It doesn’t seem like it was so long ago that comprehensive immigration reform, in all its glory, was the talk of the nation’s capital. Out here in the precincts, too, but not exactly in the same way.

Your local editorial board enthused that Senate Bill 744 was the “most important overhaul of immigration laws in a generation. … The landmark bill includes a 13-year path to citizenship for the nation’s unauthorized immigrants, coupled with strengthened border security measures.”

Clearly, a comprehensive-immigration-reform-supporting board was pleased – but realistic, I think, as to the task ahead. The Senate was the gimme putt; the House was, and is, a twisting 55-footer over hill and dale, rock and river.

And in that analogy, the relative immigration silence from Washington means supporters have tossed their putters into the lake and taken a mulligan. Other issues have pushed immigration aside, but let’s not pretend we don’t know why.

In my defense, I said so at the time, way back in the spring, that Democrats, moderate Republicans and other reform supporters were foolish to turn a deaf ear to Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who tried to give the security-first side something to support with his amendment to SB 744. In effect, Cornyn sought real triggers, instead of the fakey ones in the Senate bill.

This ed board had no patience for his tactic:

The backing of Cornyn, the senior senator from a key border state, and the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, could go a long way in shoring up GOP support of the immigration bill.

But that assumes his amendment offers a workable solution. This newspaper does not believe it does.

In general, we support his aim of beefing up border security. But his solution seems impractical. Among other provisions, it would require that Customs and Border Protection apprehend 90 percent of illegal border crossers before the path toward citizenship is triggered; the current rate is estimated between 40 and 55 percent. Homeland Security officials say it’s a goal they should be able to meet, but at what cost? As fellow Republican Lindsey Graham said, the estimated $20 billion would “break the bank.”

My argument then was that giving Cornyn his amendment to the Senate bill would remove one area of potential disagreement for House Republicans, who still hold the key to a bill reaching even a conference committee, which it clearly won’t.

Instead, Cornyn never had a shot and was basically shooed back to his desk. God forbid that negotiating would mean giving each side something it wanted, even if only to save face, in exchange for complete and total capitulation on something else.

(And not to mention that the eventual Corker-Hoeven not-really-security amendment to SB 744 costs out at $30 billion to $40 billion, which is just another reason South Carolina needs to send Graham to a six-year timeout.)

Over the weekend, our Washington Bureau chief, Todd Gillman, wrote that two influential Texans, Reps. Sam Johnson of Plano and John Carter of Round Rock, had dropped off the only serious bipartisan immigration working group in the House.

Simon Rosenberg, president and founder of the self-described progressive think tank, NDN, saw this coming long ago:

“It’s very hard for 25 Republicans in Texas to vote for a bill that both of their senators are opposing. That’s just something we’ve got to work on,” he said.

Sen. Ted Cruz, a tea party freshman, crusaded against the Senate plan from the outset. Sen. John Cornyn held out the possibility he could support a deal – until the Senate rejected his push for more stringent border security and enforcement.

His looming re-election campaign and Cruz’s vocal opposition may have made a yes vote from Cornyn unlikely.

In hindsight, ignoring Cornyn’s concerns was a huge blunder, Rosenberg said last week.

“Democrats made a serious mistake by [angering] John Cornyn in the Senate process. It may not have mattered in the Senate bill, but it matters on the House bill,” he said.

And here we are again. The more things change …