TIME TO MEDIATE THE IMMIGRATION CRISIS AT THE BORDER

As someone who calls San Diego home, I’m paying close attention to the immigration crisis.

The crisis now has a face — hundreds of faces, really — attached to it. Last weekend, 500 unaccompanied migrant girls, ages 13-17, arrived in San Diego. For the next few months, they will call the convention center home.

Most of the girls come from Mexico and the Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. They were sent to San Diego from Border Patrol facilities in Texas and Arizona — a small fraction of the more than 9,300 minors apprehended by U.S. officials in February.

The situation is expected to worsen. Documents leaked to reporter Stef Kight of Axios show that President Joe Biden’s administration projects the number of unaccompanied minors crossing the border could spiral to as many as 26,000 in September.

It’s simple math: The Border Patrol takes more youth into custody than it releases, whether to family members or to facilities run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Yet the consequences are complex — and not contained to San Diego.

Immigration is the most divisive issue our country has faced since slavery. We want to be compassionate. But we also worry about economic effects, like lower wages and job losses for unskilled workers. And lately, there are health concerns as we begin to finally emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic.

For decades, we’ve had a schizophrenic relationship with Mexican immigrants, in particular. In the late 1800s, inspection stations were set up at ports of entry along the southern border to limit the number of migrants coming to the United States. These controls were eased during the first and second World Wars because of labor shortages — only to be followed by mass deportations, once the fighting was over.

It’s not just our need for workers that has guided whether we turn on or turn off the spigot. There are also political calculations. In the mid-1960s, President Lyndon Johnson signed a bill that ended numerical restrictions by country of origin. It aimed to promote American ideals and combat the rise of communism.

When policies haven’t worked, we’ve turned to physical deterrents such as border fencing and walls, perimeter lighting and high-tech surveillance equipment. We’ve added Border Patrol agents and stepped up their training. But frequent calls to penalize employers hiring undocumented workers have been largely ignored.

If anything is consistent about the immigration crisis, it’s our inability to resolve it. According to the Immigrant Learning Center, there are 44.7 million immigrants living in the United States today. Twenty-seven percent (11.8 million people) are unauthorized, more than half of whom came from Mexico.

Now, the worrisome situation at the border has been compounded by an influx of people from northern Central America, fleeing crime, poverty, gang violence and climate disasters.

Recently, at his first news conference, Biden tried to dispute the idea that the border is overrun. He said, “The truth of the matter is, nothing has changed. It happens every single, solitary year: There is a significant increase in the number of people coming to the border in the winter months of January, February, March … It’s the time they can travel with the least likelihood of dying on the way because of the heat in the desert, number one.”

With respect, Mr. President, that sounds like a dodge.

If the president would like the advice of an experienced mediator, I would offer this counsel: Bring together representatives from both sides of the border debate. Tell them the conflict is theirs to resolve, no matter how long it takes.

Then encourage frank dialogue, with these ground rules: Speak in a non-threatening way and listen, respectfully, to the other side’s point of view. Undoubtedly, passions will be ignited, whether a person is arguing on behalf of human rights or the fiscal interests of American workers. But it’s the only way to resolve differences.

Here’s another guidepost: Everyone at the table must be willing to collaborate and work toward mutually acceptable solutions. There is no “winner takes all.” More than compromising, this means finding solutions that both sides consider to be a win-win — not a small task, but one that’s made easier when they can see things through each other’s eyes.

Identifying common ground is table stakes in any successful mediation. And so, here’s an idea to consider as we look to resolve the conflict at the border: Can we agree that the safety of children — regardless of their country of origin — is a noble and shared goal?

Just that single agreement would be a very good start.