Is it possible to find middle ground in immigration debate?

THERE may be no more divisive issue in America today than immigration reform, as underscored by the campaigns of the two major-party candidates for president. Is middle ground really possible? Democrat Hillary Clinton is promising, if elected, to introduce comprehensive reform within her first 100 days in office. It would offer “a pathway to full and equal citizenship,” according to her website, hillaryclinton. com. In addition, it will “treat every person with dignity, fix the family visa backlog, uphold the rule of law, protect our borders and national security, and bring millions of hardworking people into the formal economy.”

Clinton also would defend President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration, which have been challenged successfully in court by parties who contend they’re unconstitutional. A 4-4 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court this summer kept those actions on hold.

At the other end of the spectrum is Republican candidate Donald Trump, who has made building a wall along the border with Mexico one of his central themes and for a time promised to deport the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States today.

Trump has often resorted to fearmongering, starting on the day in June 2015 when he announced his candidacy and referred to Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals.

During a recent campaign stop in Portland, Maine, he listed examples of immigrants, refugees or students who were admitted to the United States legally from several countries and then plotted to kill Americans. “We’re letting people come in from terrorist nations that should not be allowed because you can’t vet them,” he said. “There’s no way of vetting them.”

So legal and illegal immigration apparently would be Trump targets.

Few would argue that steps should be taken to combat illegal immigration. But one way to do that, as we’ve noted before, is to improve the process for legal immigration. This call was echoed earlier this month in Oklahoma by a bipartisan group seeking reform.

Terry Detrick, president of American Farmers & Ranchers, noted that Oklahoma’s agricultural exports have grown as the number of agricultural workers has shrunk. That’s a problem, one that could be aided through an overhaul of the United States’ guest worker program. That would “bring more opportunity for our state’s farmers and the workers they are desperate to employ,” Detrick said.

A report by The Partnership for a New American Economy, a group that supports immigration reform that creates jobs, showed immigrants comprise 5.7 percent of Oklahoma’s population. In 2014, immigrants to Oklahoma earned $4.2 billion (about 4 percent of all earnings in the state) and contributed $1.1 billion in taxes (4.4 percent of the total share). Undocumented immigrants earned $1.4 billion in 2014 and paid $149.4 million in state, local and federal taxes.

Would anyone argue that Oklahoma City isn’t a richer place because of its Vietnamese, Lebanese and Hispanic influences? What would Chicago or New York be without its immigrants? How much better is the National Basketball Association as a result of rosters dotted with overseas players? Done right, immigration makes this country better.

Detrick was right when he said, “The reason immigration policies today are in the wreck that they are in is because of uncompromising politics.” Somehow, that needs to change.