The four basic options on granting citizenship/voting rights

-Everybody who wishes to vote, whether born in the country or having come to it, would have to pass a test. This would increase the fairness of the system as there wouldn't be different standards or people taking the vote for granted. This would lead to the unfortunate situation where people would have to live under laws that they didn't have a role in supporting, not even in electing the representatives who made them.
-Everybody (over the legal age) is allowed to vote; there are no citizenship or residency qualifications. This would avoid having anyone having to take a test and, if he or she failed, not being able to vote but it would allow tourists to vote for representatives and/or initiatives who they subsequently wouldn't have to live under.
-The status quo: everybody born in the country becomes a citizen automatically and is able to vote on turning 18 while people not born in the country who aspire to become citizens have to pass the test. This has the problem of double standards and the seeming unfairness that they entail, although some feel that this is an instance where the different standards are appropriate.
-The compromise reform: people born in the country are automatically citizens with voting rights at 18. All people who want to come to the country can do so by following procedures or ignoring procedures and moving on their own. The people who immigrate illegally and avoid deportation (or do not but illegally immigrate again enough times) can receive amnesty and be put on the pathway to citizenship that those who followed the procedure are. As not following the procedure is advantaged (by letting the person get to the country earlier), more people would ignore the procedure. The political forces that support granting amnesty would gain support from the receivers of amnesty and would therefore want the number of illegal immigrants to increase so that there could be further grants of amnesty and they could get more support.