(Credit: Juan Camilo Bernal / Shutterstock.com)

As millions of Baby Boomers retire between 2010 and 2030, an estimated 58.6 million people will enter the workforce to replace them, 31.5 million of whom will be immigrants and their children.

These immigrants are necessary to replace the people leaving the workforce, and thus will drive the net economic growth. The workers would allow the nation to “adjust to the massive wave of Baby Boomer retirements and also to sustain long-term economic growth.” The 31.5 million immigrants, who make up 38 percent of the total 83 million new workers entering the labor workforce between 2010 and 2030 “will account for 84 percent of net workforce growth.”

(Credit: Center for American Progress)

As CAP’s researchers point out, these numbers show exactly how immigrants and their children will be essential to the future workforce and meeting the needs of the American economy. As a result, they show why workplace replacement should be a high priority for the immigration reform.

(Credit: Colorlines)

Overall the use of the term “illegal alien” diminished to five percent of all news articles surveyed by Pew in 2013 as compared to 2007 when it accounted for 21 percent of terms used. The alternative term “undocumented immigrant,” one favored by immigration advocates, has increased to 14 percent in 2013. Pew has studied the use of such terms in 1996, 2002, 2007, and 2013– four major periods of American history in which immigration legislation was being considered.

The term “illegal immigrant” remained the primary way to refer to undocumented individuals, in fact 49 percent of the time in 2013, that newspapers describe the general 11 million undocumented immigrant population. Largely a phrase used by conservatives, the “illegal” label has been met with much hostility by immigration advocates, namely because they believe that “no human is illegal.”

For that reason, some publications like the Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times, have chosen to completely restrict the use of the phrase “illegal immigrant” by its staffers. Other newspapers including the New York Times have limited the use of the word to describe “someone who enters, lives in or works in the United States without proper legal authorization,” but advises its writers to find “alternatives when appropriate.”

Changing uses of the term suggest that newspapers understand that immigrants do not all fall under one category since some immigrants have “complicated or shifting status, like those brought to the United States as children.” The phrase especially complicates matters since over 365,000 youth immigrants are temporarily lawfully present, so it would be an erroneous label to call them “unauthorized.”

(Credit: Shutterstock)

Villanueva’s lawsuit charges that the couple’s treatment amounted to “involuntary servitude.” They reneged on their promise to provide a steady $10-an-hour paycheck, health insurance, and basic needs like food and shelter, instead underpaying her at $2 an hour, locking her in her room, and denying her medication. She also claimed that her employers gave her an illegal passport to America.

Although domestic workers are sometimes forced to work more than they are promised, undocumented immigrants like Villanueva are more at risk to be exploited for their vulnerability and supposed inability to report unsafe working conditions to law enforcement. The Post story indicates that Villanueva returned back to the family after she found the Chilean Consulate closed when she tried to report the abuses that she suffered. Like many undocumented immigrants, she most likely did not go to local law enforcement out of fear of deportation.

In all, 23 percent of domestic workers report being paid less than the minimum wage, and 25 percent of live-in workers say their employers have prevented them from getting an uninterrupted five hours of sleep a night. Fewer than two percent receive retirement benefits.

In 2010, New York became the first state to pass a basic labor bill of rights for domestic workers which includes nannies, caregivers, and home health workers, allowing for the right to overtime pay, a day of rest every seven day, and three paid days of rest each year. But undocumented immigrants who make up a large population of domestic workers are excluded from such guarantees, so it is not surprising that people like Villanueva are subjected to wage theft.

Hawaii recently became the second state to pass such a bill, but it seems that domestic worker rights are hard to come by in other states: California’s version of the bill was vetoed last year.

(Credit: ACLU Arizona)

The app features a call button, as well as a form, that puts users in touch with the ACLU Arizona chapter for individuals to document and submit abuses. The app also includes basic guidance for individuals who are stopped in their car, on the street, at home, or are arrested. Drivers are advised that they can be arrested for driving without a license and that it is “best not to show documents from another country” but also “if you have a valid license or immigration document, show it.” It also advises that passengers do not need to have identification.

The creation of the app follows last year’s ACLU community outreach hotline, which fielded over 6,000 calls, to document abuses after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld some of the most stringent sections of the SB1070 law. Undocumented immigrants had their worst fears realized when Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio called on his law enforcement to indiscriminately use race to detain immigrants. A U.S. district judge filed a lawsuit against him, charging that immigrants were unfairly detained for prolonged periods.

Another advocacy group recently came out with an immigration-relevant texting game that allows users to “be undocumented for a day” by choosing the routes they would take to get to school and how they would react if stopped by the police.

(HT: KPHO)

(Credit: Flikr/Antonio Villaraigosa)

Overall, deferred action has been granted to 68 percent or 365,237 applicants of the 539,128 applications, which can be seen in the adapted chart:

(Credit: USCIS, adapted)

The program has allowed recipients, 70 percent of whom are coming from Mexico, to finally work at their dream jobs. But there is more to do before DACA recipients become fully participatory members of the US economy. DREAMers could earn 19 percent more in wages if Congress approved immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship, thereby boosting tax revenues. Enabling a potential two million DREAMers to become productive members of society could see a windfall of $329 million to the economy by DREAMers and 1.4 million new jobs by 2030.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

“If we don’t pass immigration reform , if we don’t get it off the table in a reasonable, practical way, it doesn’t matter who you run in 2016,” Graham warned during on appearance Sunday on NBC’s Meet The Press. “We’re in a demographic death spiral as a party, and the only way we can get back in good graces with the Hispanic community, in my view, is pass comprehensive immigration reform. If you don’t do that, it really doesn’t matter who will run, in my view.” Watch it:

Mitt Romney received just 27 percent of the Hispanic vote during the 2012 presidential election, down from Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) 31 percent in 2008 and George W. Bush’s 44 percent in 2004. And while several GOP-sponsored autopsy reports have urged the party to adopt a more welcoming tone toward immigrants, conservatives are still comparing immigrants to bankrobbers, while voting to deport DREAM-eligible immigrants.

During a separate appearance on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who also helped draft the Senate’s immigration reform measure and may run for president in 2016, would not commit to voting for his own bill.

(Credit: Brooks Kraft/Corbis)

In an interview on ABC’s This Week, Rubio told the guest host Jonathan Karl that public input indicated the need to create border enforcement provisions to prevent “another wave of illegal immigration in the future.”

JONATHAN KARL: You are one the primary architect authors of the bill that came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, immigration reform. I have a basic question, do you support your own bill?

RUBIO: I think it’s an excellent starting point. I think 95, 96 percent of the bill is in perfect shape and ready to go. But there are elements that need to be improved. [...]

KARL: If it stays the way it is on border security, do you vote for it?

RUBIO: I don’t want to get involved in the hypotheticals and ultimatums.

KARL: It’s a real possibility.

RUBIO: No, I don’t think it is. A bill without increased border security which everyone has now conceded needs to happen. The debate is about what that border security provision looks like. If we do that, the bill will have strong, bipartisan support. If we fail, we will keep trying. The only way to pass the immigration reform law out of the House and Senate so the President can sign it is if has real border security measures.

Rubio has touted that the comprehensive immigration reform bill he helped to create is “the toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States.” Yet even though the Senate Judiciary Committee already approved tougher border security provisions that would track immigrants and restrict criminals from entering the country, Rubio has moved further and further away from his bill, indicating that he would support an amendment drafted by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) that would re-write and significantly strengthen the border security provisions. Activists worry that the benchmarks in the Cornyn measure are unrealistic and would delay that pathway to citizenship.

The vast majority of Americans, including 81 percent of Latino voters polled for a Latino Decisions survey, indicate that they would prefer a reform bill that includes both border security and legalization measures.

(Credit: Alan Diaz/AP)

Undocumented immigrants like me have paid between $120 billion to $240 billion into the Social Security Trust Fund ($12 billion in 2010 alone) and generated more than $12 billion to the Medicare system. Since DACA does not confer legalization, though, it’s possible that I will not see any of my contributions in old age.

DACA, the executive order that I benefited from, is colloquially known as “DREAM Act lite.” It doesn’t provide a pathway to citizenship, but, like the DREAM Act, it allows legal work authorization for young people who completed some college or military service. DACA allows me to earn legal, taxable wages.

Experts have predicted that getting DREAMers working would allow two million young people like me to contribute $148 billion in increased earnings by 2030. My and my fellow DREAMers’ earnings “trigger spending on goods and services” like houses, cars, and electronics that will “ripple throughout the economy creating $181 billion in induced economic impact, 1.4 million new jobs, and $10 billion in increased revenue.” As a result, us DREAMers could generate an economic impact of $329 billion and “increase federal revenues by $1.7 billion over the next ten years.”

I can see these numbers adding up every time I get a paycheck.

Obama’s executive order brought many immigrants out of the shadows, but we still face many barriers. DACA recipients are legal only in narrowest sense of the word. Because Obama’s executive order can be revoked during the next presidential administration, because it does not grant full legal status, and because it is not inclusive of nine million other immigrants, Obama’s order does not mean true equality.

There is still a huge opposition to DACA beneficiaries. House Republicans earlier this month passed an amendment that would make it more difficult for the Department of Homeland Security to halt the deportations of DACA beneficiaries. States like Arizona and Nebraska have already come out against granting drivers’ licenses to DACA recipients, despite the public safety benefits of creating safer drivers by making them take a drivers’ test and buy insurance. Other states have stigmatized undocumented immigrants by passing legislation to issue visibly different drivers’ licenses to denote one’s legal status.

The Senate is now debating a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would provide undocumented people a pathway to citizenship. If passed, it allows a kind of stability never before conferred onto this population– the kind that allowed previous generations to set roots down, flourish, and add to the economy.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

King, notorious for railing against any immigration reform efforts, used the comparison to argue that deporting people is “not a particularly draconian punishment”:

KING: Think of it this way: If someone goes in and robs a bank and step out on the steps of the bank with the sack of the loot and law enforcement appears and says, sorry, you can’t keep the loot and we’re going to put that back in the bank but you can go. That’s equivalent of removal. You don’t get to keep the objective of the crime, we put you back in the condition you were in before you committed the crime. That’s not draconian. That’s the minimum you can do and still have a rule of law apply.

Deportation of undocumented immigrants isn’t like letting a bank robber off easy. It tears apart families, separating citizen children from undocumented parents. Often times, those kids are left to foster care.

Even as the Republican party as a whole has tried to reach out more to Latino voters, King has remained one of the most vocal opponents to immigration reform. Last week, he led his party in a vote to deport more DREAMers. He has also advocated for asking immigrants about their legal status at the hospital, has pushed to prevent more “anchor babies” in the US, and tried to use the Boston Marathon bombing to derail immigration reform.

Here’s the direct language the group tested followed by a chart showing the impact:

Sen. Ted Cruz: “I have serious concerns about any legislation that would create a pathway to citizenship for those who are here illegally. I think doing so is profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who have followed the rules. We should prohibit all federal, state and local benefits for those who are here illegally, and ensure that illegal immigrants are not given a path to citizenship.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions: ‘Citizenship for illegalswill not help balance our budget. In fact, a large-scale amnesty is likely to add trillions of dollars to the debt over time because illegal immigrants will put enormous strain on our public-assistance programs. Illegal immigrants need government aid and can’t take care of themselves. We can never support this immigration reform bill.”

Sen. Marco Rubio: “The American people are the most compassionate people on earth -they have proven that over and over again. The question now is we have 11 million people in the country that are here illegally. We recognize we’re not going to round up 11 million people and deport them. We must show compassion and support immigration reform today.”

Sen. Bob Menendez: “The time has come for farm workers and fruit pickers, students and DREAMERS, cooks and maids, hotel workers and housekeepers, landscapers and construction workers, and non-citizen soldiers fighting to protect all of us, to have a chance to raise their hand and take the oath of citizenship. We mustsupport immigration reform today.”

The results:

If this isn’t enough to convince the brains running the GOP political operation to do the right thing on immigration, then perhaps this finding will sharpen the mind. Fifty-two percent of Latino voters would view the GOP more favorably if they helped to pass comprehensive immigration reform despite their potential disagreement on other issues:

As Latino Decisions concludes, “The results could not be more clear. Over half of Latino voters say they would be more favorable to the party if only they pass immigration reform. It is so important that CIR now trumps all other issues and partisanship (note 47% of Democrats also say they would be more favorable) for a significant segment of the Latino electorate. In combination these results tell us that Republicans have a unique opportunity to re-build relationships with Latino voters. Should they squander the moment by blocking the bill, they will effectively concede the majority of the Latino vote for many election cycles to come.”

President Obama also should take note of this poll. Nearly two-thirds of Latino voters (63 percent) say that they will view the President and the Democrats more favorably if he uses executive authority to provide legal status for undocumented immigrants should the GOP block the measure in Congress. The race is on to see which party can do the right thing for millions of people living in our country without full legal status and reap the subsequent benefits among a strong and growing constituency.

(Credit: Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel/MCT via Newscom)

The current immigration bill requires undocumented individuals to enroll in English classes, before they apply for a green card. Rubio’s amendment, however, would enforce such individuals to be proficient in English before they can ever apply.

This could create a huge obstacle for immigrants to overcome in order to get on the path to citizenship. Though there is already a English as a Second Language (ESL) education system funded by the government, it’s unlikely there would be enough classes to accommodate a huge influx of millions of immigrants, and there is not enough money to create more classes. One alternative would be for such individuals to shoulder the expensive cost of private English tutoring. But that might be difficult given that such families have a median income of $36,000.

If Rubio’s amendment is passed, it could delay the pathway to citizenship. Setting a mandatory English barrier would unnecessarily extend the time it takes for immigrants to receive a green card and thus, the time it takes for them to economically contribute more as legalized immigrants.

Although Republicans have long questioned how to win back the Hispanic vote, the party has also had a long history of trying to force English-only provisions, which is a severe disincentive for immigrants. The discriminatory practice adversely affects first-generation immigrants, and becomes wholly unnecessary for second-generation immigrants who are generally English-proficient.

(Credit: United We Dream)

Watch now:

United We Dream spent two months raising airfare for the mothers of the three DREAMers, a process that would have been difficult had these women tried to pay for their own tickets. Although the reunion reflected a sobering reality of the current broken state of the immigration system, the three immigrants are by all accounts lucky to even be able to briefly recount missed milestones with their mothers in person. The majority of the estimated two million DREAMers do not have the backing of an advocacy group.

The three DREAMers will only be able to truly reunite with their mothers if a comprehensive immigration bill that grants travel authorization passes. The current immigration bill includes a provision which allows DREAMers an expedited pathway to citizenship and it faces the least opposition in an immigration bill that has faced much resistance.

On average, 1,400 undocumented immigrants are deported every day. Some are deported because they are trying to reunite with their families so it is unsurprising that illegal re-entry remains the top reason to initiate deportation proceedings.

Deportation also tears apart families where at least one member is a U.S. citizen. An estimated 205,000 individuals who were deported between 2010 to 2012, have U.S. born children.

(Credit: AP)

The ACLU believes that the policy is unconstitutional because it violates equal protection, but Heineman justified that undocumented immigrants “shouldn’t be here if they’re not here legally.” This line is similar to that of other Republican governors, like Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) who used the argument that deferred action program is “without legal basis” in order to veto a bill that would grant drivers’ licenses to the undocumented.

Whether they support it or not, however, federal laws dictate that DACA beneficiaries are lawfully present and thereby authorized to work in the US. Issuing work permits is on par with the understanding that DACA provides equal access to apply for drivers’ licenses. Prohibiting such individuals from legally receiving a drivers’ license could force such immigrants to drive without one.

Public safety studies have shown that issuing licenses and making individuals buy auto insurance actually promote safety and keep auto insurance premiums low for everyone. New Mexico stands as a national symbol of how the roads became safer when drivers’ licenses were issued to everyone since there was a significant decrease in the rate of uninsured vehicles from 33 percent to 9.1 percent.

This is not the first time that the local ACLU chapter filed a lawsuit at the behest of undocumented immigrants against the state of Nebraska. In 2010, residents of the small town of Fremont banished undocumented immigrants from jobs and rental homes because they were found to be “changing the character of their quiet city.”

The ACLU also filed lawsuits against Arizona and Michigan, for blocking drivers’ licenses to DACA recipients.

The deadline for House members to submit their proposed amendments to the Lower Chamber’s version of the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed on Tuesday, leaving an avalanche of offered changes in its wake. While the House NDAA will still need to be merged with its eventual Senate counterpart in conference committee, many of its provisions will likely find themselves in the final bill.

A total of 291 amendments were sent to the House Rules Committee, which will decide on Wednesday how the floor debate will proceed and how many of these amendments will be discussed. ThinkProgress read through them all so you don’t have to, pulling out some of the amendments that would do the most to improve the bill that moves forward:

1. Repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) frequently touts the fact that she was the only member of Congress to vote against the AUMF when first written in 2001. Now, twelve years later, Lee is still fighting to repeal it, but now she has President Obama’s backing — in principle. Obama has expressed an interest in revising the AUMF before it’s eventual repeal, but Lee’s amendment jumps straight to the end. If passed, it would have the AUMF repealed on Jan. 1, 2015 or when the war ends in Afghanistan, whichever comes first.

2. Set up a framework to close Gitmo.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) serves as the Ranking Member on the House Armed Services Committee, a position from which he has long advocated the closure of the military prision at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This year, he and several of his colleagues are attempting to insert language into the NDAA doing just that. While it’s a long shot, if it passed Smith’s amendment would add into the NDAA the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility Closure Act of 2013, which would lift the ban on transferring detainees into the U.S. for imprisonment or trial and cutting off all funding to the prison after 2014.

3. Add more oversight to the administration’s targeted killing program.

House Armed Services Committee Vice-Chair Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) won passage in committee of his provision to have the Secretary of Defense brief his committee and its Senate counterpart every time the administration conducted a kill or capture operation outside of Afghanistan. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, wants to expand that oversight even further. Under Engel’s amendment, Foreign Affairs as well as the House’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence would also have to receive the same briefing, increasing the members of Congress in the know.

4. No war with Iran.

Given the drumbeat for war with Iran that occaisonally courses through Congress, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) is taking no chances. In his amendment, Conyers seeks to add language to the NDAA clarifying that nothing in the law shall be construed as authorizing the use of force against Iran. A similar provision passed unanimously during last year’s debate.

5. Require DOD to let everyone know how much Iraq and Afghanistan cost.

Rep. James Lewis (D-SC) thinks the American people have the right to know just how much the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost them personally over the last decade. Should his amendment pass, the Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the head of the Internal Revenue Service, would have to place on the Pentagon’s website a figure displaying the cost to each individual taxpayer for the two wars. Recent estimates show that the two wars could end up costing the U.S. up to $6 trillion.

6. Speed up the immigration process for veterans of conflicts in the 1990s.

After 9/11, immigrants to the United States who chose to serve in the military and retired honorably were given the opportunity to speed up the process of their naturalization for them and their families. Reps. Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) have teamed up to introduce an amendment to stretch that provision back in time to provide the same benefits for those who served in contingency operations such as Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo in the 1990s.

7. Block sales of tear gas to countries experiencing democracy movements.

One of the frequent complaints seen during the Arab Spring wave of protests was that U.S. companies were producing the tear gas that government forces hurled at demonstrators. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)’s amendment would change that, barring the sale of tear gas and other riot control items to countries under going democracy movements. The only way that could be overridden, under the amendment, would be if the Secretary of Defense provided written justification to the Congress.

8. Ban arms purchases from Russia so long as they sell to Syria.

The Russian government has been one of the most stalwart supporters of the Syrian government over the past two years, even as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has turned his country’s guns on thousands of civilians. Russian weapons maker Rosoboronexport has likewise continued to count Assad as a loyal customer. Under a bipartisan amendment from Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), the Department of Defense would be banned from purchasing equipment from Rosoboronexport unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that new anti-aircraft missiles haven’t been shipped to Syria and that no new arms contracts had been signed by the Russia and the Syrian government.

(Credit: David McNew/Getty Images)

There are still many obstacles to overcome before immigration reform becomes law, but this first vote means that the bill has cleared the 60-vote threshold to avoid a filibuster on even considering the measure.

All 15 of the votes against moving the bill forward were Republicans. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), a moderate representing a state with an estimated 525,000 undocumented immigrants, surprised many by voting against moving forward.

But the majority of Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), joined their Republican colleagues in the Gang of Eight to help bring about the bipartisan vote.

One of the most anticipated votes, newly-appointed Sen. Jeff Chiesa (R-NJ) voted yes. He had previously kept quiet about how he would vote, only saying that he’s a “conservative who favors putting border security first.” Chiesa replaced Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), who had been a huge immigration reform advocate.

Gang of Eight member Sen. Rubio (R-FL) voted for cloture, a day after it was revealed that he had pledged not to vote for his own immigration reform effort because of what he considers lax border security. Other Republican senators have used the same opportunity to create a partisan fissure in opposing a pathway to citizenship because of what they perceived to be inadequate “boots to the ground” operation and fencing.

Senators are hopeful that the bill will be voted in its entirety before July 4th. The immigration bill presented by the House will likely be difficult to pass, but House Speaker Boehner (R-OH) believes that reform will pass by the end of the year.

Steve Lonegan (R)

Lonegan, former Bogota Mayor and former state director of the Koch Brothers’ Americans for Prosperity, was one of six candidates to file to run in October’s special election to replace the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D). In a press release, campaign tweets, and Facebook posts, he noted that he had “left a voicemail” at Chiesa’s Washington office encouraging a no vote on comprehensive immigration reform legislation. “This legislation is a pure and simple amnesty for illegal aliens and if I were a member of the U.S. Senate, I would vote no,” he added.

Lonegan’s has been a longstanding anti-immigrant activist. He called for a boycott of McDonald’s in 2006 after the company posted a Spanish-language ad for its iced coffee on a billboard. The message, Lonegan claimed, was “offensive” and divisive” as it sent a message that immigrants need not learn English. He pushed unsuccessfully for a referendum to declare English the official language of Bogota, New Jersey. He also sought to use local police to enforce immigration law and attacked then Gov. Jon Corzine’s (D) proposals for a state DREAM Act “chock-full of left-wing nonsense that would make this state a magnet for undocumented or illegal workers.”

In 2007, however, police discovered two undocumented immigrants were illegally working at a home owned by Lonegan. At the time, he said it was not his job to “racially profile employees” who spoke Spanish and conceded, “These guys need the money.”

But the experience did little to moderate Lonegan’s rhetoric or views: in his unsuccessful 2009 campaign for governor, he tweeted, “I believe illegal immigrants should not receive government services and should be deported.” That year, his campaign proudly shared an endorsement from the extremist anti-immigrant vigilante Minuteman Project’s founder Jim Gilchrist, who said, “Steve Lonegan and I worked together to stop the illegal alien invasion in our country now being facilitated by Barack Obama.”

Hours before Senate members will cast their first votes to bring the immigration bill to the floor, Boehner indicated that he would not be responsible for the outcome of immigration reform and pointed to the direction that House Republicans would take since “it’s about what the House wants…we’re going to let the House work its will.” House Republicans have been adamant about presenting a piecemeal approach that toughens border security measures and does not include legalization.

As it stands, the Senate bill would enforce a biometric exit system that would strengthen internal enforcement since the system would likely be able to track visa overstays. Currently, 40 percent of undocumented immigrants make up the visa overstay population. Additionally the border is secure since there are “more ‘boots on the ground‘ at the border than there have ever been in history” and undocumented migrant crossings have remained at a net zero.

According to the Huffington Post, Rubio urged Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) to keep silent about her support for the measure before the first-term lawmaker endorsed the legislation on Sunday during an appearance on Face the Nation, calling it a “thoughtful bipartisan solution to a tough problem.” In a separate editorial, Ayotte also wrote that she would “support strengthening the legislation’s border security measures even further.”

Rubio “has not been telling them to vote no,” a Senate Democratic aide told HuffPo, “He has been apparently holding people back from declaring support for the bill, while at the same time saying the bill needs changes in order to garner support. My understanding is he told Sen. Ayotte’s office to hold back, but she didn’t care.”

Rubio initially praised the senate bill for “the toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States” but has since walked a delicate balance, telling conservatives that he will support amendments that will prevent immigrants from attaining permanent legal status until the border is secure, while assuring Hispanic media that the path to legalization will not be lengthened.

For instance, on June 4th, Rubio told conservative talker Hugh Hewitt that he wouldn’t vote for his own bill if more stringent border security amendments “don’t pass” the Senate and appeared to support a measure crafted by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Comptroller General to, among other requirements, certify that the government can monitor and control “every segment of the Southern border” before any immigrants in provisional status can file for lawful permanent residence. Under the senate bill, immigrants can apply for lawful status after the secretary submits border security and a fencing strategies to Congress and insures that both are “substantially deployed and substantially operational.”

Five days after appearing on Hewitt, Rubio informed Univision that “Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization.” “The legalization is going to happen,” Rubio said. “That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.”

Human dignity apparently takes a back seat to opposing marriage equality.

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development, the bishops’ anti-poverty arm, has threatened all the groups that they must leave the Coalition or lose their future funding. Among those that could be impacted are Catholic Charities, Latino Union, Resurrection Project, United African Organization, Centro de Trabajadores Unidos, Albany Park Neighborhood Council, ARISE Chicago, Chicago Workers Collaborative, Interfaith Leadership Project, and Most Blessed Trinity. A meeting later this week will determine if some minds can be changed or if a compromise can be found.

This is hardly the first time the Catholic Church has punished its own beneficiaries over the issue of marriage equality. In 2012, it cut funding for a homeless agency in Sacramento because the agency’s director supported same-sex marriage. Catholic Charities of Colorado threatened to shut down if the state passed civil unions last year, even though that version of the bill included an exception to allow the adoption agency to continue discriminating against same-sex couples. After Washington, DC legalized marriage equality in 2010, Catholic Charities stopped offering partner benefits to all employees to avoid having to provide benefits to gay employees. That same year, the diocese of Portland, Maine abandoned funding for a homeless shelter that also came out for marriage equality.

If the Catholic Church follows through on this ultimatum with these Illinois groups, it would prove that it places a higher priority on opposing marriage equality than supporting poor people or immigrants.

Larry Korkmas

Korkmas made an unsubstantiated correlation between the marathon bombings to the lack of border security, using graphic descriptions of the aftermath to emphasize the seriousness of border enforcement:

I don’t care if it’s on Youtube, I don’t care if you tell whoever. I’ll tell you who I blame as much as I blame the jihadists… I blame the people, who starting right after that last amnesty, did not close this border and did not secure our country. Every politician who has sat in Washington since that day is guilty, as far as I’m concerned, as an accessory to homicide.

Watch now:

On the contrary, halting reform efforts would actually be detrimental to border security. The creation of a tracking system would enforce a biometric exit system that would take the fingerprints and pictures of all outgoing U.S. visitors. As Sens. Graham (R-SC), Durbin (D-IL), and Schumer (D-NY) pointed out, the new biometric system put in place by the immigration bill would have actually caught the suspects in the marathon bombings.

Korkmas’s group, Texans for Immigration Reduction and Enforcement President (TFIRE) has close ties to Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which is funded by the white nationalist group, the John Tanton Network. Tanton also recently helped to mobilize other immigration-reductionist groups aimed at marginalizing Hispanics.