Is compromise dead?

Back to Article
Back to Article

Is compromise dead?





Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.

Email This Story

Today, in America, a massive gulf has opened in the country.

It boils down to coast versus heartland, red versus blue, country versus city, liberal versus conservative and pro-gun versus pro-choice.

Perhaps the most inflammatory issue of them all is the present debate raging over immigration.

Any issue as emotional as this is sure to arouse strong feelings of frustration, anger, annoyance and hysterics.

With all the shouting, I began wondering if it was even still possible to have a respectful conversation on the issues without it devolving into name calling or yelling?

As an experiment, a jury of our peers, so-to-speak, was assembled from across the political spectrum.

Their goal was simple: work out a compromise on immigration.

Immigration was chosen as a proxy issue, because the debate around it is so heated especially in a time where there is such a toxic political landscape surrounding it.

Our jury was given a list of possible solutions. They were then told they could pick all, none or some of them, or they could come up with their own.

The only stipulation was that the agreement must be unanimous.

The results were interesting to say the least.

The haggling that took place would have made any used car salesman proud.

Everyone agreed to fund the proposed border wall between the United States and Mexico in exchange for protections for the so-called “Dreamers.”

Heated debate also took place on sanctuary cities, the practice by some cities of not honoring detainer requests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E).

All sides agreed that no city, or state, has the right to simply ignore federal laws it does not agree with, and that while there may have been disagreement on who I.C.E should focus on it was decided that if cities want to maintain current levels of illegal aliens they should either change federal law or ask the judiciary to weigh in.

Neither states, nor cities have the right to set their own immigration policies without the federal government weighing in.

The point is this: Despite all the emotion, all the shouting, all the rhetoric, a group of people from different backgrounds and different beliefs were able to come together and form a reasonable compromise for the benefit of the country.

At the beginning, I asked if there was still such a thing as compromise in the name of both the common good, and the country.

More than that, however, there was a recognition between the three groups of liberal, moderate, and conservative that neither side should get everything they want.

The answer to that is —yes, there is, all it really takes is the courage for people of good will to come together and try.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email