Last week, Rena Rivas was seven hours away from being deported when Congresswoman Frederica Wilson (D-FL) intervened and called an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official to halt his removal. A week later on Monday evening, a final decision came in: Rivas had been granted a one-year deportation reprieve based on humanitarian grounds. He no longer has to stay in the ICE detention center where he has stayed for the past two months.

In 2010, ICE agents targeted his coworker who has a criminal conviction, but Rivas was also deported. Rivas was then charged with an illegal re-entry felony for trying to see his family. Released on a prayer and a plea, Rivas now has to wear an ankle-monitor and take drug tests.

A somber effect of family reunification, illegal re-entry for aliens has remained the top reason for deportation proceedings in the past three years. Of the daily 1,400 deported immigrants, Rivas remains a heartwarming yet rare case in which a public figure had come out to stop his return to Mexico. The happy tale ends there however as Rivas will still be deported in one year.

If passed, the Senate immigration bill could stop his deportation countdown since deportees without serious records would be allowed to return to the United States. The contentious measure could have far-reaching implications like potentially ending dangerous border crossings for migrants who are trying to reunite with their families. The House immigration bill will be released in June, but it also seeks to stop deportations of people like Rivas.

On Thursday afternoon, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued a joint statement with Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, Republican Conference Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte confirming that the House will not accept the comprehensive immigration legislation that advanced by a 13-5 vote in the Senate, but will instead craft its own legislation to pass immigration reform.

During the Senate markup hearings, Boehner stayed out of the immigration fracas, but his statement on Thursday asserted his stance:

The House remains committed to fixing our broken immigration system, but we will not simply take up and accept the bill that is emerging in the Senate if it passes. Rather, through regular order, the House will work its will and produce its own legislation.

One of the ideas that has been floated in the House is a piecemeal approach, but without the consideration of a naturalization pathway, it would not fix the current immigration system. Since only some parts of the bill would ever make it into law, it could create a permanent underclass. Some Republicans like Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) have indicated that comprehensive reform is necessary because there is no line for undocumented immigrants to wait, but legal immigration will allow immigrants to positively contribute to the American economy.

Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R), who finished second in the 2010 Colorado gubernatorial race as an American Constitution Party candidate, said Wednesday that he will seek the Republican nomination for governor in the 2014 election. The unsuccessful 2008 presidential hopeful said the “last straw” driving him into the race was Gov. John Hickenlooper’s (D) decision to grant a temporary reprieve to an inmate on Death Row.

Over his five terms in Congress, his single-issue anti-immigrant White House bid, and various other political campaigns, Tancredo has earned a reputation as one of America’s most extreme nativist politicians. Among his career highlights:

1. Proposed that the U.S. bomb Mecca. In 2007, Tancredo suggested that as a “deterent” to terrorism, “If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina.” Despite widespread criticism of the comments, he reiterated the view during his 2010 campaign: “I think is quite defensible. I still do, and I still would say it. It is just that I would have absolutely no reason to say it as the governor of the state of Colorado.”

2. Called for impeachment of President Obama because people illegally immigrate. In an error-riddled 2010 Washington Times op-ed, Tancredo wrote that President Obama was “a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda.” Citing a false claim by then-Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), he added, “Mr. Obama’s most egregious and brazen betrayal of our Constitution was his statement to Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, that the administration will not enforce security on our southern border because that would remove Republicans’ desire to negotiate a ‘comprehensive’ immigration bill. That is, to put it plainly, a decision that by any reasonable standard constitutes an impeachable offense against the Constitution.”

3. Smeared the first Hispanic-American Supreme Court Justice as a “racist.” When President Obama nominated Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Tancredo went ballistic. Calling her “Sonia Mayor,” he said, “I do not know if he has a hatred for white people. I can say that [Obama's] statements and his appointment of someone I do believe to be a racist, ‘Sonia Mayer,’ for her racial views by the way — that is an indication.” He added “I’m telling you she appears to be a racist. She said things that are racist in any other context. That’s exactly how we would portray it and there’s no one who would get on the Supreme Court saying a thing like that except for a Hispanic woman and you’re going to say it doesn’t matter!” ”Why is it, in order to speak to [Hispanics], you have to speak to them in Spanish, or you have to be translated to them in Spanish?” Tancredo said on CNN. “If you are going to vote in this country, you should be a citizen. To be a citzen in this country you should know English.”

4. Does not believe candidates in the USA should speak Spanish. As he boycotted a December 2007 presidential debate on Univision, Tancredo wrote in a press release, “It is the law that to become a naturalized citizen of this country you must have knowledge and understanding of English, including a basic ability to read, write, and speak the language… So what may I ask are our presidential candidates doing participating in a Spanish speaking debate? Pandering comes to mind.” Embracing assimilation, he added, “Bilingualism is a great asset for any individual but it has perilous consequences for a nation. As such, a Spanish debate has no place in a presidential campaign.” On CNN, he elaborated, “If you are going to vote in this country, you should be a citizen. To be a citizen in this country you should know English.”

5. Demonized illegal immigrants as violent gangsters and “jihadist” terrorists. In campaign ad for his 2008 presidential run, he showed bloody images of terrorist attacks, warning that open borders means “[Islamic] jihadists who froth with hate” will launch terrorist attacks like those in London, Spain, and Russia and “vicious central American gangs” who are “pushing drugs, raping kids, [and] destroying lives.” In 2004, he warned that some undocumented immigrants are “coming here to kill you and to kill me and our families.”

6. Bashed Miami for its diversity. In a 2009 interview, Tancredo said Miami does not feel like America because so many people there speak Spanish: ‘”Look at what has happened to Miami. It has become a Third World country. You just pick it up and take it and move it someplace. You would never know you’re in the United States of America. You would certainly say you’re in a Third World country.” When criticized for the remarks, he shot back, “I knew speaking your mind could be dangerous in Havana. I guess it’s equally dangerous to do so in Miami. Apparently, there isn’t much of a difference between the two anymore.”

7. Even opposed legal immigration. In 2003, Tancredo proposed the “Mass Immigration Reduction Act.” The bill would have put a five-year moratorium on all legal immigration to the United States.

8. Wants to reinstate literacy tests for voting. Tancredo proposed a “civics literacy test” to prevent non-English speakers from voting. Lamenting that President Obama won with the support of what he called “people who could not even spell the word ‘vote,’ or say it in English,” he blamed the election of a “committed socialist ideologue” on the fact that “we do not have a civics literacy test before people can vote in this country.”

As the national Republican party seeks to shed its reputation as anti-immigrant, Tancredo’s candidacy presents an interesting challenge. Former House Republican Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), an influential figure in the Tea Party movement, once called his former colleague a “cheerleader of jerkiness in the immigration debate.”

In an open letter released by the American Action Forum (AAF) on Thursday, 111 conservative economists signed a pro-immigration reform letter sent to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). In an effort to garner conservative support to the immigration reform debate, the letter cited the economic benefits of passing an immigration legislation that would help to reduce the deficit.

The letter does not aim to win over Republicans like Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) who staunchly oppose legalization, but it will help Republican leaders on the sideline whose allegiance relies on the signing power of prominent conservative-leaning, pro-immigration supporters like AAF president Douglas Holtz-Eakin and former Republican presidential advisers, R. Glenn Hubbard, Arthur Laffer, Edward Lazear, and Lawrence Lindsey. Additionally, Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) released a statement showing his support of an immigration overhaul.

Of one of the many reasons that these conservative economists support the bill, Holtz-Eakin wrote, “according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) an additional 0.1 percent in average economic growth will, over a ten-year period, reduce the federal deficit by over $300 billion.” The CBO is a nonpartisan group that has joined a legion of economic organizations that have concluded that long-term legalization creates positive economic benefits. The CBO findings comes on the heels of a letter written by Stephen Gross, chief actuary of the Social Security Administration who was commissioned by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to find out the economic impact of the Senate immigration bill. Gross also found that the decade-long legalization process would generate more than $275 billion in revenue for Social Security.

The direct effects of immigration reform would induce a labor-force growth, which in turn would raise the gross domestic product. “A reformed and efficient immigration system” in which a longitudinal study has shown to keep federal benefit systems afloat, would as Holtz-Eakin’s letter puts it, “promote economic growth and ease the challenge of reforming unsustainable federal health and retirement programs.”

After the immigration measure was approved by the Senate Committee on Tuesday night, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) told reporters, “I’ve never seen a more calculated, cold-blooded PR campaign managed to advance a piece of legislation than this one.” In actuality, the immigration bill considered bipartisan sensibilities to ensure some partisan amendments were dropped and others were begrudgingly accepted.

In a post-vote press conference, Sessions said, “The political consultants and pollsters and people (managing the bill) … anticipated everything that was going to occur…they planned on careful attacks to neutralize critics.” The crux of Sessions’ argument was that the Obama administration was not doing enough for border security. Yet, the bill would expand on enforcing a photographic biometric system that would track entries and exits. He also made a last attempt to use the cost of immigration reform to strongly rebuke his fellow Republicans from approving the measure. He cited the $6.3 trillion figure that the Heritage Foundation had used in its findings done in part by the widely-criticized author Jason Richwine.

What Sessions calls ‘careful attacks’ are actually bipartisan studies outlining the economic benefit of immigration reform. Those in support of it include the pro-immigration legislation findings commissioned by Sen. Rubio (R-FL) and anti-tax conservative Grover Norquist’s group Americans for Tax Reform. The conclusion drawn by vast majority of bipartisan groups commissioned steadfastly remain that costs associated with legalization would actually be mitigated by the long-term monetary contribution of undocumented immigrants over a ten-year period.

Over five days of intensive and sometimes emotional debate, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the first hurdle of advancing the immigration legislation by reaching a 13-5 vote on Tuesday night, with Sens. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) siding with the Democrats who voted unanimously. The measure will move to floor debate in June.

Of the 161 amendments offered during markup, the panel accepted numerous provisions to strengthen the bill, while keeping out any poison pills that could endanger the legislation. Below is a list of how the Senate Judiciary Committee improved immigration reform:

1. Racial profiling serves as a disincentive to prosecute an individual. Blumenthal 10 would prohibit federal government from reimbursing local detentions and prosecutions that were found to have come through racial profiling.

2. Children would be treated humanely. The Committee unanimously approved Franken 7, which provides a range of protections for children separated from their parents or guardians who are being deported. Hirono 22, as amended, would protect children trafficking victims by making sure that all unaccompanied children are provided care by the Office of Refugee Resettlement within three days of their apprehension while Feinstein 6 would allow children to receive both emergency and adequate medical and mental health care and basic necessities like food and bedding. Coons 2 will also limit dangerous deportation practices like dropping people off in the middle of the night.

4. Back taxes and penalties can be paid in an installment plan. Undocumented immigrants have to pay fines and back taxes before achieving legal status. Hirono 12 allows those fines to be paid in installments.

5. An expedited path to citizenship offered through military service.
Blumenthal 12 will allow an expedited path to citizenship for DREAMers who want to join the military. This amendment will allow individuals in temporary legal status to apply for naturalization after they have honorably served in the military.

6. Federal aid for DREAMers. Hirono 21 would allow DREAMers to access some student loans and federal work study programs. They would not be eligible for Pell grants, however.

7. Streamlining E-Verify so that employers and employees can have assurance of its accuracy. The Senate bill requires employers to use E-Verify and three key amendments help address privacy concerns associated with the system’s accuracy. Blumenthal 18 prohibits employers from withholding employment-relevant records from employees. Coons 1 requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to put in place a system that would allow employees to know whether they have been confirmed or denied by the E-Verify system. Franken 2 also requires a study of accuracy rates.

8. Humane treatment for detained immigrants. Blumenthal 2 limits ICE’s policy of using solitary confinement and explicitly prohibits the use of solitary confinement to “protect” a detainee based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

9. More visas for sub-Saharan Africa and Caribbean countries. Responding to concerns from the African American community, who feared that the loss of the diversity visa program would impact immigration from African and Caribbean countries, Schumer 3 adds 10,000 nonimmigrant E Visas for certain nations in sub-Saharan Africa and Caribbean countries.

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a comprehensive immigration reform bill that will provide a path to citizenship for the nation’s 11.1 million undocumented immigrants, passing the measure in a vote of 13 to 5. Three Republicans — Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) — joined the Democrats on the panel to support the legislation after considering 200 amendments over five days.

The vote came following an emotional debate over a pro-LGBT provision that would have recognized, for purposes of immigration, married same-sex couples. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) withdrew the amendement after Republican senators, including members of the so-called Gang of 8, signaled that they would abandon the underlining bill if it was included. “If you redefine marriage for immigration purposes [by the amendment], the bill would fall apart because the coalition would fall apart,” Graham said. “It would be a bridge too far.”

“I do not believe we should ask Americans to choose between the love of their life and love of their country,” Leahy explained. “So, with a heavy heart, and as a result of my conclusion that Republicans will kill this vital legislation if this anti-discrimination amendment is added, I will withhold calling for a vote on it at this time.”

The full Senate is expected to debate the bill on the floor next month. Earlier on Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) pledged to “vote for the motion to proceed so we can get on the bill and see if it we’re able to pass a bill that actually moves the ball in the right direction.”

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee helped to pass an immigration bill amendment offered by Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) that would terminate asylum or refugee status for people who return to the country from which they are seeking protection from persecution, except if given a waiver by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

The intent of the amendment served as a response to the recent Boston Marathon Bombings in which the suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev purportedly received terrorist training when he went to Russia and Dagestan even though he was granted asylum status in 2002. Asylees and refugees may have legitimate reasons for returning to their countries, but instead of judging each case individually, the automatic prohibition would broadly disregard those excuses. The repercussions of the amendment may curtail asylees and refugees from traveling abroad altogether.

The committee also approved an amendment inspired by the failure of the immigration system to catch the Boston bombings offered by Sen. Grassley (R-IA) last week, in which foreign students would be more heavily scrutinized when they change their immigration status.

On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee convened for the fourth day and passed two amendments that make the legalization process impossible for people who use fraudulent documents. Among the amendments that help to strengthen civil liberties protections in the bill, the committee passed several amendments that would exclude many undocumented immigrants from earning legal status.

One of Lee’s amendment would re-insert back into law “the criminal offense of knowing use of a fraudulent immigration document,” could severely impact the number of people who can apply for RPI status. Another amendment would “make attempted misuse of a passport a criminal offense” and could potentially misidentify undocumented immigrants as national security threats. The current undocumented population makes up about five percent of the workforce and about three-quarters of “other-than-legal immigrants [who] pay payroll taxes.”

Lee’s amendments would make it a federal offense for workers to continue using false Social Security numbers, but it could potentially hurt the chances of current undocumented immigrants who do not know that they have secured Social Security numbers under false pretenses, like undocumented teenagers whose parents do not tell them of their status. Many undocumented immigrants use fake documents to find employment, but they are paying around $8.1 billion a year into the earnings suspense file of the Social Security Trust Fund. According to some studies, undocumented immigrants are keeping the trust fund solvent because they are unable to withdraw from those accounts.

Criminalizing undocumented immigrants who are contributing to the tax system would not only prevent them from gaining provisional status, but it also has the implications of delaying the legalization process by subjecting them to extensive scrutiny.

One of Senator Chuck Grassley’s (R-IA) many sticking points with the immigration reform bill in the Senate Judciary Committee is that certain groups should receive more scrutiny because of the Boston Marathon bombing. He offered an amendment to that effect, that would “permit Federal law enforcement officers to take into account an individual’s country of origin.”

Grassley defended his amendment by asking, “what does country of origin have anything to do with profiling?” In response, Gang Of Eight member Sen. Dick Durbin (D-ILL) tore down Grassley’s definition of racial profiling, explaining that the language in the bill is a necessary protection and even the same practice embraced by Bush administration officials:

DURBIN: Senator Grassley, let me say two or three things about this. First, there is no mention of country of origin in the language of this bill. We specifically do not mention country of origin and that was the basis of your argument. And so I’d ask you and your staff to take another look at it. We do not raise that issue. Number two, the language –
[...]

GRASSLEY: Why then don’t you mention it as — so that it’s –

DURBIN: Because what we’ve done is specify that you cannot use race or ethnicity. Now, how did we come up with race or ethnicity? This was the standard established –

GRASSLEY: I’m not arguing that point I think you’re right by including that in the bill. But what does country of origin have anything to do with profiling?

DURBIN: It’s not mentioned nor religion. Why did we pick race and ethnicity? Those were the standards were established by Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2003. We took the Ashcroft profiling guidance, issued by this Department of Justice, and embodied it in this. It is not a radical departure from past practice. In fact, it embodies the practice of former conservative Republican attorney general under a Republican president.

Durbin went on to recount examples of African-American and Hispanic women facing strip searches at airports far more often than white passengers. “The GAO did a finding on it, an investigation: African-Americans were twice as likely — pardon me, nine times as likely, Hispanic Americans were nearly four times as likely, as white passengers to be strip searched,” Durbin said. “And there were no — there was no evidence of contraband in those groups that were being strip searched. This was clearly a waste of effort and embarrassing and insulting exercise of authority.”

Grassley’s amendment, which was slammed by immigration advocates, was defeated by a voice vote.