Last month I traveled to Washington, D.C. to speak with Congress people on both sides of the aisle about immigration. Here's what I learned.

In April 2018, I traveled with other immigration advocates to Washington, D.C. as part of an event hosted by the American Immigration Lawyers Association. I had the opportunity to meet with five congressional offices, including three Democrats and two Republicans. I found that staffers on both sides of the aisle felt discouraged that the atmosphere in Congress is uniquely difficult now, not only around immigration, but on most issues.

I went into my meetings knowing that I would pursue a strategy of persuasive education, engaging people in a friendly and confident way while providing insights that I've gained since working in immigration law. My goal when speaking with congressional offices that do not agree with me on the issues, was to help provide facts and try to plant seeds of doubt. For example, one staffer asked why, if the United States wants to better control who comes into the country, isn't a border wall a starting point? Out of the group of advocates in the meeting, I spoke up and offered to clarify and pointed out that we immigration advocates have a fundamental distrust that if a complete border wall is built (there are already seven non-contiguous walls), then legitimate asylum seekers will be unable to enter the country to escape persecution. I offered him the story of some of his constituents - a woman and her two children who fled their home country seeking refuge from targeted extreme violence. They had sought protection in their home country but authorities would not help them. With my assistance, this family was able to convince an immigration judge to grant them asylum status and they are now contributing and tax-paying members of their community. I told the staffer that currently, there is no refugee program in this woman's country that would allow her to seek refuge in the United States from abroad - she had to come here, without authorization, in order to ask a judge for asylum. If a wall is built, legitimate asylum seekers will be prevented from fleeing persecution. I was pleased when the staffer immediately said he believed the Republican congressman would support a humanitarian program to allow asylum seekers entry and I thanked him for that, but pointed out that no such program is on the horizon.

In another meeting, I learned that even highly educated people do not know how immigration law works. One congressional staffer politely told me that he wanted to ask me a question because he truly did not know the answer: "Do people who claim to fear returning to their home country have to prove their fear?" Yes, I told him, and thanked him for asking. I explained that when I present an asylum claim to a judge, I offer my client's testimony under oath and subject to cross-examination by an ICE prosecutor. I also offer testimony from any other witnesses to the persecution. I present two experts, who provide a written report and often courtroom testimony. One expert is a psychologist who has evaluated the client for symptoms of fear and trauma that corroborate the client's story; the psychologist also tests for malingering. The second expert is a country conditions expert, often a university professor, who has traveled extensively in the home country and has first-hand and academic experience studying the conditions of violence and persecution and can speak to whether the client's story is corroborated by conditions on the ground. So yes, I told him, a person must prove their claim of fear in order to be offered refuge here.

When dealing with congressional offices that I know do not support pro-immigrant policies, I tried to find points of interest for that congressman, particularly which businesses and industries in their home district matter most, and was prepared to talk about the positive and vital contribution that immigrants provide. I offered to be a point person for information anytime the congressman wants to cast an informed vote on an immigration bill, even though I understood that the vote may not be one I would support.

At the end of the day, I left feeling encouraged that the tone had been so positive and that each person had asked honest and reasonable questions about the facts. I continue to believe that most people are reasonable and I hope that practical and compassionate minds will prevail and speak up when hateful rhetoric translates into anti-immigrant policies.