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, two Department of Homeland Security unions comprising of 20,000 individuals from the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council (NICEC) and the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council (NCISC) publicly released a statement indicating their opposition to the Senate immigration bill. This letter by Chris Crane, who heads the Homeland Secretary union that represents deportation agents is only one extension of his opposition to immigration legislation. Despite the two million undocumented immigrants that have already been deported, he has been a vocal opponent of any kind of reform.

The letter to Congress sent by Crane and NCISC president Kenneth Palinkas detail the dissatisfaction of deportation officials with what they perceive to be a rushed demand to approve legal status of applicants. In breaking with pro-immigration reform AFL-CIO, parent company of NCISC, Palinkas said that his officers were “pressured to rubber stamp applications instead of conducting diligent case review and investigation.”

Crane wrote, “U.S taxpayers are currently tasked with absorbing…the strain put on our Social Security system that has been depleted by an onslaught of refugees receiving SSI benefits as soon as their feet touch U.S. soil.” Mainstream economists have disparaged the characterization that immigrants are moochers, and instead have noted that immigrants are keeping the Social Security Trust Fund solvent.

He also wrote, “Currently, USCIS reports a 99.5 percent approval rating for all illegal alien applications for legal status filed under the Obama Administration’s new Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policies.” However, as of the latest April statistics, DACA approval rating operated at 57 percent.

Crane has worked with or appeared alongside nativist groups and immigration restrictionists, including Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and the Heritage Foundation, which is embroiled in a racism scandal. At a mid-May Tea Party sponsored tele-town hall conference with Heritage VP Derrick Morgan, Crane called the immigration reform bill “blanket amnesty” which would “provide a path to citizenship for the most criminal street gang…. all they have to do is make a claim that they’re going to renounce their gang affiliation. We know that all of these members are going to renounce their affiliation and continue their gang activity.”

Over 1,000 Harvard students want to know how and why Harvard University’s JFK School approved a 2009 doctoral thesis arguing that Hispanics have lower IQs. The thesis was written by Jason Richwine, a co-author of a paper by the conservative Heritage Foundation that argued immigration reform would cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion. The discovery of Richwine’s paper by the Washington Post sparked a firestorm around the Heritage study, and several days later Richwine resigned from the think tank.

Harvard students delivered a petition last week demanding an investigation into how a thesis built on those views and assumptions was able to make it through the approval process in the first place. “Academic freedom and a reasoned debate are essential to our academic community,’’ the petition read. “However, the Harvard Kennedy School cannot ethically stand behind academic work advocating a national policy of exclusion and advancing an agenda of discrimination.” As of last Wednesday, May 15 the students had collected 1,200 signatures.

Several days ago, 24 student groups at Harvard wrote a letter condeming the university’s approval of Richwine’s dissertation, saying it “debases” all their degrees.

Richwine himself hit back at the students on Friday, suggesting their demands were an attack on free speech and academic inquiry. David Ellwood, the dean of the Kennedy School, defended the committee that accepted Richwine’s thesis as “highly respected and discerning.” George Borjas, one of the members of that committee, characterized Richwine’s work as “sound.” Borjas himself previously lent his pen to arguments against immigration on economic grounds.

Meanwhile, recently completed research failed to find an identifiable racial gap in IQ, and the entire assumption that race is a stable and reliable biological category suffers from its own problems. Even using IQ as a measure of intelligence often fails to acknowledge that what we mean by “intelligence” is itself dependent on historical and social context, and buffeted by a wide array of structural forces.

A new study released by the Center for American Progress contends that a pathway to legalization and citizenship will bring vast economic benefits to states. The study by Robert Lynch and Patrick Oakford highlights the importance of a legalization pathway that would positively affect economic gains for the 24 states in which 88 percent of undocumented immigrants reside.

Once they attain legal status, immigrants will be able to contribute to the increased consumption of goods and services that boosts business sales and raises the earnings of all Americans. They will pay taxes on their higher wages and increase the gross state product (GSP). Additionally, immigrants will be able to use their new legal status by integrating their skill set and education into creating jobs and raising productivity.

Opponents of a pathway to citizenship have offered numerous “poison pill” amendments that could undermine reform and jeopardize passage of the bipartisan bill making its way through the senate. The House of Representatives has a number of lawmakers working against it, as well. Here are several of the states that would benefit from legalization, which are represented by vocal opponents or Republican leaders:

Arizona: Gov. Jan Brewer

– Undocumented immigrant population: 400,000
– Cumulative increase in GSP: $23,100,000,000
– Cumulative increase in earnings of all state residents: $15,300,000,000
– Average number of jobs created annually: 3,400

Pennsylvania: Rep. Lou Barletta

– Undocumented immigrant population: 160,000
– Cumulative increase in GSP: $14,800,000,000
– Cumulative increase in earnings of all state residents: $9,300,000,000
– Average number of jobs created annually: 2,100

Texas: Sens. John Cornyn, Ted Cruz

– Undocumented immigrant population: 1,600,000
– Cumulative increase in GSP: $144,600,000,000
– Cumulative increase in earnings of all state residents: $74,700,000,000
– Average number of jobs created annually: 21,000

Utah: Sen. Mike Lee

– Undocumented immigrant population: 110,000
– Cumulative increase in GSP: $8,600,000,000
– Cumulative increase in earnings of all state residents: $4,600,000,000
– Average number of jobs created annually: 1,200

Nationally, immigration reform will generate $832 billion in GDP, create 121,000 new jobs, and increase the personal income of all Americans by $470 billion, the report finds. Americans stand to gain more from immigration reform since immigrants could pay upwards of $184 million in tax revenue.

Late Thursday, Rep. John Carter (R-TX) indicated that the House bipartisan group working on immigration reform finalized an “agreement in principle” on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Although many of the bill’s elements are not yet known, the House intends to create a 15-year path to citizenship, longer than the 13-year citizenship plan in the Senate bill. In addition, the group will likely require that undocumented immigrants submit a written confession before they move to “probationary status.” The bill is set to be unveiled around June 4.

Hours before the Thursday announcement, there were still tense negotiations that the House bill would fall apart. Among the major issues for contention was the funding costs associated with immigrant health care that Republicans insisted did not come from taxpayer money, for which Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) was the last holdout. He is a major stakeholder in the House Gang of Eight “because he represents Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s interests.” One of the more partisan hurdles that both groups worked through was that Republican members insisted on making the E-Verify system universal and checking in at the five-year mark. If E-Verify was not put in place by then, then the legalization program would end.

Because the bipartisan House group has been more fractured in its compromise than Senate immigration bill negotiators, this agreement represents a significant change of bipartisan effort to overhaul the immigration system. Carter, a member of the group, has been a strong opponent to immigration legislation such as the Dream Act bill of 2010 that fell five votes short of passage, but a vocal advocate for the controversial Arizona’s ability to check an individual’s immigration status.