If I asked you, should an 18-year-old kid–someone who was brought here illegally by his parents when he was five, doesn’t remember his “homeland,” has never been “home” since, and didn’t make the decision that brought him here–be deported back to his “homeland,” would you really say yes?
Don’t think about it politically. Think about it as a purely “fair” or “unfair” issue. You’d probably say, let him stay.
Now, how about if I asked you about an adult who brought his child here when the kid was five, and now the kid is being allowed to stay and become a citizen–should the dad be able to use that child as his “anchor child,” his automatic “move to the head of the line” card? No, you’d probably say he shouldn’t be allowed to stay.
So, maybe the kid should stay, but the parent should go home. He can apply to immigrate, but he has to get in line and wait his turn. He can’t use his child as an “in” to butt in line. He can’t profit from his crime.
This just doesn’t seem that difficult. The Republicans say what their concerns are, the Democrats say what their concerns are, and they come up with something in the middle that kind of satisfies both sides.
It’s what my husband and I do every day. It’s called compromise.
Same thing with the budget. Every day, my husband and I discuss what we have to buy (the mortgage), what I’d like to buy (sweaters), and what he’d like to buy (power tools). Maybe we buy a sweater this month and a power tool next month. Maybe the third month we don’t buy anything but the mortgage because we need to save for Christmas. But no matter what, we stop buying when the money runs out. No Chinese fairy godfather who “lends” us bunches of money every month that we never intend to pay back.
Pretty simple.
It just seems like Washington should be able to find a middle ground. Be humane but live within its means. Recognize its limitations. Pay its bills. We do it. Why can’t they?
alisaacarter
Alisa A. Carter 