We’re nowhere on immigration reform

So here we are again.

In a one-line decision — “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court” — the U.S. Supreme Court has sent immigration back to Square One, roiling a divided country once more.

Nevada has been one of the foremost battlegrounds in the immigration wars. The state had an illegal immigrant population of about 7.6 percent in 2014, according to Reuters. The Culinary Union Local 226 has worked overtime on citizenship and voter-registration drives. And the issue has been one of constant discussion for members of Nevada’s congressional delegation.

Sens. Harry Reid, a Democrat, and Dean Heller, a Republican, both voted for a 2013 comprehensive immigration bill, one that would have provided illegal immigrants already here with a pathway to full U.S. citizenship. The bipartisan bill got 68 votes, including 14 Republicans.

But any hopes of enacting reform were dashed in the House, where GOP Speaker John Boehner refused to bring up any immigration bills, including those proffered by Republican members.

Rep. Joe Heck — who said at the time that he supported reform, but opposed the Senate bill because of technical details about the certification of border security — went so far as to publicly criticize his own leadership in an October 2013 news release.

“This is yet another example of the leadership vacuum in Washington that rightly has so many people frustrated with this dysfunctional Congress,” Heck fumed. “There is a clear, bipartisan consensus among House members that immigration reform is the right thing to do both for people in this country and for our economy.”

But that leadership vacuum has persisted, and if there ever was a bipartisan consensus among House members, it has not manifested itself in the form of actual legislation.

So, instead of using the bully pulpit of his office to cajole Congress into action, President Obama took action himself. He expanded the so-called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, originally passed in June 2012, to parents of children who’d come to the U.S. illegally at a young age. He justified the action by saying — repeatedly — that while he wasn’t empowered to halt all deportations, as some activists wished, he could at least decide who should be sent home first.

His course was risky and constitutionally problematic, and far less legally sound than congressional action. His policy could collapse the moment somebody sued …

Texas sued, joined by 25 other states, including Nevada, contending the president lacked the authority to do what he did. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Texas had standing to sue, that the program hadn’t gone through the proper rule-making process and exceeded Obama’s authority as president.

The Supreme Court’s affirmation left the circuit court decision in place, but did not set a precedent. (Republicans, in addition to blocking immigration reform, have refused to consider the president’s nomination of federal Judge Merrick Garland to fill the high court seat left open by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February.)

So we can’t even agree to hold hearings for a judge who might break a tie in a lawsuit over one of the nation’s most contentious issues, which might then pave the way toward making policy the way the founders intended, through the regular order of Congress.

Instead, we have Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump promising a big, beautiful (and expensive) wall, and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton threatening to go even further using executive action than Obama, a pathway that’s no longer a viable option in light of the court’s action.

Here we are again: nowhere.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and co-host of “PoliticsNOW,” airing at 5:30 p.m. Sundays on 8NewsNow. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at 702-387-5276 or SSebelius@reviewjournal.com.