WHAT is this? Did somebody spike the newsroom’s coffee? Everything is spinning. Can this really be a good idea-out of Washington, D.C.? One that reasonable people in both parties can support?

Do we really see a gleam of light emanating from the black hole that is the capital of American politics? Could the country’s long broken immigration “system” actually be fixed? Or at least stitched halfway together in a halfway rational pattern?

Some say it could happen this year, which would make it a Jubilee Year-even if those who know Washington will recognize the latest attempt to break the impasse on immigration-in an election year yet!-as an impossible dream. Don Quixote, where are you when you’re needed?

Talk about the knight of the sad countenance, who better to play the role than the frozen-faced John Boehner, who as speaker of the House has sat expressionless behind the president of the United States during State of the Union addresses so many times by now he could be one of the grim-faced portraits on the Capitol’s walls.

Never mind that one fully fleshed-out immigration bill is already past the Senate; it’s the House that has proven the immovable object in this years-long struggle to do the right thing. Finally.

Any and all of the speaker’s just announced Principles for Immigration Reform would seem to make sense. Or at least sensible generalities. It’s as if the speaker and his considerable staff got together to fix this problem instead of fighting it. Here are some of those Principles the speaker and his people came up with:

-Border security first. Which should go without saying, but always has to be said, if only to remind some folks that one of the primary, almost defining, functions of a government is to secure its country’s borders. The speaker is politic enough to know that, to get his own party on board, the gaps in the country’s borders must precede any other reform.

But just how and when will the country know its borders are secured? When not a single intruder can get through? That’s not security, it’s an impossibility. Some clear, simple standard of security for America’s borders needs to be defined, then enforced. Which is a lot easier to say than do. But it can be done. And must be. For “a nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.”-Reagan, R.

But how is the Republican majority in the House going to be talked into expanding the president’s power over immigration when he has abused his power time and again? (See Obamacare for a prime example of Mr. Obama’s idea of the law as just something he determines on an as-needed basis.)

-E-verify workers. After “border security,” whatever that turns out to mean, this should be a snap. This is 2014. The days of filling out (sometimes forged) paperwork in triplicate are over. An employer can verify a worker’s legal status with a few clicks on his smart phone.

-Give priority to the educated. Why would this country let young people from all over the world into our universities and teach them how to be scientists or engineers or doctors, and then make them go home as soon as they graduate? Shouldn’t the national interest have something to do with a national immigration policy? Get a college degree or serve a hitch in the Army, and a young but not yet legal immigrant should be allowed to move up in line. What other country would deny itself so valuable an asset?

-Let the DREAMers stay, for gosh sakes. Why make children pay for the sins of their elders? If a child has been brought here as a toddler, America is already home. If the kid gets a college degree or serves in the military after he’s no longer a kid, let him or her have a chance to become a U.S. citizen.

We should be educating these young people, not discouraging them. Who knows which one will cure cancer or explore the stars?

They don’t call this the Land of Opportunity for nothing. That phrase ought to mean something more than just a slogan on license plates. There are times when the need for simple justice coincides with a great opportunity for the country. This is such a time-if we would but recognize it. Pass the DREAM Act. At last.

Each immigrant testifies to the gravitational pull and undimmed promise of the American Idea in the world. (“A simple way to take the measure of a country is to look at how many want in . . . and how many want out.”-Tony Blair.) America continues to pass that test-with flying red, white and blue colors. May she always.

-No special path to citizenship. Illegal means illegal. Fair is fair. Why should immigrants who broke American law be put on an express train to American citizenship-ahead of all those who played by the rules? Arcane and obscure as those rules might be, they’re still the rules. The law is still the law. La ley es la ley.

Yes, let those illegals who have shown their promise and demonstrated their devotion to this country come out of the shadows, and earn their green card. But before making them citizens, have them pay their fines and back taxes, learn the national language, show they’re able to become self-supporting and law-abiding Americans, and then apply for membership in the most esteemed club in the world: American citizenship.

The problem: The speaker’s Principles make so much sense you know he’s going to run into a storm of opposition from the habitual, instinctive, reflexive agginers-many of whom have grounds for their suspicions where this president is concerned.

Those habitual naysayers wouldn’t be themselves if they were not standing in the way of reform, however sensible or overdue. Good luck, Mr. Speaker. Especially with the troglodytes of your own party and people of ill will everywhere.

IT DIDN’T take long for the opposition to form. It never does when someone dares talk sense. The day this speaker of the House came out with his Principles, a former speaker came out with hers. Nancy Pelosi said the Democrats in the House will oppose any immigration reform that does not create a special pathway to citizenship for all illegal immigrants, adults and children alike. To just make them legal isn’t good enough for Ms. Pelosi. Her objection to the legal status the speaker would afford now illegal immigrants? “They wouldn’t even be second-class citizens, because they wouldn’t be citizens. They’d be second-class residents of our country. I just can’t subscribe to that. And that’s not where our caucus is.”

No, ma’am, they wouldn’t be citizens. Mainly because they shouldn’t be, not till they’ve earned American citizenship. But that principle seems to be too simple for the lady to grasp.

Here’s a suggestion: The leader of the minority in the House would do well to follow the leader of her own party. Just last Friday, the president indicated he’d be open to a deal that doesn’t include any special path to citizenship, but just affords these immigrants legal status:

“If the speaker proposes something that says right away: Folks aren’t being deported, families aren’t being separated, we’re able to attract top young students to provide the skills or start businesses here, and then there’s a regular process of citizenship, I’m not sure how wide the divide ends up being.”

What’s this? Can the president mean what he so often only says about the virtues of compromise in politics? Here’s a way for him to prove it: Pick up the phone. Remind the leader of her party in the House that she is the minority leader, and needs to work with the majority leader if anything’s finally going to get done about cleaning up the morass that our immigration laws have become. Make this the year for real immigration reform. Finally.

Editorial, Pages 14 on 02/04/2014