Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) told reporters on Wednesday that he is leaving the House bipartisan immigration group called the "Group of Eight," citing disputes over "health care issues" as the reason for breaking away.

"I think my exit just means that I couldn't agree with them on language," Labrador told reporters. "I don't think it means anything for immigration reform."

The announcement comes after the conservative Republican Study Committee group met Wednesday afternoon with six Republican senators, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, to discuss immigration reform.

After that meeting Labrador said he plans to introduce legislation of his own. He also expressed his frustration with the Senate bill, particularly what he saw as a lack of strong border security provisions.

"I don't think you get anything out of the Senate without strong border security," Labrador said after the meeting. "And we definitely don't get anything out of the House without strong border security."

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said Wednesday that there will not be enough votes in the House to pass the Senate's immigration bill as it is currently written even if the legislation can find the 60 votes it will need in the upper chamber. 

"I can tell you that the bill as currently structured is not going to pass in the House. And I think it's going to struggle to pass in the Senate," Rubio said after a meeting between Senate and House conservatives.

Rubio’s comments came shortly before Rep. Raul Labrador, an Idaho conservative who has been working on immigration in the House, said he will no longer be a part of an eight-person bipartisan working group that had recently hit snags in negotiations. 

Labrador left the talks after a standoff over whether newly legalized immigrants who were previously undocumented should be eligible to receive government-based health care, the issue he called the breaking point that caused him to part from the group. 

"I think my exit just means that I couldn't agree with them on language," Labrador told reporters, "I don't think it means anything for immigration reform." 

Earlier Wednesday, Rubio said border security provisions must be strengthened before conservatives will support the bill in sufficient numbers to make it law. He has pledged to push amendments to the bill that would stiffen those requirements and potentially shift the power to craft security plans from the Department of Homeland Security to Congress. 

"If the changes don't happen, the bill can't pass," Rubio said. "We'll keep working. We won't abandon the effort. We'll keep working to ensure the bill can pass." 

The Senate bill is expected to be taken up on the floor of the upper chamber next week. Rubio, along with Democrat and fellow “Gang of Eight” member Sen. Bob Menendez, has said that it does not currently have the 60 votes required for passage, while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated last week that it would be “pretty easy” to pull together sufficient support. 

But Rubio pointed to the Republican-controlled House as a major factor, even if the bill passes the Senate with broad bipartisan backing. 

"Let's remember - the goal here is not to pass a bill out of the Senate,” he said. “The goal here is to reform our immigration laws. And that requires something that can pass the House, the Senate, and be signed by the president." 

Rubio and a handful of other GOP senators -- including Jeff Flake, Rand Paul, Jeff Sessions, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz -- met with conservative House Republicans for over an hour in the basement of the Capitol to discuss the immigration reform efforts. Attendees described the meeting as an "open discussion" where participants voiced concern about passing legislation that could mirror what happened in 1986, when President Reagan signed a bill offering ‘amnesty’ to millions of undocumented immigrants.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said the House will not take up the Senate bill wholesale.

"It's very clear that the House will not take the Senate bill,” Goodlatte said, noting that the panel that he chairs is working through smaller pieces of legislation to beef up border and interior enforcement.

Some House Republicans are pessimistic that a larger package could be signed into law by the end of the summer at all.  Rep. John Fleming, R-La., told reporters Wednesday "It may pass in the Senate, but I don't see it passing into law."

"The border security piece of this is a big, big stumbling block," Fleming said, "I don't think Republicans are going to support anything that is milquetoast in the way of border security.”

This story was originally published on Wed Jun 5, 2013 4:17 PM EDT

Four opponents of the Gang of Eight immigration bill are keeping up their pressure as the full Senate prepares to consider the legislation next week, telling colleagues in a letter Tuesday that the bill “will leave our borders unsecure and our immigration system deeply dysfunctional.”

The letter is signed by four Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee  - Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa – who, along with Texas Sen. John Cornyn, voted against the bill as amended by the 18-member panel last month.   (Cornyn was not a signer of the circulated letter.)  

The four lawmakers have been pushing hard against the bipartisan compromise legislation, arguing that its central tenets were “predicated on a deal struck” before the Judiciary panel began the process of amending it.  The bill’s supporters did accept over 140 changes to the bill – many proposed by Republicans – but rejected proposals from both parties that they said would have disrupted the legislation’s delicate compromises between stakeholders like unions, business and immigrant rights groups. 

“The last thing this country needs right now is another 1,000-plus page bill that, like Obamacare, was negotiated behind closed doors with special interests,” the four senators wrote. “We want immigration reform to pass, but only if it actually fixes the broken system, rather than allowing the problems to grow and fester.” 

The legislation is expected to be considered on the Senate floor beginning next week, where senators on both sides of the aisle will continue to propose changes to it.

While some Republicans argue that the Gang of Eight bill should be heavily overhauled or defeated, others who helped negotiate the legislation warn of the policy and political consequences of opposing reforms to address the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a member of the Gang of Eight, told reporters at the Capitol Tuesday that the GOP is "toast" in the next presidential election if the party is blamed for the effort's failure. 

"From our party's point of view, if this thing falls apart and we get blamed because we're not practical, we created border security mechanisms that were unachievable, we tried to change the structure in a dramatic way and we get the blame, we're toast in 2016," he said. 

NBC's Kasie Hunt contributed to this report. 

This story was originally published on Tue Jun 4, 2013 2:24 PM EDT

Amid a furor over a Justice Department subpoena of Associated Press phone records and an investigation of leaks to Fox News correspondent James Rosen, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the third-ranking senator in the Democratic leadership, voiced confidence in Attorney General Eric Holder on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday.

“I haven’t seen anything that would prevent him from continuing to do his job,” Schumer told NBC’s David Gregory. “The president has confidence in Holder and I believe he’s going to stay,” the New York Democrat said. 

In the Rosen case, Schumer said, “I don’t think there’s perjury” in what Holder told the House Judiciary Committee last month when the attorney general said that he doubted it would “wise policy” to prosecute news media organizations for publishing classified information in the national security leaks case.

Holder also said in that testimony that "the focus should be on those people who break their oaths and put the American people at risk, not reporters who gather this information."

Schumer pointed out that there has been no attempted prosecution of Rosen and any other journalist.

But some Republicans have asked whether Holder misled the House committee, because Rosen had been named a co-conspirator in an investigation of State Department leaks.

Commenting on Meet the Press on Holder and the far-reaching Justice Department probe of Associated Press reporters in a national security leaks case, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers said, “I think that dragnet they threw out over those AP reporters was more than an over-reach—and it really is not very good investigative work.” A good investigation would have narrowed the list of targeted reporters, the Michigan Republican said.

But Rogers, a former FBI agent, also stressed that “these leaks are serious and for those folks (in the executive branch) who are leaking information that may lead to the death of sources, or of people who are cooperating with the United States, or men and women  who serving in combat –there should be consequences for that.”

Rogers said “this pattern of deception administration-wide is starting to become concerning,” referring to the Internal Revenue Service’s scrutiny of conservative groups, the administration’s explanation of the attacks on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi last year, and the AP probe, Rogers said the administration risked losing Americans’ trust in their government.

Commenting on Holder, House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R- Va., said on "Fox News Sunday'' that, "We're investigating the conflict in his remarks" to the committee at its May 15 hearing. "Those remarks were made under oath, but we also think it’s very important that the attorney general be afforded the opportunity to respond, so we will wait to pass judgment on that until we receive his response."

To some degree, the controversies over leaks and over the Internal Revenue Service’s scrutiny of conservative groups have diverted news media attention from President Obama’s legislative agenda.

Gregory asked Schumer – a leader in the bipartisan Gang of Eight effort in the Senate to pass an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws -- whether the leaks and the IRS controversy have sapped support for immigration reform.

Schumer said, “We’re going to put immigration on the (Senate) floor starting on June 10. I predict it will pass the Senate by July 4. We are hoping to get 70 votes, up to 70 votes, which means a lot of Republicans. And we’re willing to entertain amendments that don’t damage the core principles of the bill, but improve the bill – just as we did in (the Judiciary) committee.”

He added, “These so-called scandals have not diverted us one iota” from the immigration overhaul. When the bill goes to the House, Schumer said, “If we can come out of the Senate with close to a majority of the Republican senators and almost every Democrat, that may change the equation in the House and the thinking in the House among mainstream Republicans, and they may want to go for our bill.”

He also said in the 2014 campaign the GOP was at risk of over-emphasizing the IRS and other controversies and likened next year’s election to 1998 when Republicans counted on the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal to make gains and ended up losing seats in the House.

This story was originally published on Sun Jun 2, 2013 10:34 AM EDT

If you ask around Washington D.C., the Republican Party could have a no-brainer opportunity to claw its way back toward a triumphant and diverse majority -- or it could be on the verge of legislating itself out of existence.

Since the 2012 election, when Latino voters selected Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by nearly a 3-1 margin, proponents of comprehensive immigration reform have pointed to the passage of the legislation as a political imperative for the survival of the GOP.

Opponents of the legislation, on the other hand, have questioned whether the embrace of a bill that contains a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants would have any long-term political benefit for Republicans. 

That’s a sentiment encapsulated by Kansas GOP Rep. Tim Huelskamp, who told Reuters this month that “There is no evidence to support this idea that Republicans will pick up a lot of votes if we give amnesty to 11 million folks.” 

So how would the passage of an immigration bill really change the way the country votes -- especially as Hispanics swell to a bigger share of the electorate?

Republicans who are skeptical of the reform effort point to data showing that Hispanics lean towards the liberal side of the political spectrum, while those on the other side of the issue argue that Hispanics share important social and fiscal values with the GOP.

And some in the party are simply eager to move on from a national debate fraught with the risk that one tone-deaf comment -- like Rep. Don Young’s reference to “wetbacks” earlier this year -- can erase months of progress in widening the party’s appeal.  

Both sides agree it’s generally true that, right now, Latinos are primarily a Democratic constituency, demonstrated in no small part by the fact that the Democratic candidate has won the Latino vote in every presidential election since at least 1972.

(Mitt Romney won just 27 percent of the Latino vote in the 2012 election. President George W. Bush won as high a share as 44 percent in 2004, according to some exit polls.)

An April 2013 survey by the Pew Hispanic Center showed three in 10 Latinos surveyed described themselves as “liberal,” compared to 21 percent of the general population.

And 75 percent of Hispanics surveyed said they prefer “a bigger government providing more services” to a smaller government providing fewer.

Steven Camarota, the director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies -- a group that supports limitations on legal immigration and has opposed the Senate bill’s provisions -- says that’s bad news for Republicans.

“Continuing ongoing levels of legal immigration likely will continue to shift the national electorate towards the Democratic Party and toward greater sympathy for government intervention in the economy,” he said.

Other Republicans optimistic about growing the GOP’s appeal among Hispanics see plenty of bright spots in the data.

The overwhelming preference for a larger government diminishes the longer Hispanics have been in the country, for example. While 81 percent of new Latino immigrants said they prefer a bigger government, the share goes down to 58 percent for those who are third-generation immigrants or more.

Latinos are also the fastest-growing group of small business owners in the country. 

And on some measures, including frequency of church attendance and opinions on abortion rights, Hispanics tend to be more culturally conservative than the public-at-large.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP file photo

Immigration activists gather on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, May 20, 2013, before the Senate Judiciary Committee began working on a landmark immigration bill to secure the border and offer citizenship to millions.

“The Hispanic community is open to candidates who speak to them, open to ideas that are pro-business, pro-entrepreneurial, about seeking the American Dream,” says Jennifer Sevilla Korn, the new Deputy Political Director and National Field Director for Hispanic Initiatives at the Republican National Committee

Korn’s new role at the RNC is to engage the Hispanic community nationwide and help implement the party’s “Growth and Opportunity Project,” which included recommendations for building better connections with minorities, women and young voters.

“There’s a huge window of opportunity to engage with Hispanics and talk about what we’re for, especially when you’re talking about small-business owners and Hispanic evangelicals,” she said. “There’s absolutely room there.”

Dr. Matt Barreto, a co-founder of polling group Latino Decisions, says that Republican rhetoric about illegal immigration, not conflict with an overarching political ideology, is mostly to blame for the party’s dismal performance with Latinos.

“There is certainly truth to the notion that there are some issues on which Latinos are more conservative and could be open to hearing Republican viewpoints,” Barreto said. “But when the Republican Party is associated with very negative rhetoric and positioning on immigration it makes people not want to listen.”

So, would those voters consider a Republican candidate if the GOP played ball on the passage of immigration reform?

A poll by Latino Decisions and America’s Voice in March of this year asked Hispanic voters that question.

Asked if they would be “more or less likely to vote for a Republican candidate in the future if Republicans take a leadership role in passing comprehensive immigration reform including a pathway to citizenship,” 44 percent of those surveyed said they would be more likely to support a Republican.

And a majority of Hispanic voters (63 percent) also said they would back a Republican candidate who supported a “pathway to citizenship” over a Democratic candidate who didn’t.

Potential GOP fears also increase at the threat of an influx of new, previously undocumented Hispanic voters who eventually earn the right to vote after becoming U.S. citizens – a process that would take most applicants more than 13 years.  

But it’s unclear what percentage of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country will choose to work their way toward citizenship rather than remaining legal permanent residents – who don’t have voting rights.

Skeptics charge that those granted citizenship will be so dependent on government programs that they will never support a Republican Party largely dedicated to scaling back the size of those programs.  

(Undocumented immigrants aren’t technically eligible for federal means-tested benefits like Medicaid and food stamps, and under the current version of the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform bill, previously undocumented immigrants with probationary legal status wouldn’t be eligible to receive those benefits either.)

Data from the 2010 American Community Survey does indicate that foreign-born individuals in the U.S. – meaning naturalized citizens as well as legal and undocumented residents – are more likely than natural-born Americans to lack a high school diploma or live below the poverty line, both indicators of dependency upon federal benefits.

But while immigrants are more likely to be low-income and thus eligible for benefits, some studies – like from the libertarian Cato Institute -- dispute that immigrants actually access those benefits at a higher rate than their counterparts in the native-born population.

No matter how many reams of data are available to each side, questions about the political impact of immigration reform won’t stop before the legislation meets its eventual success or failure after a full-throated debate on the airwaves and in the halls of Congress.

“This is a perfect opportunity for the Republican Party to reverse this very negative image that they have, to try to be associated with positive outreach to this new community and ‘say we are part of the solution,’” says Barreto.  

Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies believes just the opposite.

“It seems very likely that politically this bill is almost certainly going to hurt them, not just because it creates more Democratic voters but because it alienates the people who are likely to vote for them, including the less educated whites who have not been showing up to the polls,” says Camarota. “Without those people it’s hard to see how Republicans win another presidential election.”

Related stories:

• Groups look for next step in delicate immigration reform dance
• Conservative talkers, grassroots groups push anti-immigration reform effort

This story was originally published on Thu May 30, 2013 5:55 PM EDT

With a final committee vote on a comprehensive immigration reform bill finally in sight, proponents of immigration reform won the support of a key Republican panel member after hammering out a bipartisan compromise dealing with visas for high-skilled foreign workers.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, long considered a Republican swing vote on the 18-member Senate Judiciary Committee, announced Tuesday night that he will vote the comprehensive immigration reform bill out of committee after the panel approved language relaxing restrictions on employers seeking to hire foreign workers for high-tech jobs. But he cautioned that he may vote against the bill on Senate floor if other changes to the legislation are not made.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

Sen. Orrin Hatch, the co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee, questions witnesses during testimony in Washington May 21, 2013.

The new language was the result of a deal between Hatch and Gang of Eight negotiator Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York, designed specifically to woo the Utah Republican but risking the ire of labor groups who believe the changes will hurt American workers who are qualified for the same high-tech jobs.

"We have been and remain opposed to Hatch's amendments," AFL-CIO spokesman Jeff Hauser said of the compromise language. "On the same say day that the Senate is grilling Apple for tax avoidance, it is a mistake to support an amendment so that tech companies can avoid hiring qualified American workers."

The Hatch-Schumer amendment passed by voice vote. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the panel, attempted to change its provisions, but his amendments were voted down

As written, the bill would initially raise the cap the number of H1-B visas from 65,000 to 110,000 -- with provisions to increase that number to 180,000.

Gang of Eight negotiator Sen. Marco Rubio, who has worked to garner support for the legislation among his fellow Republicans, welcomed Hatch's backing for the bill. 

"The Senate Judiciary Committee’s approval of Senator Hatch’s proposal to improve the H-1B visa provisions in the immigration legislation address key concerns shared by many conservatives," he said in a statement. "We must modernize our broken legal immigration system to meet the needs of America’s 21st century economy and create jobs. Senator Hatch’s amendment provides important protections for American workers while also ensuring that fast-growing and high-tech firms can continue to create jobs here in America."

Earlier Tuesday, the committee voted down an amendment proposed by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz that would have stripped out the Gang of Eight's foundational principle that qualified undocumented immigrants to the United States should be eligible to work towards full citizenship.  The amendment failed 5-13 , with Hatch joining Gang of Eight Republican Sens. Jeff Flake and Lindsey Graham in voting with Democrats against the measure.

Cruz, discussed as a possible 2016 GOP presidential candidate, said the inclusion of the path to citizenship would "only encourage others to violate the law."

The Tea Party-affiliated senator added that, if the pathway remains in the bill, the reform effort will be voted down in the Republican-controlled House. That assertion was flatly rejected by Schumer, who retorted that "if we don't have a path to citizenship, there is no reform."

Another Cruz-sponsored amendment that would have made undocumented immigrants ineligible for means-tested federal benefits failed 6-12.

Hatch voted in support of that measure.

A few issues remain - including a possible high-stakes discussion about whether LGBT foreign nationals should be eligible to apply for green cards through their partners and spouses in the United States.

But senators hope to wrap up their committee work as soon as tonight and advance the amended bill to the full Senate, which is expected to take up the bill this summer.

On Tuesday, the top Republican in the upper chamber said he will not block the immigration debate on the Senate floor.

"With regard to getting started on the bill, it’s my intention if there is a motion to proceed required, to vote for the motion to proceed so we can get on the bill and see if it we’re able to pass a bill that actually moves the ball in the right direction,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said – indicating that he won’t support using Senate rules and procedures to keep the chamber from debating the legislation.

McConnell also said that he’s “hopeful” that a comprehensive immigration bill can pass the Senate.

“I think the Gang of Eight has made a substantial contribution in moving the issue forward…I’m told that the Judiciary Committee hasn’t in any fundamental way undone the agreements that were agreed by the eight senators," he said. "So I’m hopeful we can get a bill that we can pass here in the Senate.”

NBC's Kasie Hunt contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on Tue May 21, 2013 4:33 PM EDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related stories:

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

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

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

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

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

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

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

It was adopted by a vote of 13-5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A 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