Jason Reed / Reuters

Senator Chuck Schumer, part of the U.S. Senate's "Gang on Eight", speaks during a news briefing on Capitol Hill, April 18, 2013.

The Boston Marathon bombing and subsequent manhunt for suspects has already become part of the debate over immigration reform in Washington, with one high ranking Republican questioning the screening process that allows immigrants into the United States.

The Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to hear testimony from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on the bipartisan immigration overhaul introduced by a group of eight senators, but she had to postpone due to ongoing developments in the search.

A ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said at the outset of the committee’s hearing, “Given the events of this week, it’s important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system. While we don’t yet know the immigration status of the people who have terrorized the communities in Massachusetts, when we find out it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system.” 

Grassley asked, “How can individuals evade authorities and plan such attacks on our soil? How can we beef up security checks on people who wish to enter the United States? How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us?”

But a few minutes later, Sen. Charles Schumer, D- N.Y. the chief sponsor of the bipartisan immigration overhaul, in an apparent response to Grassley, said one shouldn’t jump to conclusions about the events in Boston “or try to conflate those events with this legislation. In general, we’re a safer country when law enforcement knows who is here – has their fingerprints, photos, et cetera – has conducted background checks and no longer needs to look at needles in haystacks. In addition, both the refugee program and the asylum program have been significantly strengthened in the past five years such that we are much more careful about screening people and determining who should and should not be coming into the country. If there are any changes our homeland security experts tell us need to be made (in his bill), I’m committed to making them….”

In a statement Friday, Frank Sharry, head of America’s Voice Education Fund and a veteran campaigner for an immigration overhaul which would allow a path to legal residence for some of those in the country illegally, said, "It’s premature to jump to final conclusions about the attackers. And it’s shameful that some on the far right are politicizing and demagoguing this issue.” Sharry said some -- whom he did not identify -- are "exploiting this tragedy in hopes of derailing immigration reform."

The Senate will likely debate the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” immigration overhaul next month, but Grassley stressed that the bill ought to be fully debated in committee and open to amendments on the Senate floor.

Referring to the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli immigration overhaul which was supposed to end illegal immigration and prevent any future amnesty, Grassley said, “We screwed up – and we can’t afford to screw up again.”

The committee was hearing Friday from two witnesses, conservative attorney Peter Kirsanow – who indicated his opposition to the bipartisan bill because he said it would lower wages for U.S. low-skill workers -- and former director of Congressional Budget Office Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who supported the bill.

Related links:

Suspects to carjack victim: We are the bombers 

Who are the brothers accused of the Boston Marathon bombing? 

An empty metropolis: Photos show deserted streets of Boston  

What we know: Timeline of terror hunt

‘Dedicated officer’ gunned down by Boston Marathon suspects at MIT

Slideshow: Bombings at Boston Marathon

Boston bombing spurs Senate debate on tighter immigration screening 

Photos from Bostonians locked down amid terror hunt 

Tweeting police chatter creates confusion over Boston suspect

This story was originally published on Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:47 AM EDT

It’s not yet been two months since the automatic spending cuts known as the sequester went into effect, but some members of Congress are already unhappy with the results.  

Congress passed those cuts in the Budget Control Act two summers ago as a fallback plan, hoping to spark a deal to control the national debt.  But that idea backfired and the fallback plan became operative.

The sequester exempts most entitlement benefits, and thus falls almost entirely on the discretionary, or annually appropriated, programs, from national parks to airport control towers.

Congressional Democrats keep hoping that the budget bargain that wasn’t reached in 2011 will somehow be found this year which would allow the sequester to be cancelled.

But at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee Wednesday, ranking Republican member Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma assured the witness, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, that the sequester “is going to stay.”

He added after the hearing, “That money is not coming back…. There isn’t going to be a Republican who’s going to vote to take that spending reduction away.” (Coburn voted against the Budget Control Act.)

He added “As stupid as the sequester is, and how we did it, the benefit of the sequester is that it’s causing everybody to re-think everything, what’s important, what’s not, what a priority, what’s not.”

Kevin Lamarque / REUTERS

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano speaks about the effects of the sequester from the White House in Washington February 25, 2013. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

And in her testimony on the Department of Homeland Security’s spending request for the new fiscal year, Napolitano did not say that the sequester is forcing her department to jeopardize public safety by, for example, skimping on border patrols. She did tell senators that the more than $3 billion in cuts having to be absorbed in just six months was “having significant effects.” The cuts “will affect operations in the short and long term.” She pledged to “do everything we can to minimize the impacts on our core mission and our employees.”

A high-profile sequester casualty – control towers at smaller airports – was the focus of Tuesday’s Senate Commerce Committee oversight hearing featuring Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) administrator Michael Huerta.

Spending cuts have led the FAA schedule the closing of 149 air traffic control towers across the nation. But please, not in my state, both Republican and Democratic senators told Huerta.

“Why close Nashua's tower? I certainly don't want you to close Lebanon's too, but it seems a little arbitrary to me,” complained Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R- N.H., referring to the FAA’s decision to close an airport tower in Nashua, Ayotte’s home town but to keep one in Lebanon, N.H., which gets less traffic, operating.

Huerta explained some of the arcane points of airport funding and then told Ayotte that Nashua was a tower that fell below the FAA’s measure of 150,000 annual operations and 10,000 commercial operations. So it will lose its federal funding.

Ayotte was one of the 26 senators voted against the sequester in 2011 but Sen. Mark Pryor, D- Ark, one of the 74 who voted for it and who is up for re-election next year, also complained to Huerta at Tuesday’s hearing about the closing of the tower at the Texarkana airport.

Huerta explained to Pryor that all but one of the 149 towers FAA will close in June is already closed “for a significant portion of every day. And so, they have existing rules of how they operate in a non-towered capacity. And therefore, when they convert to 24-hour non-towered operations, they simply revert to those rules.” Huerta added later “We’re not doing anything that is not safe.” But he said, “in order to maintain the highest levels of safety, what you sacrifice is efficiency.”

He’ll need to furlough 47,000 FAA employees for up to 11 days between April 21 and Sept. 30 and as a result, at the largest hub airports travelers will undergo up to 90-minute delays during the peak travel periods. But he said, “As we to undergo the difficult process of implementing the deep cuts required by the sequester, we refuse to sacrifice safety.”

Summing up the effects of the spending cuts on the FAA’s modernization plan for air traffic control, Commerce Committee chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D- W.V., called it “a terrible situation” and “incomprehensible – but there it is.” He added that the delay in the implementation of Next Gen, the new air traffic control system, would be “awful and dangerous.” Rockefeller voted for the Budget Control Act.

On the House side of the Capitol, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Tuesday scrutinized how three agencies ­-- the National Park Service, the Smithsonian and the National Archives -- that deal with the tourists who visit the nation’s capital are coping with the spending cuts.

Republicans used the hearing to attack National Park Service director Jonathan Jarvis for not starting to plan for the sequester back in 2011. The National Archives implemented a hiring freeze in 2011 but the Park Service did not.

Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R- Calif. – who voted for the sequester as did 268 other House members – called the spending cuts “the first real down payment on reducing the size of government in my twelve-plus years on the Hill,” but also called the sequester “the worst possible way to save money.” 

Yet, he said, some executive branch officials – such as Archivist of the United States David Ferriero, who runs the agency that displays the original Constitution and Declaration of Independence – had frugally managed their money and made the effect of the sequester “less onerous than it would otherwise be.”

Jarvis told the committee, “No national parks are closing – what we’re doing is reducing operating hours, reducing services at some of them, reducing the ranger-led programs, as well as maintenance.” He added that he could have chosen to close 70 to 100 smaller national park sites, but “we chose to spread the impact across all units, reducing services but not actually closing any individual park.”

Rep. Mark Meadows, R- N.C., whose district includes parts Great Smoky Mountains National Park, told Jarvis that signs had gone up in his district saying that the Park Service is closing operations due to sequestration. “I’m unaware of any signs,” Jarvis said, telling Meadows that he would instruct his subordinates to take them any such signs down.

And Jarvis said he was not aware of any order from his superiors to make the sequester as painful as possible.

“No, sir, we do not want to make this painful,” Jarvis told Meadows. But referring to the cuts in park services, he told Meadows that “there’s a difference between intentionally making them painful and the fact that they will be painful…. A cut of this level is painful by definition.”

Related:

Bush is back -- but not his popularity

Background-check measure expected to fall short in the Senate… Vote takes place at 4:00 pm ET… Manchin: “We will not get the votes today”… Striking that something polling 90% can’t get 60 votes… Home Alone, Mark Sanford edition… Measuring Bush 43 in the polls… Who has left the greater imprint on today’s GOP -- Bush or Ron Paul?... Two ways to read the new poll on Anthony Weiner… And MA SEN race grinds to a halt.

*** Background-check measure expected to fall short: The news out of Boston continues to overshadow politics in Washington, DC. On Thursday, President Obama travels to Boston to speak at an interfaith service dedicated to those who were killed at wounded at Monday’s marathon. What’s more, observers remain puzzled at how little investigators know about who detonated the bombs near the race’s finish line. And yesterday, there was a new scare when a letter addressed to Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) was found to contain the dangerous substance believed to be ricin. (The Boston bombings and letter incidents don’t appear to be related.) Yet slowly but surely, American politics is returning to the national news -- and it does so later this afternoon with a crucial 4:00 pm ET vote on the Manchin-Toomey compromise amendment on background checks. And right now, it’s expected that the amendment will fail to get the 60 votes needed for passage, which could imperil the rest of the Democratic-backed gun-control legislation in the Senate.

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Shooting victim and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and her husband and retired astronaut Mark Kelly, right, join Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., and Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill April 16, 2013.

*** Manchin: “We will not get the votes today”: Even the amendment’s authors are admitting that the measure won’t get the needed 60 votes. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) tells NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, "We will not get the votes today" -- despite appeals from Newtown families, former Rep. Gabby Giffords, and public polls showing broad support. Manchin adds that the few votes he hoped to attract are out of reach due in part to political concerns: Manchin says Sens. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) are both so out front on immigration that they cannot risk taking on a second battle with their own conservative base on guns. And Manchin notes that Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) is also already extended politically as the only Republican senator to support gay marriage. Manchin pessimism also comes after NBC’s O’Donnell reported that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) would be a “no” on the amendment.

*** Manchin’s office walks back the senator’s remarks: But Manchin’s press office just released this statement: “Sen. Manchin remains optimistic and hopeful that if Senators and the American people read the bill, they will support his commonsense approach... So far Sen. Manchin has managed to garner support from an A-rated NRA member and three Republican Senators as well as 90 percent of his own party. With a record like that, I see no reason to bet against Sen. Manchin today. He will continue to explain his bill to his colleagues and anyone with concerns until the minute they vote.”

*** Striking that something polling 90% can’t get 60 votes: As things stand right now, per NBC’s Kasie Hunt, the MOST support the measure could get is 60 votes -- if you count all 55 Democrats and the five Republicans who support it or who haven’t said they oppose it (Collins, Kirk, Toomey, McCain, Ayotte). But here’s the rub: Not all Democrats, especially those from red states, will back it. In fact, sources tell NBC’s O’Donnell that the amendment will likely fall four or five votes short -- and maybe more if others see it going down. Given the public opinion polls supporting background checks, it’s striking the measure won’t get 60 votes. Just read today’s New York Times piece on convicted felons who are able to purchase weapons online. “With no requirements for background checks on most private transactions, a Times examination found, Armslist and similar sites function as unregulated bazaars, where the essential anonymity of the Internet allows unlicensed sellers to advertise scores of weapons and people legally barred from gun ownership to buy them.” But senators are realists, and some of those fence-sitters probably were swayed NOT to take what they believed would be a risky vote because the House was unlikely to pass it. The thinking being: Why cast a vote that will create a potential political problem when the bill’s chances of ACTUALLY becoming law are so remote?

*** Home Alone, Mark Sanford edition: If you’re a divorced politician, there’s an iron-clad rule to follow as you’re running in a competitive race: Make sure your ex-wife is fully onboard. And there’s another rule to follow, too: Don’t trespass at the ex-wife’s house. (Actually, that’s an iron-clad rule for ANY divorced spouse, politician or not.) Per the AP, “Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford must appear in court two days after running for a vacant congressional seat to answer a complaint that he trespassed at his ex-wife's home, according to court documents acquired by The Associated Press on Tuesday. The complaint says Jenny Sanford confronted Sanford leaving her Sullivans Island home on Feb. 3 by a rear door, using his cell phone for a flashlight. Her attorney filed the complaint the next day and Jenny Sanford confirmed Tuesday the documents are authentic. The couple's 2010 divorce settlement says neither may enter the other's home without permission. Mark Sanford lives about a 20-minute drive away in downtown Charleston.” We’re never ones who want to overstate things, but this news is potentially DISATROUS for Sanford’s political comeback. The special general election pitting Sanford and Elizabeth Colbert Busch takes place on May 7.

*** Measuring Bush 43: George W. Bush has been in the news recently -- he’s a new grandfather, he granted an interview to the Dallas Morning News, and next week he hosts all the living presidents at the dedication of his presidential library in Dallas, TX. With the former president back in the news, it’s worth noting that he has yet to experience a post-presidency honeymoon, according to our most recent NBC/WSJ poll. Just 35% view him favorably, versus 44% who view him negatively. Those numbers are virtually unchanged from the five other NBC/WSJ polls that have measured him since the summer of 2010, although they're an improvement from when he left office (31% fav/58% unfav). Yet buried inside Bush's poll numbers is a striking finding: He fares well among the demographic groups that have favored Republicans, including defeated 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney, and he performs poorly among the demographic groups with whom Republicans have struggled. The subgroups that have a positive view of Bush are Republicans (65%/14%), conservatives (60%/19%), seniors (48%/31%), rural Americans (43%/35%), Southerners (43%/37%), and whites (40%/39%). But he is deeply unpopular among most other subgroups, including the biggest parts of Obama’s coalition -- 18-34 year olds (26%/46%), African Americans (19%/64%), and Latinos (27%/44%). In other words, if you want more evidence of the Republican Party’s demographic strengths -- and demographic weaknesses -- look no further than these poll numbers.

*** Who has left the bigger imprint on today’s GOP -- Bush or Paul? Speaking of dedications for former Texas politicians, former Rep. and presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) holds a press conference with his supporters at 3:00 pm ET in D.C. to inaugurate the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. Given these dueling events -- separated by just one week -- it is worth asking: Which Texas politician has left a greater imprint on today’s GOP: Bush or Paul? By the way, Paul’s son Rand speaks this morning with reporters at the Christian Science Monitor breakfast.

*** Two ways to read that new poll on Anthony Weiner: There are two ways to read the new NBC New York/Marist poll on New York’s mayoral race. The first, as most news outlets have played it, is that former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) would immediately start out in second place if he runs, trailing presumed front-runner Christine Quinn, 26% to 15%. But there’s a second way to read it: Weiner, with nearly perfect name ID, is getting just 15%. More from Marist: “Among Democrats, 46% are open-minded about a Weiner candidacy while 50% would not consider voting for him for mayor.  Five percent are unsure. Among all registered voters, 40% say that they would consider voting for him. But, 52% would not, and 8% are unsure.”

*** MA SEN race grinds to halt: Finally, we have the first contribution from our newest colleague Jessica Taylor, who writes about the MA SEN race in light of Monday’s bombings in Boston. “With just two weeks to go until primaries in the Massachusetts Senate special election, campaigns on both sides have come to a screeching halt after Monday’s tragic Boston Marathon bombing. It’s too soon to say when active politicking from any candidate may resume ahead of the April 30 primary, but ultimately the stop in campaigning may not make a difference in the final outcome of either the primary or the general election contest on June 25.”

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

“An envelope addressed to Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi tested positive Tuesday for ricin, a potentially fatal poison, authorities said, heightening concerns about terrorism a day after a bombing killed three and left more than 170 injured at the Boston Marathon,” the AP writes. “One senator, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, said authorities have a suspect in the fast-moving ricin case, but she did not say if an arrest had been made. She added the letter was from an individual who frequently writes lawmakers.”

“State pride in the award to the ‘Green Mountain Boys,’ as the Vermont Air National Guard calls itself, has been clouded by the Air Force’s failure to fully take into account the thunderous noise the F-35s would generate in densely populated communities around its base at Burlington International Airport,” The Boston Globe writes. “That failure and other flaws in its selection process are raising questions about whether the Air Force deliberately sought to reward a key friend in Congress [Sen. Patrick Leahy] with a squadron of advanced fighter jets for his state, and whether residents near the airfield might fall victim to Washington’s system of political spoils.”

More: “A Globe examination of records, and interviews with Pentagon officials directly involved with the review, show the Air Force — in select-ing Vermont over competing locations — relied on inaccurate, excessively low estimates of the impact of the jet blast on the local population. One of the Pentagon officials said in an interview that the lengthy base-selection process was deliberately ‘fudged’ by military brass so that Leahy’s home state would win.”

On April 30, the USC Schwarzenegger Institute will hold an immigration-reform event to be attended by Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Michael Bennet (D-CO), as well as former Mexico President Vicente Fox and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Speaking of immigration, a new report by the Democratic-leaning group Business Forward notes that immigration reform for high-skilled workers is leading to lead to significant job creation.

Beth Reinhard: “Though championing immigration reform is widely viewed as a political gamble for Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, it hasn't stalled his rapidly churning fundraising machine. A spokesman for the first-term senator from Florida said Monday that his reelection campaign, leadership committee, and a newly created joint fundraising committee collected $2.28 million in the past three months. During that time, Rubio has been the most prominent face of the immigration-reform talks on Capitol Hill, which are expected to produce legislation Tuesday.”

Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) pen an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on immigration reform.

Politico: “The two lawmakers are expected to meet with President Barack Obama to discuss their proposal, which includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the country and tougher border control. An event announcing the legislation has been postponed out of respect for the Monday explosions at the Boston Marathon.”

AP: “Republican opposition is growing to a bipartisan Senate plan for expanding background checks for firearms buyers, enough to put the proposal’s fate in jeopardy. But the measure may change as both sides compete for support in one of the pivotal fights in the battle over curbing guns.”

AP: “It’s a political role reversal: Republicans are blasting a plan by President Barack Obama to consider selling the Tennessee Valley Authority, a New Deal-era agency long targeted by conservatives as an example of government overreach.”

A Tennessee congressman who's found himself in trouble before on Twitter said he'd tried to "punk" the Washington press corps by directing, then deleting, a seemingly flirty tweet to the singer Cyndi Lauper this week.

After having found himself in the middle of a frenzy earlier this year regarding a message he sent toward a young woman -- whom he later admitted was his daughter -- Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., said that he was attempting to rope D.C. reporters into a feeding frenzy by directing a tweet toward Lauper, the '80s pop star. Both had attended a White House celebration of Memphis music earlier this week.

Cohen made two tweets toward Lauper on Tuesday, which he subsequently deleted. Both were archived by a government transparency group, the Sunlight Foundation:

"@cyndilauper great night,couldn't believe how hot u were.see you again next Tuesday.try a little tenderness."

"Cyndi,Wow what a night!See you next Tuesday and Try a little tenderness again!Wow!What a special night.Thanks Steve."

Two days later, he mentioned Lauper again, this time on the House floor where he praised her performance at the White House event.

“While there were a lot of great performers there, I want to put a particular shout-out to Ms. Cyndi Lauper, ‘cause she’s special,” he said. 

On Friday, Cohen told NBC News that the tweets were part of an elaborate prank, to demonstrate how the media jumps for salacious stories. He went on to say "tweet and delete" is the best way to get media's attention, accusing the press of a shameful rush to judgment.

Cohen hopes that the attention given to the Lauper tweet while promote a PBS documentary that airs on Tuesday about Memphis Soul music. (Cohen represents a Memphis-area district.)

He also mentioned that he had "waited for two months to trick the press corps after what they did to my family," referencing the revelation that he is the father of a young woman he tweeted at during the State of the Union address.

**UPDATE**

During a press event Friday, Cohen was asked why the media should believe that the tweets were fake. He told reporters that he spoke to two other lawmakers about the plan before it unfolded. 

"They can call (Rep.) John Yarmuth and (Rep.) Joe Courtney who I talked to about it on Monday on the floor and said, 'Boys, wait till I see what I do this week with the press,'" Cohen said, "So call Yarmuth or Courtney."

Spokesmen for both offices tell NBC News that Cohen informed them of the plot after it had happened. 

Also of note: the House wasn't in session on Monday.

NBC News reached out to Cohen's office for clarification, and was told that he misspoke -- he meant to say that the other lawmakers were told of the plan before the story broke, not before the tweets were deleted.

NBC's Frank Thorp contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:14 PM EDT

More Hispanics than ever say that they are in favor of gay marriage, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Telemundo oversample of 300 Latino voters.

By a 49 percent to 43 percent margin, Latinos say they are in favor of allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. That’s the widest margin for Hispanics in the NBC/WSJ poll’s history, but it lags behind other traditionally Democratic-voting pillars.

Click here to view full poll results

Views on gay marriage have evolved rapidly since 2004, but not among Hispanics. All respondents said they supported same-sex marriage by a 53 percent to 42 percent margin, a 43-point turnabout from 2004 and up 2 points from this past December.

But Hispanics, along with rural voters, have been either consistent with their opinion, or less in favor of gay marriage since George W. Bush’s re-election campaign. This is the first NBC/WSJ poll with as wide a spread. In 2009, Hispanics said they were in favor by a 45 percent to 40 percent margin. In December 2012, they were split, with 46 percent in favor, 47 percent opposed.

A majority of Hispanics –  56 percent  –  believe that there should be a federal standard for marriage. And a solid majority believes that marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman – 56 percent to 33 percent. 

This is more conservative than the rest of the country. By a 48 percent to 47 percent margin, among all adults, Americans said there should be a federal amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

This movement toward more Hispanics being in favor of same-sex marriage could be related to the significant uptick in Hispanics who say they know someone who’s gay.

In just a year’s time, there’s been a 22-point shift on the question. In May 2012, a majority – 51 percent – said they didn’t know anyone who was gay or lesbian (versus 46 percent who said they did).

But now, that’s reversed with nearly six-in-10 – 58 percent -- saying they know someone who’s gay.

Just 35 percent of Hispanics said they know a gay couple; 53 percent of all Americans said they do.

Half of Hispanics – 50 percent -- believe that people are born gay, and 29 percent say that individuals chose to be homosexual. That’s almost identical to the views of all Americans.

When Americans hear the phrase “social and cultural issues,” first on the list of what comes to mind is gay marriage or gay rights.

But for Hispanics, it’s very different. “Cultural differences” are listed first, followed by “gay marriage” and then “tolerance.”

That’s noteworthy when trying to understand the differences between Hispanics and the rest of the country on values issues. Yes, Hispanics are more socially conservative on preserving the family unit, abortion, and pay for women in the workplace, but cultural acceptance and immigration are big parts of their values make up. And they agree more with Democrats.

“Their numbers on how they rate the Republican Party are negative,” said Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey with Democrat Peter D. Hart. McInturff added, “It’s clear they’re talking about tolerance of culture that’s very different than white respondents.”

Hispanics, one of the largest-growing groups in the country, do not ideologically fit neatly into either party’s mold, showing themselves to be more socially conservative than the rest of the country, but also more economically liberal.

A majority – 52 percent – of Hispanics believes that promoting greater respect for traditional values is more important than encouraging greater tolerance, which is slightly wider than the rest of the country.

There’s evidence for this in Hispanics views on same-sex marriage, abortion, and even women’s rights. This is likely because of Hispanics’ deeply held religious views with 60 percent identifying as Catholic.

But when asked which party they most agree with on social and cultural issues, Hispanics side with Democrats – 42 percent agree with Democrats’ approach, versus 30 percent who say they disagree with it.

When it comes to Republicans, just 23 percent of Hispanics agree with the GOP, while 45 percent disagree – despite how much more liberal Democrats are on traditional social and cultural values.

That is at least partially because Hispanics trust Democrats more on immigration and issues of cultural tolerance.

In addition, a majority – 50 percent – say that economic and financial pressures are even more serious than a decline in moral values. This is similar among all Americans and is a reversal from 1996 when a majority of Americans thought a decline in moral values was more important than economic pressures.

It’s even more acute for Hispanics. More so than all adults in the wider NBC/WSJ/Telemundo poll, they believe economic pressure to make-ends-meet is higher – 91 percent of Hispanics called that a serious problem versus 84 percent of all Americans.

And Hispanics agree more with Democrats on their approach to who’s looking out for the middle class – 44 percent agree, 31 percent disagree. When it comes to Republicans, just 21 percent agree with the GOP and 54 percent disagree.

The family unit and community are very important to Hispanics. They believe that declines in various social areas are serious problems like divorce (77 percent vs. 65 percent), community and neighborhoods (75 percent vs. 59 percent), and the rise in texting and use of social media (60 percent vs. 43 percent).

This story was originally published on Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:57 PM EDT

Women are a key driver of support for legislation overhauling the nation's gun and immigration laws, according to new data in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, just as Congress prepares to take up major legislation on both of those issues.

Women outpace men in their support for stricter gun laws and immigration reform that provides undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship, data which becomes more salient in light of the Republican Party’s effort to regain its footing with women voters after last fall’s elections.

View full poll results here

The gender gap is most pronounced when it comes to the issue of stricter gun controls, legislation on which the Senate voted to begin consideration this Thursday.

Sixty-five percent of women said they favor stricter laws governing the sale of firearms, versus just 5 percent who favor less strict laws. Twenty-seven percent of women said the law should be kept as it is now. By comparison, 44 percent of men favor stricter gun laws, while 41 percent said laws should stay the same.

(Also of note: Self-described mothers favor stricter gun laws even more overwhelmingly; 70 percent of mothers with children in the home said that laws governing firearm sales should be tightened.)

While the gap is less pronounced, women respondents in this month’s NBC/WSJ poll were more sympathetic to arguments in favor of comprehensive immigration reform.

Women favor immigration reform that allows a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants by a 36-point margin. Sixty-seven percent of women said they would favor such a proposal, versus 31 percent who would oppose those reforms. Men also favor immigration reform, but by a slightly slimmer, 60 percent to 38 percent spread.

When explained that a pathway to citizenship would involve paying a fine, any back taxes, passing a security background check and taking other measures, men and women would favor immigration reform at roughly the same levels: Seventy-eight percent of women favor such a proposal, versus 74 percent of men.

The gender gap also extends to some high-profile social issues at the forefront of American political debate at the moment, like same-sex marriage.

In the poll, women favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, 56 percent to 40 percent. Men, by contrast, favor allowing same-sex marriages, 50 percent to 43 percent. (That's a relatively seismic shift for men; in the March 2004 NBC/WSJ poll, just 26 percent of men favored gay marriage, while 52 percent opposed.)

The poll was conducted April 5-8, and has a 4.3 percent margin of error for the subsample of women, and a 4.5 percent margin of error for the subsample of men.

The Boston Globe: “Families of those lost in the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School watched from the gallery as the Senate voted Thursday 68 to 31 to consider a bundle of proposals aimed at curbing gun violence and massacres.”

Politico on how the Newtown families have figured out the levers of power in Congress: “When a lobbyist for families of Newtown shooting victims called the office of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to set up a meeting, the first response was a standard D.C. offer. They could get a meeting with her staff, and a quick and simple ‘hello’ from Collins herself, they were told. The families’ answer: Not good enough. According to their lobbyists, the families have a rule against staff-only meetings: they won’t do them. They insist on sitting down with the senators themselves. That rule is just one of the ways that the Newtown families, political novices just a few months ago, are proving to be savvy, effective advocates as they promote the gun legislation that has finally begun to move through the Senate. The families are well-educated, and many are well-off. They have been polished and sharp on TV. They’re mostly non-political, but quite accomplished in their own fields. With access to money and media, they’re using persistence, visibility — and, most all, their unique moral authority — to help prod Senate action. They also have their own lobbyists — several of them, in fact.”

NBC’s Kasie Hunt: “This week, the U.S. Senate remembered Newtown. Last Thursday morning, no Senate Republicans were actively talking to Democrats about gun legislation. GOP senators were piling on to a threatened filibuster. And top Senate aides quietly doubted whether they could even scrape together the 60 votes needed to begin debating the bill on the floor. While the president had recently declared “we have not forgotten” the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, even the most vocal advocates of gun control started to wonder if too much time had passed for the tragedy's emotional resonance to lead to the first major federal gun control legislation since the 1990s.”

But National Journal writes that in the House, Republicans “yawned” at the Senate’s progress on guns. “Despite the considerable progress made in the upper chamber toward a bill that could pass the Senate—most notably, the expanded-background check provision drafted by Sens. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.—nothing has changed in the lower chamber. In the House, Republicans are in the majority. Conservatives are the majority of that majority. And the majority of those conservatives are convinced they should not be legislating on guns—even if an ideologically kindred spirit like Toomey has provided them political cover to do so.”

The Washington’s Greg Sargent writes, “In a few days, on April 16th, Boehner and Nancy Pelosi will be presiding over a ceremony dedicating the creation of the Gabriel Zimmerman Meeting Room in the U.S. Capitol, according to an invitation to the event that’s making the rounds. Zimmerman was the community outreach director to Giffords when he was killed in the January 2011 shooting in Arizona that almost claimed Giffords’ life.”

Politico: “Marco Rubio is preparing to go all in to support sweeping immigration legislation, offering himself up as the public face of a bill that will split the Republican Party — but that his allies hope will propel him to the front of the GOP presidential sweepstakes. After offering lukewarm support until now, Rubio is preparing to fully embrace a measure that is the most significant of his political career so far. The gambit could pay off in spades by crowning a leading presidential contender in 2016, or it could permanently damage the Republican’s brand with conservatives. Rubio is planning a media blitz to promote the bill — which is expected to be released early next week — making the rounds on all of the Sunday political talk shows starting this weekend, wooing skeptical conservative radio hosts and pitching the plan to Spanish-language news outlets.”

Rubio will be David Gregory’s guest this Sunday on Meet the Press.

Part of the challenge Rubio faces: “A pocket of conservatives is lashing out privately and publicly against broad immigration reform and could seriously complicate any momentum for a House deal,” Politico notes. “The blowback began in earnest Wednesday afternoon on Capitol Hill, where a meeting of the Republican Study Committee turned into a group gripe about the direction in which a bipartisan House group of immigration negotiators is heading. Iowa Rep. Steve King spoke out against the speed with which Republicans are changing their tone on long-held positions on immigration policy.”

As one of us wrote earlier this week: “On immigration, Rubio faces a tricky test in the next few months. He is helping to shepherd comprehensive legislation through Congress with a principal task of selling it to conservatives, especially when it comes to a path for citizenship for immigrants in the United States illegally. Many conservatives, especially in the House and in the grassroots rank and file, are staunchly opposed to a path for citizenship. Four-in-five Hispanics, on the other hand, are in favor of one. So, as Rubio tries to make the sell to conservatives and get something through they can support, he’s also going to have to convince Latinos, who are closely watching the immigration debate, that what he pushes for will be strong enough.”

How diplomatic… McCain on saber-rattling North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on FOX, per Politico: “This guy [Kim] is a clown. He’s a fool, so was his father and so was his grandfather.”

If North Korea launches a missile, he said, “I would take it out. We show young Kim Jong Un that we can take out his capabilities. We can show that to him.”

National Journal on Pat Toomey’s (R-PA) evolution: “For Toomey, however, the deal-making was hardly unusual. He has diligently and delicately fashioned a reputation as a moderate Republican since running for the Senate in 2009 (he took office in 2011), frequently breaking from conservative orthodoxy on issues such as gay rights and Supreme Court nominations. As a member of the so-called super committee, he even outlined a plan to raise revenue as part of a larger budget deal. That Toomey, of all people, would take such frequent detours toward moderation would have shocked his former opponents, especially those in the GOP. He was the proto-conservative insurgent who nearly defeated the late Sen. Arlen Specter during a 2004 primary, and he later ran the free-market Club for Growth, the foremost antagonist of fiscally moderate Republicans. Toomey embodied the tea party not only before it was cool but before it even existed. But in office, Toomey has let Senate Republican colleagues such as Ted Cruz and Mike Lee carry that banner while taking on a different role.”

With a bipartisan group of senators expected to unveil immigration-reform legislation in the next few days, a brand-new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that nearly two-thirds of Americans – including eight-in-10 Latinos – support giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship.

A slight majority of Republican respondents oppose this path, possibly foreshadowing the resistance which any comprehensive immigration reform bill might receive, especially in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.

But when Republicans hear that a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants includes paying fines and back taxes, almost three-quarters of them support the idea.

What’s more, a majority of the public – for the first time in the poll – agrees with the statement that immigration strengthens the nation, reflecting a shift in attitude on this issue. 

Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted this survey with the Democratic firm Hart Research Associates, says that this change in sentiment on immigration “speaks to something potent,” particularly given the economic struggles of the past five years.

"These more positive attitudes provide more leeway for lawmakers to build support for change on this issue," McInturff adds.

View the poll results here

On other matters, the poll shows a majority of the public favors stricter gun laws, President Barack Obama’s approval rating falling below 50 percent for the first time since Oct. 2012, and fewer than two-in-10 Americans saying the automatic budget cuts known as “the sequester” have significantly affected them.

Immigration – a strength or weakness?
A majority (54 percent) agrees with the statement that immigration adds to the nation’s character and strengthens it by bringing diversity and talent to the country.

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

Tens of thousands of immigration reform supporters march in the "Rally for Citizenship" on the West Lawn of the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on April 10, 2013.

In a 2010 NBC/WSJ survey, fewer than half of respondents agreed with that statement, and in 2005, a plurality said that immigration weakened the nation.

Additionally, the Democratic Party holds a 7-point advantage over the Republican Party on the question of which party does a better job in dealing with immigration.

Among an oversample of Latino respondents, the Democratic edge increases to 26 points.

Regarding the current legislative debate over immigration, 64 percent of respondents say they favor allowing undocumented immigrants to have the opportunity to become legal American citizens.

That includes 82 percent of Latinos, 80 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of political independents supporting a path to citizenship.

But 51 percent of Republicans oppose it, versus 47 percent who back it.

Yet when told that the pathway to citizenship would require paying fines and back taxes, as well as passing a security-background check, support grows – with 76 percent of total respondents, and 73 percent of Republicans backing the path.

That pathway to citizenship is the heart of a comprehensive immigration reform proposal that the so-called “Gang of Eight” senators – including Democrats Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin and Republicans John McCain and Marco Rubio – are drafting and plan to introduce in the next few days.

The proposal also calls for strengthening the U.S.-Mexico border, tying that security to establishing the path to citizenship and expanding legal immigration.

A majority of all respondents (51 percent) believe undocumented immigrants should be eligible for citizenship five years after application. Just 12 percent say the eligibility should occur after 10 years, and only 18 percent believe citizenship should be immediate.

On border security, nearly two-thirds of Americans (63 percent) think the U.S.-Mexico border is “mostly” or “totally” not secure, compared with a smaller percentage of Latino respondents (49 percent) who believe that.

55 percent favor stricter gun laws
In addition to immigration, Congress is grappling with the issue of gun control, with the Senate expected to vote on Thursday whether to begin debate on a Democratic-backed measure requiring background checks for most gun sales.

According to the poll, 55 percent favor stricter laws covering the sale of firearms.

That’s down 6 points from the Feb. 2013 NBC/WSJ poll – conducted after Obama’s State of the Union address that contained a call to action on gun control – but it’s essentially unchanged from the Jan. 2013 poll.

Yet there’s a wide political divide to these numbers: 82 percent of Democrats favor stricter gun laws, while just 27 percent of Republicans do.

Obama’s approval rating drops to 47 percent
Despite majorities backing the broad outlines of his legislative priorities on immigration and guns, President Obama confronts a pessimistic public and declining poll numbers.

Only 31 percent of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction – a decline of 10 points since Dec. 2012.

His overall job-approval rating stands at 47 percent, which is down 3 points since February and which represents the first time he’s been below 50 percent since just before the 2012 election.

In addition, 47 percent approve of the president’s economic handling (up three points from February), and 46 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy (down six from Dec. 2012).

Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Hart Research says that the public’s sour attitude, particularly on the economy, has “dragged down” Obama’s numbers.

Sequester’s limited impact (so far)
Lastly, the NBC/WSJ poll finds that only a combined 16 percent of Americans say the automatic across-the-board budget cuts that went into effect earlier in the year have impacted them either “a great deal” or “quite a bit.”

By comparison, a whopping 75 percent say the cuts to military and non-military programs have affected them “just some” or “not much.”

But a plurality of respondents – 47 percent – believe the cuts will mostly harm the economy, versus 30 percent who say they won’t have an impact.

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted of 1,000 adults (including 300 cell phone-only respondents) from April 5-8, and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

Two key senators have reached a deal to expand background checks to firearms sales at gun shows and on the Internet, sources close to the negotiations said early Wednesday.  

Sen. Pat Toomey, a conservative Pennsylvania Republican, plan to announce the deal Wednesday with West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, who holds an A rating from the National Rifle Association. 

The two have been working on a compromise proposal that could draw Republican support for expanding background checks. On Tuesday evening, the two had an agreement in principle, and spent the night hammering out the final details. 

The compromise doesn't go as far as the universal background checks that President Barack Obama first envisioned in the wake of the Newtown shootings. The Manchin-Toomey compromise will include exemptions for some transactions, such as those between family members. 

Michael Patrick / AP file

People crowd the RK Gun Show in the Smokies Friday, Dec. 28, 2012 in Knoxville, Tenn.

Outlines of the compromise have been circulated to the National Rifle Association, and sources close to the negotiations said it's unclear where the group stands although the powerful lobby is unlikely to support it. 

Senate Democrats, meanwhile, set up a possible Thursday vote on gun legislation.

The deal between Toomey and Manchin represents a major breakthrough for a package of new gun laws that Obama proposed in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14.  

Support from the conservative Toomey, who also carries an A rating from the NRA, could give other, more moderate Republicans cover to vote in favor of a bill to expand background checks for gun sales beyond just those conducted through licensed dealers.

In recent days, Obama's gun control agenda has been imperiled on Capitol Hill. While Democratic leaders have promised votes on an assault weapons ban and new limits on high capacity magazines, neither can realistically pass the Senate. And a deal on background checks has eluded Democrats for months -- threatening to leave the president with only stricter gun trafficking laws to show for a prolonged, emotional national plea for tighter restrictions on firearms after 20 young children and 6 educators were gunned down in Connecticut.

But there was new momentum for gun legislation Tuesday as Republican senator after Republican senator announced they wouldn't support a filibuster that would prevent gun legislation from even coming up for debate. A trio of conservatives -- Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah -- are leading the filibuster effort, with support from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. But as Tuesday wore on, as many as 10 Republican senators said they could not support it or left the door open to allowing Democrats to bring the measure up on the floor. 

"The purpose of the United States Senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people know where we stand," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said on CBS' Face the Nation on Sunday. "What are we afraid of?"

On Tuesday night, Reid officially filed gun legislation that's been written by Democrats. It sets up a possible Thursday vote to open debate on guns. Senate aides said debate on gun legislation could continue through next week and even into the following week. The Manchin-Toomey compromise would likely be the first amendment offered to the package. 

The vote to open debate is tricky for some Democrats who hail from conservative states like Arkansas, where the NRA and other pro-gun groups hold significant sway. But Republican movement in favor of it could help protect them and increases the chances that the vote will succeed.

Now, a key question is how conservatives who've signed on to filibuster the gun bill decide to proceed. They haven't ruled out taking a stand on the Senate floor, similar to Paul's 14-plus-hour talkathon opposing drone strikes on American citizens.

That has some Republicans on edge. One member of Senate leadership, speaking on condition of anonymity so as not to violate personal confidences, said there's a sense among the top GOP lawmakers that such a public display could further damage the already-battered Republican brand.

But McConnell, who's up for re-election in 2014, vowed Tuesday to stay the course and filibuster the bill.

"It clearly had no bipartisan support in committee," he said. 

NBC News' Frank Thorp and Mike O'Brien contributed to this report

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 9, 2013 7:19 PM EDT

And then there were three.

On Monday, Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., became the latest senator to announce his support of same-sex marriage.

"After lengthy consideration, my views have evolved sufficiently to support marriage equality legislation," he said in a statement. "This position doesn't require any religious denomination to alter any of its tenets; it simply forbids government from discrimination regarding who can marry whom." 

Johnson, who declined to run for re-election next year, joins Sens. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., and Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., who on Friday declared their support for gay marriage.

With these new announcements, a total of 54 senators now support it -- 52 of them Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents and two of them Republicans. 

Only three Democratic senators now remain opposed: Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W. Va.; Mary Landrieu, D-La.; and Mark Pryor, D-Ark.

But three different aspects of home-state politics suggest that the remaining Dem senators might not be changing their position anytime soon – 1) the percentage of constituents who say that religion is important to them, 2) pending re-elections, and 3) Mitt Romney’s margin-of-victory in the state.

Residents of Arkansas and Louisiana are among the most committed to religion in the nation, according to a 2009 state-by-state analysis by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. (The data represent the most current state-level information available.)

Seventy-four percent of Arkansas respondents and 73 percent of Louisiana respondents said religion is very important to them. That’s compared with just 56 percent -- the national average -- who said that in both Johnson’s South Dakota and Heitkamp’s North Dakota. Sixty percent of residents in Manchin’s West Virginia agreed that religion is very important to them, which is tied with the percentage who said that in Donnelly’s Indiana.

In addition, both Landrieu and Pryor are up for re-election next year (while Manchin doesn’t face re-election until 2018). And Romney easily won in West Virginia (getting more than 62 percent of the vote there), Louisiana (58 percent), and Arkansas (61 percent) in 2012.

So bottom line: The states where Democratic senators continue to oppose gay marriage -- by one measure or another -- are slightly more conservative than states where Democratic senators have recently changed course.

Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.)

• % Who say religion is important: 60
• Election year: 2018
• Mitt Romney: 62%

Mary Landrieu (D-La.)

• % Who say religion is important: 73
• Election year: 2014
• Mitt Romney: 57.8%

Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)

• % Who say religion is important: 74
• Election year: 2014
• Mitt Romney: 60.5%