With states like Arizona cracking down, immigration is once again a mounting political issue. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., recently tacked on the DREAM Act, a bill that provides some illegal immigrants with a path to legal status, to a military funding bill.

Reid’s strategy is nothing new. Politicians regularly slap together two unrelated bills in an effort to twist arms and sweeten the pots to pass legislation.

Lately, this strategy has not been constructive. Bills that would otherwise receive bipartisan support have failed to receive the stand-alone votes that they deserve.

There are numerous examples of legislation left hanging in the balance while Congress plays politics. The Cobell Indian Trust settlement, which was approved by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and the class action suit’s plaintiffs, needs congressional approval before the plaintiffs see a dime. But the settlement, which pays billions to Indian tribes for the federal mismanagement of tribal land, has continuously been placed in partisan bills that did not pass.

Another settlement for black farmers who alleged discrimination in federal farm lending by the United States Department of Agriculture has also been used as a political bargaining chip for controversial legislation which it should be treated as a serious topic in its own right.

Even attaching unrelated provisions to a military funding bill has been done before. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attempted to attach a $23 billion bill for schoolteachers to funding for the military in Afghanistan. Republicans protested, saying that the bill was a bailout for teachers’ unions. The provision was eventually removed from the military bill, but the tack-on tactic continues to resurface.

While the DREAM Act is marginally related to the military because one of the act’s provisions grants citizenship to immigrants who spend two years in the armed forces, the two bills taken in their entirety are strange bedfellows.

The DREAM Act, an acronym for the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, would allow illegal immigrants who arrived in the United States as minors to achieve legal status after meeting certain standards.

The DREAM Act deserves to stand on its own merits. Immigration is a serious subject worthy of serious debate. There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., an issue that demands resolution and action rather than partisan posturing. Attaching the DREAM Act to a military bill is an effort to force hands and characterize opponents as either racist or anti-military. It cheapens the political discourse and reduces complicated subjects to simple campaign fodder, allowing both sides to accuse the other of obstructionism.

Some will argue that, while unpleasant, these quid pro quos are required to force compromise and progress. This viewpoint harkens back to the old adage that the legislative process is like a sausage factory: It is better that the public simply see and enjoy the finished product rather than worrying about the process by which it is created.

However, compromise should come as the result of negotiation, not a take-it-or-leave-it approach. Progress on immigration policy will be stymied by this strategy of bundling, which more closely resembles a strange deal advertised on Craigslist than a legitimate process of representative democracy.

These tactics are the reason why many people are so disaffected and disillusioned with the politicians in Washington. A Sept. 20 Gallup poll showed that Congress had just a 19 percent approval rating, while 77 percent  of those polled disapproved. In other words, the public is tired of politicians. Playing games with the issues of immigration and defense only feeds the public’s cynicism and reinforces the notion that Washington is out of touch with the country.

Immigration is a problem that will require more comprehensive actions down the road. In the meantime, the fact that the DREAM Act is not receving a separate vote is insulting to supporters of the immigration bill as well as those with legitimate objections to either the proposed law or military funding. This may be a game in Washington, but the rest of the country is tired of playing along.