Trump sends Fla. into panic on migrants. How about a solution?

A competent president could handle the migrant crunch at the southern border.

A competent president would call congressional leaders of both parties to the White House. He would ask for an emergency spending bill.

That legislation would include money for agencies – public and private – that provide services to the migrants. It would include money for more immigration court judges, to reduce the 800,000-case backlog.

That legislation also would include aid for countries from which most of the migrants have come – El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. A competent president would see that money as an investment. If conditions improve where they live, fewer migrants will come.

A competent president would consider moving some migrants from Texas, to share the burden until the crunch eased. A competent president, however, wouldn’t send migrants only to places that voted against him. He wouldn’t allow rumors to panic state and local officials, as happened last week in Florida.

But we don’t have a competent president. We have Donald Trump, who prefers low political theater to policy. He remains fixated on a border wall – he wants it painted black, with spikes on top — that would do nothing to stem the flow of migrants, who come through legal checkpoints.

Last week, Trump pretended to take immigration seriously. He announced that he favors a “merit-based, high-security” system. He would assign points to potential immigrants based on ability to speak English and financial self-sufficiency.

They would have to pass a civics exam. Maybe he could write the one on separation of powers.

But Trump offered only a set of supposed principles. He didn’t offer a bill. He didn’t consult with Democrats. He falsely accused them of supporting “open borders.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said, “I look forward to reviewing the president’s proposal.” Translation: It’s going nowhere.

Some candidates proudly claim, “I’m not a politician.” Such public office amateurs and their supporters don’t understand that results come only through politics — drafting legislation and building compromise.

Trump would hate the comparison, but his proposal represents a pale-tea version of Barack Obama’s 2013 immigration reform bill. It was actual legislation and actual compromise.

Obama knew that, to get support for dealing with the status of illegal immigrants, he had to satisfy lawmakers who prioritized security. So the bill contained $46 billion for new fencing, technology and 38,405 Border Patrol agents. There are about 20,000 now.

The goal was to establish 100 percent surveillance of the Mexican border and stop 90 percent of illegal crossings. If the government didn’t meet the standard in five years, a coalition of governors and others would determine how to achieve it.

To attract high-skilled workers, Obama’s legislation would have raised annual H-1B visas from 65,000 – still the current limit – to 110,000. More could have come if they had STEM degrees – science, technology, engineering and math. Within four years, all employers would have had to use the E-Verify system to check legal status.

Obama’s bill also would have created – wait for it – a points system. It would have ended the diversity lottery that Trump has criticized. It would have restricted the family lottery that Trump falsely has called “chain migration.” Citizens couldn’t sponsor siblings for resettlement. Legal permanent residents – green card holders – couldn’t sponsor spouses and children.

Those here illegally would have received “registered provisional immigrant status” six months after enactment of the bill. Among other things, they could not have been convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors. They would have to pay a $500 fine.

After 10 years, those on “provisional” status could apply for a green card if they were current on their taxes, paid $1,000 and had lived here continuously, learned English and met work requirements. “Dreamers” – adults brought here as children – could have applied for green card in five years and citizenship thereafter.

The Senate approved the bill with bipartisan support, including a vote from Marco Rubio, who helped to draft it. The House never debated it. Hardliners falsely called it “amnesty.” Some of those hardliners even blasted Trump’s tepid offering.

Most Americans favor Obama-style immigration reform and resolution of the migrant crunch. A shrill minority prevents the first. An incompetent president who plays to that shrill minority prevents the second.