Nourished in the seclusion of backroom negotiations, the long-rumored bipartisan Senate border bill soon wilted in the blazing sun of public attention. The border proposal had been intended to convince Republicans to vote for a bigger package that included military aid for Ukraine and Israel. Yet the measure was proclaimed dead within days of being unveiled by lead negotiators Chris Murphy (D-CT), James Lankford (R-OK), and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ).

     The border bill has provoked considerable controversy. Its proponents say that it is a major step toward border control that delivers on the long-term goals of many conservatives. Some in the press claim that Republican opposition to the bill is a sign that the party is not serious about governing at all. The bill’s critics, however, have argued that the mechanics of the bill actually undermine the stated goal of restoring an orderly asylum process.

     Even if the border bill is dead, there are still some lessons to be learned from an autopsy. Many House Republicans have indicated that they will oppose additional funding for Ukraine and Israel without legislative action on the border. Congress could therefore return to the issue soon. This bill also reveals fundamental drivers of the current border crisis, as well as some of the hurdles facing any future bill.

     In part, the battle over this bill reflects broader legislative frustrations. The double-barreled deal of the 1986 amnesty and 1990 boost of legal immigration did not lead to the promised controls on unauthorized migration. Combined with disagreement about the size of migration flows, frustration with the lack of enforcement of immigration laws helped caused high-profile deals on immigration to flounder in 2007 and 2013.