A bipartisan House group says it has reached a deal in principle on its version of comprehensive immigration reform.

"The bipartisan group working on #immigration in House has made a deal in principle" Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart tweeted late Thursday after the eight members met.

That's good news for immigration advocates, who feared that the years-long work of the House group would break apart over disputes involving the parameters of a mandatory E-Verify system and other issues. While the Senate Gang of Eight bill remains the more high-profile template for final immigration legislation, a breakdown in House negotiations wouldn't have been a positive sign for the progress of compromise immigration measures in the House.

Things didn't look good earlier this week, with one Republican in the group saying he was likely to leave if a resolution wasn't reached.

House Speaker John Boehner said earlier Thursday that he was "concerned" that the group - which includes four Republicans and four Democrats - was still hung up without a deal.

"I am concerned that the bipartisan group has been unable to wrap up their work, there are very difficult issues they're working on," he said. "But I continue believe the House needs to do something and I believe works it will, how we get there, we'll see."

This story was originally published on Thu May 16, 2013 7:36 PM EDT

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

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

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

Matthew Holst / Matthew Holst / AP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Win Mcnamee / Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The panel’s markup process will continue next Tuesday.

Related stories:

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

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

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

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

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jason Reed / Reuters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jason Reed / Reuters

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

With dueling press conferences, fact-checking wars and talk radio bonanzas, the fight over immigration reform seemed to finally begin in earnest on Thursday as the Senate’s bipartisan “Gang of Eight” formally presented their compromise legislation to overhaul the way immigrants come to live and work in the United States.

Appearing alongside allies from tax cut advocate Grover Norquist to AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka, the legislators – four Republicans and four Democrats – formally unveiled their long-awaited proposal with promises of an open amendment process and pugnacious pledges to beat those would defeat it outright.

“I believe that this is ours to lose,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York and one of the chief authors of the legislation.

The lawmakers emphasized their plan includes border security plans that must be operational before full legalization for undocumented immigrants can proceed – an important criteria for many Republicans – as well as a path to citizenship with stringent requirements.

“This is a long pathway, it’s a tough pathway, but it’s an achievable pathway,” said Democrat Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey. 

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina offered an opening salvo to opponents already working to gut the legislation, as they did during a similar effort that collapsed in 2007.

“I’m going to fight for this bill,” he said.  “If you’ve got a better idea, bring it on. But if you want to kill it, we’re going to have a talk about that.” 

Lawmakers acknowledged that the process ahead for the bill will be an arduous one; others outside the group will begin the process of attempting to amend the bill later this week in the Senate Judiciary Committee and later on the Senate floor. 

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona said that the group invites amendments to the legislation but will oppose “poison pill” amendments designed to gut the bill’s chances for passage. 

“We are committed to good changes in the bill,” he said. “This is not a final product. It’s not engraved in golden tablets. But we are also committed to vote against amendments or proposals or changes that would kill the bill. And there’s a difference there.” 

The group’s 844-page proposal creates the opportunity for qualified undocumented immigrants to apply for “Registered Provisional Immigrant” status – allowing them to live, travel and work legally in the United States – for a period of 10 years before becoming eligible to earn a green card; it also puts in place border security and employment verification “triggers” that must be met before that legalization process begins. The law also reorients the backlogged legal immigration system to favor more employment-based visas. 

The measure has buy-in from powerful players. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and high-tech companies like the provisions for more foreign workers, while advocates from the evangelical community believe its treatment of immigrants fulfills Biblical directives. Immigrant groups say the legislation will repair a long-broken system, and labor unions are optimistic about the citizenship provisions. After their bruising 2012 election loss, many GOP political professionals say the embrace of comprehensive reform is a political necessity.

Gesturing to the ideologically diverse crowd of reform advocates on stage behind him, Graham joked during the press conference that “we’re either going to get a bill or have a hell of a fight.” 

Proponents of reform are publicly and privately optimistic that the stars have finally aligned for their cause.  But, recalling the dissolution of a similar effort in 2007 under crushing pressure from opponents, they are also preparing for a bruising fight. 

As the Gang of Eight members were presenting the bill, opponents on the Hill were holding a dueling media briefing to decry it as an “amnesty before enforcement” plan that would endanger public safety. 

Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a leading Senate opponent of the reform effort,  and Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana argued that the bill is tantamount to “amnesty” that will foster a new wave of illegal immigration while borders go unprotected.

“You have not gotten the full story, the correct story, on this issue,” Sessions said. 

Key negotiator and high-profile conservative Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has launched a one-man media blitz to assuage the concerns of skeptical Republicans, with an aggressive schedule of interviews with talk radio hosts like Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh. 

 Rubio's office has also created a web site to address misinformation about the bill, like one rumor alleging that the legislative text contained a provision to give free phones to illegal immigrants. 

 In an interview with Limbaugh Thursday, Rubio emphasized the legislation’s “triggers” and argued that a stringently-regulated legalization process for undocumented immigrants will be a “vast improvement” over an existing system.

 He echoed that point during the press conference, with an appeal directly to “those who helped elect me in 2010.”

 "We all wish we didn’t have this problem but we do and we have to fix it," he said. "Because leave things the way they are, that’s the real amnesty.”  

Rubio’s involvement in the fragile negotiations was seen as key by proponents who believe his ability to bring conservatives to the table will be crucial to securing overwhelming support in the Senate.

Joking as he took the podium at the press conference, Rubio wryly nodded to past angst that he would walk away from the Gang of Eight talks.

“Actually, I changed my mind,” he cracked.

A grinning Schumer snapped back: “Not again! Once is enough.”

NBC's Kasie Hunt contributed. 

After a couple stutter-steps as they waited for the full text of the bill, statements from outside groups began pouring in this morning in reaction to the Senate immigration legislation that dropped overnight.

The responses from pro-reform stakeholders have all been similar: They applaud the bipartisan nature of the Senate plan, believe it meets overarching goals for citizenship and legal immigration, and are optimistic about the “starting point” offered by the legislation that can now be discussed and amended in the upper chamber.

There are a few points of concern for various groups, which will lobby for improvements in coming weeks. Those concerns include -- but aren’t limited to:

- Some, including the AFL-CIO and Asian-American groups, don’t like the provision that would eliminate family-based visas for the siblings of U.S. citizens. (AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka said on a conference call with reporters Wednesday “Are brothers and sisters close family members? Well, to ask the question is really to answer it. Of course they are and so we’re going to fight for that issue.”)

-  There’s some concern that the fines (currently a total of $2000 for an undocumented immigrant who eventually becomes a citizen) are too high. (For example: Marielena Hincapié , head of the National Immigration Law Center, said on the same call that “the combination of fees and penalties cannot price out today’s low-income immigrants who could be tomorrow’s entrepreneurs.”)

-  Advocates for gay rights had been lobbying for the inclusion of measures to address visa eligibility for binational LGBT couples; those were not addressed. The Human Rights Campaign said in a statement: “As drafted, the bill omits reforms that would end discrimination against tens of thousands of binational gay and lesbian couples … “Failing to act [on a legislative fix] would stand in stark contrast to this bill’s unprecedented inclusivity. As we stand at the crossroads of history, leaving anyone out weakens the moral authority of this once-in-a-generation legislation. No one should be forced to live in the shadows of society.”

-  Privacy and civil liberties groups like the ACLU historically haven’t keen on the E-Verify requirements, which  ACLU called “job-killing, costly and privacy-invasive” in its statement.

Meanwhile, those who oppose the bill have today reiterated past warnings that the reform will hurt American workers and reward lawbreakers without enforcement of border security measures.

Here are excerpts of some of the written responses from key groups on both sides of the debate:

AFL-CIO
President Richard Trumka

“The bill introduced today is another step toward addressing a real crisis. The United States urgently needs a roadmap to citizenship for more than 11 million aspiring Americans. And while Washington, D.C., is full of legislative unveilings that dissolve into recriminations and unsolved problems, this time actually is different. Our cause is unstoppable. There will be a roadmap to citizenship in 2013. As is to be expected in an 844-page first response to an issue as complex as immigration, there are several details in the bill that cause unintended, but serious, harm to immigrant workers and the broader labor market. We will work to correct those problems now that a bill is before the Senate Judiciary Committee. … Our role is to make sure that the roadmap leads to citizenship achievable not only in theory but in fact.  Workers care for the elderly, mow our lawns or drive our taxis, work hard and deserve a reliable roadmap to citizenship. And so the labor movement’s entire grassroots structure will be mobilized throughout this process and across this country to make sure the roadmap is inclusive.”

U.S. Chamber of Commerce
President and CEO Tom Donohue

“The Chamber has long called for comprehensive immigration reform that incorporates four critical components—increased border security, expansion of temporary worker programs and employer-sponsored green cards, some type of pathway to legalization and eventual citizenship under tight criteria, and a balanced and workable employment verification system. This legislation meets these goals. We welcome this legislation as a critical step toward a final law that will work for our economy and for our society. There is no doubt that there will be additional input and analysis through Senate hearings and amendments, and we look forward to being part of that needed process.”

National Council of La Raza
President Janet Murguía

“This legislation, while not perfect, is a monumental step forward in ensuring that this nation has a fair, humane and effective 21st-century immigration policy that serves our nation’s best interests and works for all Americans, including families, workers and businesses.  It is especially important that this legislation includes a real roadmap for undocumented immigrants to earn legal status and eventual citizenship, one that is true to our nation’s history, our laws and our values. We urge policymakers to follow the example of these senators and work as quickly as possible to pass a bill.  We would note that immigration is a galvanizing issue for the nation’s Hispanics, whose vote last November generated a game-changing moment for this debate, giving us an opportunity to arrive at a solution.  Our community is engaged and watching this debate closely.  As the legislation progresses, we will work to ensure that legalization is real, enforcement is accountable and families and workers are protected.  We have cleared a substantial hurdle today, but we cannot rest until we see legislation signed into law.”

Human Rights Campaign
President Chad Griffin

"The bill introduced by the Senate’s Gang of Eight brings us one step closer to the historic immigration reform this country desperately needs. From a groundbreaking pathway to citizenship, to a lasting solution for the young DREAMers hopeful for a future in this country, to much-needed reform for asylum-seekers, this bill will change millions of lives for the better. But as immigration reform reaches the Senate Judiciary Committee, there is work left to do. As drafted, the bill omits reforms that would end discrimination against tens of thousands of binational gay and lesbian couples. Currently, committed couples like Santiago Ortiz and Pablo Garcia from New York City are stuck in legal limbo because gay or lesbian couples are denied a chance to obtain relationship-based permanent residence. Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy has been an outspoken champion of the legislative fix to this problem, the United American Families Act (UAFA, S. 296). This bipartisan legislation, also sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, deserves a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee as an amendment to the immigration bill. Failing to act on UAFA would stand in stark contrast to this bill’s unprecedented inclusivity. As we stand at the crossroads of history, leaving anyone out weakens the moral authority of this once-in-a-generation legislation. No one should be forced to live in the shadows of society.”

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Migration Committee Chair Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles

“I welcome the introduction of legislation today in the U.S. Senate. The U.S. bishops look forward to carefully examining the legislation and working with Congress to fashion a final bill that respects the basic human rights and dignity of newcomers to our land—migrants, refugees, and other vulnerable populations. I commend the Senators who have introduced this bipartisan bill, as they have shown leadership and courage in this effort,” Gomez said. “We will look to work constructively with them and other members of Congress to improve upon their proposal, should such improvements prove necessary, so that any final bill creates an immigration system that restores the rule of law in a humane and just manner.” 

Hispanic Leadership Network
President Jennifer Korn (Republican-affiliated group)

“America’s legal immigration system is broken. We must protect America’s legacy as a nation of immigrants and as a nation of laws. The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 is a strong conservative start to the immigration reform process. We need a lasting reform that overhauls our bureaucratic visa system, secures our borders, creates a temporary worker program, establishes a worker verification system, and allows the eleven million undocumented immigrants in our country to earn a legal status. We need an immigration system that reflects the needs of our economy and cuts the deficit. This is what the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 has brought us. I look forward to an open and honest legislative process.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a leading Senate Judiciary Committee opponent of reform bill

“Has Congress forgotten who it represents? Congress’ duty is to the American people. I believe it is going to be clearly established that this plan will be detrimental to working Americans—and will not pass. What Congress needs to understand is that our obligation is to law-abiding Americans who have seen their wages erode over the last decade. We can’t further weaken their financial position in order to provide more benefits to those here unlawfully. I understand the hard work that went into this bill. But as we explore its many flaws and loopholes in the coming days, I am confident the American public will firmly reject it—and will demand reform that puts the national interest first.”

NumbersUSA
President Roy Beck

“Nearly every section of the Gang Amnesty bill seems to add more foreign workers to compete with unemployed and underemployed Americans. The Gang apparently believes that the way to help the 20 million Americans who can't find a full time job is to give out another 20 to 30 million lifetime permits to foreign citizens over the next decade. None of this is the kind of economy or society most Americans desire. Surely a compassionate and thoughtful citizenry will put a stop to this nonsense and ask its Senators to go back work putting Americans back to work."

Federation for American Immigration Reform
President Dan Stein

“The programs that grant amnesty to illegal aliens and a steady supply of low-wage labor will be implemented, regardless of whether the border is secure. The Washington and Wall Street elite have the bill they want. Now it is time for the American people to have their say,” Stein noted. “Over the coming weeks, FAIR and other groups dedicated to immigration reform that protects the interests of Americans will be mounting a full-scale effort to educate the public about this bill’s blatant attempt to favor special interests at their expense and to mobilize opposition.” 

Related Stories

• Paul not ready to embrace Rubio, Gang of Eight immigration legislation
• As Senate's immigration 'Gang' releases text, House group speaks up

Despite his stated support for comprehensive-immigration reform, Rand Paul, R-Ky., is not fully on board with Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and the Gang of Eight’s immigration attempt.

“Generally, I am for immigration reform. It’s not that I’m going to be for anything with no rules, though,” the Kentucky senator told reporters at a breakfast Wednesday hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

Related: As Senate's immigration 'Gang' releases text, House group speaks up

Paul said that he has not studied the details of the proposal yet, but despite the legislation’s various new border-security requirements, he’s not completely convinced. Paul said he is supportive of a path to citizenship, but not a new, separate, or special one for the millions of people in the United States illegally. He was skeptical that there was not what he called a “new pathway” for citizenship in the legislation.

“I don’t want a new pathway,” Paul said, noting that the “same pathway” would give a “better chance of passing immigration reform.” He added, "It’s important for conservatives that it’s no new pathway to citizenship,” Paul said, proposing that workers get a work visa and go to the back of the line like someone in Mexico City. “Get in the same line."

Paul said that he would insist on immigration legislation going through the House, would have at least one, and up to three or four, amendments to the bill. He wants what he calls “trust but verify,” that would include an annual report to Congress on border security with opinions of governors included that has stats on how many immigrants crossed the border and were returned to their home country. And he wants it voted on by Congress. He also wants to make sure that immigrants with work visas cannot vote and do not get social welfare benefits.

"So in order to get it," Paul said, referring to passage of the legislation, "they need to at least engage with people like me, who want immigration reform."

Early in his talk, Paul also -- unprompted -- brought up Paul Ryan, R-Wis., another possible 2016 rival, when discussing Medicare. But it wasn’t exactly to praise him. He was going through his fixes to Medicare, including raising the eligibility age gradually, means testing benefits and premiums, as well as other options.

“It’s similar to Paul Ryan,” Paul said, “but he doesn’t actually do it.”

Paul’s willingness to attempt to poke holes in the Gang of Eight proposal, something Rubio has been out front on, as well as his subtle criticism of Ryan on Medicare -- and in turn, how to tackle debt and deficits -- shows how Paul might try to carve out space for himself in a 2016 Republican presidential primary, if he decides to run. It’s something he appears to be leaning toward and openly said he is weighing.

“I want to be part of the national debate,” Paul said. “Whether I run or not, to be considering is something that gives me a larger microphone.”

He said he will continue travels to early states, hitting New Hampshire this spring and South Carolina this summer.

“We’re considering it,” Paul said. “We won’t make a decision before 2014.”

Paul accuses Obama of using Newtown families as ‘props’

Paul also weighed in the gun debate. He said he’s firmly against the compromise background-check legislation proposed by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey, deriding it as “window dressing.” And he accused President Barack Obama of using the Newtown families as “props.”

“When I see the fathers and the mothers and them testifying --  and I know they’re coming voluntarily, and they want to come and be part of this debate,” Paul said, “but it still saddens me just to see them, and I think that in some cases the president has used them as props -- and that disappoints me.”

Paul said he does not want to be seen, however, as not caring, but he believes the background check legislation will do nothing to prevent other Newtowns from happening again.

“The face I want to present is that I do care about those kids,” Paul said, adding that he’s supporting Ted Cruz’s, R-Texas, legislation to shift money to support more prosecutions.

“Make sure that the background checks we have are working,” he said, adding that people like the shooter at Sandy Hook are not deterred even by the death penalty, why would they be deterred by stricter background checks? And he claimed 90 percent of crimes committed with a gun are with ones obtained illegally.

With Monday’s Boston Marathon bombings dominating the nation’s attention, reaction to a new comprehensive immigration reform bill was muted in Washington as activists quietly reviewed the legislation and proponents worked to publicize it without the planned fanfare of a morning press conference.

Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Chuck Schumer of New York – both members of the bill’s drafting group – briefed President Barack Obama on the bill at the White House this afternoon.

Conceding that some details of the bill - including security "triggers" - weren't fully in line with the president's preferences, Schumer said Obama was "very supportive" of the effort as a whole.

"While he certainly might not agree with every single part of it, he was very supportive of the bill we have put together and simply wants to make sure we move it along and get something done," he said.

In a statement, Obama said the bill is "clearly a compromise, and no one will get everything they wanted, including me."

"But," he added, "it is largely consistent with the principles that I have repeatedly laid out for comprehensive reform." 

The legislation includes ambitious goals for border security and a sharp shift towards more employment-based visas for legal immigrants. It includes provisions for qualified undocumented workers to be eligible to pay fines and back taxes in order to apply for a probationary legal status which can be adjusted to legal permanent residency and ultimately citizenship if certain particulars are met.

But this “path to citizenship” is contingent on several “triggers,” including border surveillance, operational apprehension strategies, cleared backlogs, and the implementation of E-Verify work eligibility systems.

Those "triggers" have been viewed warily by the White House, which has worried that such measures are unnecessary and could jeopardize or delay a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

"We think it is very important," Schumer said Tuesday of the Gang of Eight's border security plan. "First, we think it is the right thing to do, and second, we think you are not going to pass a bill in the Senate, the House or with the approval of the American people if they're not pretty much assured that there isn't going to be another wave of illegal immigration." 

With the postponement of Tuesday’s planned rollout press conference, outside groups have been fairly reserved in responding to the immigration proposals, putting planned events on hold as the country continues to grapple with the Boston Marathon tragedy.

Speaking briefly at what is typically a weekly question-and-answer session, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took no questions from reporters -- citing deference to the Boston victims -- and said only that the GOP conference was briefed yesterday on the immigration legislation.

"Hopefully it will provide a bipartisan way forward on a very important issue to the country," he added. 

But some of the bill’s critics have begun to speak up.

In an interview with the National Review, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, suggested that speculation about a possible suspect in the bombings should prompt caution on immigration reform.

“Some of the speculation that has come out is that yes, it was a foreign national and, speculating here, that it was potentially a person on a student visa,” King said. “If that’s the case, then we need to take a look at the big picture.”

Related stories:

• Obama on Boston attack: FBI 'investigating this as an act of terrorism'
• First Thoughts: Politics take a backseat 
• Details of sweeping Senate immigration plan revealed

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:45 PM EDT

John Moore / Getty Images, file

A U.S. Border Patrol agent looks into Mexico on the border near Sonoita, Arizona. A new proposal suggests allocating $3 billion for increased surveillance and manpower along the country's southern border.

After months of negotiations, a bipartisan Senate group on Tuesday will unveil sweeping legislation to overhaul the nation’s immigration system, an effort that has been a major focus of President Barack Obama’s second term agenda and one that some Republicans view as a political necessity.

The plan outlines an emphasis on shifting legal immigration towards more skilled workers; sets ambitious goals for surveillance and security along the nation’s southern border; and offers qualifying undocumented immigrants a decade-long process – dependent on external border security triggers -- towards legalization and eventual citizenship in the United States.

Included in the bill are the following provisions, according to a summary memo provided to NBC News:              

• Allow undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States continually since before December 31, 2011 to apply for “Registered Provisional Immigrant Status” if they pay back taxes and $500 in fines, and if they have not been convicted of a felony or 3 or more misdemeanors or voted illegally. Individuals with this status can work for any employer and travel outside the country but are not eligible to receive means-tested federal public benefits.
•  After 10 years in Registered Provisional Immigrant Status, individuals will be eligible – pending border security measures and a clearing of existing backlogs for legal immigrants – to earn a merit-based green card if they have worked in the United States, demonstrated knowledge of the English language and paid an additional fine of $1000.
• Allow eligible DREAM act applicants and certain agricultural workers to apply for green cards within five years
• Regarding border security, the bill would set a goal of “90% effectiveness” – meaning the rate of apprehensions and turnbacks of potential entrants – per fiscal year in the most high-risk areas of the southern border. If that goal is not met within five years, a bipartisan “Border Commission” made up of border state governors and experts will be formed to issue new recommendations on how to achieve it.
• Allocate $3 billion for increased surveillance and manpower along the country’s southern border and an additional $1.5 billion for fencing.
• Include a border security “trigger” requiring that no undocumented immigrant can achieve legal “Registered Provisional Immigrant” status until strategies for border security have been submitted by the Department of Homeland Security to Congress.
•  Require an additional “trigger” that prevents those with “Registered Provisional Immigrant” status from becoming eligible to apply for Lawful Permanent Resident status until the Department of Homeland Security and the Comptroller General certify that border security strategies are operational and a mandatory employment verification system has been implemented.
• Create a new “W” visa program to allow non-agricultural temporary workers to come to the United States to work for registered employers. 
•  Eliminate family-based visas for siblings of United States citizens as well as the Diversity Visa program while eliminating caps on visas for certain employment-based categories.
•  Use a point system for a new “merit based” visa, of which 120,000 would initially be awarded per year, with a maximum cap of 250,000 annually. Points will be awarded based on criteria including education, employment and length of residence in the U.S.
• Require an “enhanced E-Verify” system to prevent ineligible workers from taking jobs in the United States. Employers with more than 5,000 employees will be phased in within two years; employers with more than 500 employees will be phased in within three years.
• Raise the annual cap on H1-B visas for high-skilled workers from 65,000 to 110,000, with provisions to prevent such workers from undercutting American wages. Set a maximum cap at 180,000 such visas.

While events in Boston Monday caused organizers to postpone a planned Tuesday press conference to roll out the bill, the legislation will be formally filed in the Senate later today. Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and John McCain of Arizona will visit the White House to brief the president on the plan. 

Related:
Revealed -- a path to citizenship, shift to employment-based visas

10 things you need to know about the Senate immigration bill

Once filed, the process of examining the bill will begin in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where panel members will hold two hearings in the next week. The group is expected to continue its markup of the legislation into the month of May.

The proposal, drafted by four Democrats and four Republicans, represents the first major attempt to comprehensively address illegal immigration, border security, and the existing backlog for legal immigrants to the United States since a bipartisan bill stalled in the Senate in 2007. 

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:00 AM EDT