Conservative firebrand Ted Cruz, the Texas senator whose service in office is just four months long, is considering a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, according to a report on Wednesday by National Review.

The Texas Republican has quickly won the fervent support of grassroots conservatives since his election last November by breaking with Senate convention to aggressively challenge Democrats – and some Republicans, too. Citing anonymous sources, the National Review article suggested Cruz might look to quickly capitalize on his newfound fame, and rally conservatives behind his candidacy.

But there are significant barriers to Cruz winning the GOP nod in 2016, let alone winning the White House. Here are a few of them:

Mark Wilson / Getty Images file photo

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas

Cruz would face tough conservative competition
While Cruz has charmed figures ranging from conservative bloggers to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, he could encounter a Republican primary field that would hardly cede the most conservative bloc within the GOP to Cruz. 

It’s easy to conceive of a series of Republican presidential hopefuls – Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (and possibly more) – vying for the same segment of the Republican primary vote as Cruz. Any one of those candidates will almost encounter difficulty in harnessing the political power of the Tea Party, a movement that has never been particularly well-known for acting in concert.

Fantasy vs. reality
If Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s bid for the Republican nomination in 2012 taught political observers anything, it’s that being a potential candidate is always easier to execute than being an actual candidate.

Conservatives, searching for an alternative to the establishment-backed favorite, Mitt Romney, practically begged Perry to make a late entry into the primary. They extolled his conservatism and the positive jobs situation in Texas, arguing that his record, combined with a top-notch team of consultants, would make Perry the new favorite for the GOP nomination.

Of course, things didn’t turn out that way. Perry withered under the national spotlight and the scrutiny of rival Republican candidates. Recent history is littered with examples of similar primary candidates, like Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark in 2004, and former Sen. Fred Thompson’s foray into the GOP primary of 2008. Their candidacies fizzled after having won broad acclaim at their outset.

Cruz would almost certainly face stiff opposition in a Republican primary that could expose any of his flaws as a politician. Wednesday’s National Review article cited Cruz’s experience as an award-winning debater, but his performances in those contests have never been filtered through the prism of rival campaigns or the national media.

The establishment would strike back
Cruz’s path to the GOP nomination would almost certainly rely on an outside strategy in which he courts conservative activists and rails against the party establishment in Washington. But would the D.C. establishment necessarily take that kind of criticism while sitting down?

In 2012, the GOP establishment quickly rallied around Romney, if only after it became apparent that there would be no other serious contenders for the presidency available. And when it seemed as though the more conservative Rick Santorum might emerge to dethrone Romney during the primaries, there were serious rumblings that GOP money men might scramble to find an alternative candidate who they regarded as more formidable versus President Barack Obama in the general election.

Given Cruz’s conservatism, it isn’t tough to imagine the GOP establishment rallying around a candidate perceived as more electable to if a Cruz candidacy  came too close to victory.

It doesn’t help Cruz that he’s forged few alliances during his short time in the nation’s capital. He most recently derided many of his congressional colleagues as “squishes,” and spoke publicly about internal Republican debates that were supposed to remain confidential. Cruz has worked with a few fellow conservatives, but two of them – Paul and Rubio – could end up being rival candidates for the GOP nomination in 2016.

Oh, Canada!
The National Review article acknowledges that Cruz advisers are prepared for a legal challenge to his eligibility to serve as president, reminiscent of the “birther” attacks conservatives had leveled against Obama for much of his first term. 

At issue is Cruz’s birthplace. He was born in Calgary, Canada, the son of a Cuban refugee father and a U.S. citizen mother. Having been born outside the continental U.S., he would have to address questions about whether he is a “natural born” U.S. citizen, which the Constitution requires of a prospective president.

But even if Cruz is able to offer up all the evidence in the world of his eligibility, it’s not tough to imagine Democratic candidates and super PACs relishing in the chance to give a Republican his comeuppance, and turn the “birther” phenomenon back against a GOP hopeful. 

He’s barely a blip in the polls right now
Cruz could certainly raise his national profile in the next few years, but the Texas senator hasn’t yet registered as a contender for the GOP nomination in any credible poll testing the 2016 field.

A Quinnipiac University poll at the beginning of last month found that Rubio was the slight, early favorite among Republican primary voters; 19 percent of them said they would favor the Florida senator as their nominee in 2016. And while other contenders like Paul, Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell all registered some level of support, Cruz did not.

Cruz still faces the challenge of building his reputation outside of conservative, Washington-focused circles. But he still has plenty of upside, too; having been a figure on the national stage for such a short period of time, Cruz’s name ID among primary voters has virtually nowhere to go but up.

This story was originally published on Wed May 1, 2013 12:42 PM EDT

Frank Thorp / NBC News

Erica Lafferty, daughter of Sandyh Hook Elementary School victim Dawn Hochsprung, attends a town hall meeting with Senator Kelly Ayotte in Warren, N.H., on Tuesday.

WARREN, N.H. – Bringing the national gun debate to a tiny New England town on Tuesday, the daughter of the slain principal of Sandy Hook Elementary confronted Sen. Kelly Ayotte at the lawmaker’s first town hall meeting since she voted against expanded background checks on all commercial gun sales.

Erica Lafferty, who first met with the Republican senator in Washington earlier this month after she opposed the compromise negotiated by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., was visibly angry as she spoke into the microphone at the meeting, which drew more than 100 people who came to condemn or support Ayotte’s vote.

"You had mentioned that day the burden on owners of gun stores that the expanded background checks would harm. I am just wondering why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the halls of her elementary school isn't more important than that," said Lafferty, whose mother Dawn Hochsprung was gunned down by Newtown shooter Adam Lanza.

Ayotte responded at the Warren, N.H., meeting: "Erica, I, certainly let me just say -- I'm obviously so sorry."

"And, um, I think that ultimately when we look at what happened in Sandy Hook, I understand that's what drove this whole discussion -- all of us want to make sure that doesn't happen again," Ayotte said.

More tension followed at a larger event in Tilton, N.H., later in the day.

"Let the senator finish please!" said the moderator at the Tilton event as gun control advocates shouted from the crowd and waved signs which said "demand action to end gun violence," from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gun control advocacy group.

Ayotte is one of a handful of senators -- others include Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Dean Heller, R-Nev., Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., and Max Baucus, D-Mont. -- who are facing withering criticism from both sides of the debate.

Gun control proponents want the Senate to reconsider new gun laws, and pro-gun rights groups want the issue kept off the table. And they’re using ads, lobbying, and organizing at events like Ayotte’s town halls to get their points across.

Keeping center stage are the Newtown families, many of whom were on Capitol Hill for the failed gun vote, who have pledged to continue the fight for new regulations on firearms.

The senator's staff were prepared for the onslaught. Ayotte defended her vote at the top of her remarks in both towns, pointing to her background as a prosecutor. “Where we are right now, my focus has been on wanting to improve our current background check system,” she said. “Frankly, we have fallen down on actually prosecuting gun crimes and violations of our current background check system.”

She said that addressing mental health and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill were important going forward.

Outside groups are focusing on Ayotte and others from swing states where polls show background checks are popular. From the TV and radio ads to these small events, both sides are mobilizing like it's a political campaign --  Bloomberg's group circulated printed signs reading "#ShameOnYou" at both town meetings, while Ayotte supporters held the kind of mass-hand-drawn signs often spotted at presidential events.

Poll data is also a focus -- and a point of contention. Some automated polls, which NBC News does not rely on, have shown surveys claiming dropping numbers for people who voted against expanding background checks.

But in the Granite State, Ayotte's supporters are pointing to a recent survey from the University of New Hampshire that shows just the opposite: high approval ratings in the wake of the vote.

Some Republican defenders in the state say that the controversy isn't real and say it won't matter in 2016, when Ayotte is up for reelection to the Senate.

"To the extent it's a controversial issue it's a manufactured one," said Fergus Cullen, a former chairman of the state Republican Party.

There's evidence to support the claim that some groups are using the issue to raise their profiles. In a yard nearby the Warren event, a local resident had placed a large, staked lawn sign with the handwritten message, "Thank You Senator Ayotte." Atop one corner was the Tea Party's preferred flag, the yellow snake with the words "Don't Tread On Me."

But others say it was a difficult decision that could have repercussions down the road.

"I think it was a tough vote. And it was a principled vote," said Jim Merrill, a longtime New Hampshire Republican strategist who worked on Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. "And I think she understood that there would be some blowback for it. Let's just remember it wasn't just Republicans who voted against it."

Ayotte is clearly feeling the pressure, refusing to answer questions from national reporters at the meetings. Aides working on the gun issue on Capitol Hill say she's made it clear that she doesn't want to vote on it again any time soon.

And the atmosphere back home was a big change from Ayotte's typical town meetings -- generally staid affairs that begin with a PowerPoint presentation on the budget. (She does a lot of them, as she's pledged to hold a town hall in each New Hampshire county.)

She stuck with the PowerPoint at Tuesday's meetings, but this time, the opening slides had statistics defending her gun vote.

Alex Wong / Getty Images

Members of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America enter the office of Sen. Kelly Ayotte on April 17 in Washington, D.C.

At town halls, Ayotte typically receives notecards with the name of each questioner and their pre-submitted topic of interest. A selected moderator chooses and reads them. This time, though, that caused a stir. Right before Erica Lafferty spoke in Warren, Eric Knuffke, of Wentworth, N.H., stood and demanded to be allowed a question.

"You can't deny people the right to speak because they haven't filled out a card. I have a question," Knuffke shouted. Supporters of Ayotte shouted back at him.

As Knuffke yelled, Lafferty was sitting in the front row with her hand raised.

"Let Erica speak," said one attendee. "There's a Sandy Hook survivor here," said another.

She had submitted a question in the pile, and Ayotte made sure to let her speak. Lafferty thanked Ayotte for meeting with her the day after senators took the vote on the Manchin-Toomey before challenging her for her vote. After her exchange with Ayotte, Lafferty stood and stormed out of the town hall.

Asked afterward why she had done so, Lafferty said: "I had had enough." 

 NBC's Frank Thorp contributed to this report. 

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:05 PM EDT

The pro-gun control group founded by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and her husband, Mark Kelly, launched new radio ads Wednesday against two GOP senators who voted last week to block legislation expanding background checks for gun sales.

Americans for Responsible Solutions (ARS), the group founded by Giffords and her husband, unveiled new ads that accuse Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., of opposing "common sense" measures to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals."

The ads are significant because they represent the first real effort by a pro-gun control group to inflict some measure of political damage against its detractors following last week's bipartisan vote to block a bipartisan compromise on background checks from moving forward. ARS said it had received over 24,000 donations since the Senate vote, and would be introducing additional targets of advertising later this week.

McConnell is up for re-election in 2014, but in Republican-leaning Kentucky; he hasn't yet attracted a major Democratic opponent. Ayotte doesn't face re-election until 2016, though her race in swing-state New Hampshire will be much tougher.

Proponents of stricter gun laws are counting on public opinion -- which, right now, largely favors expanded background checks for gun sales -- to persist, and allow them to inflict some political damage on those senators who blocked the legislation.

Other groups, like Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which is backed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have also vowed political retribution for lawmakers who oppose tighter gun measures.

To that end, a new Pew Research Center/Washington Post poll released Wednesday found that 47 percent of Americans were either "disappointed" or "angry" at last week's Senate vote; 39 percent said they were "relieved" or "very happy" at the largely-GOP push to block the background checks legislation.

That poll was conducted April 18-21, and has a 3.7 percent margin of error.

This story was originally published on Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:04 AM EDT

Although Washington’s battle over gun control ground to a sudden halt earlier this month, proponents of overhaul legislation say the fight is far from over. But while the political ground may have shifted, there is no denying the massive sway of the National Rifle Association and the perception that the window of opportunity to strengthen gun laws in the wake of the Newtown shootings has closed.

Following the Senate's vote to block consideration of legislation to expand background checks to gun sales online and at shows, the NRA and its pro-gun allies seem as powerful as ever, especially among Republicans and Democrats representing conservative-leaning states.

President Barack Obama had embraced gun control as a centerpiece of his second-term agenda following December's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, but the NRA was still able to beat back a bipartisan proposal on background checks that was watered down considerably from the types of reforms the White House first espoused.

But supporters of new gun laws assert that their failure last week was only temporary, and that they can still prevail in the long term.

"They've [the NRA] been around since 1871, and virtually unopposed for a generation. You don't dislodge that kind of influential force very quickly," said Mark Glaze, the director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the pro-gun control group founded and funded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

"The gun lobby's been around for a very long time, and it's going to take members of Congress a long time to learn that the ground has shifted under them," Glaze added.

Indeed, public opinion appears to be on the administration's side. Fifty-five percent of Americans said in April's NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that they support tougher gun laws -- roughly the same number who expressed a similar sentiment in the weeks following Newtown.

But after the NRA's victory last week, in which the Senate fell six votes short of advancing a bipartisan compromise on background checks, political observers ask the inevitable question: If not now, then when?

The administration's gun proposals were far less robust than the package Obama debuted before his State of the Union address. Democrats have all but abandoned efforts to outlaw high-capacity ammunition clips and reinstate a ban on assault weapons, votes on each of which failed last week in the Senate.

Related: Toomey's background check plan shy of 60 votes

Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., had crafted a scaled-back measure to expand background checks, but they struggled to unite even Democrats -- especially those from red states who face re-election next fall -- behind the effort. Before last week's vote, victims of gun violence including former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and the families of the Newtown shooting victims swarmed Capitol Hill in an all-out lobbying blitz. And Bloomberg's group launched considerable advertising efforts in recent weeks to combat the NRA's influence.

But even under these relatively promising (political) conditions, Obama and gun control advocates fell short – though their “failure” was in part due to Republican dissenters’ demand that each proposal clear a filibuster-proof, 60-vote threshold. (Otherwise, Manchin-Toomey would have passed with 54 votes.)

The gun bill’s inability to advance is a testament to the enduring influence of the NRA, even though the gun-rights group has faced some ridicule for the far-from-polished performance of its executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, in opposing any new gun control initiative.

LaPierre has blamed violent video games and rap music -- both cultural cues from the 1990s -- as much as anything for recent incidents of gun violence. And his far from serious counter proposal to the administration has been to place an armed security guard in every school in America.

And yet, few GOP and red-state senators have been willing to cross the NRA, which has doggedly opposed expanding background checks (despite having backed the exact same proposals over a decade ago). Even if the Senate legislation were to muster enough support for passage, it is more difficult to conceive of how it would manage to survive in the Republican-held House of Representatives.

And while proponents of stricter gun laws privately say they never expected to win a renewed ban on assault weapons or limits on magazine capacity, the defeat of even the background checks bill registered as a disappointment. But those same proponents argue that they’re in gear for a long battle, and won’t give up their fight.

“There's no question it's going to take some time to turn this around, and the electoral part is some of the mix. We'll see how November 2014 goes,” Glaze said. “We will do whatever’s necessary.”

And already, the Democratic donor class has taken note.

Take, for instance, former White House chief of staff Bill Daley’s op-ed on Monday in the Washington Post, in which he excoriated Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., of betraying him on the issue of guns.

“So I’ll have some advice for my friends in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles: Just say no to the Democrats who said no on background checks,” Daley wrote. 

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 23, 2013 3:53 AM EDT

With the defeat of gun control legislation in the Senate and prospects for a grand bargain on the budget an iffy prospect at best, President Barack Obama's second-term agenda is facing an inflection point on another of his top priorities -- immigration reform.

The carefully choreographed, broad bipartisan agreement by the Senate's so-called "Gang of Eight" has been months in the making, and there are fresh concerns about its course forward in the wake of last week's terror attacks in Boston.

The marathon bombings have at least partly refocused the debate on the risk of would-be terrorists entering the United States. On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on border security, with fresh questions being asked about who is allowed into the country and why.

The same committee produced fireworks during a Monday hearing, when the panel's chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., suggested that some unnamed opponents of the bipartisan immigration overhaul are using the Boston attack to sidetrack the bill. 

"Let no one be so cruel as to try to use the heinous acts of these two young men last week to derail the dreams and futures of millions of hard-working people," Leahy said.  

At one point in the hearing, ranking Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa reacted angrily to what he thought were suggestions from Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., that he might be using the Boston bombings to try to delay or kill the bill.

Grassley snapped, "I never said that," before being reassured the comment was not directed at him.

Reform opponents have argued that the Boston attack is one reason to at least slow down the process, but the overall impact on immigration remains uncertain.  

Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky voiced such concerns in a letter to Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, saying that Congress should not proceed with the bill "until we understand the specific failures of our immigration system."  

Senate aides say privately that it’s too early to tell how the aftermath of the bombings will affect pending legislation on Capitol Hill.

There’s likely to be some focus on why the FBI didn’t more carefully track bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev after he returned from a trip to Russia.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called for hearings on the subject -- but he said the problem could be with the law, not with the actions the FBI took.

On Tuesday, Napolitano is likely to face some questions that she wouldn’t have fielded prior to the attacks which killed three people and injured more than 200.

Naturalized U.S. citizen Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, whose family was given asylum, was charged Monday with using a weapon of mass destruction for his alleged role in the bombings.

Among the questions Napolitano may face:

• Do the rules on granting asylum and refugee status to people need to be re-examined?
• What’s the right balance to strike between granting asylum to people who fear that they’ll be the victims of persecution in their home country and keeping out of the United States people who pose a risk of committing terrorist acts?
• Are changes needed to the avenues through which foreigners who are intent on terrorist plots enter the country, such as student visas which the Sept. 11 hijackers used?

Napolitano delivered her testimony last week before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Operations Committee before the suspects in the Boston bombings had been identified.

She told that committee last week, “We are greatly encouraged” by the bill that was introduced by the group of eight senators, led by Schumer and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., which she said “embraces the principles the president has enunciated.”

Evan Vucci / AP

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, April 18, 2013.

She said “comprehensive immigration reform will help us continue to build on” the Obama administration’s border security efforts and enable her department “to further focus existing resources on criminals, on human smugglers and traffickers and national security threats.”

But she got into a sharp exchange with McCain when he asked her why her department had no measurement or index of whether U.S. borders were being made more secure.

McCain told her, “One of the big problems we have is that you abandoned the metric of operational control and you have not given us a border security index.”

She told McCain, “There are so many ways to measure” border security and “that's a much more difficult question to answer than it is to ask.”

She added, “The notion that there's some magic number out there that answers the question, I wish I could tell you there is, but we haven't found it yet.”

NBC's Kasie Hunt and Vaughn Ververs contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 23, 2013 4:31 AM EDT

Jason Reed / Reuters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NBC's Kasie Hunt contributed. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AFL-CIO
President Richard Trumka

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

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

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

National Council of La Raza
President Janet Murguía

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

Human Rights Campaign
President Chad Griffin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NumbersUSA
President Roy Beck

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

Federation for American Immigration Reform
President Dan Stein

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

Related Stories

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

As most Americans slept, the Senate bipartisan Gang of Eight formally filed the long-awaited “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Bill of 2013,” releasing a flood of responses from pro-reform groups that had been waiting for the legislative text.

Clocking in at 844 pages, the legislation proposes a 13-year path to citizenship for qualified undocumented immigrants along with ambitious goals to secure the nation’s southern border and a realignment of legal immigration systems to favor more employment-based visas.

After 2 a.m. Wednesday morning, the bill was posted online in its entirety. (you can read it here)

A bipartisan House group that has been working behind the scenes on its own compromise bill applauded the upper chamber’s legislation and said it hopes to reach its own agreement “soon.”

“We believe we will soon agree on a reasonable, common-sense plan to finally secure our borders and strengthen our economy with a tough but fair process that respects the rule of law so immigrants can contribute to our country,” said the group, which includes eight members of Congress. “While we have made substantial progress, we continue to work diligently towards a bill that keeps America strong, competitive and true to our values.”

The statement was signed by Democrats Xavier Becerra and Zoe Lofgren of California,  Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and John Yarmuth of Kentucky; and Republicans John Carter and Sam Johnson of Texas, Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, and Raul Labrador of Idaho.  

Groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus also praised the bipartisan spirit of the effort and expressed optimism about the legislative process.

The Chamber, which was heavily involved in negotiating a compromise on temporary workers with labor union AFL-CIO as the bill was being drafted, praised the proposal for including its goals for border security measures, worker visa expansions, a path to citizenship and an E-Verify system.

“There is no doubt that there will be additional input and analysis through Senate hearings and amendments, and we look forward to being part of that needed process,” the Chamber wrote in a statement.

NCLR, a top Latino group, similarly applauded the “courage” of the Senate members for working across party lines.

“This legislation, while not perfect, is a monumental step forward in ensuring that this nation has a fair, humane and effective 21st-century immigration policy that serves our nation’s best interests and works for all Americans, including families, workers and businesses,” wrote NCLR president Janet Murguía

Stakeholders will work to tweak the legislation to address their particular concerns as the bill wends its way through Congress. Civil liberties groups are wary of the employment verification system, and many pro-citizenship groups (in sync with the White House) have expressed skepticism in the past about the idea of security “triggers” that must be met before the legalization process can begin for undocumented immigrants.

The bill will also be strongly opposed by those who say the measure rewards lawbreakers, harms American jobs and costs too much during an economically perilous era.

This story was originally published on Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:23 AM EDT

Drafters are racing to complete the text of a comprehensive immigration reform bill slated to be unveiled on Tuesday, with minor loose ends causing some in the Senate’s Gang of Eight to urge a delay to presenting the sweeping legislation.

But, with pressure growing after multiple missed deadlines for the completion of the reform bill, sources within the group tell NBC News that the proposal is still likely to be formally presented in a press conference tomorrow.

The Senate Judiciary Committee was expected to hold its first hearing on the legislation on Wednesday, but that has now been postponed to Friday. An additional hearing will be held next Monday as well. 

Senate Republicans and Democrats have yet to be briefed on the legislation in their respective formal meetings. The bill includes the opportunity -- if certain border security criteria have been met -- for qualified undocumented immigrants to obtain probationary legal status for 10 years before becoming eligible to apply for a visa.

Republicans are expected to meet tonight at 5:45 pm to review the plan within their own conference. (Lead GOP negotiator Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida was originally scheduled to brief his colleagues last week, but lengthy discussion of pending gun legislation pushed the presentation off the agenda.)At noon on Tuesday, Republicans also plan to sell the plan to outside conservative interest groups.

Democrats have yet not scheduled an internal briefing but would likely share the bill with colleagues during a regularly scheduled Tuesday lunch meeting tomorrow.  

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

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

View full poll results here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View the poll results here

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

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

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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