Unpacking your immigration stance
Steph Turner
Career coaching online around the world, ‘anankelogist’ understanding your needs, author, ‘need-responder’ serving your needs where detached institutions fall short.
Leverage your ups against your downs in your immigration stance
Steph Turner, Value Relating
OVERVIEW
- SWOT analysis
- Prioritizing needs over politics
- Stepping further outside polarization
Previously, I harmonized your immigration politics. Then I harmonized diverse immigration views to our differing priority of needs. Now we unpack your immigration stance.
Every political argument around immigration relies mostly on value differences. Finally, you now can unpack those subjective differences by shifting attention to their objective differences—differing priorities in your measurable and yet inflexibly experienced needs.
If you’ve been following along, you can trace each political position to its balance between affected self-needs and affected social-needs behind that issue. This empirical difference can be subjected to the tools of social science, identifying your psychosocial orientation.
To quick review, I demonstrated a correlation between
liberalism on the left with unmet social-needs relative to guarded self-needs
and
conservatism on the right with unmet self-needs relative to guarded social-needs.
Now I apply this to the competing stances over immigration.
1. SWOT analysis for each [issue] stance
The business tool SWOT (which stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) is basically psychosocial. It looks inward (psychologically) and outward (socially) at both positives and negatives. There are other variations, but I’m keeping with SWOT since I used it professionally before.
The listing below reads the above infographic from right to left. Covering first the inward looking aspects of both. Then following with the outward looking aspects of both. Each entry below also directly addresses those who fit into that psychosocial orientation.
INWARD FACING
WIDE Strength of AUTHENTICITY - Your stronger political claim
From the angle of your more resolved self-need for authentic individuality, you can assert from lived experience the resolving of a common need. Everyone benefits from being more authentic in their relationships with others. You have that going for you.
Not every immigrant can fully acculturate into their new host country. They will retain unique qualities from their culture of origin. We all need to respect the grounding of our origins, as individuals apart from the new culture around us, to maintain healthy lives.
If you could bring that value to others who need it, you can leverage that at the bargaining table of political discourse.
WIDE Weakness of INCLUSION - Your weaker political claim
From the angle of your less resolved social-need for societal inclusion, you tend to generalize for relief. Reaction for relief easily misses resolving the underlying painful needs. You insist laws be passed to compel others to include you, or else.
Yes, your need for wider inclusion throughout society must be respected. But you leave little to no space for the deep-oriented to include you on their own authentic terms, apart from government imposed authority.
Yes, left to their own motivations, immigrants could be left excluded far too long. Nonetheless, legal pressures compromise the very sense of authentic interactions you’re likely taking for granted.
Most deep-oriented folk welcome full inclusion of immigrants with a few qualifiers. Such as legal entry to check their motivations, to keep out traffickers and other criminals, and perhaps prioritize entry for those contributing something of greater value to our needs.
Allowing unbounded immigration and then demanding their carte blanche inclusion without qualifiers naturally evokes push back from the typical deep-oriented person’s needs. Your bargaining position here stinks.
DEEP Strength of COHESION - Your stronger political claim
From the angle of your more resolved social-need for group cohesion, you can assert from lived experience the resolving of a common need. Everyone benefits from being able to count on each other more, especially during an emergency and helped by others who know exactly what you need before you can even ask for it. You have that going for you.
You may notice quicker than the wide-oriented how vulnerable immigrants can be. You see the impact on them when leaving behind the cohesion of their own family and close friends back home. You appreciate their need to find cohesive supports in their new home.
If you could bring that value to others who need it, you can leverage that at the bargaining table of political discourse.
DEEP Weakness of SECURITY - Your weaker political claim
From the angle of your less resolved self-need for personal security, you tend to generalize for relief. Reaction for relief easily misses resolving the underlying painful needs. You insist laws be passed that treat all immigrants as potential security risks.
Yes, your need for security from external threats must be respected. But you leave little to no space for the wide-oriented to sort out specific levels or risk, if any.
Yes, left to their own devices, they likely would let any immigrant enter and then assess risk level after some have committed violent acts against non-immigrants. Nonetheless, overreliance on legal answers fails to resolve specific security and other needs.
Most wide-oriented folk share your concern for personal security. They see our security needs better served by addressing the specifics that undermine our security in the long run. Such as our government’s history of interfering in their country’s internal affairs, giving rise to lawlessness and corruption back home.
Characterizing all immigrants as threats to our security naturally evokes push back from the typical wide-oriented person’s needs. Your bargaining position here stinks.
OUTWARD FACING
WIDE Opportunity to serve their SECURITY - Their weaker political claim
Take opportunity to affirm their less resolved self-need for personal security Instead of reacting to their generalized reaction to immigration’s apparent threat to their personal security, skip right over their guarded rhetoric to zero in on the affected need. Affirm their need first.
Respect their only means for getting prompt relief. Their need for personal security, created by known threats from unbounded immigration, cannot wait for a perfect solution. You still hold them accountable to keep any imposing relief as provisional. You tactfully support them to replace any provisional relief with need-resolving means.
Relief too often works against resolving the needs prompting the pain. Easy solutions, like caging all immigrants waiting for processing, have a way of undercutting what you ostensibly seek. Once finally released into your community, some of these immigrants may unleash their trauma in ways compromising the very security you sought.
Politics often fail from its generalizing for relief, by failing to address the specific needs causing that pain. Resolving a need removes its pain, mere relief does not. Resolving each other’s need for security improves everyone’s capacity to function together. Mere relief risks normalizing dysfunction. Affirming their needs first will preserve this path toward their meaningful resolution.
WIDE Threat from pushback for their COHESION - Their stronger political claim
Admit the deep-oriented side provides more for solving this basic social-need. Fighting for inclusion without taking into account how your generalizations affect their more resolved needs invites deserved pushback.
Look close enough and you can see a certain audacity in demanding others give up something by force of law for the sake of another’s relief. Audacity spills over into outright arrogance when such relief clearly undermines resolved needs.
Turn this “threat” into opportunity by offering to learn from the deep-oriented how their more resolved need for cohesion can serve your cause for the needs of immigration.
DEEP Opportunity to serve their INCLUSION - Their weaker political claim
Take opportunity to affirm their less resolved social-need for societal inclusion. Instead of reacting to their generalized reaction to immigration’s apparent threat to their societal inclusion, skip right over their guarded rhetoric to zero in on the affected need. Affirm their need first.
Respect their only means for getting prompt relief. Their need for societal inclusion, created by immigrants seeking to be absorbed into a culture not their own, cannot wait for a perfect solution. You still hold them accountable to keep any imposing relief as provisional. You tactfully support them to replace any provisional relief with need-resolving means.
Relief too often works against resolving the needs prompting the pain. Easy solutions, like granting visas with minimal accountability, have a way of undercutting what you ostensibly seek. When incentivized to overstay their visa by a laxed process, some of these immigrants may violate other laws in ways that undercut the very inclusion you sought.
Politics often fail from its generalizing for relief, by failing to address the specific needs causing that pain. Resolving a need removes its pain, mere relief does not. Resolving each other’s need for inclusion improves everyone’s capacity to function together. Mere relief risks normalizing dysfunction. Affirming their needs first will preserve this path toward their meaningful resolution.
DEEP Threat from pushback for their AUTHENTICITY - Their stronger political claim
Admit the wide-oriented side provides more for solving this basic self-need. Fighting for personal security without taking into account how your generalizations affect their more resolved needs invites deserved pushback.
Look close enough and you can see a certain audacity in demanding others give up something by force of law for the sake of another’s relief. Audacity spills over into outright arrogance when such relief clearly undermines resolved needs.
Turn this “threat” into opportunity by offering to learn from the wide-oriented how their more resolved need for uniqueness can serve your cause for the needs of immigration.
2. Prioritizing needs over politics
Now we use more constructive language like “I-messages” and the “When you do this, I feel that” formula. Now we offer viable alternatives to the destructive language habits commonly used by dysfunctional couples. Communication that is dysfunction for couples can be just as dysfunctional at the national level.
Instead of “when you,” I employ “the more you” to include the relative degree of one’s impactful action. Using “more” also allows for a measurable correlation between one’s actions and another’s need—what I call relational knowing.
Have you ever heard the phrase “an ‘I’ for an ‘I’ and a ‘you’ for a ‘you’”? By expressing your need with “I” you convey ownership. The receiver isn’t blamed, and can more easily own their contributing role by replying with an “I” of their own.
But expressing your need with “you” risks evoking the other’s defensive “you” thrown back in blame. Popular political discourse reeks more of “you-messages” when we need more “I-messages” from our political leadership.
For now, the message focuses on the “outward facing” of embracing the presenting opportunity while acknowledging the apparent threat. It follows a simple formula: the more you affirm my need, the easier to serve yours; but the more you demand, the less I can give. When effectively conveyed, both sides’ psychosocial wellbeing improves.
To the left-leaning politicos presenting a wide-oriented outlook:
The more you affirm my need to include worthy migrants, the easier to respect your need to stay safe from violent migrants. But the more you insist we all blend in to some melting pot, the less I can serve your need for local or national cohesion.
To the right-leaning politicos presenting a deep-oriented outlook:
The more you affirm my need to stay safe from lawless migrants, the easier to respect your need to include legitimate migrants. But the more you insist we compromise our national cohesion, the less I can accept their lack of acculturation.
While this is the gist of the messaging, actual messages will be tailored to respond more specifically to the original tweet.
ENGAGING THE LEFT
[WIDE] Citizens for Ethics tweet
[WIDE] Qasim Rashid tweet (running for VA state senator)
ENGAGING THE RIGHT
[DEEP] FAIR Immigration tweet
[DEEP] Judicial Watch tweet
RAISING THE BAR
The issue of immigration is less about easy entry or vetted entry, or any other argued position, and more about responsibly respecting and addressing the affected needs on all sides. Anyone still prioritizing an “argued position” over their inflexibly experienced needs is complicit with the problem of dysfunctionally divisive politics.
There, I said it. The gentle use of engaging language serves the deeper purpose of raising the bar. The higher I raise the bar for political discourse—to prioritize specific needs over generalized partisanship reactions—the closer I am to assessing the legitimacy of our political influencers and leaders.
Harmony politics gets us back to the original purpose of politics—to serve needs. Whenever politics turns away from helping us resolve needs, it becomes complicit with dysfunction. Politicos, I dare say, who use politics in ways that turn us away from resolving needs are not legitimate leaders.
There, I said it. Needs come first. Resolved needs last. Politics serve as a stepping stone, or becomes a stumbling block. Harmony politics provides some stepping stones. If you know of any better way to overcome political polarization, please comment below. Thank you.
3. Stepping further outside polarization
This article on immigration serves as the first in the third series of issue-oriented articles. Follow each issue here. Links for articles yet to be published will understandably not work yet.
1 Harmonize your immigration politics. Harmonize diverse immigration views. Unpacking your immigration stance
2 Harmonize your climate change politics. Harmonize diverse climate change views. Unpacking your climate change stance
3 Harmonize your gun safety politics. Harmonize diverse gun safety views. Unpacking your gun safety stance
4 Harmonize your abortion politics. Harmonize diverse abortion views. Unpacking your abortion stance
5 Harmonize your healthcare politics. Harmonize diverse healthcare views. Unpacking your healthcare stance
6 Harmonize your criminal justice politics. Harmonize diverse criminal justice views. Unpacking your criminal justice stance
7 Harmonize your economy politics. Harmonize diverse economy views. Unpacking your economy stance
8 Harmonize your racial politics. Harmonize diverse racial views. Unpacking your racism stance
HARMONY POLITICS AND YOU
Consider how Harmony Politics could serve your needs. I consult with political leaders and influencers to link them with the vulnerable needs of their audience. Contact me to explore how I can fit this pioneering approach to your particular need to stand out more.
I cover much of this material in more detail in my eCourse Defusing Polarization: Understanding Divisive Politics. Check out the free units to see if it serves your needs. Share the link with others you know in need of this fresh understanding of politics.
Together, let’s revolutionize politics with love. If we don’t, who will?
SHARE THE WEALTH
If you find this article valuable, please click "like" and share freely. Follow here on LinkedIn to keep up with these daily encouragements to turn divisive politics into opportunities to love one another across the political divide. Spread that love, and let some of this love return back to you.
Don't forget to comment below. Thank you for helping turn politics as usual into greater respect for your specific needs, and theirs.