Congress’ Immigration Bill Failure Is a Warning Sign

A hardfought, bipartisan, compromise bill on immigration is all but dead after months of intense negotiations. And its failure sheds light on a troubling truth: the incentive structure for members of the modern Congress is fundamentally flawed. Lawmakers too often find themselves trapped in a web of partisan interests and political maneuvering, where the pursuit of bipartisan policymaking progress takes a back seat to the preservation of political power. 

This unfortunate state of affairs affects Congress’s willingness to tackle a host of pressing societal problems, including Congress’s chief policy power: funding the government. Compromise has become a dirty word, and if a deal is acceptable to the other side, that is immediately a warning sign to too many that a deal shouldn’t be brokered at all.

The failed immigration bill provides a perfect case study. 

Sen. James Lankford (R, Okla.), a reliable conservative, led a private effort in the Senate to broker a bipartisan compromise on the decades-long problems of border security and increasing illegal immigration. Starting early last fall, Lankford and his staff did the painstaking legislative legwork required to build a passing coalition on one of the nation’s most hot-button topics. Finally, in early February, he put forth a 370-page proposal that would end the controversial practice of “catch and release,” provide billions of dollars for more border agents and technology, overhaul the asylum process, and mandate a shutdown of the border should an average of more than 5,000 illegal crossings occur. All of these were conservative wins that just a few months prior were nonstarters for Democrats and President Joe Biden. 

But even before the actual text was released, former President Trump slammed the proposal, insisting that passing an immigration fix would give Biden and Democrats an off ramp on their biggest election liability. “No legislation is needed,” Trump posted on social media last month, arguing that Biden already had the authority to deal with the border without a new bill. “It’s a gift to the Democrats,” he said on a radio show. Trump took aim at Lankford, too, saying, “I think this is a very bad bill for his career and especially in Oklahoma.” Less than 48 hours after Trump came out against the bill, the bill was dead. 

Trump’s message was that what was good for the country wasn’t good for Republicans in the upcoming election. Lankford told CNN that Trump was in campaign mode, while Lankford was doing the work of a senator, trying “to actually solve a problem.” In simple terms, Trump and many Republican lawmakers appear to want the issue, not the policy.

In the end, the would-be immigration compromise ended just like other recent policy efforts: No laws changed, huge issues remain unsolved, and lawmakers have yet another example of a colleague taking harm to his political reputation because he dared to try to do the job he was elected to do.

Lankford’s attempt to find common ground on the issue of immigration exemplifies the essence of legislating in this large, diverse democracy of ours. Months of painstaking negotiations led to a compromise that incorporated provisions previously deemed unacceptable by both parties. This is how the system is supposed to work. Both sides make concessions, leading to a tangible step forward in addressing a complex issue. Legislators gain a sense of accomplishment in crafting legislation that serves the greater good.

But in today’s polarized political environment, lawmakers often stand to gain more from perpetuating problems than from seeking solutions. 

And even more troubling, the bill’s failure exposed the inherent risks that lawmakers face when attempting to fulfill their legislative duties through compromise. Not only did Republican lawmakers and conservative media quickly trash his plan, the Oklahoma state Republican Party censured Lankford for his efforts. His compromise was officially and publicly lambasted as capitulation. 

The ultimate message is clear. In today’s political climate, the pursuit of compromise is not only futile but potentially damaging to one’s political career. This leaves those with the power to affect big legislative change with little incentive to invest time, resources, and political capital in pursuing bipartisan solutions. Instead, the prevailing sentiment in Congress is one of cynicism and disillusionment, where the perceived costs of collaboration far outweigh any potential benefits. Lawmakers will learn from the immigration failure that the best use of their time, staff, and energies is to do everything else but trying to bring about new laws.

The consequences of this dysfunction are very real, as vital issues such as immigration reform and funding the government languish in legislative limbo. Every year these big national problems go unsolved, the challenges grow more daunting and the prospects for meaningful solutions grow dimmer.

And unless legislating suddenly becomes rewarded rather than punished, the chances for truly solving problems—including the very real need to address our varied budget and funding problems—grow slimmer by the day.

Guest commentaries like this one are written by authors outside the Barron’s and MarketWatch newsroom. They reflect the perspective and opinions of the authors. Submit commentary proposals and other feedback to ideas@barrons.com.