The U.S. Supreme Court’s tie vote, which blocks President Barack Obama’s executive-ordered plan to bring more unauthorized immigrants out of the shadows, moves this difficult issue to the November election. The choice will be stark. Voters can either opt for a compassionate, workable approach that unites the nation or choose an iron-fist approach that treats many of those living among us as criminals and promises to tear the national fabric.

Frustrated by a Republican-controlled Congress that refuses to even consider immigration reform, the president pushed the boundaries of his executive authority. Obama had sought to expand on the “Dreamers” policy he announced in 2012, and which remains in place. Under that program, 730,000 young people — brought to the country as children by adults who arrived without authorization — have been able to pursue a higher education and work legally without fear of deportation.

In his subsequent 2014 order — Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents — Obama had sought to provide work permits to and safety from deportation for the parents of children who are citizens by birth or otherwise lawful permanent residents. Its intent was to keep families whole and bring these adults fully into the economic and civic life of their communities.

The administration estimated the program would benefit as many as 5 million unauthorized immigrants. These individuals had yearned for peace of mind, the ability to live without the fear of deportation or of seeing their families torn apart by deportations. Their disappointment is the painful human element of this legal and political tussle.

Obama acknowledged in a 2013 interview the legal peril of such an approach, saying it would amount to “ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally.”

That it proved to be when challenged by 26 states. After an appeal’s court sided with those states, concluding the president had exceeded his authority, the Supreme Court was unable to reach a conclusion. The result is yet another 4-4 vote, thanks to the unwillingness of the Republicans to act on Obama’s appointment to fill the vacant seat.

“The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court,” read the curt decision that left the lower-court ruling in place.

Both this president and his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, backed the broad outlines of immigration reform. They involve providing a path to legal standing for the residents who came to the country outside of the normal channels, but who have otherwise been law-abiding, combined with improved border security and reforms to prevent visitors from overstaying their visas.

This is the path the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, would pursue, while making sure the Dreamer program stays in place until, working with Congress, she can achieve comprehensive reform.

The likely Republican nominee, Donald Trump, has a far darker agenda. He pledges to use the power of the government to root out and deport the millions of immigrants who are in our communities without proper documentation.

This forced, mass deportation would be capped with the construction of a border wall dividing the United States from its neighbor and southern ally, Mexico.

“Americans are going to have to make a decision about what we care about and who we are,”  Obama said of the court’s decision and the coming election.

The verdict now rests with the court of the people.