Pour the Coffee. Have the Conversation.

Why We Started This

We started this group to talk about the issues—not from a team’s perspective, but from the people’s. Most of what we argue about, if we sat down over a cup of coffee without the teams telling us what to think, we’d agree on ninety percent of it. The other ten percent is the hard part—and that’s exactly where the conversation needs to happen.

But it has to come from a place of understanding.

That ten percent isn’t there because we want to win—everyone wants to win. It’s there because we haven’t agreed on what winning actually means for everyone. So we start with the facts. Then we talk about the disagreement, and why we disagree.

What we won’t do is argue from “because I said so.”

Take Immigration

People move to countries that offer the best opportunities for their families. Is it any wonder people want to come to America? Where would you rather live? America is one of the best places in the world, and immigrants are drawn here because we, the people, tell everyone how great it is. So let’s start there: people want to come to America. They want the American dream. The minute they stop wanting to come—that’s when we should really worry.

The early United States needed immigrants. They helped with labor, economic growth, and national strength, and immigration was encouraged with some guardrails. George Washington wrote in 1783:

The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.

He wasn’t naive about it. The welcome was real—and so was the expectation. Loyalty. Integration. Conduct that earned the rights being offered.

The founders generally saw immigration as a good thing. They expected assimilation into civic values and the protection of those values and the country itself. They saw it as a strategic strength. They weren’t arguing about whether immigration should exist—they assumed it would. The real question, then as now, was how to balance openness with a shared understanding of what the country is.

So here we are, still asking the same question: how do we balance the need for immigrants—people who help us grow, who do the work that keeps the country moving—with the risk of bringing in people who may not share the values that hold it together?

That part hasn’t changed.

What Has Changed

What has changed is what people are fleeing. When people are escaping oppression, violence, or collapse, they’re not arriving on our doorstep ready to support themselves on day one. They’re going to need help. That’s reality.

The expectation isn’t permanent dependency. It’s that with support, they stabilize, they assimilate, and they contribute—working, paying taxes, becoming part of the community. That’s not theory—that’s how this country has always grown.

Think of it this way: if your neighbor’s house burns down, or a hurricane wipes out everything they have, you don’t stand there debating whether they “deserve” help. You take them in. You help them get back on their feet. It’s not easy. It costs something. But it’s the right thing to do. And once they’re back on their feet, they stand on their own again.

That’s the balance we’re trying to find.

The Real Argument

So the argument about immigration shouldn’t be about whether we allow it. It should be about how we do it right, and how we manage the balance of how many we can actually support. Same as the neighbor example: I’m willing to share what I have in a crisis, but I can’t share more than I have. I can’t take in every neighbor. That’s not a lack of compassion—it’s a limit of reality. Where that line gets drawn is the exact conversation we want to have.

The question we should be asking isn’t whether we spend money. It’s what we get back from the money we spend.

Right now, we spend billions trying to prevent people from coming in. That spending gives us control, enforcement, and some level of deterrence. It doesn’t create economic growth. It doesn’t build anything that compounds over time. Its value is in control—not in return.

On the other side, when we spend money helping people get on their feet—and when it’s structured correctly—that investment can come back. People work. They pay taxes. They build businesses. They become part of the community.

One is defensive spending. The other has the potential to be productive.

The real question is whether we’ve found the right balance between the two—or whether we’re overpaying for a system that never quite solves the problem.

Pour the Coffee

This is the conversation we want to have. The kind of argument that, if you had it around a kitchen table with friends who respected each other, could actually reach a solution. Maybe not one that meets everyone’s needs perfectly—but one that works.

This is the job of our lawmakers. And they’re failing at it. They’re not even talking to each other anymore. That’s something we need to fix.

So let’s start in our own kitchens. Pour the coffee. Have the conversation.