Can Texas GOP get immigration reform rolling?

Getting anything done on border security and immigration reform is a bit like riding Amtrak’s venerable Sunset Limited from Houston to El Paso. Boarding the train at the little station near the foot of Washington Street, you roll westward into the sunset itself. Five hours later, you pull into San Antonio’s darkened Sunset Station, and there you sit. For three hours you sit.

When it comes to getting something done about border security and immigration reform, we’re in San Antonio, so to speak. And we’re going to be in the Alamo City a lot longer than three hours.

As long as the immigration-phobic House Freedom Caucus controls newly elected Speaker Kevin McCarthy and whatever agenda he may have had before whatever secret deals he may have made with the group and as long as Democrats control the Senate, we’ll be sitting. Despite the campaign bloviations and photo-op border visits, despite the periodic crises such as the one now testing the resources of El Paso and other border communities, despite the infuriating inadequacies, dysfunction and other bothersome blockades that have built up over the years in our immigration system, we’re going nowhere.

Nevertheless, at least a handful of elected officials in Washington, Republican and Democratic, are discussing in good faith what might be done when — and if — the immigration reform train starts rolling again. Think tanks and nongovernmental agencies are on board, as well as one red state in particular whose innovative program to welcome immigrants has, for the last decade, helped them find their place as “New Americans.” (Hint: It’s not Texas.)

Our own senior senator, John Cornyn, is one of the elected officials who seem to be seeking solutions, even though the veteran Republican officeholder is well aware that the House will pretty much stymie anything beyond appropriating billions to finish out a border wall and beef up a border security police presence. Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Hill Country Republican, is typical. Roy, a former chief of staff for Sen. Ted Cruz, is not all that interested in immigration reform. He introduced a bill that would have all asylum-seekers detained until they can be processed, an approach even some Republicans have criticized as a back door to shutting down paths for legitimate asylumseekers.

Cornyn, on the other hand, has proposed a framework that would build on his party’s push for more extensive border security measures in combination with Democrats’ insistence on protections for DACA recipients and new opportunities for legal immigration. “We have to be realistic about what can pass the House and earn 60 votes in the Senate,” he said on the floor of the Senate last week, “A bill that will pass only one chamber won’t accomplish anything in dealing with this crisis.”

Cornyn also points out that until the current border chaos eases, talks about immigration reform will go nowhere. “It’s a prerequisite, a foundation for any larger agreement,” he said.

“Any larger agreement” will have to satisfy the likes of Rep. Tony Gonzales, a conservative Republican whose 23rd District sprawls from the outskirts of San Antonio to El Paso. Representing more border territory than anyone else in Congress, Gonzales seems to have a better understanding of how to build a robust immigration system. He likes to say that “open borders are not an option, but completely closed borders are not either.” (The 23rd traditionally has been a swing district.)

Gonzales, who touts his border security bona fides on his website, stresses the importance of “a safe, fair legal immigration process while keeping our communities safe. Anyone who wants to come to America and live the American dream should have a chance to do so — but they must do it legally.” He seems to understand what Cornyn doesn’t: We can chew gum and walk at the same time. You can’t wait out the current border “crisis” before addressing broader reform because there will always be another group, another person hoping to cross. What we need is a combination of sensible deterrence and clear, legal pathways, which, as President Joe Biden’s own recent carrot-andstick initiatives with migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti have shown, are effective at bringing order to our immigration processes. That hasn’t stopped Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton from filing a lawsuit to stop the program.

Rather than waiting out the current crisis that, in Cornyn’s words, “is consuming all the oxygen in the room,” we might be able to address issues that actually have more to do with fixing the root of our broken system than building bigger and better border barriers. For example, individuals who arrive in the United States legally and overstay their visas have for years outnumbered those who got here by crossing the border illegally. They overstay, in large measure, because of the infuriating inadequacy and bureaucratic barriers that have resulted in a ridiculous visa backlog.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, Donald Kerwin, executive director of the Center for Migration Studies of New York, noted that “in a Dickensian scenario of bureaucratic futility, visa backlogs exceed the life expectancies of many intending immigrants, who, by definition, have ‘played by the rules.’ In these cases, immigrants do not so much break the law, as the law breaks them.”

Edward Alden, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, maintains that we very much need these people, but our antiquated laws suggest otherwise. Writing in a recent issue of Foreign Policy, he notes that international students make up 74 percent of graduate electrical engineering students at U.S. universities, 72 percent of computer and information science students and half or more of students in other STEM areas. He points out that foreign students who settled in this country now head flagship hightech companies. “The obstacles thrown up by the immigration system are a growing economic and national security risk to the United States,” he concludes.

At least one state among the 50 seems to appreciate the advantages to all concerned of a sensible, humane and enlightened immigration system. Utah, where many residents have had experience living in other countries as young missionaries with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), has not only welcomed immigrants but has invested heavily in programs designed to help them succeed in their new home.

With a Republican governor, a GOPdominated legislature and two Republican U.S. senators, Utah has opened Offices of New Americans in city halls around the state to help new arrivals with the naturalization process, with learning English, and with finding jobs, housing and occupational licensing. The state’s New American initiative complements a large network of private immigrant support organizations.

Josh T. Smith, a research manager at Utah State University’s Center for Growth and Opportunity, told the Chronicle editorial board that the term “New Americans” was chosen purposefully. It suggests that Utah is “welcoming and inclusive” and serves to emphasize “the goal of integration and assimilation.”

“New Americans are vital in Utah’s fast-growing and robust economy and most in-demand fields,” the New American Initiative website notes.

Granted, the Beehive State isn’t the first place most people who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border by foot settle in, but its rejection of the nativist impulses of many Republicans — including, of course, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott — is a model for what might be. Whenever the immigration reform train gets rolling again, Utah might be a worthy first stop.