Senators on a key panel continued slogging through a lengthy list of proposed amendments to a comprehensive immigration reform bill Tuesday, even as the legislation's opponents reminded congressional leaders that they'll continue to fight against "amnesty."

The 18-member Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved an amendment proposed by top Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa to address student visa security issues highlighted in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing.  

That measure, which requires that student visa information be shared in real-time with Border Patrol officers at the nation's major ports of entry, is designed to repair the communication error that led to a friend of bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev entering the United States despite the expiration of his student visa. 

While the panel adopted a handful of proposals by GOP members, other Republican efforts to change the legislation failed, including one provision backed by Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a Gang of Eight member and top Republican negotiator on the immigration reform effort. 

The committee rejected an amendment proposed by Sen. Jeff Sessions, a leading opponent of the bill, that would have required that visa holders be verified using biometric screening -- like fingerprints or eye scans -- when exiting the country.

While Democrats said they were sympathetic to the need for more security at the nation's ports of entry -- a proposal recommended by the 9/11 Commission Report and mandated by Congress but never enforced -- senators also warned of an eye-popping price tag of billions of dollars to implement the system.

Immigration reform proponents also objected to the amendment's mandate that the massive security overhaul be in place before undocumented immigrants can apply for probationary legal status.

Mark Wilson / Getty Images file photo

Sen. Jeff Sessions proposed two amendments to the immigration bill that were rejected by the committee.

That proposal failed 6-12.

Rubio, who is not on the Judiciary Committee but was an important GOP drafter of the original legislation, was "disappointed" that the biometric tracking proposal was not adopted and will fight for it when the bill comes to the Senate floor, a spokesman said. 

"Immigration reform must include the best exit-system possible because persons who overstay their authorized stay are a big reason we now have so many illegal immigrants," said Rubio spokesman Alex Conant in a statement. "We wanted the Judiciary Committee to strengthen the legislation by adding biometrics to the new exit system, and we were disappointed by this morning's vote." 

Sessions, who has proposed a total of 49 changes to the bill, failed to win support from other committee Republicans for a proposal that would have capped the number of legal immigrants receiving green cards at 1.2 million per year. That measure failed, with all others on the 18-member panel voting against it.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who has also been a vocal critic of the bill as written, argued that the Sessions amendment would undermine legal immigrants -- a "fundamental pillar of our country."

Cruz proposed an amendment that would have dramatically increased caps on visas available for high-skilled foreign workers, whom he called an "unambiguous good for our country." Bill drafters -- mindful of the delicate negotiations between business and labor groups that led to a compromise annual cap of 65,000 -- said the high maximum could hurt American workers seeking the same jobs. The amendment fell 4-14.

As the committee's markup negotiations were under way, a contingent of House Republicans held a press conference a few blocks away to remind House and Senate leaders that they'll continue their vocal opposition to a pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants.

"There's another viewpoint here" said Iowa Rep. Steve King, one of the loudest critics of "amnesty" on Capitol Hill. "It is not the one that's being stampeded in the Senate and may be stampeded in the House."

King -- who described the immigration bill as "far, far worse than Obamacare" predicted a rising tide of opposition to the bill in the Republican-led House -- an assessment echoed by Texas Rep. Steve Stockman.

Alluding to the eight senators who collaborated behind closed doors to draft the legislation now being amended in the Senate, Stockman said that a "Gang of Millions" will make its voice heard to defeat the sweeping bill.

"The people are stronger than the Gang of Eight," he said.

At the end of Tuesday's session, the committee had accepted a total of 36 amendments. Over 300 were submitted by the committee's members. 

The markup is expected to continue Thursday morning. 

Related Stories:

• Recent controversies threaten to bog down Obama's second-term agenda
• IRS mishandling of Tea Party reviews still unresolved, audit charges

This story was originally published on Tue May 14, 2013 6:20 PM EDT

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa – The immigration reform proposal pending before Congress could be a dicey proposition for Republican presidential contenders come 2016, when they visit this first-in-the-nation caucus state.

Republicans in Washington are in virtual agreement that they must do more to broaden the party’s appeal to the increasingly influential bloc of Hispanic voters. And many of those GOP leaders argue that supporting an immigration reform law that includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is a good starting point.

But the party’s eventual standard-bearer in 2016 will likely have to run a gauntlet of primaries that begins with Iowa’s caucuses. And catering to the Hawkeye State’s voters could force White House hopefuls to the right – not just in 2016, but in deciding how to posture themselves toward the immigration reform law making its way through Congress this year.

Matthew Holst / Matthew Holst / AP

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks at the Iowa GOP Lincoln Dinner event, Friday, May 10, 2013, at the Hotel at Kirkwood Center, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Two senior members of the state’s Republican congressional delegation – longtime Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Steve King – have been some of the most outspoken critics of the “Gang of Eight” bipartisan immigration overhaul currently making its way through the Senate committee process. Both dished out plenty of red meat to the party faithful during speeches at Friday night’s Lincoln Dinner.

“It gives amnesty to and legalizes everybody who's in America illegally today,” King said of the Senate proposal, invoking a word – amnesty – that reflects deep conservative trepidation toward immigration reform. “This bill destroys the rule of law, and it forever produces contempt for the rule of law.”

“We can't afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. And, I want you to know, I learned a lesson, and I want you to know that I — and we — screwed up in 1986,” Grassley said. “The lesson learned: you reward illegality, and you get more of it.”

Their words amount to a caution sign for Republican presidential hopefuls with designs of competing in the Iowa caucuses in 2016.

Some Republicans, like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican co-author of the Gang of Eight proposal, probably have no choice but to embrace the legislation and its path to citizenship because of their close involvement in its creation. And indeed, Rubio and his conservative cachet might help bring some conservatives on-board with the eventual bill.

“I think that he is one of the people that's been trying to work to find a reasonable approach toward that, that would secure our borders and would find a reasonable way to deal with people who have been here a long time,” Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, R, told NBC News. “I'm going to see what Marco Rubio says about it. I trust him.”

Other would-be Republican presidential candidates can afford to be more circumspect.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, one such potential hopeful who’s previously called for immigration reform, told reporters in Iowa that the Senate bill needs tougher border-security provisions, especially for it to have any chance of passing the Republican-controlled House. To that end, Paul termed himself the “bridge” between the two chambers.

“I'm the bridge between people who won't consider it at all to people who want it,” he said. “I'm in the middle such that I'll vote for it if I think it'll do the right job and it creates border security, doesn't create a new pathway to citizenship, and allows people to get in an existing line, the same way someone in Mexico City would get in line.”

“So I think there's a lot of room for me to help the bill, but we'll see,” Paul added.

But it’s also easy to imagine at least one Republican contender running to the right on the issue of immigration in hopes of outflanking his competitors in Iowa. That temptation – and its repercussions – was on full display during the 2012 primaries, when Mitt Romney used immigration to run to the right of his primary challengers. But his comments during that drawn-out primary came back to haunt him during the general election, when Romney notched a record-low performance among Hispanic voters for a recent Republican presidential nominee.

Regardless of their stance, A.J. Spiker, the Iowa Republican Party’s chairman, cautioned White House hopefuls to be ready to answer questions about their approach to immigration come 2016.

“The one thing I think Republicans agree on, absolutely, on immigration is a secured border,” he said. “After that, you really do head off in some different directions.”

He added: “So what I believe is that whatever a candidate's position is, when they come to Iowa, they're going to have to explain their position to Iowa Republicans. They're going to have to explain why they supported X; why they supported X over Y.”

This story was originally published on Mon May 13, 2013 1:42 PM EDT

Kicking off a first day of edits to comprehensive immigration reform legislation, lawmakers on a key Senate panel grappled Thursday over efforts to secure the nation’s borders and prevent a new wave of illegal entrants.

As expected, Democrats on the 18-member Senate Judiciary Committee were joined by two Republican members of the bipartisan Gang of Eight in opposing the most stringent border security amendments offered by opponents of the bill, ranging from a massive influx of boots on the ground at the nation’s southern border to delays to the program that would make undocumented immigrants eligible for a probationary legal status.

Win Mcnamee / Getty Images

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) (C) confers with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) (R) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) (L) during the Senate Judiciary Committee's markup for the immigration reform bill on Capitol Hill May 9, 2013 in Washington, DC.

But the panel also adopted a total of 21 amendments, including eight proposed by Republicans. Those included measures to beef up oversight of the legislation’s implementation, offer greater flexibility to the Department of Homeland Security to allocate funds for technology and infrastructure, and include private landowners in a task force consulting on border security. The panel also accepted an amendment by ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley that would widen the areas subject to border security strategies beyond the most high-risk sectors.

In the seventh hour of negotiations otherwise largely devoid of fireworks, frustrated foes of the legislation lamented the defeat of seven GOP amendments throughout the day.

“The Gang stuck together – as we’d been told they would – on anything that significantly impacted their legislation that they drafted with their friends,” said leading opponent Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.  

“The committee has consistently rejected any attempts to put real teeth in this bill to secure the border,” alleged Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. “And if it doesn’t have real border security, in my opinion, this bill will not pass.”

Throughout the day, bipartisan drafters of the legislation emphasized their belief that the original legislation has tough border security measures and noted that they are open to improvements.

Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin, a member of the Gang of Eight, said opponents were wrong to accuse the committee of “stiff-arming” suggestions from GOP members.

 “We’ve accepted eight Republican amendments,” he said. “We’re open to good ideas from both sides.”

A frustrated Sen. Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the bipartisan drafting group,  suggested that Cruz and other foes of the bill decry the “false issue” of inadequate border security while working to cut the legislation’s centerpiece provision to offer a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

The dispute spotlighted tensions in the committee as proponents of reform reject amendments intended to upset the legislation’s delicate compromises without appearing close-minded to legitimate efforts to improve the bill.

Republican Gang of Eight members Sens. Jeff Flake and Lindsey Graham were joined by Orrin Hatch in voting down a Cruz-sponsored measure that would have tripled the amount of agents on patrol and quadrupled resources like drones and helicopters at the border.

Opponents of that amendment said it would be both prohibitively expensive and unnecessarily at a time when the number of border patrol agents is at an all-time high; it failed five votes to thirteen.

The panel also rejected a Grassley amendment that would have delayed the process of making undocumented immigrants eligible to apply for provisionary legal status until the Department of Homeland Security demonstrated “effective control” of the southern border for six months.

Gang of Eight members argued that waiting to make undocumented immigrants come forward would ultimately delay the implementation of other components of reform – like a workplace-verification system – and would therefore hurt the bill’s larger goal of preventing more illegal immigration.

“I think it would be the wrong approach to delay bringing people out of the shadows,” said Flake.

By the same margin, the committee voted down a measure proposed by Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah that would have required fast-track congressional approval of the Department of Homeland Security’s border security plan before undocumented immigrants could apply for Registered Provisional Immigrant status.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who does not serve on the Judiciary panel but is a crucial Republican supporter of the bill, said in a statement that he is "encouraged" by the process so far.

"There’s still a long way to go, but I am encouraged that we are witnessing a transparent and deliberate process to accept input to improve this legislation," he said.

The panel’s markup process will continue next Tuesday.

Related stories:

• Immigration reform's enemies, allies prep for battle
• Conservative group pegs cost of 'path to citizenship' at $6.3T

This story was originally published on Thu May 9, 2013 6:34 PM EDT

The top Democratic drafter of immigration legislation was optimistic Thursday that Republicans will support the “good, strong  proposal” to reform the nation’s immigration system.

But Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who joined Republican Sen. Marco Rubio and six other lawmakers to craft the bipartisan bill, also acknowledged that he “worries” about how the group will resolve the question of whether LGBT couples should have the same protections as hetereosexual spouses in the final legislation.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., left, confers with Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., as the Senate Judiciary Committee meets on immigration reform on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, May 9, 2013.

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont has proposed amendments that would incorporate the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) – which would allow the foreign-born partners of gay, lesbian and bisexual U.S. citizens to apply for green card status – into the legislation. Republicans in the bipartisan Gang of Eight have made clear that they cannot support the bill if that measure is included, although it’s not yet clear at what point it might come up for a vote.  

“This one is something, you know, I worry about all the time,” Schumer told reporters on Capitol Hill, saying that the issue keeps him awake at night even though he’s a “good sleeper.”

“Our four Democratic colleagues – including myself – believe that this is not just another issue but an issue of discrimination and so how we resolve this remains to be seen,” he added.

Schumer would not say if he would vote for the amendment if Leahy introduces it.

“I would like very much to see it in the bill,” he said. “But we have to have a bill that has support to get UAFA passed. That's the conundrum. because if there's no bill, there's no UAFA either."

This story was originally published on Thu May 9, 2013 2:31 PM EDT

With the Gang of Eight’s immigration measure coming under the legislative magnifying glass this week, senators on a key committee are sharpening their red pencils in preparation to edit the 844-page bill.

The 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have proposed 300 amendments to the legislation, ranging from protections for gay couples, to border-security fixes, to efforts to dismantle the bill’s central goal of creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Friends and foes of the reform effort will push their proposals starting Thursday, when the committee begins marking up the legislation. While observers do not expect that the bill will undergo dramatic changes in the committee process -- with bipartisan proponents of reform on the panel likely to stick together to resist substantial changes to their core legislation --  the high-profile debate is sure to elevate the often-dull “markup” process to must-see TV for anyone with a dog in the immigration fight.

While Republicans proposed the lion’s share of the changes -- 194 in total from the GOP side -- some Democratic amendments will be controversial as well.

As expected, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, the panel’s chairman, proposed changes that would make the foreign-born same-sex partners of U.S. citizens eligible to apply for green cards. Many Republicans -- including key Gang of Eight author Sen. Marco Rubio -- have resisted the change, which some suggest would torpedo the entire bill by angering religious organizations and other social conservatives who have otherwise expressed support for the reform legislation.

That has prompted a prominent gay rights group to bluntly label opposition to Leahy’s proposal as “homophobia.”

“Labeling the inclusion of bi-national couples in the immigration bill as toxic is nothing more than a tired, insulting ruse designed to distract attention from their own failure to represent all Americans,” the Human Rights Campaign wrote in a statement.

Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images file photo

Sens. Patrick Leahy (R) and Chuck Grassley both have proposed amendments to the bipartisan immigration overhaul scheduled for markup in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Many of the potential legislative additions from Republicans are designed to ensure beefed-up border security, which Rubio and others have pledged to support to help woo skeptical conservatives' support for the bill.

The border-security proposals range from changes to the timeline for plan implementation to massive influxes of additional boots on the ground. An amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa -- who submitted the most proposed changes with 77 total amendments -- would require the Department of Homeland Security to demonstrate “effective control” of the border for six months before undocumented immigrants become eligible to begin the process for legal status. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas submitted his own 70-page plan to step up border security and stiffen the “triggers” for the path to citizenship. Tea Party newcomer Ted Cruz -- also from Texas -- would triple the amount of federal agents currently stationed on the U.S.-Mexico border and quadruple the presence of drones and cameras.

Other proposed changes would intensify requirements for undocumented immigrants who hope to attain the bill’s new Registered Provisional Immigrant status. As written, the legislation would require individuals to pass a background check and pay back taxes and a series of fines before being eligible for legal status; some GOP amendments would increase the background check threshold, adjust the fines for inflation and aggressively enforce the bill’s existing language preventing recipients of legal status from receiving federal benefits for 10 years.

Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah even proposed that undocumented immigrants should have to submit DNA as a part of their application for provisional status in order to weed out potential criminals.

Sparks are sure to fly over the amendments that would essentially gut the pillars of the bill’s delicate compromise between immigrant groups, business organizations and labor unions.

Cruz has proposed a measure that would flatly deny eligibility for citizenship to anyone who has been “willfully present” in the United States without legal status. Those rules would apply even to undocumented immigrants who have returned to their home country or to children brought to the United States illegally by their parents – those who would be eligible for the DREAM Act provisions.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, a leading opponent of the legislation, would cap the total number of new legal permanent residents and temporary foreign workers at 30 million over a period of 10 years. He would also require the Department of Homeland Security to take into account the “likelihood” that an undocumented immigrant applying for legal status may require federal means-tested public benefits like welfare “at any point in the future.”

In a statement, Sessions said his proposed caps would preserve job opportunities for American citizens.

“This bill would authorize a dramatic surge in permanent low-skill and chain migration -- and would bring in millions more temporary foreign workers -- at a time when 90 million Americans are outside the labor force and nearly 50 million are on food stamps,” he said. “The result would be lower wages and more unemployment.”

Still more fixes are intended to focus on rooting out foreign terrorists, spurred in part by heightened concerns in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings.  

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican member of the Gang of Eight, proposed three amendments designed to address concerns about visa security and terrorism prevention. Hatch will push for the Department of Homeland Security to collect biometric data from foreigners who are leaving the country at the nation's busiest airports.

The markup begins Thursday and is likely to continue into next week.

Related stories:

• GOP spotlights border security as immigration fight looms
• Conservative group pegs cost of immigration reform at $6.3T
  

This story was originally published on Thu May 9, 2013 4:12 AM EDT

With a huge bipartisan Senate immigration bill prepared for a first round of legislative edits this week, senators on Tuesday questioned top national security officials about whether the proposal’s efforts to secure the country’s borders can be achieved – or if they’re sufficient at all.

Homeland Security officials testifying at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee praised the comprehensive approach taken by the Senate’s bipartisan “Gang of Eight” and said the proposed policy would guard against a “third wave” of illegal immigration into the United States.

“We are confident that it’s the right formula,” David Heyman, Assistant Secretary for Policy for the Department of Homeland Security, told the panel.

Robert Galbraith / Reuters

Demonstrators carry signs during an immigration rally on May Day in the Mission District in San Francisco, California May 1, 2013.

But, as the bill’s allies and foes prepare to amend the legislation this week, Republicans on the committee said that the bill will languish in Congress if its security measures are not substantially strengthened.

Sen. Rand Paul, an influential Tea Party-affiliated lawmaker whose verdict on the final bill could help sway undecided Republicans, warned that without beefing up the measure’s security proposals, the massive legislation will fail – if not in the Senate, then in the GOP-controlled House.

“I am worried that the bill before us won’t pass,” said the Kentucky senator. “I want to be constructive in making the bill strong enough that conservatives – myself included and conservative Republicans in the House – will vote for this, because I think immigration reform is something we should do.”

Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the committee, said that the bill’s criteria for defining a “secure border” must be dramatically more specific before the measure’s proponents can hope to see it pass.

“If we’re going to get immigration reform through – if you’re going to get it through the House – we’re going to have to do a whole lot more on what is the definition of a controlled border than what is in this bill,” Coburn said.

As written, the legislation requires the Department of Homeland Security to achieve an “effectiveness rate” of 90 percent per fiscal year in the most high-risk areas of the southern border, meaning that nine of 10 individuals who attempt to cross the border illegally are either apprehended or turned back by border patrol personnel.  (Coburn argues that the calculation fails to take into account illegal immigrants whose entry is not detected by security forces.)

If that requirement is not met within five years, a commission made up of border-state governors and experts will be convened to help achieve it; failure to meet the goal would eventually delay eligibility for undocumented immigrants who have achieved probationary legal status to apply for green cards.

The notion of such “triggers” is unsavory to some pro-immigrant groups who worry that stricter border-security criteria could severely delay or even completely torpedo the bill’s “path to citizenship” for undocumented immigrants.

But, with opposition mounting from groups like Jim DeMint’s Heritage Foundation, Republican supporters of the measure say that stringent border requirements must be bolstered to woo skittish conservatives to support comprehensive reform.

“A path to citizenship is in this bill and it’s based on the fact that the border’s going to be controlled,” said Coburn. “And if in fact the American people can’t trust that the border’s controlled, you’re not going to be able to pass this bill.”

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a key conservative architect of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” measure that will be marked up in the Senate Judiciary Committee later this week, has pledged to help improve the border security “triggers” embedded in the legislation.

That markup is scheduled to begin Thursday.

Related story: Conservative group pegs cost of immigration reform at $6.3T

This story was originally published on Tue May 7, 2013 2:02 PM EDT

Even before departing for his trip to Mexico and Costa Rica this week, President Barack Obama began hammering home a consistent message to his U.S. audiences: When you hear “Mexico,” don’t think only about immigration and trans-border drug trafficking.

Think instead of a fast-growing economic partner and a neighbor that complements the older, better educated, more affluent U.S. population with a younger, cheaper, and nearby workforce (which already has familial and investment ties to the United States).

In a speech to a crowd made up largely of students in Mexico City Friday, Obama declared, "We are two equal partners, two sovereign nations that must work together in mutual interest and mutual respect.  And if we do that, both Mexico and the United States will prosper."

It's the same message of cooperation Obama delivered to the rest of the region when he traveled from Mexico to Costa Rica Friday evening where he met with a group of leaders from other Central American nations.  The intent was clear -- the U.S. and its neighbors to the South have more to gain by focusing on working together than the problems which drive them apart.  

But the clearest example was the nation that shares the most high-profile border with the U.S.   

Although the Mexican economy has grown at a faster pace than that of United States since the financial crisis of 2009, Mexico’s per capita gross domestic product is still about three times smaller than that of the United States.

It’s a poorer country, and a younger one: People aged 65-and-over account for only about six percent of Mexico’s population compared to 13 percent of the U.S. population.

A lot of recent focus has been on the the illegal trafficking of drugs, guns and migrants to and from Mexico. But in the face of this, U.S.-Mexico trade in legitimate goods and services is booming. Bilateral trade exceeds $500 billion a year and Mexico is the second largest market for United States exports.

A report issued this week by the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington said that U.S.-Mexico trade is growing faster than U.S. trade with China. In fact, it's growing faster than it did in the boom following the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994.

As Obama made a point of noting in his speech on Friday, “We sell more of our exports to Mexico than we do to Brazil, Russia, India and China-combined.”

But the Wilson Center report also noted that “the United States and Mexico do not only trade finished products; they build them together. Indeed, roughly 40 percent of all content in Mexican exports to the United States originates in the United States.”

In his speech Obama lamented the fact that attitudes on both sides of the border “sometimes are trapped in old stereotypes. Some Americans only see the Mexico depicted in sensational headlines of violence and border crossings. And let’s admit it, some Mexicans think that America disrespects Mexico, or think that America is trying to impose itself on Mexican sovereignty, or wants to wall ourselves off.”

The implied message to his Mexican audiences -- and to Americans back home who are concerned about illegal immigration -- was that as Mexico becomes more prosperous and, as President Enrique Pena Nieto's economic reforms open the country to more U.S. investment, there will be more job opportunities for Mexicans in Mexico, and less of an incentive to go to the United States to seek work.

“I see a Mexico that is creating new prosperity, trading with the world, becoming a manufacturing powerhouse, from Tijuana and Monterrey to Guadalajara and across the central highlands, a global leader in automobiles and appliances and electronics,” Obama told the Mexican students.

Obama quoted an anonymous man in the Mexican city of Querétaro who, he said, “spoke for an increasing number of Mexicans. ‘There's no reason to go abroad in search of a better life. There are good opportunities here.’”

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

President Barack Obama delivers a speech at the Anthropology Museum during his visit to Mexico City May 3, 2013.

Obama couldn’t help but mention in his speech Friday the awkward topic of U.S. demand for cocaine and other illegal drugs that come from and transit through Mexico. And he acknowledged the return flow of firearms made in the United States to Mexico and Central America.

As the Wilson Center report explained, the illegal trafficking makes the legitimate commerce all the more difficult.

“Recent U.S. National Drug Threat Assessments have suggested that most hard drugs -- like cocaine, methamphetamines and heroin -- are more likely to be smuggled through ports of entry (from Mexico to the United States) rather than around them,” the report said. Policymakers need to figure out how to “simultaneously strengthen security and efficiency at the ports of entry.”

Of course, Obama’s trip also came at a pivotal moment in U.S. domestic politics. Congress is on the brink of debating legislation to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws -- and perhaps to transform millions of Mexicans, Costa Ricans and other Spanish-speaking people now living illegally in the United States into American citizens and potential voters.

At a briefing this week, Carl Meacham, director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, called Obama’s trip  “intermestic” -- a trip that is “international and domestic at the same time. It offers him an opportunity to be able to send a message in Latin America that that relationship’s important, with the Mexicans and Central Americans in particular, but also benefit from the fact that there are so many immigrants that come from these countries in the U.S.”

Related:

Read more from NBC News about Mexico

Read more from NBC News about immigration into the US

This story was originally published on Sat May 4, 2013 4:35 AM EDT

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

U.S. President Barack Obama (L) shakes hands with his Mexican counterpart Enrique Pena Nieto after a joint news conference at the National Palace in Mexico City May 2, 2013.

President Barack Obama warned lawmakers against erecting unnecessarily high benchmarks for a pending overhaul of immigration laws, suggesting they would excuse inaction by Congress.

The president, following a meeting with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, said that he remained “optimistic” that Congress could produce a comprehensive immigration reform law this year – an issue of particular importance to millions of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans residing in the United States.

But, responding to Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio’s suggestion that the bipartisan immigration law he helped produce might need even stronger provisions on border security in order to win the necessary votes for passage, Obama warned members of Congress.

“Frankly, we put enormous resources into border security.  There are areas where, frankly, there is more work to be done,” Obama said. “But what I’m not going to do is go along with something where we’re looking for an excuse not to do it.”

In an interview on Wednesday with conservative talker Sean Hannity, Rubio, a member of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” that authored a new immigration law, said the aspects in the law dealing with border security might need more work.

“The part we still have to do some work on is this border stuff,” Rubio said. “And as I said yesterday … this bill will not pass the House and quite frankly I think will struggle to pass the Senate if it doesn’t deal with that issue.”

Conservatives have demanded stronger border provisions as part of a broad immigration reform deal in exchange for creating a pathway to citizenship for those currently residing in the United States without any documentation.

Peña Nieto, for his part, said that the Mexican government “understands that this is a domestic affair for the U.S.” and wished its northern neighbor the best of luck in its reform efforts.

This story was originally published on Thu May 2, 2013 6:26 PM EDT

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday that her department will help find out why last week’s Boston Marathon bombings occurred and “what more we can do to prevent attacks like this in the future…. We will learn lessons from this attack, just as we have from past instances of terrorism and violent extremism. We will apply those; we will emerge even stronger."

Napolitano told the committee that her department was aware in 2012 that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Boston bombing suspect killed in a shootout with police last week, had left the United States to visit Russia.

“The system pinged when he was leaving the United States,” she said. “By the time he returned… the matter had been closed,” a reference to the FBI investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, based on a tip from the Russian government.

She said, “There was a mismatch” because his name was misspelled on his Aeroflot airplane ticket. “Even with the misspelling, under our current system there are redundancies, and so the system did ping when he was leaving the United States.”

But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R- S.C. asked Napolitano, “The system picked up his departure, but did not pick up him coming back -- is that correct?” She replied, “That’s my understanding.” But she repeated that by then the FBI probe had expired.

Before last week’s events, the focus of the debate on the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” immigration bill now being considered by the committee was the supply of millions of non-citizen workers who are illegally present in the United States.

But the attacks in Boston – for which Chechen immigrant Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was charged Monday – reminded lawmakers that immigrants can become terrorists after living in America.

Graham, one of the co-sponsors of the bipartisan immigration bill, said at Tuesday’s hearing that when some people say “there was no broader plot here, I just don’t know how in the world we know that at this early stage.” It is too soon to draw conclusions about the Boston case, Graham said.

Napolitano seemed to agree with him on that point, saying that, “This is a very active, ongoing investigation. All threads are being pulled.” 

The ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, began the hearing by referring to the Boston bombings, arguing that “our immigration system is directly related to our sovereignty and national security matters.”

He noted the some foreigners who commit terrorist acts “enter (the United States) legally and stay below the radar.”

Grassley charged that the bipartisan bill would weaken the entry-exit system “because it does not require biometric identifiers and does not deploy a biometric system to land ports.”

He also noted that the committee had heard testimony at its hearing Monday that the bipartisan bill would weaken the current asylum law. “It’s no secret that terrorists are trying to exploit the (asylum) system,” he said.

The Iowa Republican also criticized the bill for not including any provision on student visas and “improving the way we oversee schools who accept foreign nationals.”

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., the chief Democratic sponsor of the bipartisan immigration overhaul, suggested at the committee’s hearing Monday that there’s no contradiction between tightening the scrutiny of would-be terrorist immigrants and enacting his bill.

“If there are things that come up as a result of what happened in Boston that require improvement” in his measure, Schumer said, “let’s add them to the bill.”

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:40 AM EDT

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee continued their fencing Monday over whether anyone is trying to use the Boston Marathon bombing to impede consideration of a bipartisan bill to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws.

When the bill’s principal sponsor, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., at Monday’s Judiciary Committee hearing accused persons whom he did not identify of trying to use the bombing as “an excuse” to delay or stop the consideration of the bill, ranking Republican member Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa angrily interrupted him by snapping, “I never said that! I never said that!”

Schumer replied, “ I don’t mean you, Mr. Grassley,” and then said his comments “were not aimed at anyone on this committee,” but rather to unnamed “people out there – you’ve read it in the newspapers” who have said the Boston bombing is a reason to delay the bill.

Earlier in the hearing committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said, “Let no one be so cruel as to try to use the heinous acts of these two young men last week to derail the dreams and futures of millions of hard-working people.”

The Tsarnaev family applied for asylum in the United States in 2002 and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev – the Boston bombing suspect who was captured Friday and is in a hospital in Boston -- became a naturalized American citizen last year.

Leahy argued that refugees and asylum seekers “have enriched the fabric of the country from our founding,” noting that in Vermont “we welcome as neighbors Bhutanese, Burmese and Somalis.”

That comment drew a response from Grassley reminding Leahy that he and other Democrats had used the Newtown, Conn., shooting as an opportunity to push for restrictions on gun buyers.

When Democrats proposed gun legislation, Grassley said, “I didn’t accuse you of using the Norristown (Newtown) killings as an excuse.”

And referring to last week’s explosion at a fertilizer plant in Texas, Grassley added, “I didn’t hear any criticism of people when there’s 14 people killed in West, Texas and demanding, taking advantage of that, trying to warn about (the need for) more government action to make sure that fertilizer factories are safe.”

He added, “I think we’re taking advantage of an opportunity – when once in 25 years we deal with immigration – to make sure that every base is covered.”

Grassley had said on Friday that the Boston bombing should prompt Congress to “understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system” and to examine “the weaknesses of our system.”

A prominent Republican senator who does not serve on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, joined the debate Monday by sending a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, saying that the Senate should not proceed with the immigration bill “until we understand the specific failures of our immigration system. Why did the current system allow two individuals to immigrate to the United States from the Chechen Republic in Russia, an area known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, who then committed acts of terrorism? Were there any safeguards? Could this have been prevented? Does the immigration reform before us address this?”

Paul said, “Extra screening is necessary from nations that have a higher population of extremists.”

And he called for hearings by the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, on which he serves, to ensure that “our current immigration system gives individuals from high-risk areas of the world heightened scrutiny.”

Noting a case in his own state earlier this year involving Iraqi refugees who “were sentenced to long prison terms for participating in terrorism and providing material support to terrorists while living in the United States,” Paul said the immigration bill should address and prevent such cases.

Schumer said Monday – as he did at Friday’s Judiciary Committee hearing – that “if there are things that come up as a result of what happened in Boston that require improvement” in his bill, “let’s add them to the bill.” The New York Democrat said the bipartisan bill “tightens up” the immigration system “in a way that would make a Boston (bombing) less likely.” He specifically cited the creation of an entry-exit system to detect if foreigner visitors to the United States overstay their visas and the bill’s requirement that people illegally present in the United States register with the federal government. “Now maybe it should made tighter still we’re open to that,” Schumer said.

The bill, co-sponsored by three other Democrats and by four Republican senators, also would liberalize the asylum process, making it easier for foreigners to apply for asylum and expanding the number of an asylee’s relatives who could be brought to the United States.

This story was originally published on Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:09 PM EDT

Two political questions after Boston… One, how should the federal government try terror suspects, even if they’re U.S. citizens?.... Two, does it impact the immigration-reform debate?... McCain, Graham, and Rubio play defense on immigration… An overlooked story over the weekend: Christie pursues background checks… The Democrats’ red-state dilemma on guns… Debbie Dingell says “no” on MI SEN bid… And Garcetti leads Greuel by 10 pts in new poll.

Jason Reed / Reuters

Members of the Senate's "Gang on Eight" are pictured during a news briefing on Capitol Hill, April 18, 2013. The senators (L-R) Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., John McCain, R-Ariz., Bob Menendez, D-N.J., Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., who crafted comprehensive legislation to overhaul the immigration system went to great lengths to balance the competing priorities of dozens of interest groups in an 844-page bill introduced on Wednesday in hopes it would improve the chances for passage of the bill.

*** The two political questions after Boston: Just days after one Boston Marathon bombing suspect was apprehended and the other was killed, the political world confronts these two questions: One, how should the federal government try terror suspects, even if they’re U.S. citizens? And two, how does Boston impact the immigration debate? On the first question, GOP lawmakers -- including Sens. Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Kelly Ayotte, as well as Rep. Peter King -- “want President Obama to declare the surviving Boston bombing suspect an enemy combatant in order to question him without a lawyer and other protections of the criminal justice system,” the New York Times writes. But this appears to be a dubious demand given that the surviving suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is a naturalized American citizen. (Indeed, the question might be more complicated if the other brother Tamerlan, who wasn’t a citizen but was a legal resident, had been the one who survived.) As the Times, writes, "Beyond the absence of known links between Mr. Tsarnaev and Al Qaeda, it is also unclear whether the Constitution permits the government to hold citizens arrested on domestic soil as enemy combatants." Bottom line: this isn’t going to be a serious debate for long. It’s not clear if Graham et al even represent a majority of GOP opinion on this. As we’ve seen with the rise in popularity of Rand Paul among Republicans, the libertarian wing is strong these days. If anything, Paul vs. Graham on this issue could be a fascinating sideshow debate in the coming days and weeks.

*** On handling terror suspects and on immigration: The other question in the aftermath of Boston is what it will mean for the immigration reform legislation beginning to move through the Senate. (The Tsarnaev brothers came to the United States when they were children/teenagers with their parents claiming asylum.) As early as Friday, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was the first to tie the two things together. “Given the events of this week, it’s important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system,” he said, per NBC’s Tom Curry. “While we don’t yet know the immigration status of the people who have terrorized the communities in Massachusetts, when we find out it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system.” On ABC over the weekend, Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) called to delay the immigration debate in the wake of Boston. “I think stepping back a little bit and putting it on hold, we have a bigger issue on immigration in front of us and that’s our debt and deficit and it has to be solved.” In the Senate, there are probably about 10-15 GOP senators who are opposed to immigration reform NO MATTER WHAT. But there are probably another 15-20 GOP senators who are SKITTISH about how their base supporters view the immigration debate, and they could be susceptible to being spooked politically if this “hold off on immigration reform due to Boston” movement gains traction. But in the GRAND scheme of things, this won’t derail immigration. It just could jeopardize the chances of the bill getting more than 75 votes in the Senate. And if that’s the case, what does that mean in the House?

*** McCain, Graham, and Rubio play defense: Given that potential skittishness among some Republicans, fellow GOP Sens. McCain, Graham, and Marco Rubio went out of their way on Friday -- before Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was even captured -- to argue that Boston shouldn’t jeopardize immigration reform. “Immigration reform will strengthen our nation’s security by helping us identify exactly who has entered our country and who has left – a basic function of government that our broken immigration system is incapable of accomplishing today,” McCain and Graham said in a statement. “The status quo is unacceptable. We have 11 million people living in the shadows, which leaves this nation vulnerable to a myriad of threats.” And there is a danger here for GOP senators who might be wavering on immigration reform due to Boston: If you are pursuing immigration reform because you realize your party can’t afford to lose Latino voters by 44 percentage points, but if you’re also invoking two men who were already in the country legally (and aren’t Latino), what message does that send to Latino voters? In other words, do Latino voters get the finger pointed at them because of a terrorist attack? That seems a horrible message for Republican lawmakers to send.

*** Christie pursues background checks: This might have been the most overlooked story from the weekend: “New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is seeking expanded background checks for gun purchases and parental consent for minors to buy violent video games as part of his response to the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut,” Bloomberg News writes. “Christie, a first-term Republican seeking re-election, also wants to ban purchases of the .50-caliber Barrett rifle, and to make it easier for doctors and courts to commit ‘potentially dangerous’ people to mental-health treatment against their will.” Folks, this isn’t someone who’s thinking about the 2016 primaries; instead, this is someone who’s running for re-election in the blue state of New Jersey. If Christie does end up running for president in 2016, he’s going to bringing a record that is similar to Rudy Giuliani, circa 2007. And while Rudy’s personal baggage did him in with GOP primary voters before his ideological baggage did, Christie will be another test about whether personality and electability can trump ideology. Many folks we know in GOP circles are skeptical.

*** The Democrats’ red-state dilemma on guns: Also on the topic of guns, former Obama White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley -- who’s eyeing a possible gubernatorial bid in Illinois -- wrote a Washington Post op-ed arguing that he regretted the $2,500 campaign contribution he gave to Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) after she voted against universal background checks last week. “So I’ll have some advice for my friends in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles: Just say no to the Democrats who said no on background checks.” Yet for now, this kind of call represents a dilemma for Democrats. On the one hand, this is a sign that the Newtown shootings have changed politics, at least inside the Democratic Party. More and more, gun control is becoming a major issue for Democrats and Democratic donors. But on the other hand, if national Democrats say “no” to the Heitkamps, the Begiches, the and Pryors, do they risk losing these contests to Republicans? What is worse for Democrats: A Democratic senator in these states that opposes you 15%-20% of the time, or a Republican senator who opposes you 90%-95% of the time?

*** Debbie Dingell says “no” to MI SEN bid: Debbie Dingell, a prominent auto-industry lobbyist and wife to Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), has announced that she won’t make a bid for Michigan’s open Senate seat. “We have good candidates like Gary Peters already running, and a primary would be divisive at a time that cries out for unity,” she said in a statement. “As someone who has spent much of my career working to bring people together, it just didn't feel right to take this step now. There may be a time when elective office is the right choice for me, but this was not it.”

*** Garcetti ahead by 10 points: A month before LA’s May 21 mayoral run-off, a USC Price/Los Angeles Times poll shows City Councilman Eric Garcetti leading City Controller Wendy Greuel by 10 points among likely voters, 50%-40%. And this isn’t a good sign for Greuel: “The survey also found no sign of success for Greuel's effort to gain an edge among women by highlighting her potential to make history as the city's first female mayor. Women preferred Garcetti, 50% to 41%.”

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

This story was originally published on Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:11 AM EDT

The Boston Marathon bombing, and subsequent examination of the suspects involved, has already begun influencing the debate over immigration reform in Washington.

This act of terrorism has revived a major question: Who should gain access to the United States and why?

Just as the U.S. Senate was beginning a debate on a bipartisan measure to overhaul America’s immigration policy, bombing suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev refocused the discussion on how people from troubled parts of the world enter the United States, and in some cases are granted asylum.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R- Iowa, said Friday morning at a Judiciary Committee hearing on the immigration bill that “given the events of this week, it’s important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system.”

Showing concern that statements such as Grassley’s indicate the Massachusetts events could hurt the chances for Congress passing their immigration overhaul, two Republican sponsors of the bill, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., released a statement Friday saying that, “Immigration reform will strengthen our nation’s security by helping us identify exactly who has entered our country and who has left – a basic function of government that our broken immigration system is incapable of accomplishing today.”

They added, “By modernizing our system of legal immigration, identifying and conducting background checks on people here illegally, and finally securing our border, we will make America more secure.”

Depending on what’s learned in the coming days about the Massachusetts suspects, the debate could begin to center not only on who enters the country, but on their family members and their potential to join a terrorist cause or commit terrorist acts.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev – the Boston bombing suspect whom authorities were still searching for as of Friday afternoon – was born on July 22, 1993 and flew to the United States on April 12, 2002 with his family which applied for asylum.

The Tsarnaev family, ethnic Chechens, an embattled minority nationality in Russia, was granted legal permanent residence in 2007 and Dzhokhar became a naturalized citizen last year.

U.S. policy has long been to grant asylum to non-citizens who can show that they have a well-founded fear that if they return to their country of origin, they’ll be persecuted based upon their nationality, religion, membership in a particular social group, or political views.

According to a 2011 report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), asylum seekers “are subject to multiple national security screenings” and if an asylum seeker is a suspected or known terrorist, the law “bars alien terrorists from entering the United States.”

But the report also noted that some observers “express concern that U.S. sympathies for the asylum seekers caught up in the democratic political uprisings in the Middle East, northern Africa, and south Asia could inadvertently facilitate the entry of terrorists.”

In 2011, nearly 25,000 people were granted asylum. According to the Congressional Research Service, about 30 percent of asylum applicants in recent years have been granted asylum.

Spouses and unmarried children (under the age of 21) may get “derivative” asylum status from the person who is first granted asylum.

Crystal Williams, the executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), said Friday that she hoped the Boston Marathon bombing and the alleged role of the Tsarnaev brothers won’t affect the congressional immigration debate.

“It really is unrelated to anything to do with immigration,” Williams said. “From the information we have now, both of these individuals entered as children. Whatever points of view they developed, they developed in the United States.”

She said any examination of their views when they entered the United States “would not have uncovered what developed in their minds ten years later.”

The immigration bill introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., McCain, Graham and other cosponsors would make some changes to asylum policy, while retaining the standard of granting refuge to those who show a well-founded fear of persecution if they return to their home country.

The bill – known as the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act – would make it easier for asylum seekers and their family members by eliminating the existing one-year deadline for filing an asylum application.

It would also expand the categories of family members who qualify for “derivative” asylum status to include children of the spouse of the person granted asylum, and the grandchildren of the person granted asylum.

AILA’s Williams noted another important change that the bill would make.

Under current law, she said, “when somebody appears at a port of entry of the United States and makes a request there for asylum, the situation is that an asylum officer will conduct what’s called a ‘credible fear’ interview. If the asylum officer feels this person has made at least a basic case for asylum, then he will let them in to pursue the asylum application.”

But under the Schumer-McCain-Graham bill, “if the person makes such a compelling case right there (at the port of entry) they don’t have to go through a second process … It cuts out a second step for the more compelling cases.”

Jonathan Dienst of NBC New York contributed to this story.

Related stories:

• Boston bombings spurs Senate debate on tighter immigration screening
• As Gang of Eight presents plan, both sides gear up for immigration debate

This story was originally published on Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:31 PM EDT