Having a meaningful discussion of social or political issues is difficult in today’s hyperpartisan political climate.

This is especially so when the issue has to do with immigration to the United States, as the current brouhaha in Congress over the DACA program shows. In this case, a program supported by the vast majority of Americans led to a brief government shutdown followed by a tidal wave of finger- pointing and hyperbole.

One side accuses its opposition of putting the interests of undocumented immigrants over those of Americans, while the other side accuses its opposition of failing to represent the interest of their constituents. That’s a lot of hyperpartisan rancor for a program that polls show is supported in one way or another by 70 to 89 percent of Americans.

I belong to an organization called Hawaii J-20+, and we’ve seen the effects of hyperpartisanship first-hand during our efforts to inform legislators about issues related to making Hawaii a sanctuary state. The issue of sanctuary jurisdictions made front pages last year when Rahm Emmanuel, the combative mayor of Chicago, faced off with Jeff Sessions, the equally combative U.S. attorney general. Sessions suggested the rule of law was in jeopardy and that undocumented immigrants were criminals who prey on U.S. citizens. This round of hyperbole made for great headlines, but it mostly avoided the practical issues at hand.

Although the term “sanctuary” evokes images of a spiritual safe haven, the idea behind sanctuary legislation is solidly practical. Immigration is a federal function that citizens support with the money they pay in taxes to the Internal Revenue Service. However, the federal government routinely deputizes local law enforcement agents to assist in immigration enforcement, even though it does not provide funding to local governments for this purpose. This cooperation means local taxpayers effectively pay twice for immigration enforcement — once via federal taxes, and again via state and local taxes.

Sanctuary legislation instructs local law enforcement agents to decline to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement agencies, except as required by federal law, so taxpayers aren’t charged twice. This double-billing is one reason why about 600 municipalities and a handful of states — most recently California — have adopted sanctuary legislation.

In Hawaii, local law enforcement agents routinely cooperate with federal agencies on immigration issues. One common request, a warrant-less detainer, asks local law enforcers to hold an arrested undocumented immigrant at Oahu Community Correctional Center for 48 hours longer than the allowable 24 hours. Federal judges in other districts have ruled these warrant-less detainers are unlawful. The direct cost to Hawaii taxpayers for the cooperation of our local law enforcement agents over the last 10 years has been estimated at $300,000. In addition, holding immigrants on warrant-less detainers contributes to the overcrowding of OCCC.

Last year, the City Council passed a Haven of Aloha resolution declaring Honolulu a place that welcomes immigrants. The state House and Senate each passed a similar Ho‘okipa resolution — but the two resolutions differed slightly, so no Ho‘okipa resolution passed the Legislature.

Sanctuary legislation based on the Ho‘okipa resolution and modeled on New York and California laws has been introduced: Senate Bill 2290 by Sen. Karl Rhoads and House Bill 1994 by Rep. Kaniela Ing. If either bill is enacted into law, it will protect Hawaii taxpayers from being double-billed for immigration enforcement, and will help ease OCCC overcrowding.

Although the legislation has practical and financial benefits, hyperpartisan hyperbole will likely emerge as it makes its way through the legislative process. Do the practical thing: Encourage support for these bills so that you and your fellow citizens pay only once for immigration enforcement, not twice. As part of the bargain, you can also help ease overcrowding at OCCC.

Thomas S. Dye, a Chinatown resident, is an archaeologist.