Reform policies on immigration

This should be the last straw: the dismaying spectacle of more than 2,300 migrant children, crying and confused, pulled from their parents at the U.S. southern border by armed immigration agents.

The plight of these innocent children touched the hearts of millions of Americans — including first lady Melania Trump — and demonstrated that there are limits to the zero-tolerance, treat-them-all-like-criminals approach. That said, there also are limits to relaxing border controls, as presidents before Donald Trump have learned.

It’s not clear that Trump’s executive order on Wednesday to keep detained parents and children together, instead of apart, will ease the pain. A court order forbids holding families in custody for more than 20 days, a restriction the Trump administration wants lifted.

Meanwhile, the fate of those 2,300 migrant children remains unresolved, and there’s no sign they will be reunited with their parents anytime soon.

There is only one solution: real comprehensive immigration reform, informed by compromise and common sense, to bring some order to the chaos that now passes for U.S. immigration policy.

Yes, reform means stronger, more reliable immigration controls. But it should include measures of compassion such as a path to citizenship for those who have demonstrated they can contribute to our society. That includes the Dreamers, brought to the U.S. as children, who have thrived in, and contributed to, the only country they know and love.

It should include those with genuine claims of asylum, which is a recognized right under federal law.

It also should include people like the well-respected Kona coffee farmer Andres Magana Ortiz, who built a productive career in Hawaii’s coffee industry after being smuggled into the U.S. at the age of 15 by human traffickers. Magana Ortiz, called a “pillar of the community” by a federal judge, returned to Mexico last year in advance of a deportation order. He left behind his American wife and their three children.

And, of course, a good immigration bill would prevent the wholesale separation of children from their parents at the border. Such inhumane treatment of innocents is unworthy of the values our nation espouses. All four members of Hawaii’s congressional delegation rightly have condemned the practice, and signed onto legislation that would keep families together.

Besides, separating parents and children is staggeringly expensive. The cost of housing thousands of unmoored children in facilities from Texas to New York is fast approaching $1 billion. And The New York Times reported that the Department of Health and Human Services has asked the Pentagon to prepare housing on U.S. military bases for as many as 20,000 migrant children.

While the current situation on the southern border may be top of mind, it’s nothing new. The pressure from migrants trying to cross into the U.S., legally or otherwise, has bedeviled any number of presidents.

Barack Obama was criticized for expanding immigration enforcement and setting a record for deportations — although, unlike zero-tolerance, he focused on those with violent records.

His administration also set up privately run detention centers for families, with chain-link fencing and shiny blankets looking eerily similar to those in use today. And it was under Obama, in 2011, that removal proceedings began against Magana Ortiz, although he was granted a stay in 2014.

A broad, compromise immigration bill negotiated by House Republicans would provide some protections for Dreamers and migrant families. But like most compromises in today’s polarized Washington, it faces a rough political road. Democrats complain it gives away too much to Trump, including billions for a border wall. Conservatives warn against “passing amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants,” as the Heritage Action for America put it.

It may be that nothing good immigration-wise can come out of Congress in this polarized climate, especially in an election year. But this week’s border debacle must press policymakers, from the president on down, to set aside their divisive politics, make concessions and make things better.