After clearing the first hurdle in some of the most delicate legislative jockeying in recent memory, advocates of a comprehensive immigration reform bill are already looking to the next stage of the legislation’s progress as it heads toward a high-profile airing in the full Senate.

While some groups aligned with Democrats failed to secure their desired changes to the sweeping Senate legislation as it worked its way through 30 hours of debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month, many are looking to the floor debate as a second shot to include their priorities in a final bill.

And Republicans who are supportive of the reform effort, led by Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, are all but certain to support changes to the bill’s border security provisions in the effort to bring more conservatives into the fold.

Mindful of how previous attempts to overhaul the nation's immigration system disintegrated under pressure, however, all sides are proceeding with caution to maintain an underlying framework of compromise that -- so far -- remains unscathed.

“The center has held, so part of the calculation going forward is how to make it through the Senate floor in the same fashion,” said Clarissa Martinez De Castro, the director of immigration policy for the National Council of La Raza.

Her organization, along with other immigrant advocacy groups, had lobbied for provisions to allow more flexibility for family members of U.S. citizens to become eligible for visas.

One amendment -- considered the most politically palatable of the possible options -- would have restored visa eligibility for the adult children or siblings of citizens if separation would mean “extreme hardship” for the family. But despite an emotional push by sponsor Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, the provision failed by a 7-11 vote in committee.

Mee Moua, the executive director of the Asian American Justice Center, said that the defeat of that amendment was “short-sighted” but that her group is hopeful for a second chance.

“We feel that there’s actually been some space that’s been created for us to continue the conversation,” Moua said. ‘We’re hopeful that the floor process -- with 100 senators -- means there’s still an opportunity for us.”

LGBT activists also suffered a defeat Tuesday night when ally Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy -- acknowledging his colleagues’ fears that it would splinter the bill’s underlying compromise -- pulled an amendment that would have recognized same-sex marriages in immigration law.

But their fight to write the protections into the final bill may depend as much as on the Supreme Court’s calendar as it does on Senate politics.

The Supreme Court is expected to hand down its decision on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act at the end of its term in late June or early July. A favorable DOMA decision for gay rights activists would largely resolve what they see as discrimination written into immigration law now.

But that ruling is no guarantee.

“Our position today is if the bill is moving towards the vote and we do not have a Supreme Court ruling in hand -- or we have a bad ruling in hand -- we’d certainly want to look at the options for an amendment on the floor,” said Steve Ralls of Immigration Equality, one of the groups that excoriated Gang of Eight Republicans for labeling the LGBT measure a deal-breaker, leading Leahy to withhold it. “If we don’t have a resolution from the court, the Senate has a responsibility to our families to support a floor amendment."

Unions may also push to change provisions inserted Tuesday to win the support of Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, who secured the relaxation of hiring regulations for high-tech firms seeking temporary skilled workers from abroad. After winning the changes -- which were panned by the AFL-CIO, which worked on the bill’s original compromise language regarding temporary workers -- Hatch announced that he would vote for the bill  in committee but that he could still vote against it once it comes to the floor.

There will also be a slate of amendments from the other side of the aisle, both from Republican opponents of the bill attempting to gut its central tenets and from those hoping to woo more conservatives to vote for the final product.

Republicans who support the bill's framework are considering amendments that tighten security provisions in a way that remains compatible with the bill's proposed path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. That effort is likely to include amendments that would shift responsibility for border security planning and enforcement from the Department of Homeland Security -- the object of mistrust by many conservatives -- into the hands of Congress.

Even if the bill passes the Senate with a large bipartisan majority, with activists setting their sights as high as 70 or 75 votes, it faces uncertainty in the Republican-controlled House.

After seeming on the brink of collapse late Thursday, members of a House bipartisan group said they were still on track to introduce their own compromise legislation next month.

And House leaders, led by Speaker John Boehner, wrote Thursday that they will not vote on a Senate-passed measure without input from the lower chamber.  

“The House remains committed to fixing our broken immigration system, but we will not simply take up and accept the bill that is emerging in the Senate if it passes,” they wrote. “Rather, through regular order, the House will work its will and produce its own legislation.”

But exactly what that House legislation will look like -- or if it will be palatable to a majority of lawmakers -- remains unclear.

Related stories:

• PHOTOS: Aerial search for illegal border crossings along active Rio Grande
• Immigration bill clears hurdle with 13-5 approval by Senate committee
• Reid signals delay in potential fight over Senate rules change
• Senate panel gives green light to test biometric exit program
• Conservative talkers, grassroots groups push anti-immigration reform effort

This story was originally published on Fri May 24, 2013 3:59 AM EDT

Several prominent conservative media figures are backing a new effort by groups who oppose bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform, signaling growing willingness from conservative outlets to marshal their audiences against the bill.

Signatories on a new open letter to Congress titled “The Wrong Way to Reform Immigration” include RedState editor Erick Erickson, radio hosts Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin, and columnist Michelle Malkin.

“No matter how well intentioned, the Schumer-Rubio bill suffers from fundamental design flaws that make it unsalvageable,” the letter states. “Many of us support various parts of the legislation, but the overall package is so unsatisfactory that the Senate would do better to start over from scratch.”

The letter, originally circulated by Eagle Forum president Phyllis Schlafly, is also signed by over 100 individuals and grassroots organizations, including former Rep. Allen West, Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin, and author David Limbaugh, the brother of famed conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.

While the influence of conservative radio hosts was widely credited for the collapse of a 2007 effort to overhaul the nation’s immigration system, a trio of controversies – the IRS targeting scandal, the Justice Department leak probe and the Benghazi talking points spat – have largely dominated the airwaves as the current bill works its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee.

While activists working against the bill believe that grass-roots support can again topple the effort to create a pathway to citizenship for the nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants, most concede that the overwhelming Hispanic support for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election made vocal opposition to the bipartisan bill far less politically palatable for Republican lawmakers this time. Additionally, several major groups are still sitting out the fight, like the anti-tax Club for Growth and grass-roots clearinghouse FreedomWorks.

The opposition letter comes after a pledge of support for immigration reform from a coalition of conservative groups that called the bill "an important starting point" and urged Republicans in the Senate to "work to improve the legislation." That letter, organized by the American Conservative Union, was signed by a variety of Latino, faith and public policy groups -- many of which met  earlier this month with Florida Republican Marco Rubio, the key Senate negotiator working to build conservative support for the bill. 

Still, despite steady progress for the Senate legislation and a breakthrough compromise from a bipartisan House group last week, opponents of the legislation feel emboldened by what they see as renewed mistrust of the federal government – particularly in the wake of the IRS controversy.

On Monday, foes of the legislation got an additional boost when the union representing 12,000 employees of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said it will oppose the Senate bill, in part because of an “insurmountable bureaucracy” created at the agency that processes immigration documents.

Activists also plan to hold more than 40 local events nationwide Tuesday to highlight opposition to the Senate legislation.

Related stories:

• Senate panel gives green light to test biometric exit program
• Union of immigration enforcement officers to oppose Senate bill

This story was originally published on Tue May 21, 2013 12:07 AM EDT

Aiming to advance a sweeping immigration reform bill by week’s end, senators on the committee considering the legislation planned marathon sessions to complete its edits, including the approval Monday of a compromise measure to implement a test system for taking foreign visa holders’ fingerprints when they exit the United States. 

In an effort to win over Republicans who favor using “biometric” criteria – like fingerprinting -- to monitor when foreigners leave the country, pro-reform members of the Senate Judiciary Committee approved an amendment sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a Republican considered to be a swing vote on the 18 member committee.  That amendment, a less stringent version of a biometric proposal that failed last week, would require the Department of Homeland Security to establish a fingerprinting system at the 10 U.S. airports with the highest international traffic within two years. After six years, that system would have to be in place at the nation’s 30 biggest airports. 

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Senate Judiciary Committee holds a markup session on the immigration reform legislation in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill May 20, 2013 in Washington, DC.

The biometric tracking is primarily aimed at monitoring visa overstays, which account for an estimated 40 percent of the undocumented population.  

It was adopted by a vote of 13-5.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican who is not on the Senate Judiciary Committee but was a key drafter of the Gang of Eight legislation, has been pushing for the biometric system. 

In a statement, Rubio applauded the passage of the Hatch amendment.

"The amendment adopted today is a good start and I will continue to fight to make the tracking of entries and exits include biometrics in the most effective system we can build when the bill is amended on the Senate floor," he said. 

Prior to the vote, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama – who sponsored an attempt last week to immediately begin implementation of a fingerprinting system at all major air, sea and land ports – slammed the amendment as inadequate, disputing the idea that finalizing a nationwide system would be costly and unwieldy.

“Why we won’t do it and do it properly within a year or 18 months – completely -- I have no idea,” Sessions said.

Congress has previously passed legislation requiring a biometric exit system but has never implemented the program, citing cost, infrastructure challenges and opposition from major airlines.

Proponents of the Hatch measure said it would provide an important step towards implementing a more complete biometric system, which senators on both sides of the aisle agreed would provide the most failsafe method for tracking visa overstays as well as individuals who pose national security threats.

“I do not look at this, Senator Sessions, as a fig leaf,” said Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. “I look at it as a start.”

Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, another Gang of Eight member, added that all lawmakers are “frustrated” by the fact that a biometric system has not yet been implemented nationwide but that the Hatch measure would be the most “aggressive” mandate yet to start putting one in place.

Earlier Monday, senators also approved an amendment proposed by South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, also a member of the Gang of Eight, that would void legal status for individuals who sought asylum in the United States but subsequently returned to the country from which they fled.

That measure was aimed at those like Boston Marathon suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, whose family had been granted asylum in the United States but who had returned to Russia prior to the terrorist attack.

Senators also unanimously approved an amendment to mandate better tracking of immigrants who have overstayed visas by mandating broad data-sharing between customs officials, federal law enforcement and intelligence personnel.  

The committee was slated for a late night Monday. As it began its fourth day of edits to the bill,  Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy said he was optimistic that the panel could complete its work as early as Wednesday night. 

This story was originally published on Mon May 20, 2013 1:25 PM EDT

A union representing 12,000 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officers will publicly oppose the Senate Gang of Eight immigration plan Monday, giving critics of the overhaul effort additional political ammunition as they work to defeat legislation working its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee.  

In a release announcing the group's opposition to the bill, National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council president Kenneth Palinkas writes that the bill would fail to address an "insurmountable bureaucracy" at the federal agency overseeing immigration documents and argues that USCIS personnel are currently "pressured to rubber stamp applications instead of conducting diligent case review and investigation."

"The culture at USCIS encourages all applications to be approved, discouraging proper investigation into red flags and discouraging the denial of any applications," he wrote in the release. 

The union joins the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, which represents a majority of the nation's deportation agents and is one of the most vocal opponents of the bill - in its opposition to the Gang of Eight measure. 

National ICE Council president Chris Crane, an outspoken ally of bill opponents like Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, circulated a letter to Congress earlier this month arguing that the bill as written "fails to meet the needs of the law enforcement community" and would harm its public safety and national security objectives.

Palinkas writes in his organization's release that it will join as a signatory of that letter. 

The sweeping Senate legislation would create a Registered Provisional Immigrant status for which qualified undocumented immigrants would be eligible to apply after a series of border security and employment verification criteria are achieved. Critics of the bill say those security benchmarks are not stringent enough to discourage more illegal immigration to the United States. 

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