Even before congressional backers of a new, bipartisan, immigration-reform proposal had finished sharing their ideas, rabid critics began foaming at the mouth. This week, as the U.S. Senate plunges into the debate, expect the acrimony to intensify.

Such behavior causes me to worry about the future of this country, especially its ability to make necessary compromises.

For too long, Americans have resided in a house divided over illegal immigration. For too long, the immigration situation – despite its worsening year after year – has eluded a solution. For too long, those caught in the middle – people who take an unlawful path to secure a better life – have suffered a dangerous, second-class existence. For too long, employers of illegal immigrants have shamelessly reaped the benefits of their shadowy work force. And for too long, Washington has talked about security while winking at the U.S.-Mexico border’s porousness.

I say, enough. If our current political leaders fail to find common ground on immigration reform in 2007, then we should look for new faces in 2008.

Although I do not agree with every aspect of the latest immigration-reform plan, it represents a start. Instead of shredding the concept into unrecognizable fragments, why not acknowledge what it has to offer?

For example, is it not appropriate to talk about a mechanism for dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants already here?

In an ideal world, people would wait their turn to come to America. But in the real world, they simply do not for multiple reasons, mostly those associated with economic survival. To many sympathizers, such circumstances warrant a blanket amnesty. I disagree, and my reading of the new plan’s provisions suggests nothing of the kind. Rather, the proposal recommends avenues to speed many undocumented immigrants toward legal status.

Opponents may view those gestures as overly permissive, but they should face the facts. The alternative of rounding up all illegal immigrants and deporting them to Mexico and other countries of origin would defy possibility, probability and fairness. Practicality and decency demand another approach. It is needlessly alarmist to suggest that reasonable accommodation of illegal immigrants within a revised system of rules is tantamount to surrendering U.S. border security.

Indeed, it is essential to aim for improved border security as part of any immigration-reform plan. The sievelike nature of the U.S.-Mexico border is substantially responsible for the problem we face. As a remedy, some wrongheadedly advocate constructing a continuous wall along the border. Not only would the cost be prohibitive, but I have my doubts that such a wall would stop the flow of illegal immigrants. Even worse, it could easily boost the number of people who die or injure themselves in border crossings each year.

However, an array of additional defenses – from more Border Patrol agents, radars and aerial surveillance vehicles to better identification tools – just might do the trick.

Finally, why not ask more of U.S. employers?

Quite frankly, if businesses did not hang out the welcome sign to unlawful workers, those individuals would have little reason to cross the border. Therefore, I fully support stiffer penalties for unlawful hiring and fraudulent record-keeping, as well as more stringent verification of employee identities and work eligibility.

There is more, to be sure, that requires attention in the immigration-reform discussion, from the number of and parameters for guest workers to what should be required of future immigrants. Let us put it all out there, give it a thorough airing, suppress the tendency to foam, and summon the courage to achieve a sensible and balanced compromise this year.

The effort is worth making because the immigration issue deserves resolution – not for the legacy of the U.S. president or other elected officials, but for America’s.