President Barack Obama’s allies in organized labor and progressive groups are drawing a line in the sand when it comes to so-called “triggers” that would require a secure border as a precondition to allowing undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship.

Left-leaning groups told the president during a meeting this week that any preconditions on creating a pathway to citizenship would be a deal-breaker in terms of winning their support.

 “That is not the starting point,” said Marielena Hincapie of the National Immigration Law Center when asked about part of the Senate’s bipartisan immigration reform proposal that would make prospects for full citizenship contingent on increased border security. “What we are demanding is a road to citizenship that's clear, that's direct, not contingent at all on additional enforcement.” 

The concept is one of the “basic legislative pillars” of a bipartisan Senate proposal on comprehensive immigration reform. While vague, the language is geared towards conservative lawmakers who want tough enforcement mechanisms in place before a path to citizenship can be formed.

The second of the Senate’s four pillars reads: “Create a tough but fair path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States that is contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether legal immigrants have left the country when required.”

The trigger has been an essential component for conservatives like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, one of the four Republican senators to help craft the plan.

“I will not be supporting any law that does not ensure that the enforcement things happen," he told conservative blogger Ed Morrisey in late January.

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

President Barack Obama waves as he walks on the South Lawn of the White House on Feb. 6 before his departure to Annapolis, Md.

But progressive groups have been ratcheting up the pressure on the president, whom they assert agrees about the concept of a trigger.

“There is clear alignment between us and the president and we look forward to expressing that power as the debate carries forward,” said Marshall Fitz of the Center for American Progress, adding, “We're going to focus like a laser beam on the path to citizenship.”

While White House press secretary Jay Carney seemed to split the difference between the two approaches, saying the president remained committed to both border security and a path to citizenship, but not going so far as to link the two.

“He remains, as part of the comprehensive immigration reform process, committed to increasing our border security further,” Carney said. “But when we talk about comprehensive immigration reform, we're talking about a whole package that moves as a whole, and that includes a clear path to citizenship for people who are affected here,” Carney said.

Cornell University Law School professor Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law expert, said one possible compromise between the two sides would be an enforcement mechanism based on objective criteria, like a certain number of Border Patrol agents along the border or amount of money spent on security.

But he said that if Republicans insist on a subjective measure, such as whether a poll finds the majority of Americans think the border is secure, or whether Republican governors of border states agree the border is secure, common ground will be much more difficult to find.

Asked about the political feasibility of objective measures in a final immigration bill, Yale-Loehr said, “I would hope than an objective one would satisfy the conservatives enough that they could live with it while not antagonizing the other side too much.”

The two pressure points to watch on immigration… The gun debate begins on Capitol Hill… Breaking news: Economy contracted in the 4^th quarter… The unrest in Egypt… Hillary on 2016… Teeing up Thursday’s confirmation for Chuck Hagel… All eyes on Deval Patrick, Scott Brown… And updating the Obama cabinet shuffle.

*** Two pressure points to watch on immigration: It’s been quite a revealing past 48 hours in the still-evolving debate over immigration, with Monday’s bipartisan Senate framework and Tuesday’s speech by President Obama. So what have we learned? There are two pressure points that either could create enough force to ensure legislation gets through Congress, or that could scuttle any chance for a deal. One, Marco Rubio and Republicans considering any comprehensive immigration reform want a "trigger" to make sure that border enforcement comes before legalization. “Unless there’s real enforcement triggers, we are not going to have a bill that moves on the opportunity to apply for a green card,” Rubio told Rush Limbaugh yesterday. (The big question here, of course: What would these “triggers” be?) Two, Obama yesterday vowed to bring his own legislation if Congress doesn't quickly act. Translation: He'll blame Republicans for this failure. “If Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away,” the president said in Las Vegas yesterday.

*** What the debate isn’t about: So those are the two big issues moving forward -- GOP pressure on Democrats for an enforcement trigger, and White House/Dem pressure on Republicans not to delay the legislation (a la what happened to health care in 2009). But here’s something this debate IS NOT about: whether Obama wants to use immigration as a way to club Republicans. It’s not even a question. The idea that anyone outside of political partisans -- or those looking for a reason to be against reform (but don’t want to look anti-Hispanic) -- believes that Obama doesn’t want to sign historic immigration legislation to fulfill a campaign promise is a bit naïve. Sure, the president is using campaign tactics to pressure Congress, but he wants the legislative “win”; he already got the political “win” in 2012. Don’t forget what happened during the fiscal-cliff debate just a month ago: The White House is always looking to cut a deal, even if it gets just half a loaf. There’s no political reward for not getting anything done for him in a second term. That’s the “leverage” that GOPers actually have with the president. That said, the president’s leverage is the public’s opinion. And if the WaPo/ABC poll, which shows his favorability rating at 60%, is not an outlier that will change the equation on Capitol Hill -- not just on immigration but other issues. Reason Magazine (which uses Princeton Survey Research, the same folks that conduct the Pew poll) has the president’s job-approval rating at 52%.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., questions Senator John Kerry (Not Pictured) during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing on Kerry's nomination to be secretary of state, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 24, 2013.

*** Gun debate begins on Capitol Hill: Today, however, immigration takes a back seat to the debate over guns. At 10:00 am ET, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on gun violence. Testifying: Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords, and the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre. (And NBC’s Frank Thorp confirms that Giffords herself will appear at the hearing. She will speak though not testify.) According to his prepared testimony, LaPierre will come out against even universal background checks, per NBC’s Kasie Hunt. “When it comes to the issue of background checks, let’s be honest -- background checks will never be ‘universal’ – because criminals will never submit to them,” he’s expected to say. Does this NRA line in the sand on universal background checks spook someone like Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who appears to be open to such a measure and might actually co-sponsor Schumer’s bill? Another thing to consider here. It seems like an assault-weapons ban has little chance of passing the Senate. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid allowing it to come to a vote means that pro-gun Democrats can vote against THAT measure but vote for something else (like background checks).

*** Breaking news: Economy contracted in the 4^th quarter: But both guns and immigration might get eclipsed by this breaking news: The U.S. economy contracted in the 4^th quarter. The AP: “The U.S. economy shrank from October through December for the first time since the recession ended, hurt by the biggest cut in defense spending in 40 years, fewer exports and sluggish growth in company stockpiles. The Commerce Department said Wednesday that the economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter. That's a sharp slowdown from the 3.1 percent growth rate in the July-September quarter.”

*** More unrest in Egypt: What is taking place in Egypt is another big story. The New York Times: “A prominent Egyptian opposition leader called on President Mohamed Morsi on Wednesday to hold a national dialogue, a day after the nation’s top general warned that the state itself was in danger of collapse because of violence verging on anarchy in three Suez Canal cities.” In her exit interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Clinton commented on Mubarak’s ouster from Egypt, and she stood by what is the one of the most consequential foreign policy decisions the administration made that gets very little re-visiting: “It was an inevitable force of history that when the Egyptian people were rising up in such large numbers -- asking for what we believe in, freedom and opportunity, a chance to, you know, chart their own democratic future -- the United States cannot and should not be on the side of those who deny that.” Clinton added to FOX about the current situation there: “We have to work for, along with the international community, as well as people inside Egypt, is not to see these revolutions hijacked by extremists, not to see the return of dictatorial rule, the absence of the rule of law. And it's hard. It's hard going from decades under one-party or one-man rule, as somebody said, waking up from a political coma and understanding democracy. So we have a lot at stake in trying to keep moving these transformations in the right direction.”

*** Hillary and 2016: Of course, Clinton was also asked about 2016 in these exit interviews. And she used them to all of them to say not much new. Here’s what she told NBC’s Mitchell: “I don't have any decisions made. I have no real plans to make any such decisions. I'm looking forward to some very quiet time catching up on everything from sleep, to reading, to walking, with my family. I think it’s hard to imagine for me what it will be like next week when I wake up and I have nowhere to go. Maybe I'll go back to sleep for a change!” Bottom line: If she had to make her decision today, she’d probably be a “no.” But she’s also not shutting the door, either.

*** Teeing up Hagel’s confirmation hearing: Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearing to be Obama’s next defense secretary is set for tomorrow. And per NBC’s Kasie Hunt and Mike Viqueira, he’ll be introduced by two former chairmen of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Democrat Sam Nunn and Republican John Warner. White House officials point to comments from Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democratic whip, who hasn't counted any "no" votes on Hagel among Democrats. Hunt and Viq add that the White House also points to friendly words from Republicans, including Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. And now Roll Call is reporting that Republican Thad Cochran of Mississippi says he plans to vote for Hagel’s confirmation. Our take: Barring Hagel somehow melting down during his hearings, he’s on track for confirmation.

*** All eyes on Patrick, Scott Brown: After the Senate easily confirmed John Kerry to be secretary of state, by a 94-3 vote, all eyes are on Deval Patrick – as well as Scott Brown. Patrick’s pick to fill name an interim senator to fill Kerry’s Senate seat could come as early as today. And the AP reports that Brown is “leaning strongly toward” running the special election to replace Kerry.

*** Updating the cabinet shuffle: With Ray LaHood’s announcement that he will be stepping down from his post as Transportation secretary after his successor is confirmed, here are the cabinet members leaving, plus their replacements if applicable:

Hillary Clinton at State (John Kerry confirmed)
Leon Panetta at Defense (Chuck Hagel nominated)
Tim Geithner at Treasury (Jack Lew nominated)
Hilda Solis at Labor
Lisa Jackson at EPA
Ken Salazar at Interior
Ray LaHood at Transportation

And here are the cabinet secretaries who are remaining:

Janet Napolitano (DHS)
Arne Duncan (Education)
Tom Vilsack (Agriculture)
Eric Holder (Justice)
Kathleen Sebelius (HHS)
Eric Shinseki (Veterans Affairs)

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

Updated 3:34 p.m. ET - President Barack Obama hailed the Senate's bipartisan immigration framework at a major speech on that topic this afternoon in Nevada, but threatened to send his own alternative legislation to Capitol Hill if Congress fails to act.

The president embraced of a statement of principles offered Monday by four Democratic and four Republican senators, which would strengthen border security and employment verification in exchange for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the United States.

"The good news is that -- for the first time in many years -- Republicans and Democrats seem ready to tackle this problem together," Obama said in his speech in Las Vegas, according to prepared excerpts.

Jason Reed / Reuters

President Barack Obama arrives in Las Vegas, Jan. 29. Obama arrived in Nevada to deliver remarks on immigration reform.

"And yesterday, a bipartisan group of senators announced their principles for comprehensive immigration reform, which are very much in line with the principles I've proposed and campaigned on for the last few years," the president also said. "At this moment, it looks like there's a genuine desire to get this done soon. And that's very encouraging."

But in a speech in Nevada -- a Southwestern state that has experienced a boom in its Hispanic population -- the president said he refused to allow comprehensive immigration reform "to get bogged down in an endless debate."

"It's important for us to realize that the foundation for bipartisan action is already in place," he said. If lawmakers fail to advance their own proposal, Obama said he would send legislation to Congress based on his own principles "and insist that they vote on it right away."

He said at the top of his speech: "I'm here because the time has come for common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform."

The president used Tuesday's speech in Nevada to outline many of those principles, which rest on four pillars: strengthening border security, cracking down on employers who hire undocumented workers, streamlining legal immigration and -- most importantly -- offering undocumented workers an earned path to citizenship. 

Those pillars mostly resemble the bipartisan Senate framework unveiled on Monday by lawmakers, which has prompted hopes that Congress would finally be able to advance a comprehensive immigration reform law, a priority that eluded Obama during his first term, and President George W. Bush before him.

The primary sticking point in those fights has been the pathway to citizenship, which conservatives deride as "amnesty" for those who have broken the law. Already, some prominent conservatives have expressed their skepticism of the Senate framework for exactly that reason.

"Yes, they broke the rules," Obama said of those undocumented immigrants. "They crossed the border illegally. Maybe they overstayed their visas. But these 11 million men and women are now here."

Republicans in particular had been closely watching Obama's actions for cues as to how the administration might handle immigration, and the emerging Senate deal. Republican lawmakers have openly worried that the president might stake out stark positions and oppose some of the enforcement measures included in the Senate framework, namely the trigger that would only allow a pathway to citizenship once the border enforcement mechanisms had been verified. 

"There are a lot of ideas about how best to fix our broken immigration system," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Any solution should be a bipartisan one, and we hope the President is careful not to drag the debate to the left and ultimately disrupt the difficult work that is ahead in the House and Senate."

But Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a rock star to conservatives who's seen as eyeing a run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016, has taken an active lead in selling this proposal to the right. Rubio has appeared in conservative media to both discourage Obama from opposing enforcement provisions, but also talk up the proposal as the best chance at compromise for Republicans.

"If, in fact, this bill does not have real triggers in there -- in essence, if there's not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else happens unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place -- then I won't support it," Rubio, a member of the bipartisan gang of eight, told conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday. "But the principles clearly call for that."

But the president generally spoke in broad terms, and did not draw any bright lines as it relates to the Senate proposal. 

"I believe we are finally at a moment where comprehensive immigration reform is finally within our grasp," he said.

During the presidential campaign last fall, Univision asked President Obama about his biggest failure in his four years in office.

His answer: passing comprehensive immigration reform.

But Obama, at the forum sponsored by the Spanish-language network in September, continued:

"I think that I’ve learned some lessons over the last four years, and the most important lesson I’ve learned is that you can’t change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside. That’s how I got elected, and that’s how the big accomplishments like health care got done."

Mitt Romney and the Republican Party pounced on those comments. "The president today threw in the white flag of surrender again,” Romney argued. “He said he can’t change Washington from inside; he can only change it from outside. Well, we’re going to give him that chance in November. He’s going outside!”

Yet campaign rhetoric aside, Obama was admitting a simple truth about American politics at that Univision forum: The power to change policy comes from public opinion. And it also comes from the ballot box.

In other words, elections have consequences -- especially after more than 70 percent of Latinos backed Obama in the 2012 presidential election, up from 67 percent in 2008.

That explains why Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- who once championed comprehensive immigration reform but has opposed it ever since the '08 election -- is back on board.

"Elections, elections. The Republican Party is losing the support of our Hispanic citizens," McCain said at a news conference yesterday announcing his support of bipartisan principles to reform the nation's immigration system.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) put it another way. "The politics on this issue have been turned upside down," he said. "There is more political risk in opposing immigration reform rather than supporting it."

None of this is to say that immigration reform's passage through Congress is a sure thing. Already, opponents are asking that the Senate slow down consideration of any legislation. "No secret accord with profound consequences for this nation’s future can be rushed through. That means a full committee process and debate and amendments on the floor of the Senate," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said in a statement yesterday.

But it does point to how outside forces -- and elections -- can change politics, at least for a while, on issues like immigration and taxes.

Immigration takes center stage… But passage won’t be easy… Obama thanks Hillary Clinton… Rreading the 2016 tea leaves from the interview… Hagel and the outside groups trying to defeat his nomination… Breaking down the Chambliss and Harkin retirements… And McDonnell and Cuccinelli oppose Virginia’s electoral-vote change.

*** Immigration takes center stage: Exactly seven days since President Obama’s inauguration, a series of events this week suggests that immigration has the best shot at being the first big legislative action -- and potential battle -- of 2013 (outside of the budget, of course). Today, a bipartisan group of eight senators (Democrats Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Bob Menendez, and Republicans John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Jeff Flake) are laying out four agreed-on principles to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. Also today, at 11:00 am ET, several organizations pushing immigration reform are holding a press conference at the National Press Club to issue a “call to action” on the subject. And tomorrow, Obama heads to Las Vegas to deliver his own remarks on immigration. The bipartisan group of senators, in particular, is a big deal. Indeed, this appears to be the first time that McCain has signed on to a top Obama legislative priority since the presidential first took office. And here are their four principles: 1) create a “tough but fair path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants that’s contingent on border security; 2) reform the system in a way that helps build the economy; 3) establish an effective employment verification program; and 4) reform the system of admitting future workers. Five of the eight senators (Rubio, McCain, Schumer, Durbin, and Menendez) will appear together today in DC at 2:30 pm to officially unveil their agreement; the other three have scheduling conflicts in their home states.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., questions Senator John Kerry (Not Pictured) during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing on Kerry's nomination to be secretary of state, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 24, 2013.

*** But its passage won’t be easy: On paper, passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill should be more than doable. After all, it’s now in both parties’ interest to do so -- for Democrats, it’s delivering on a campaign promise; for Republicans, it’s to avoid again losing the Latino vote by a 71%-27% margin. But remember this: Nothing is ever easy in Washington. For one thing, the devil is in the details, even with these bipartisan principles. How do you create this “tough but fair path” to citizenship? What’s the punishment for undocumented immigrants? How long do these immigrants have to wait to become citizens (and potential voters)? The other obstacle to passage is the House of Representatives. Does Speaker John Boehner -- once again -- allow legislation that might not have the backing of a majority of his GOP caucus to reach the floor? That said, it was notable that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan on “Meet the Press” yesterday embraced Rubio’s work on immigration reform. “I support and agree with the principles that he laid out about earned legalization. Making sure that you're not rewarding people for having cut in line, but making sure that we can fix this problem.” Ryan added, “Look, immigration's a good thing.”

*** And selling it Republicans won’t be easy, either: The big challenge, in the short term, is going to be for McCain, Rubio, and Graham to sell this compromise as “not amnesty.” (And that’s exactly what Rubio has been doing in conservative-media circles in the past few weeks.) When you read the bipartisan agreement, there is a lot of detail and promise on this issue, including: making sure these folks pay back taxes and fines, making sure they are in the back of the line behind those folks playing by the rules now, and an agreement that these 11 million undocumented immigrants DON’T get a shot at citizenship until certain border security “metrics” are met. Of course, define “metrics” -- that’s among the detail devils.

*** Obama thanks Hillary: For those of you, like us, who followed every twist and turn during the 2008 presidential race, last night's joint Obama-Hillary Clinton interview on “60 Minutes” was extraordinary. And we understand that the interview was all Obama’s idea -- and it was more about thanking Clinton for being his secretary of state these past four years (and keeping the party united) than about 2016. Here’s a thought exercise: Imagine what Obama’s presidency would have been like had Clinton stayed in the U.S. Senate. During the tough times (health care, the debt-ceiling debate), everyone would have looked for any kind of daylight between the two politicians, and Hillary potentially launching a primary challenge would have been a constant story, even if she had no plans on such a move. But what’s been extraordinary is how loyal Obama and Clinton have been to each other. And this line from Clinton explaining why she accepted Obama’s offer to be secretary of state struck us: “I thought, ‘You know, if the roles had been reversed. And I had ended up winning. I would have desperately wanted him to be in my cabinet. So if I'm saying I would have wanted him to say yes to me, how am I going to justify saying no to my president?’ And it was a great decision, despite my hesitancy about it.”

*** Reading the 2016 tea leaves: Still, the interview did provide some tea leaves to read about 2016. After all, here was the president conducting his first joint media interview with someone other than his wife. It was an affirmation of Clinton’s work, especially after her contentious testimony last week on Capitol Hill. “Well, the main thing is I just wanted to have a chance to publicly say thank you, because I think Hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we've had,” Obama said. It was a reminder that Vice President Joe Biden isn’t the heir apparent, if Clinton decides she wants to run for president four years from now. And lastly, it was evidence that the Democratic Party -- at least right now -- is more united than ever. We were disappointed that so little time was devoted to some of the key foreign policy decisions this tandem made together, including the decision to oust Hosni Mubarak, among other issues.

*** Hagel and the outside groups trying to defeat his nomination: On Thursday at the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chuck Hagel has his confirmation hearing to be Obama’s next defense secretary. And yesterday, the New York Times noted that Hagel’s confirmation battle is the first to be fought in the Super PAC/post-Citizens United era. “The media campaign to scuttle Mr. Hagel’s appointment, unmatched in the annals of modern presidential cabinet appointments, reflects the continuing effects of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which loosened campaign finance restrictions and was a major reason for the record spending by outside groups in the 2012 election... While the campaign against Mr. Hagel, a Republican, is not expected to cost more than a few million dollars, it suggests that the operatives running the independent groups and the donors that finance them — many of whom are millionaires and billionaires with ideological drive and business agendas that did not go away after the election — are ready to fight again.”

*** Breaking down the Chambliss and Harkin retirements: In the past 72 hours, two U.S. senators -- Republican Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Democrat Tom Harkin of Iowa -- announced they wouldn’t be seeking re-election in 2014. That means we now have four retirements (John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Chambliss, and Harkin), and other ones potentially in the works (Frank Lautenberg, Tim Johnson, maybe Thad Cochran or Mike Enzi). Politically, perhaps the most significant story we’ll be following after these retirements is to see how the GOP primaries in Georgia and Iowa play out (West Virginia, too, for that matter). Do Republicans coalesce around the more electable candidate, or does the most conservative candidate win? One other thing to watch: Chambliss has the ability to be a wild card on legislation -- his retirement statement criticized both Obama and Congress -- and Harkin might be a little more free to vote on contentious legislation (like gun control) than he would have if running for re-election next year.

*** Obama’s day: Besides all of today’s immigration news, President Obama and Vice President Biden are holding a meeting this morning with police chiefs from around the country -- including from Aurora, CO, Oak Creek, WI, and Newtown, CT -- to discuss reducing gun violence. Also today, at 1:40 pm ET, Obama will welcome the Miami Heat to the White House to celebrate their NBA championship from last season.

*** McDonnell, Cuccinelli oppose electoral-vote change: Lastly, both Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) and GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli have come out in opposition of the Republican effort in the state to change how Virginia’s electoral votes are awarded. Folks, the effort in Virginia is dead. The question is whether Republicans in other states -- like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- are still thinking about pursuing the change. As Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker told Newsmax, per NBC's Sarah Blackwill: “It's an interesting idea. I haven't committed one way or the other to it. For me, and I think any other state considering this, you should really look at not just the short-term but the long-term implications. Is it better or worse for the electorate?”

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

The president is taking his second-term agenda on the road next week. 

However, the topic of Tuesday’s trip is immigration and not gun control. While event details are still being sorted out, the White House has confirmed that “the president will be traveling to Nevada on Tuesday to redouble the Administration's efforts to work with Congress to fix the broken immigration system this year.”

This comes after an unannounced meeting at the White House with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Friday morning. Members of the caucus and the White House expressed a “sense of urgency” when it came to tackling the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. 

Since his re-election, President Obama has said that he would attempt to tackle the issue in his second term and the topic was given prominence by being included in his inaugural address. 

“Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity,” he said Monday.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), who has been an outspoken supporter of the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform said after the meeting, “We all need to work together -- the president and Congress, Republicans and Democrats -- to get something done right away."

In an interview late last year, House Speaker John Boehner said, “I think a comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I’m confident that the president, myself, others, can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.”

But while there has been acknowledgement and even some optimism on both sides of the aisle that there needs to be some type of reform to the country’s immigration system, it is still unclear how any kind of large-scale reform would move through Congress, what the details would be, and who would spearhead it.

President Obama's push for comprehensive immigration reform comes after his sweeping advantage with Latinos in his re-election. Obama won 71 percent of Latinos, up from 67% in 2008. They made up 10 percent of the electorate, up from 9 percent in 2008, which underperforms their population nationally -- 16 percent, according to the U.S. Census.

In Nevada, those shares are even higher. Obama won 74 percent of Hispanics in Nevada, and made up 19 percent of the electorate (but are 27 percent of the overall population). They were crucial in helping Obama to a 52-46% win in the Silver State, as well as victories in Colorado, New Mexico, and Florida. 

President Barack Obama ratcheted up pressure on congressional Republicans to authorize an increase in the nation’s debt limit, warning of potentially catastrophic results for many Americans and the overall economy if the U.S. were to default on its obligations.

“The issue here is whether or not America pays its bills,” Obama said at a press conference on Monday, the last of his first term in office. “We are not a deadbeat nation.”

Jason Reed / Reuters

President Barack Obama is reflected in a mirror as he speaks during a news conference in the East Room of the White House, Jan. 14, 2013.

Anticipating a politically bruising fight this spring with the GOP – members of which in Congress have increasingly and openly discussed the prospect of refusing to raise the debt ceiling or allowing a government shutdown – Obama urged lawmakers to avoid using the vote over the debt limit as a point of leverage.

And the president sought to frame the risks of default in stark terms. He warned markets would go “haywire” if Congress would not act; Obama said that interest rates would rise, and checks to Social Security beneficiaries and military veterans would cease.

Related: Obama says he'll 'vigorously' pursue 'meaningful' assault weapons ban

But as some Democrats urge the administration to consider options to sidestep Congress and assert the authority to unilaterally authorize more borrowing, Obama all but ruled out these sorts of “Plan B” options.

“If the House and the Senate wants to give me the authority so they don’t have to take these tough votes… I’m happy to take it,” he said. But, Obama added: “There are no magic tricks here, no loopholes. There’s no easy way out.”

All but ruling out these fallback maneuvers, Obama’s pronouncement all but ensures another incident of brinksmanship versus Republicans in Congress.

The past two years of Obama’s presidency were marked by showdowns with House Republicans on taxes and spending that turned acrimonious and extended in most cases to the last possible minute. Fights over extending government funding and raising the nation’s debt limit took the government to the verge of shutdown and default, respectively, in 2011. And the unresolved issues from those debates culminated in the “fiscal cliff” showdown at the end of last year.

Though Republicans eventually acceded to Obama’s demand that taxes be allowed to rise on the wealthiest Americans, something that was passed with mostly Democratic votes, the fiscal cliff agreement pushed back a series of automatic spending cuts for two months. As a result, the deadline at which Congress must authorize the government to borrow more basically overlaps with the deadline at which the government runs out of money for its day-to-day operations. Republicans have argued that tax rates are now settled, and have suggested they intend to use those rapidly-approaching deadlines to extract new spending cuts and entitlement reforms that were absent from the New Year’s deal to handle the tax component of the fiscal cliff.

But these battles could exhaust much of the political capital won by Obama during his re-election last November. The president will formally be sworn into his second term on Sunday. And while planning for that second term is well underway, top priorities like confirming new cabinet secretaries, reforming the nation’s immigration system and passing new measures to address gun violence might be imperiled by a protracted and bloody fight with Republicans over spending.

Obama said that he would detail one of those initiatives, his administration’s proposals to curb gun violence, later this week. But even as the president renewed his support for stricter magazine regulations and tighter background checks – along with a ban on assault weapons – Obama nodded to the difficulty in passing those proposals.

“Will all of them get through this Congress? I don't know,” he said.

Slideshow: Obama's first four years in office   

For their part, Republicans argue that Obama and his administration have been largely unserious about actually addressing spending – the primary cause of the mounting national debt, in the GOP’s view. Republicans cite the president’s request for more infrastructure spending as part of his fiscal cliff negotiations as indicative of the White House’s disinterest in actually cutting spending.

“The president and his allies need to get serious about spending, and the debt-limit debate is the perfect time for it,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement. 

In a statement following the president’s press conference, House Speaker John Boehner said, “The consequences of failing to increase the debt ceiling are real, but so too are the consequences of allowing our spending problem to go unresolved. Without meaningful action, the debt will continue to act as an anchor on our economy, costing American jobs and endangering our children's future."

Recommended: Gun debate gets sustained run for a change

But much of Obama’s remarks on Monday were directed toward framing the political terms of that debate, which might dictate the outcome of these impending fights as much as ideological motives.

“It would be a self-inflicted wound on the economy. It would slow down our growth, might tip us into recession. And ironically it would probably increase our deficit,” Obama said of the risk of default. “So to even entertain the idea of this happening, of the United States of America not paying its bills, is irresponsible. It's absurd.”

While all eyes remain fixated on the nation’s budget woes and the so-called fiscal cliff negotiations, President Barack Obama told NBC News on Sunday that he has more ambitious goals in mind for his second term.

In an exclusive interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Obama said that there are several major issues sitting atop his agenda for the next four years, including immigration, economic growth, energy issues, the environment, and gun violence.

The president discussed efforts to address gun violence and immigration with particular urgency on Sunday.

Read the full transcript

"I've said that fixing our broken immigration system is a top priority," he said. "I will introduce legislation in the first year to get that done. I think we have talked about it long enough."

And in the aftermath of December's deadly elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., the president vowed to put his "full weight" behind the gun violence recommendations he asked Vice President Joe Biden to generate.

Recommended: Obama on Benghazi: 'This was a huge problem'

Obama said that battle would also be fought during the first year of his second term, the success of which the president suggested would hinge upon just how searing the deadly shooting was to the public psyche.

"Will there be resistance? Absolutely there will be resistance," the president told NBC's David Gregory. "And the question then becomes whether we are actually shook up enough by what happened here that it does not just become another one of these routine episodes where it gets a lot of attention for a couple of weeks and then it drifts away. It certainly won't feel like that to me.  This is something that was the worst day of my presidency. And it's not something that I want to see repeated."

Obama also said he was "skeptical" of the National Rifle Association's proposal to put an armed guard in every school, though he said he would not "prejudge" any proposals to address mass shooting events.

Those items alone might constitute an ambitious agenda for a second-term president, who, history suggests, has a limited timetable to accomplish top goals before the waning powers of a lame-duck presidency set in.

But Obama added to that list two other priorities which eluded him in his first term. He said energy and the environment would be a "third thing" on his second term agenda, for instance.

"We've got a huge opportunity around energy. We are producing more energy and America can become an energy exporter," the president said. "How do we do that in a way that also deals with some of the environmental challenges that we have at the same time?"

The president acknowledged, though, that his top priority is preventing automatic tax hikes on all Americans come Jan. 1 as part of the fiscal cliff. That battle has been playing out vividly in Washington during the final days of 2012, and directly involves the fourth priority as described by Obama: stabilizing and growing the economy.

"Part of that is deficit reduction. Part of it is also making sure that we're investing, for example, in rebuilding our infrastructure, which is broken," he said, arguing that the combination of spending cuts elsewhere and new investments would help stabilize the economy.

But Obama's ability to accomplish those four priorities — and then some — could be sapped by the protracted fiscal cliff battle, or any of the other legislative battles he might encounter along the way.

Related: Obama: GOP's insistence on halting tax hikes for the wealthy is stopping fiscal cliff deal

Immigration reform, for instance, had failed to advance over the objections of Republicans during Obama's first term. He said during the campaign that he would seek comprehensive reforms again in his second term, predicting that, if Republicans fared poorly enough with Hispanic voters during the election, they might relent in their opposition to an immigration bill.

Pete Souza / White House Photo

President Barack Obama is interviewed by David Gregory of NBC's "Meet The Press" in the Blue Room of the White House, Dec. 29, 2012. (Official White House photo by Pete Souza)

In fact, the GOP did not fare particularly well with the increasingly important bloc of Latino voters, but the question of whether they would relent on immigration reform was an untested proposition.

Other tough battles that could inhibit these goals include pending Cabinet confirmations. While Obama has nominated a new secretary of state — Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry — he denied having settled upon former Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., as his new secretary of defense. But Obama also shielded Hagel, reportedly a front-runner for the defense gig, by saying he sees nothing in the former senator's record as disqualifying.

And there were other second term commitments Obama resisted; he would not commit to significant reforms to entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security during the first year of his second term, for instance.

At several points in his "Meet the Press" appearance, Obama referenced President Abraham Lincoln and the recently-released film about Lincoln's pursuit of the 13th Amendment, and the trade-offs needed to achieve that goal. Obama invoked that example on both gun control and the fiscal cliff, saying that while he was not comparing himself to Lincoln, that movie offered a lesson in the occasional ugliness of political leadership.

"A, I never compare myself to Lincoln and, B, obviously the magnitude of the issues are quite different from the Civil War and slavery," he said. "The point, though, is democracy's always been messy. And we're a big, diverse country that is constantly sort of arguing about all kinds of stuff.  But eventually we do the right thing."

As President Obama prepares for his second term, NBC's Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro discuss the legislation that may define his next four years in office: immigration reform.

Thanks Maxx the Moocher for the question!

Video edited by NBC's Matt Loffman.

TRANSCRIPT:
MARK MURRAY: Domenico, we have another Inside the Boiler Room questions and this actually comes from Maxx the Moocher, I think this is Maxx's first question to us, so welcome Maxx. Maxx asks, "What will be the President's "signature" piece of legislation for a second term?"

DOMENICO MONTANARO: Well we know in the first term it was health care, or he would like it to be health care. I think that once we get past the fiscal cliff
stuff the biggest piece of legislation we are going to see is going to be on immigration reform. I really think that Republicans more so than their stepping away from a pledge on Grover Norquist which is pretty minor to be honest. You've heard much more-- you have seen much more of a thaw on immigration reform after they saw those demographic numbers and that their pollsters were wrong about their assumptions that were going to be made, and that the Census data in fact shows Latinos actually under performing what their percentages, they make up almost 17 percent, only 10 percent showed up at the polls this time around. That is only going to grow. Republicans see that, they know that is real and they have got to do something about that problem.

MARK MURRAY: Domenico, I agree with you that it would be comprehensive immigration reform particularly in that it is his second term. You know we have talked about before that President Obama took a lot of heat during the presidential campaign for saying that change comes from the outside not from the inside. But comprehensive immigration reform would actually be a key example of change coming from the outside because Obama is pointing to the exit polls and saying, 'Look, 71% of the Latino voters voted for me. Republicans, if you guys want to start winning back Latinos you guys have to cut a deal with my on comp. immigration reform and change the rhetoric. So I think that is an interesting dynamic. And then if we take a step back and look at if President Obama is able to get immigration reform done, if there is some type of a budget deal, of course that again is going to be a big question --

DOMENICO MONTANARO: --This stuff always seems tougher than even some of these other issues.

MARK MURRAY: Those would be two very big domestic achievements for a second term. More than you usually see in most second term presidencies just because you are a lame duck and it is harder to get things done domestically. But if you have those two things, combine it with health care, combine it with Wall Street reform, combine it also with that new START treaty with Russia, that is really a very big--

DOMENICO MONTANARO: --you talk about DOMA, some of those other...

MARK MURRAY: Right. Big accomplishments that you could actually probably rival to FDR or Lyndon Johnson.

DOMENICO MONTANARO: Interesting. I do think immigration reform and health care are humongous pieces of legislation if they were to get done. It is hard to see what else there would be a push on, they've largely gone around Congress on education so I don't think they are necessarily going to go a route where they are going to try to reauthorize a No Child Left Behind or something. I think they are very happy doing that with Arne Duncan and through some of the more administrative and executive means. It is really hard to see what else there would be. Obviously on foreign policy they have a lot to manage when it comes to the war in Afghanistan and needing to wind that down in 2014, so I think that is going to be a big part of what happens in that second lame duck session.

MARK MURRAY: Also, don't lose sight on the Supreme Court. That is actually sometimes how a president has the most lasting effect.

DOMENICO MONTANARO: And really put their stamp.

MARK MURRAY: Right, and President Obama has the potential in the next four years to appoint maybe one, two or three Supreme Court justices potentially changing the balance of political power.

DOMENICO MONTANARO: It is really something and it is why the 2012 election was such an important one.

MARK MURRAY: Thanks Maxx for the question.

Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama speaks during a press conference Nov.14, 2012 in the East Room of the White House.

Updated 2:44 p.m. ET - President Barack Obama claimed a broad mandate for his vision on taxes at his first news conference since being re-elected, demanding that his negotiations with Congress yield a specific plan that results in a higher tax burden for the wealthiest Americans.

Speaking Wednesday at the White House, the president said that his recently-concluded campaign against Republican nominee Mitt Romney sent a "very clear message" as to which tax plan Americans prefer. Citing his decisive victory last Tuesday, Obama vowed to stand firm on asking the wealthy to shoulder a greater share of the tax burden.

"There is a package to be shaped, and I'm confident that parties -- folks of goodwill in both parties can make that happen," Obama said. "But what I'm not going to do is to extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent that we can't afford and, according to economists, will have the least positive impact on our economy."

Related - Obama: 'No evidence' of national security harm in Petraeus scandal

Republicans on Capitol Hill have said since the election that they are open to increased revenue by way of tax reform linked with entitlement reform. But Obama suggested that the GOP's version of tax reform -- cementing or lowering existing rates, combined with the elimination of certain loopholes -- would not be sufficient.

"It's very difficult to see how you make up that trillion dollars -- if we're serious about deficit reduction -- just by closing loopholes and deductions," the president said. "The math tends not to work."

He later added, in a snipe at Republican thinking on taxes: "What I will not do is to have a process that is vague, that says we're gonna sorta, kinda raise revenue through dynamic scoring or closing loopholes that have not been identified."

The expiring 2001 Bush tax cuts, which Obama extended for two years in 2010, are half of the looming "fiscal cliff," the combination of the end of those tax cuts with a series of automatic spending cuts set to begin in 2013, which economists warn could imperil the recovery. The simultaneous debates on taxes and spending are, generally speaking, a byproduct of congressional gridlock on those issues for the better part of the last two years.

The press conference, Obama's first formal meeting with the Washington press corps since the summer, marked his most direct assertion of a second term agenda since winning re-election. He spoke of the need to address taxes and spending, as well as immigration, and he forcefully defended his ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, from Capitol Hill Republicans who argue Rice erred in responding to the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. 

Rice is thought to be a leading contender to succeed Hillary Clinton as leader of the State Department, though Obama said he had made no determination as to a nominee for that role. But he forcefully rebuffed a small chorus of Senate Republicans, lead by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who have vowed to block Rice from that job should he win the nomination. 

"If Senator McCain and Senator Graham, and others want to go after somebody? They should go after me," a blunt Obama said. "When they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me."

But the fiscal cliff is most likely to consume much of the political oxygen in Washington in the coming weeks and months, particularly as the specter of tax hikes loom on Jan. 1. He renewed his demand that Congress send him a bill extending existing tax rates for all but the top income bracket, something which Republicans have refused to do for the better part of this year for fear of losing a bargaining position.

The president claimed a broader mandate on other domestic issues, too. He said that his staff had already begun conversations with lawmakers in pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform, a priority that had eluded his administration -- to the consternation of Latino voters -- during his first term.

"My expectation is that we get a bill introduced and we begin the process in Congress very soon after my inauguration," Obama said.

At the same time, the president suggested some priorities from his first term -- such as legislation to address the impact of climate change -- would take a backseat to other issues at the outset of his second term.

"I don't know what either Democrats or Republicans are prepared to do at this point," he said, noting that regional differences between lawmakers have just as often scuttled a wide-ranging deal on climate legislation as partisan differences. He furthermore said that economic and jobs growth were his foremost priority, and that he wouldn't support a climate deal that inhibited either.

President Barack Obama suggested he'll be able to achieve a major fiscal reform deal as well as comprehensive immigration reform in his second term, according to his off-the-record conversation with the Des Moines Register.

The White House reversed course on insisting that the president's conversation on Tuesday with the editor and the publisher of the Iowa paper remain off-the-record and allowed the paper to publish a transcript of the conversation.

Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama chats with well-wishers October 24, 2012 upon arrival at Quad Cities International Airport in Moline, Illinois.

In the conversation, the president asserted he would be able to get to some unfinished business from his first term if he's elected to a second, while simultaneously arguing that Republican nominee Mitt Romney would have a difficult time meeting all of his commitments.

"It will probably be messy. It won’t be pleasant. But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I’ve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time," Obama told the Iowa paper of the upcoming "fiscal cliff," which Obama said he expected to dominate the first six months of next year.

The fiscal cliff refers to the combination of automatic spending cuts -- particularly to the defense budget -- and tax hikes set to take place on Jan. 1, barring action by Congress. The fiscal cliff is largely the byproduct of legislative stalemate over the past two years, and economists generally agree their combined effect would be disastrous for the U.S. economy.

Obama suggested his grand bargain would offer "$2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending," which he said "credibly" fits within the parameters of the bipartisan, Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission Obama had organized but whose recommendations the president declined to endorse.

The president also suggested immigration reform might come more easily during the next four years, precisely because of the rhetoric Romney and other Republicans had used on the issue.

Obama said:

The second thing I’m confident we’ll get done next year is immigration reform. And since this is off the record, I will just be very blunt. Should I win a second term, a big reason I will win a second term is because the Republican nominee and the Republican Party have so alienated the fastest-growing demographic group in the country, the Latino community. And this is a relatively new phenomenon. George Bush and Karl Rove were smart enough to understand the changing nature of America. And so I am fairly confident that they’re going to have a deep interest in getting that done. And I want to get it done because it’s the right thing to do and I've cared about this ever since I ran back in 2008.

Romney had run to the right of his challengers on the issue of immigration during this year's Republican primary, which contributed to the 45-point deficit versus Obama among Latino voters from which Romney now suffers. The GOP nominee has sought to stoke Latino disappointment in Obama's failure to achieve comprehensive immigration reform, and Romney has vowed to seek immigration reform during his first year, if elected. But Romney hasn't specified the contours of his immigration proposals.

Obama also argued to the Des Moines Register that Romney would have a tough time even reaching those proposals, since he'd be forced to reckon with politically bloody battles over repealing Obama's health reform or Wall Street reform laws, and would almost certainly have to propose a variation of the fiscally conservative budgets authored by his running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan.

Obama said:

And the problem you’ve seen in this campaign is he’s made commitments -- his first day he’s got to introduce a bill to repeal Obamacare. And that's a commitment he cannot back off of. That is a huge, messy fight. His first day in office, he has to make some commitments in rolling back things like the Consumer Finance Protection Board we put in place on Wall Street reform. His budget -- the Ryan budget -- there’s no way that, if he’s president, he can avoid having a showdown on a budget that his running mate introduced, or a variation of it, because he’s committed to cutting spending by 20 percent across the board on discretionary and increasing defense spending by $2 trillion.

The Des Moines Register, one of the most influential papers in Iowa, a battleground state worth six electoral votes on Nov. 6, will publish its endorsement on Saturday evening.