Let me try to take an example that I think SHOULD be reasonable if both sides are able to give a bit and compromse.
Immigration. Specifically, looking at children brought here illegally.
Republicans don't want to simply give them free citizenship, free government services, or "reward" them with citizenship for doing something that is viewed as a privilege (college) or simply common sense necessary for survival (having a job). They want to see people here illegally go to the back of the line in terms of getting legal citizenship rights.
Democrats don't want children brought here by their parents to essentially suffer the sins of the parents and wish to give them a method in which they can, relatively speaking, easily gain citizenship in a manner that doesn't require them to self-deport. They would like to see people have some kind of pathway to citizenship.
A compromise type law that would provide some "wins" for both sides could be something like this...
A law that institutes the Military side of the Dream Act, allowing those over 18 and brought here illegally to enter into a standard military service contract and provisional citizenship that, upon completion of their initial service, becomes full citizenship. To be able to enter into such a program, their immediate relatives must come forward with them. Their records will be checked, and if they have no criminal record and are gainfully employed they will be allowed to stay in this country for the length of their childs military service in a way similar to our Work Visa (IE, not eligible for the various civil services, etc) during which they can apply to become a permanent citizen. During this time period, 2% of their salary and their child's military salary is garnished by the government as penalty for the illegal entry into the country. Additionally, the business in which they are gainfully employed will be tagged for an automatic check of their employee records for any other illegal workers they may have in their employee.
This would do a few things...
For Republicans:
- It's not allowing citizenship "For free", or "for doing something that's a privledge", or for doing something that's a "basic need to survive" but rather by putting their life at risk serving this country. This provides military manpower AND will help facilitate further "assimilation" into the American Culture by instilling a military mentality into the individuals
- The requirement of the immediate family coming forward allows us to identify and track more of the illegal population in this country. The designation as a Guest Worker allows a trackable method to check in terms of their attempted use of public services, and the garnished wages help provide a "punishment" for the illegal activity while also provide revenue. The fact they are "Guest Workers" doesn't give them a vote, and they don't get any enhanced movement up the line towards citizenship.
- The requirement to automatically trigger a check on the place of business allows us to crack down on businesses propagating the support of illegal immigration by hiring them, and potentially discovering a large group of illegals to remove from the country.
For Democrats:
- Children of illegals gain a way in which they can become a citizen of this country without having to leave and come back. They also, through access to the military, become eligible for additional government programs to assist them with furthering their education after their military service if they so choose.
- The Parents of said child get to stay in the country their child is putting their life on the line for, and attempt to gain citizenship without returning to their original country.
- Business owners are who are paying their individuals under the table, potentially paying inhumane low wages and who are not paying the appropriate government taxes in order to line their own pockets, are able to be discovered and dealt with.
To me, this is the type of compromise that SHOULD be able to work.
Democrats have to give up some of the SPECIFICS of how they want to accomplish some of their goals (provide citizenship to the children of illegals, provide expedited path to citizenship to illegals) or accept that they can't go to the EXTENT they want right this moment (ALL illegals), but their general goals are met at least for some of the population and that's better than not being met at all.
Republicans have to give up some of the SPECIFICS of how they want to accomplish some of their goals (no easy/free citizenship, get illegals out of the country) or accept that they can't go to the EXTENT they want right this moment (ALL illegals need to leave the country), but their general goals are met at least for some of the population and that's better than not being met at all.
This is a different sort of compromise than saying "Look...YOU vote for the Dream Act as it stands, and we'll vote for a border fence". In that situation, one side is having to go along with something that when taken in total actually goes strongly against some of their goals and the other side is then having to do the same. In the situation I stated above, I think it's more of a case of looking at what both sides want to get out of a situation, and attempting to find a THIRD solution that satisfies goals from each without largely stepping on the goals of each as well. Would both sides like MORE? Sure. But compared to status quo, it would be a net gain for both where as the traditional style "compromise" that is talked about currently is more of trading in a net wash (status quo) for a net wash (one thing you love / one thing you hate) which is also a net wash.
