AUSTIN, TX — As Congress careens toward its annual August recess, the fate of immigration reform is unresolved. House Republicans have made clear that they won’t support the major bill passed last month by the Senate, but whether “comprehensive” reform will ultimately be allowed to clear the House with Democratic support, or House conservatives will pass a smaller set of bills—or whether the legislative push will die altogether—remains up in the air. All we know for sure is that we likely won’t know the endgame anytime soon.

So the dog days of summer and early fall, before Congress gets back to work, are a good time for journalists here in Texas and around the country to revisit some basics of the immigration debate—and to take a new look at how shifting economic realities may be affecting attitudes toward immigration on the other side of the border.

Here are a few lenses through which to advance the story, and some links to helpful coverage, while Congress, and its laborious legislative machinery, is on break:

History. So far, the 2013 immigration debate is shaping up not unlike the 2006 debate—which, indeed, went nowhere. A comprehensive Senate bill including a path to citizenship passed that body, only to be rejected in the House—where the stirrings of conservative activism, bolstered by right-wing talk radio, led Republicans to focus exclusively on border security. Both chambers spent months trying to work out a compromise only to run out of time as a new Congress was elected in 2006. A difference this time? No congressional election this year and no year-end deadline. In addition, at least some Republicans now fear that not doing something will have fatal political consequences among Hispanic voters, as Ron Brownstein of the National Journal noted in his detailed retrospective early this year.

Of course, there’s also another historical precedent—1986, when a major reform bill with an “amnesty” provision did become law. Brownstein’s National Journal colleague Fawn Johnson took a look at the parallels in a May piece that explored how conservatives feel burned by that experience, which was followed by higher rates of unauthorized migration. Brad Plumer’s earlier explainer for The Washington Post’s Wonkblog offers a particularly good, easy-to-read look at why the 1986 bill didn’t work quite as intended—and why the results might be different this time around.

Politics. Both major political parties have political motives at stake here, and an examination of them is most definitely in order. Most of the coverage has dwelled on the choice facing Republicans: “reach out” to Hispanics with whom the party is losing ground, or double down on the conservative white voters who increasingly form the GOP’s base? If House Republicans do manage to pass a smaller bill that offers some benefit to immigrants, though, the tricky decision—take half a loaf, or hold out for a path to citizenship?—shifts to Democrats.

But there are plenty of rich political stories at the local level, too. Are members of Congress in or out of line with local polling? Are they taking money from activist groups on either side of the debate? Do they have bigger ambitions that color their actions on the issue? How are they navigating conflicting pressures from business, voters, and advocates?

Ashley Parker of The New York Times recently came to Texas to cover how one of the not-quite-hardliners in the House GOP, Blake Fahrenthold, is walking that line in one of the few Republican districts with a substantial Hispanic population.

Richard Parker is CJR's Texas correspondent. A regular contributor to the Op-Ed section of The New York Times, his columns on national and international affairs are syndicated by McClatchy-Tribune. He has also twice been appointed the visiting professional in journalism at the University of Texas at Austin. Follow him on Twitter @Richard85Parker.