Skip to main content

It's not Syria holding up immigration reform

By Ruben Navarrette, CNN Contributor
updated 8:15 AM EDT, Thu September 12, 2013
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Ruben Navarrette: Some say Syria kept House from passing immigration reform. That's bogus
  • He says debate over until 2015; bill was cumbersome and pork-laden
  • He says sticking points are over things not vital to reform movement, such as citizenship
  • Navarrette: Both parties panicked; Syria gives them out, but it's not the real reason

Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette is a CNN contributor and a nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group. Follow him on Twitter: @rubennavarrette

(CNN) -- Blame it on Damascus? No, let's not.

This week's preferred media narrative comes in two parts:

First, that comprehensive immigration reform isn't just headed to the back burner but will be completely off the stove until 2015 and beyond.

And second, that it was the crisis in Syria that pushed the issue off the agenda. After all, we're told, how can Congress concentrate on anything else when it has to decide whether to approve a military strike against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad?

Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Ruben Navarrette Jr.

The first part is fact, but the second part is fiction.

It's true that Congress is done with the immigration debate for the rest of this year. The GOP-controlled House of Representatives might hold a vote on a "reform-lite" bill where illegal immigrants get legal status but not citizenship. Or it might offer legal status only to farm workers and DREAMers, those publicity-seeking undocumented young people who want preferential treatment because they intend to go to college or join the military.

But any hope of a large-scale reform that offers legal status to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States has faded. And because Congress really only shows up for work in odd-numbered years (so members can run for re-election in-between), we'll probably be having this conversation in 2015, 2017 and 2019.

It is not true, however, that it was Syria that killed immigration reform for this Congress. That's just a quick and easy explanation -- one favored by those who don't understand the issue in all its complexities -- and it's also an excuse that comes in handy for lawmakers looking for an exit door.

One of them is Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, who recently told Univision's Jorge Ramos that it is becoming less likely that immigration reform will pass anytime soon because Congress is turning its attention to Syria. Weeks ago, Labrador walked away from immigration reform efforts in the House.

No, a proper autopsy would show that immigration reform is meeting its demise in this Congress for a variety of reasons. Here are three of them:

One: The major legislative offering -- the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act -- collapsed under its own weight.

When the Senate's bipartisan "Gang of Eight" unveiled its masterpiece in April, the bill was 844 pages long. The amendment process pushed it past 1,000 pages.

The folks who have helped pass immigration reform legislation -- i.e., the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act -- before will tell you that when you want to pass legislation, you want the bill to get smaller as time goes on, not the opposite.

Zuckerberg pushes immigration overhaul
Rep. Steve King on immigration
Immigration overhaul stalled

Besides, there was too much pork. Many of the giveways have had nothing to do with immigration but were merely intended to get the support of senator so-and-so from such-and-such state. That's because, as California-based policy analyst Arnold Torres maintains, the debate was always about politics instead of what it should have been about: policy.

Torres knows this terrain well, having contributed to the debate over reform in 1986 as executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens. Many advocates this time around were too busy worrying about passing something, anything, to give a thought to whether what they had on the table was worth passing or how it would be implemented.

Two: As broken as Washington is on most issues, when the subject is immigration, it is doubly dysfunctional.

That town is filled with people who use this issue to further their own agendas. If you interviewed illegal immigrants and asked them what they would have liked to have achieved in the immigration reform process -- and I've done just that -- they would ask for three things: a work permit, the ability to travel across borders and a driver's license.

What's not on that list? Citizenship and the voting privileges that come with it, which is a repeated deal-breaker for politicians.

Washington is also filled with people who think they know more than the folks on the frontlines. If you sat down with Border Patrol agents and supervisors and asked them what they need -- and I've done that, too -- they would ask for new roads on the border, surveillance equipment and tunnel detection capability.

Whatever you do, they'd say, don't give us more agents to train and more fencing that doesn't keep out anyone. So what did the Senate bill -- thanks to the Corker-Hoeven "border surge" amendment -- offer? More agents and more fencing.

Three: The debate has been inherently dishonest, with neither side able to trust the other.

Posturing and hot air to the contrary, neither party really wanted to have this debate. It divides their constituencies. Republicans have to referee a civil war between nativists who want less immigration because they fear that the country's complexion is changing, and business interests that want more immigration because they need workers.

Democrats have to keep the peace between Latinos who want illegal immigrants to have a pathway to citizenship because they feel their pain, and some members of organized labor, who--despite the fact that their leadership supports reform-- would like to give immigrants a one-way bus ticket to their home country because they fear the competition.

The solution? Fool everyone.

Republicans talk tough but go soft on employers by creating loopholes and delaying enforcement efforts. Democrats talk soft but pander to working-class Americans by ratcheting up deportations and building walls. Sometimes, it works. Still, it is one heck of a tough spot to be in.

Now thanks to the crisis in Syria, members of Congress in both parties have a way out. And, with the enthusiasm of a dying man in the desert reaching for a bottle of water, they're grabbing it.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ruben Navarrette.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 7:22 PM EDT, Fri September 19, 2014
Is ballet dying? CNN spoke with Isabella Boylston, a principal dancer at the American Ballet Theatre, about the future of the art form.
updated 5:47 PM EDT, Fri September 19, 2014
Sally Kohn says it's time we take climate change as seriously as we do warfare in the Middle East
updated 9:02 AM EDT, Fri September 19, 2014
Dean Obeidallah says an Oklahoma state representative's hateful remarks were rightfully condemned by religious leaders..
updated 3:22 PM EDT, Fri September 19, 2014
No matter how much planning has gone into U.S. military plans to counter the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Arab public isn't convinced that anything will change, says Geneive Abdo
updated 11:44 AM EDT, Fri September 19, 2014
President Obama's strategy for destroying ISIS seems to depend on a volley of air strikes. That won't be enough, says Haider Mullick.
updated 9:03 AM EDT, Fri September 19, 2014
Paul Begala says Hillary Clinton has plenty of good reasons not to jump into the 2016 race now
updated 11:01 AM EDT, Fri September 19, 2014
Scotland decided to trust its 16-year-olds to vote in the biggest question in its history. Americans, in contrast, don't even trust theirs to help pick the county sheriff. Who's right?
updated 9:57 PM EDT, Thu September 18, 2014
Ruben Navarrette says spanking is an acceptable form of disciplining a child, as long as you follow the rules.
updated 11:47 AM EDT, Fri September 19, 2014
Frida Ghitis says the foiled Australian plot shows ISIS is working diligently to taunt the U.S. and its allies.
updated 3:58 PM EDT, Fri September 19, 2014
Young U.S. voters by and large just do not see the midterm elections offering legitimate choices because, in their eyes, Congress has proven to be largely ineffectual, and worse uncaring, argues John Della Volpe
updated 9:58 PM EDT, Thu September 18, 2014
Steven Holmes says spanking, a practice that is ingrained in our culture, accomplishes nothing positive and causes harm.
updated 2:31 PM EDT, Thu September 18, 2014
Sally Kohn says America tried "Cowboy Adventurism" as a foreign policy strategy; it failed. So why try it again?
updated 10:27 AM EDT, Thu September 18, 2014
Van Jones says the video of John Crawford III, who was shot by a police officer in Walmart, should be released.
updated 10:48 AM EDT, Thu September 18, 2014
NASA will need to embrace new entrants and promote a lot more competition in future, argues Newt Gingrich.
updated 7:15 PM EDT, Tue September 16, 2014
If U.S. wants to see real change in Iraq and Syria, it will have to empower moderate forces, says Fouad Siniora.
updated 8:34 PM EDT, Wed September 17, 2014
Mark O'Mara says there are basic rules to follow when interacting with law enforcement: respect their authority.
updated 9:05 AM EDT, Tue September 16, 2014
LZ Granderson says Congress has rebuked the NFL on domestic violence issue, but why not a federal judge?
updated 7:49 AM EDT, Tue September 16, 2014
Mel Robbins says the only person you can legally hit in the United States is a child. That's wrong.
updated 1:23 PM EDT, Mon September 15, 2014
Eric Liu says seeing many friends fight so hard for same-sex marriage rights made him appreciate marriage.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT