We’re planning to submit our research for publication as we continue to fine-tune our efforts. However, before continuing, I think it noteworthy to credit the independent work of The University of Utah Honors Think Tank on Immigration which produced a 100-page guide entitled “Immigration in Context: A Resource Guide for Utah.” As part of their research, the students spent 11 days in Mexico on a fact-finding trip to help them prepare for their additional research in the United States.

Wisely so, the students decided that the culmination of their work would be a resource guide not specifically aimed at taking a policy position. As they so aptly wrote in their introduction:

“Together we embarked on making what would be a tool that would change the way legislators think about immigration, the way educators teach it in classes, and the way the community at large views it. Additional research was necessary, so teams were formed and the folder on the class website was filled to bursting. A hundred plus pages later, we have a dynamic and detailed contribution to the immigration debate, complimented with personal stories from individuals affected by immigration who added human depth to our project.”

I would strongly encourage every Utahn to review their work. It certainly helps establish a valuable pretext for developing a sound, informed opinion.

In our own research, Mark and I found, in general, that editorial writers often had it right. Rather than demonize immigrants, editorialists indicated that the focus should be turned toward our political leaders. Frenzied and dismayed, we clearly were disappointed when this year’s legislative efforts for reform collapsed. As a corollary to our analysis of the editorials, we reviewed the trends of national polls about this issue and found that public opinion tended toward a deliberate compromise that clearly avoids the drastic measure of kicking out every illegal immigrant from this nation.

In our work-in-progress conclusion, we wrote:

The composite of the editorial sample reflects that pragmatism which, when viewed as a whole, shuns absolutist positions at either extreme point of the continuum of immigration policy reform. Perhaps, more importantly, the editorials – while making the case for specific policy positions – argued specifically for bipartisan compromise. Equally so is the acknowledgement that the editorial by itself cannot remake opinion, especially in a fragmented, multivariate digital media environment where the consumer of media often now can exercise just as much control over the message – if not more – than the traditional producers of that content.

Editorialists equated good politics with good policy. Missing from the editorials were sources that would be allied with specific public interest groups, which represent the extremes of the policy continuum for immigration reform. Rather, the editorials tacitly endorse remarkably middle-of-the road compromise options – much like the [then] pending legislation in the 2007 Congressional session – where the mutual interests of individuals are balanced with broader national concerns about the integrity of law and security. With an eye toward ensuring the public has the correct relevant information to form an opinion, the editorials then serve to anchor the debate in a path where the resolution of the issue follows a tradition of commonly shared values of national empathy, compassion, humanitarianism and dignity.