
While it's a movie, it almost sounds like Congress and the President with the immigration debate. Instead of waking up every morning to find it's still February 2nd, we wake up every few weeks to find the government on the verge of a shutdown; endless accusations and finger-pointing; and STILL ZERO RESOLUTION OF EITHER THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE OR THE BUDGET!
Finally, Murray's character wakes up and it's February 3rd – no longer Groundhog Day. He's a changed man: his behavior, his way of treating others, and his outlook on life, all have changed – for the better.
So what lessons of "Groundhog Day" the movie might be applied to the immigration debate? A key thing Phil Connors – Murray's character – does is to change his attitude about the people of the town. The message in this for Republicans and Democrats? How about, let's reframe the immigration debate? Maybe drop the following narratives?
Democrats: all the Republicans want to do is build a stupid wall; and deport a bunch of innocent kids brought illegally by their parents to the USA (the Dreamers)
Republicans: all the Democrats want to do is reward a bunch of illegal aliens who broke the law.
In the course of the movie, Phil Connors changes his mind about the townspeople, going from thinking of them as a bunch of hicks to realizing they're good people … and people he'd like to be his friends. As the movie unwinds, he learns new things – such as how to speak French and play jazz piano – and how to become a friendly, likeable guy.
A classic way that entrepreneurs try to solve tough problems is to re-frame them. Maybe by changing the questions. That's the general approach of my blog, "The Unexpected Perspective". The idea is to take thorny, intractable problems and re-frame them.
One has been to reframe the debate about global warming and climate change. Instead of berating conservatives for being skeptical about climate change, "The Unexpected Perspective" says, liberals should encourage conservatives to invest in climate changing technology because of the money-making potential. Instead of calling conservatives stupid, show them how they could benefit by re-thinking the issue. Conservatives can still say that climate change isn't real, but do the things that liberals believe will produce desired change.
So how can the same thinking be applied to the immigration debate? By having everyone – Republicans and Democrats - asking the following "re-framing" question:
Could there be something in the other side's position on immigration that would benefit my side?
Let's try this out. If you're a Democrat, here's a possible answer:
The Republicans say they want a wall, but if you cut through the rhetoric, what they really want is a secure border. A wall is a means to an end. Which then leads to a follow-on question: is there a way to create a secure border without spending a huge amount of money building an ugly physical wall?
Now for the Republicans. They might re-frame the problem as follows. The Democrats seem to want to reward illegal behavior and flood the country with illegal aliens. Could we as a country actually benefit by keeping most of these illegal entrants? What would have to happen for it to be a blessing that we have eleven million illegal immigrants in the country?
The average reader already has a decided "position" on this, one way or the other, so reading these questions might be a little jarring. But remember Phil Connors, the TV weatherman, on the first couple of "Groundhog Days" he spent in the movie? Pretty angry, pretty cynical, pretty stuck in his "position".
So let's explore the questions I've posed, starting with the questions that might make Democrats pretty uneasy.
Is there a way to give the Republicans what they say they want - a secure border - without spending a huge amount of money creating an ugly physical wall?
The answer is "YES". The simplest way is to apply technology to the problem. Some people have said, Trump's wall is a "14th century answer to a 21st century problem." I'd turn that around and ask instead, "how do you create a 21st century solution to a 14th century problem?" The "14th century problem" is how to prevent people from crossing the border you don't want them to cross. The Chinese produced the perfect 14th century solution to that problem – a 1,000+ mile wall – portions of which you can still walk on today.
So what's a "21st century solution"? How about technology? Use technology to create a "technological wall" that limits access. You end up with the barrier to entry you want, just without a wall that is both unsightly and an environmental nightmare.
Put Silicon Valley to work on the problem. They'll come up with some great technological solutions.
The other reason to emphasize technology is because it can pay for itself over and over. Building a physical wall is a "one off". Unlike other infrastructure, a physical wall doesn't provide an economic return other than as a result of the initial expenditure. In contrast, other infrastructure such as highways, bridges, airports, and communications infrastructure produce continuous economic benefits.
Developing new security technology that impedes entry across a border can provide ongoing economic benefits, much like traditional infrastructure.
Is such technology available? ABSOLUTELY! Drones, infrared scanning, license plate readers … all kinds of stuff. And more technology is created all the time.
One of the most effective ways that government can encourage economic development is through funding of basic research. The Internet – and lots of other technology today – is the result of Federal government funding of research for military, space, energy, and other applications. Why not border security?
Why not create incentives for Silicon Valley? How about increasing the number of H1B visas if Silicon Valley can create better border security technology?
Now let's consider the re-framing question(s) from the Republican side.
Could we as a country actually benefit by keeping most of these illegal entrants? What would have to happen for it to be a blessing that we have eleven million illegal immigrants in the country?
Again, the answer is "YES". Here's how it could work. We could create a pathway to citizenship for most of these people. Yes, these people broke the law by illegal entry, so there should be some type of penalty for that, but such penalties can be assessed, most likely in the form of fines. We could require these people to do any number of things to earn citizenship, just like others. One, of course, is to require everyone to try to learn to speak English. For those who don't want to do those things, or who we deem to be dangerous criminals, we can require them to leave.
But the key "re-framing" for Republicans is the idea that the eleven million or so illegals in the country actually could be a blessing. What would that take?
Turning a lot of people into taxpayers would certainly be a blessing.
Lots of illegals are exploited and abused, simply because the abusers and exploiters know the illegals can't easily complain. Stopping much of that would be a blessing.
Simply getting the immigration issue "off the table" would be a blessing! Get on to something else.
By getting each side to re-frame the problem, a route to a solution becomes readily apparent:
Republicans can get the border security they want, without wasting a lot of resources on an ugly wall, simply by creating a "21st century solution to a 14th century problem."
Democrats can get a pathway to citizenship for a huge number of people presently in the country illegally.
Phil Connors, Bill Murray's TV weatherman character, finally gets what he wants: the sun rising on February 3rd … and the relationship with Rita, the TV producer he's been pursuing throughout the movie.
And if Republicans and Democrats pull a few pages out of the "Groundhog Day" script, maybe we too can get to "February 3rd of the immigration debate": a comprehensive solution that provides Republicans the security they want, and Democrats a path to legalization for the vast majority of people living in the shadows.
Happy Groundhog Day!
