Yuri Gripas / Reuters, file

Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin testifies before a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs committee hearing on December 6, 2011. Wolin was the Treasury official who learned about the investigation into the IRS in 2012.

Capitol Hill readied Wednesday for perhaps the most explosive -- or at least dramatic -- of the three hearings into IRS abuses of conservative and Tea Party groups in the past week, with one of the key witnesses expected to invoke her constitutional right to remain silent.

The Republican-controlled House Oversight and Government Reform committee was set to convene its own hearing on the revelations that the tax-collecting agency had singled out conservative groups for additional scrutiny in their applications for nonprofit status. Though the panel will hear from two of the same witnesses who appeared at hearings of the House Ways and Means Committee last Friday and the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday, two witnesses who have not yet appeared before Congress could make Wednesday’s hearing into the most eventful yet.

Those two witnesses are Neal Wolin, a deputy Treasury secretary, and Lois Lerner, who oversees the tax-exempt division within the IRS. Wolin was the Treasury official who learned about the investigation into the IRS in 2012; Lerner was the official who planted a question at an American Bar Association conference with the purpose of disclosing the IRS’s targeting of conservatives in public for the first time and who is in charge of the agency’s division in charge of overseeing tax-exempt status for such groups.

In perhaps an ominous precursor for the hearing, Lerner’s attorney said Tuesday that her client would invoke her Fifth Amendment rights against having to offer self-incriminating testimony. She will still appear, though, to voice that claim.

The oversight panel has been one of the most doggedly critical of the White House, providing Republicans with an ideal platform to ding President Barack Obama and his team. The committee, for example, hosted a hearing earlier this month featuring whistleblowers that helped breathe new life into Republicans’ questions about the administration’s handling of last year’s terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

The two other witnesses, former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman and IRS Inspector General J. Russell George, featured Wednesday have appeared in previous congressional hearings.

Throughout these hearings, IRS officials have blamed “foolish mistakes” for the abuses at the IRS, but have denied that partisan motivations or influence from outside the agency fueled IRS officials’ targeting of conservative groups. That hasn’t stopped Republicans from insinuating otherwise; GOP lawmakers have spent much of the last two hearings probing whether the Obama administration had any role in directing the efforts to single out its ideological adversaries.

This story was originally published on Wed May 22, 2013 4:39 AM 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

In a Supreme Court test of whether a company can be granted a patent on the genes in the human body, a majority of the justices indicated during Monday's oral arguments that the court is likely to rule that a human gene can’t be patented. 

It would be one thing, several of the justices said during Monday’s oral arguments, for a company to seek a patent on a test for breast cancer that was developed by analyzing a human gene, but it would be going too far to be awarded a patent on the gene itself.

"What's the difference between snipping off a piece of the liver or kidney, and seeking a patent on that, and seeking a patent on a piece of a gene?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Samuel Alito made a different analogy, to someone seeking a patent on a plant found in the Amazon rain forest that bore leaves containing a cancer cure. "You could patent the process used to get the chemical out and the use of the result, but you cannot patent the plant," he said. 

Stelios Varias / Reuters file photo

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington

The case, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, involves a test that has helped guide more than a million women in their medical decisions. The test can determine whether the composition of their genes makes them more likely to get breast or ovarian cancer.

Myriad Genetics, a Utah company, owns patents on two parts of human genes known as BRCA 1 and BRCA 2, named for the first two letters of the words breast and cancer.

Women with mutations in those genes face up to an 85 percent risk of getting breast cancer and up to a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer. Because of the patents, Myriad has a monopoly on performing all diagnostic tests related to BRCA 1 and BRCA 2.

In the past three decades, the federal government has granted nearly 3,000 similar patents on genetic material. Without such protection, Myriad argues, companies would be less willing to spend the money required for making genetic discoveries.

"Countless companies and investors have risked billions of dollars to research and develop advances under this promise of stable patent protection," according to Gregory Castanias, a Washington, D.C, lawyer who argued the case for Myriad.

The idea of patenting DNA material has provoked a strong debate among scientists, and many have lined up on opposite sides of the case.

"Human genes should not be patented," says James Watson, the Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA.

"Life's instructions ought not be controlled by legal monopolies created at the whim of Congress or the courts," he says.

But a group of researchers at the University of Maryland is among those arguing just the opposite. "The costs are outweighed by the benefits stemming from the fruits of increased inventive activity," they say in their friend-of-court brief.

In the 220 years since Thomas Jefferson wrote the cornerstone of U.S. patent law, the courts have agreed on a general principle: patents protect inventions, not products of nature. A central issue in this case is whether Myriad has obtained a patent on something already in the body or has created something new.

The ACLU, representing a group of scientists, doctors, and cancer patients, claims that Myriad has merely removed from the body something that was already there -- the DNA sequence making up the BRAC 1 and BRAC 2 genes. Because it is a creation of nature, the ACLU says, it cannot be protected by a patent, even though Myriad claims that removing it is what makes it useful.

"Gold does not become patentable once taken out of a stream because it can be used in jewelry. Kidneys do not become patentable once taken out of a body because they can be transplanted," says the ACLU's Christopher Hansen.

Myriad's exclusive patent, says the ACLU, creates a monopoly that denies women the ability to seek a second opinion, based on another test of the genetic material, and dissuades other laboratories from pursuing research on the patented genes.

The ACLU also contends that because the test costs roughly $3,000, many women cannot afford it or lack the necessary insurance coverage. If the gene was not under patent protection, the ACLU says, competition would make the test cheaper.

But Myriad argues that removing the gene sequence from the body requires breaking chemical bonds that lock it into place, thereby creating a new chemical entity.

The resulting genetic materials, the company says, "were never available to the world until Myriad's scientists applied their inventive faculties to a previously undistinguished mass of genetic matter."

Myriad cites a line of cases finding patent eligibility for naturally occurring substances that were isolated and purified, including aspirin, vitamin B12, and adrenaline derived from cows.

As for availability, the company says the cost of the test is covered by private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. It also says many other labs provide second opinions regarding the company's test results and that thousands of researchers have done studies on the gene sequence involved, unimpeded by the patent.

The Obama administration has urged the court to be deeply skeptical of Myriad's broad claim of what can be patented. The Justice Department's brief in the case says the public interest has consistently been given precedence by the Supreme Court "in avoiding undue restrictions imposed by patents that effectively preempt natural laws and substances."   

NBC's Tom Curry contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:17 AM EDT

Speaking exclusively to NBC News, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is the first GOP senator to say publicly she will vote for the bipartisan compromise on expanded background checks for the sale of guns online and at gun shows.

Collins said "I do intend to support it" now that she has reviewed the actual text of the Manchin-Toomey bill and calls it a "reasonable" approach. Collins described the Manchin-Toomey effort as "a responsible break through from two people who have far better NRA rankings than I have." Both Sens. Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia and Pat Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, hold "A" ratings from the National Rifle Association. Collins added she knows her yes vote and support is "not a popular thing in my state."

Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., worked with Manchin and Toomey privately during negotiations and is expected to vote yes on the background checks bill.

Collins, who is running for re-election next year, said she would not have supported a plan that required universal background checks, including individual sales. She cited an example of a father who gives his daughter a gun for protection when she "moves to the big city."

Collins pointed out that her state has among the highest rate of gun ownership in the country at more than 40 percent while also ranking as the safest state with respect to low violent crime.

The three-term Republican says she is "being hit hard" and "being besieged by all sides" referring to ads run against her by both the conservative National Association of Gun Rights and the president's group, Organizing for America.

After a week when Newtown families paid visits to senators urging new, tighter measures on gun sales, Collins said, "I am furious and beside myself" over a depiction of her in a press account concerning Newtown families on Capitol Hill.

Collins told NBC News, "I was willing to make the choice to be late for the president in order to meet with the grieving families," adding, "I truly felt it was more important."

Known for being punctual, Collins described her unusual dilemma.

"I realized I was in a real bind" and told staffers "to call the White House." Collins had never been invited to attend a small dinner with the president before. "How rude is that? Tell the president you're going to be late to dinner," she told NBC News.  

Collins explained the families were expected at her office at 5 p.m. Wednesday but arrived late, at the time she was scheduled to depart for the White House about 5:45 p.m.

"I said, I have to meet with them, my heart goes out to them." Collins said three of the family members gave her photos of their loved ones and "those are on my desk to this moment."

"I was so moved by them," she added.

Collins remembered telling the families about her own reaction after seeing their appearance on "60 Minutes" earlier in the week.

"I wept, I literally wept."

The senator and families also discussed the substance of gun measures being considered by Congress for about 20 minutes. Collins had not told the families her vote would a "yes" on the Manchin- Tommey compromise because she had not received the actual text at that time. She told them she knew it would come up at her meeting with the president. "I listened to them and I treated them with the compassion they deserved."

Collins said when she arrived 45 minutes late to the White House dinner she was "embarrassed." She added: "The salad plates were being cleared."

Collins said she went up to President Barack Obama and explained why she was late. She said the president was gracious, saying: "Good call. I totally understand. It's fine."

Collins recalled saying, "Mr. President, I am never late and I feel really bad, but it would be cruel to not meet with them even for the President of the United States. And cruel is the word I used."

Collins is clearly frustrated by a report that she says left the wrong impression that her office had offered families a meeting with staffers and only a quick visit by the senator herself and that was rejected by the families' handlers. 

Collins said firmly, "I'm not someone who would blow off grieving families." She also insisted she is not blaming the families for making her late for dinner with President Obama.

She also said that unlike other senators who allowed media and cameras into their meetings, she "did not want to put the families on display." But Collins said she almost regretted that decision now because it would have confirmed her effort to spend time when them.

"I can take being attacked by right-wing nutty groups, but to be attacked that I somehow was unkind or cruel to Newtown families I cannot take. It's not true."

Collins is a critical "yes" vote for the families and Democrats who need Republican support to pass expanded background checks.

Collins knows her support is valuable to the Newtown families.

"I am an important vote for them but I truly care about them."

Related:

• Senators announce gun deal, raising hopes of Senate passage
• Newtown passion moves Senate vote on guns
• Giffords to launch in-person push for gun law compromise

Two veeps were in the White House Friday: Vice President Joe Biden lunched with "Veep" star Julia Louis-Dreyfus.

Lawrence Jackson / WhiteHouse.gov

Julia Louis-Dreyfus isn't a vice-president, but she plays one on TV's "Veep." The actress met with real Vice President Joe Biden on Friday at the White House.

Like many vice presidents before him, President Obama's No. 2 has given the HBO political comedy plenty of material to parody. But Biden's blunders pale in comparison to the humiliating setbacks suffered by Selina Meyer, Louis-Dreyfus' character, ever since a failed presidential bid landed her in the vice president's office.

Her lunch date at Biden's real-life workplace wasn't the first time the actress has spoken with the vice president.

"(He) was in touch with me to congratulate me on winning the Emmy for this part, and he was very funny about it," Louis-Dreyfus told Politico, "which led me to believe that he may have seen a couple of episodes."

The real politician must have a sense of humor, because one of those episodes, "Frozen Yoghurt," spoofs Biden's gaffe at a custard shop: In 2010, he made headlines for snapping at the store's manager, who complained about his taxes.

Season two of "Veep" premieres Sunday on HBO. Meanwhile, check out Louis-Dreyfus' behind-the-scenes WhoSay video and photo gallery.

Related content:

• Jay-Z releases 'Open Letter' about Cuba trip
• Stephen Colbert sets up Twitter account for President Clinton

No legislation is exactly “Pat the Bunny,” but comprehensive immigration reform is certainly one of the most wide-ranging and complicated issues imaginable when lawmakers start trying to put pen to paper. There’s already a tangle of existing immigration laws, and the delicate compromises being crafted by bipartisan legislators means that more new details are being tweaked along the way.

Here’s a brief glossary of a few of the major terms you will be hearing as the debate unfolds:

TRIGGERS:  Border security is a top issue for many lawmakers who say that illegal immigration must be halted before undocumented individuals in the country can be set on a path to citizenship. The Obama administration and some Democrats have said that it’s not fair for the law to require specific border security metrics – or “triggers” – to be met before those in the country illegally can be eligible for legal status. The latest reporting on the Senate Gang of Eight bill indicates that it will require the Department of Homeland Security, during the first decade after the bill is passed, to work to ensure 100 percent surveillance of the nation’s southern border and apprehension of 90 percent those who attempt to enter the country illegally. That plan must be operational  - and other criteria dealing with worker verification systems – would have to be met before former illegal immigrants who have had “probationary legal status” (which also requires a 10 year wait) would be able to apply for Green Cards. Whether or not that’s fair will be a major topic of debate in the coming weeks.

FAMILY REUNIFICATION: The most common way that foreign-born immigrants live legally in the United States is through a family reunification visa. If you are the spouse or minor child of a U.S. citizen (first preference), there is no limit on your eligibility for a visa to become a legal permanent resident. For other relationships – like the adult children or siblings of citizens, there are annual caps. Some of those categories may be eliminated altogether in the legislation being mulled in Congress, which some pro-reform groups believe would unfairly break up families.

“THE BACK OF THE LINE”: This is a tricky one. The idea that illegal immigrants should have to go “to the back of the line” in order to become citizens is espoused by the reform effort’s supporters and opponents alike. But experts say that’s a convenient but inaccurate term because there’s more than one line. Those waiting for family visas have various waiting processes – which vary in length based on the kind of family association and the country of origin of the applicant. Those applying based on employment go through a separate process, as do refugees to the United States. Eligible undocumented individuals would go through yet another lengthy process, which could lead to ... (see next)

PATH TO CITIZENSHIP: The bipartisan plan coming out of the Senate is expected to require undocumented workers to pass a background check and pay back taxes and fines before becoming eligible for “probationary legal status.” But that doesn’t mean they become citizens right away. They would have to maintain that status for 10 years before becoming eligible to apply for a Green Card, which in turn makes them eligible to start the process of becoming a citizen if they choose to.

GUEST WORKERS: One of the early sticking points in the negotiations was a dispute between business and labor over temporary low-skilled workers – specifically, how much they should be paid and how many of them there should be. The Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO hashed out a deal over the Easter weekend to create a new “W” visa for these workers, who are in the hospitality, janitorial, retail, construction and other industries. (That deal didn’t address temporary agricultural workers -- that was a separate negotiation between different groups.)

Related:

Arguments for and against immigration reform

Why immigration reform has a better chance than guns

By the numbers: How America tallies its 11.1 million undocumented immigrants

The National Rifle Association said Wednesday the group is unequivocally opposed to the newly-struck compromise plan to expand background checks — and threatened that it may seek to penalize lawmakers who vote for what it deems “anti-gun” measures by giving them poor grades in their rating system.

The warning to members of Congress came just hours after a compromise on expanding background checks for  gun purchasers was announced, a deal that the NRA itself participated closely in.

"Expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools," top NRA lobbyist Chris Cox wrote in a letter sent to senators Wednesday night. "Given the importance of these issues, votes on all anti-gun amendments or proposals will be considered in NRA's future candidate evaluations."

The NRA rates lawmakers based on how they vote on the group's priorities. The letter grades are highly influential and carry particular weight in rural states with a strong gun culture.

Cox was a ubiquitous presence during negotiations between Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who announced the deal Wednesday morning to expand background checks to sales at gun shows and over the Internet.

Manchin has been careful to court the group's support; both he and Toomey both have "A" ratings from the NRA.

But despite their involvement, the NRA ultimately decided to come out against it.

Earlier Wednesday, a Senate Democratic aide had said that Democratic leaders were operating under the impression that the NRA will not throw its full weight behind opposing the background check bill, something which would have relieved pressure on moderate Democrats and Republicans to vote for the legislation.

Now, they have less cover.

Separately Wednesday, Sens. Patrick Leahy and Susan Collins announced they'd reached an agreement with the NRA on gun trafficking language that will be included in the overall gun bill. Cox did not mention the gun trafficking measure in his letter.

NBC News’ Luke Russert contributed to this report.

President Barack Obama will stick to his forthcoming budget on Wednesday, and does not regard it as a "starting point" for negotiations with Republicans toward a fiscal deal.

The administration's 2014 budget — which Obama will introduce at 11:15 a.m. on Wednesday — seeks an additional $1.8 trillion in savings through a combination of new revenues, entitlement reforms and targeted cuts to discretionary spending. The budget contains spending adding up to $3.77 trillion.

And while GOP lawmakers have expressed skepticism toward Obama's new budget, particularly for its inclusion of new taxes, the White House argued Tuesday in previewing the announcement that Republicans shouldn't be so dismissive.

"We don't view this budget as a starting point in the negotiations," one senior administration official said on a conference call previewing the budget. "This is an offer where the president came more than halfway."

“The question is, are Republicans willing to come to us?” the official asked, saying that the administration would be "sticking" to its position.

"If they refuse to include revenues in any deal, then there will be no deal. it's that simple."

Obama offered a change in how Social Security benefits increase over time (so-called "chained CPI") in hopes of drawing Republicans into begrudging agreement on proposals to raise new revenue. Among those revenue-raising provisions were:

• Enacting the so-called "Buffett Rule," which would require households making over $1 million to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes
• Limiting tax deductions to up to 28 percent of income for the top 2 percent of earners in the United States
• Expanding a tax credit for middle-class families to pay for child care
• Funding universal preschool, something Obama called for in his State of the Union address, through an increase in the federal tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products
• Establishing of a National Infrastructure Bank, which in April 2013 Obama said could raise $10 billion, with each federal dollar leveraging up to $20 in total investment 
• Paying for the launch of 15 “manufacturing innovation institutes,” whose $1 billion price tag was first floated during the State of the Union 

This story was originally published on Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:31 AM EDT

Petitioning to come to the United States as a foreign national is complicated. There’s visa paperwork, quotas in many cases, and lengthy wait times. One misstep could mean a lengthy separation from your loved ones.

And that's just for straight people. 

As pro-reform interest groups prepare to fight for their specific priorities in pending immigration reform legislation, LGBT activists aren’t standing on the sidelines.

“There is a shared struggle among the immigrant and the LGBT communities,” said Steve Ralls of Immigration Equality, an organization that offers legal aid to LGBT immigrants. “There is a growing recognition that if we can get fair immigration reform through Congress we can work on a lot of issues together moving forward.”

Gay rights activists say there are several fronts in the immigration fight -- from specific provisions for gay Americans and permanent residents seeking to bring a non-citizen partner to the country, to protections for undocumented LGBT individuals, to a broader call for equal rights.

“We’re investing in immigration reform because it is a social justice issue and we have a responsibility to advocate for the kind of world we want to live in,” said Maya Rupert, policy director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “But beyond that, there are LGBT people who are going to be directly impacted by every provision in the ultimate legislation, so we have to make sure that it’s being done in a way that is inclusive and conscious of their needs.”

That means both legal and undocumented immigrants, Rupert said.

The number of LGBT immigrants is difficult to count, but researcher Dr. Gary Gates of UCLA’s Williams Institute used existing Census, Gallup and Pew Research Center data to calculate it. Gates estimates that about 900,000 LGBT immigrants live in the United States. About two-thirds of those are documented -- meaning that they are naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents or holders of a temporary visa. One-third -- about 267,000 -- are undocumented according to the estimate.

For documented LGBT immigrants, a key provision that activists have focused on is the inclusion of legislation called the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) in a final comprehensive reform bill.

Currently, a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident can petition for a visa for a foreign-born spouse -- but only if the spouse is of the opposite sex. That applies even if the same-sex couple is legally married in another country or in a U.S. state that recognizes gay marriage.

UAFA would make same-sex spouses or permanent partners of U.S. citizens eligible to petition for a family-based visa.

(If the Supreme Court finds the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional this summer, same-sex binational married couples will likely be able to apply for visas based on their relationship, regardless of where they reside.)

Activists point to an ally in Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, an original Senate sponsor of the UAFA legislation and the head of the panel that will first review a draft immigration bill. The White House also specifically included the provision for same-sex immigrant permanent partners in a January fact sheet outlining the president’s priorities for reform.

A path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is also getting heavy support from LGBT groups, who note that a significant portion of undocumented LGBT people in the United States may be here because they faced discrimination in their country of origin.

“You can imagine the fear that an undocumented person faces with the uncertainty in current law if their deportation would mean the return to a home country where they cannot be out, where they cannot have a relationship or they would be subject to intense persecution,” says Ralls. “So a path to citizenship is critical for all undocumented people, and  for undocumented LGBT people it is in many cases a critical safety issue for them.”

Public opinion shifting
Since 1994, the U.S. has classified persecution on the basis of sexual orientation as grounds to seek asylum. But the process can be arduous and confusing, and asylum-seekers have to offer rigorous documentation of hardship. Those whose claims are denied risk deportation.

Although many Latino groups heavily involved in the immigration reform movement -- including the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Council de la Raza and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus -- have offered support for the inclusion of LGBT protections in any final legislation, there’s opposition within the Latino community as well as from outside groups.

Susan Walsh / AP

In this March 12, 2013 file photo, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington.

In February, Sen. Marco Rubio -- a key player in the Senate Gang of Eight -- said that the inclusion of LGBT protections could hamper passage of the legislation. (Arizona’s Sen. John McCain has echoed that concern as well.)

"I think if that issue becomes a central issue in the debate it's going to become harder to get it done because there will be strong feelings on both sides,” Rubio said at an event sponsored by Buzzfeed. 

As recently as a decade ago, the Hispanic and LGBT communities could have been considered quite the opposite of allies.

In 2006, a Pew Research Center study found that just 31 percent of Hispanics favored allowing gay marriage, compared to 56 percent who opposed it.

But in 2012, those numbers were almost a mirror image, with 52 percent of Hispanics backing gay marriage and about a third saying they are not in favor of legal marriage for gays and lesbians.

Amid the legal complications and the data, and regardless of how any final legislation reads, those involved in the issue say that the debate is raising awareness about a long-ignored population.

“Having a number that indicates that this is a sizable group -- more than 250,000 LGBT undocumented, nearly a million LGBT immigrants -- it’s not so much the overall number that’s important, it’s the fact that there is an estimate,” says Dr. Gates of the Williams Institute. “Unless you’re counted, you tend not to count.”

Related: 

Religious groups, pro-reform organizations brace for family-based visa fight

This story was originally published on Sun Apr 7, 2013 4:24 AM EDT

In the midst of their effort to broaden the party’s appeal, Republican leaders continue to engage – sometimes forcefully – on social issues that have sometimes turned off key voting blocs in the past.

The Republican National Committee’s “Growth and Opportunity Project” report issued last month recommended that the party be more “inclusive and welcoming,” warning that doing otherwise would “limit our ability to attract young people and others, including many women, who agree with us on some but not all issues.”

But Republican leaders – who face pressure from the party’s Christian conservative base to hold the line on social issues – have hardly disengaged from social issues.

Look no further than Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican candidate for governor this fall in his state, who last week asked a full federal appeals court to overturn a three-judge panel’s ruling that Virginia’s anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

Cuccinelli’s decision to appeal appears to be related to preserving state laws against sex with minors, but it has the effect of asking the courts to uphold all of Virginia’s anti-sodomy statutes. To that end, the appeal has been characterized by Cuccinelli detractors as an effort to keep laws against gay sex on Virginia’s books.

A spokeswoman for the Virginia attorney general's office insists that the move is about protecting kids from sexual predators. "This case is not about sexual orientation, but using current law to protect a 17-year-old girl from a 47-year-old sexual predator," said Caroline Gibson.

“Ken Cuccinelli continues to ignore the economy and instead focus on a divisive ideological agenda,” wrote Josh Schwerin, a spokesman for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe, on Twitter.

Cuccinelli’s appeal, though, is symptomatic of how Republicans have been drawn into social issues, and often to their peril.

Another example came on Wednesday as Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who commissioned the inclusivity-seeking Growth and Opportunity Project, took to the conservative blog RedState to complain that the mainstream media had mischaracterized abortion laws in North Dakota and Florida.

Priebus argued that the media had unfairly maligned conservatives in their coverage of the laws, which (respectively) sought to ban abortion after a heartbeat is detected, and provide medical coverage to a newborn from a failed abortion.

Moreover, Priebus launched into an attack on Planned Parenthood – a standby criticism of the last Republican presidential campaign – accusing it of supporting “infanticide,” and demanding that Democrats answer for their support for the organization.

Steve Helber / Steve Helber / AP file photo

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli last week asked a full federal appeals court to overturn a three-judge panel's ruling that Virginia's anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

“In the last election, Republicans were repeatedly asked about whether they supported cutting funding to Planned Parenthood. It’s time Democrats are asked whether they still support funding an organization that refuses to care for a newborn,” Priebus wrote. “And this case of blatant media bias — cover-up really — should also be cause for some thoughtful self-examination among journalists.”

These strong stances by Cuccinelli and Priebus come amid the overarching GOP effort to broaden the party’s support among Latinos, young voters and women. The GOP report acknowledges at several points the role played by harsh rhetoric on social issues like gay rights in exacerbating the party’s deficit among those groups.

And a new poll released on Wednesday showed that there’s still work to be done. On the question of overall party images, and which party cares more about the average American, Democrats enjoy an advantage over Republicans among women.

Twenty-five percent of women said they had a favorable view of the GOP in the Quinnipiac University poll, versus 42 women who said they had a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party. Fifty-three percent of women had a negative opinion of the Republican Party, versus 38 percent of women who said they had a negative impression of the Democratic Party.

Women also favored Democrats on the matter of which party better cared for needs and problems of people like them. Women respondents agreed, 59 percent to 38 percent, that Democrats cared for their needs and concerns; 35 percent of women said that Republicans cared for their needs and concerns, versus 60 percent of women who disagreed.

More broadly, Democrats also enjoy an advantage over Republicans on the question of which party better handles the issue of same-sex marriage. Forty-nine percent of all Americans said that Democrats do a better job, versus 28 percent who prefer Republicans. Independents favor Democrats, 48 percent to 26 percent, on that question, and even one in five Republicans — 21 percent — prefer Democrats’ handling of the issue of same-sex marriage. 

NBC's Kasie Hunt contributed to this report.

Related:

Top Va. Republican urges court to keep anti-sodomy law on the books

Surprising shifts in attitudes on same-sex marriage

North Dakota governor signs toughest anti-abortion package in US

This story was originally published on Thu Apr 4, 2013 5:06 AM EDT

Strong majorities of Americans say they favor stricter gun laws, including an assault-weapons ban and universal background checks for private gun sales, according to a new national Morning Joe/Marist poll.

Read the entire poll here

Six in 10 respondents – including 83 percent of Democrats, 43 percent of gun owners and 37 percent of Republicans – believe that the laws covering gun sales should be stricter.

This figure is virtually unchanged from the 61 percent who backed stricter gun laws when a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll asked the same question in February, even though at least one other national survey has found waning support for gun-control laws months after the Dec. 2012 shootings in Newtown, Conn.

Jessica Hill / AP

John Woodall. left, of Newtown, Conn., carries a sign that he says indicates the percentage of Americans who support universal background checks, speaks with Gordon Jones of Southbury, Conn., a supporter of gun rights during a rally outside the National Shooting Sports Foundation headquarters in Newtown on March 28.

What’s more, the Morning Joe/Marist poll finds that 87 percent of Americans support background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows, and 59 percent favor legislation that would ban the sale of assault weapons.

Later this month, the U.S. Senate is set to consider Democratic-backed gun legislation that, among other provisions, contains a requirement for universal background checks. With Republican senators threatening to filibuster the legislation, its prospects for passage remain uncertain.

Democrats also are expected to offer an assault-weapons ban as an amendment to the legislation, but it has almost no chance to win passage in the Senate.

Favoring job creation over deficit reduction
Turning to the economy and the deficit, the Morning Joe/Marist survey shows that Americans – by nearly a 2-to-1 margin – want President Barack Obama and Congress to make job creation their top priority (64 percent) instead of deficit reduction (33 percent).

Those who prefer Washington’s political leaders to emphasize job creation include 76 percent of Democrats and 46 percent of Republicans; a narrow majority of Republican respondents (51 percent) want the focus to be on deficit reduction.

Also, Obama edges congressional Republicans by four percentage points, 44 percent to 40 percent, on the question of who has a better approach to deal with the federal budget deficit.

But the president’s approach to deficit reduction – calling for a combination of spending cuts and increased tax revenues – is more popular than the Republicans’ cuts-only approach.

Forty-two percent of respondents prefer a mixture of spending cuts (including to entitlement programs) and revenue increases; 35 percent pick increasing mostly revenue; and just 17 percent choose mostly cutting government spending (including to programs like Medicare and Medicaid).

The Morning Joe/Marist poll was conducted March 25-March 27 of 1,219 national respondents by both landline phone and cellphone. It has a margin of error of plus-minus 2.8 percentage points.