Both Schumer and ranking member John Cornyn (R-Texas) framed reform of high-skilled immigration policy as necessary for American economic competitiveness and, in particular, for keeping foreigners who are educated in U.S. universities in the national workforce after they graduate.

“We should staple a green card to their diplomas,” Schumer said in his opening remarks, instead of requiring them to leave once their student visas expire.

But the senior members sparred over whether reform of the employment visa system should be piecemeal, or part of a broader comprehensive package. Cornyn, addressing his Democratic colleague, said, “I think we can do just this,” arguing that the current stalemate in Congress over comprehensive reform didn’t mean that individual reforms couldn’t be achieved. But Schumer retorted that comprehensive reform is necessary because so many other stakeholders in the immigration debate want to be a part of successful legislation. Other Senate Democrats on the committee, including Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (R-Conn.) agreed.

Dr. Puneet S. Arora, an Indian-born clinical researcher who first entered the U.S. 15 years ago and is still waiting for a green card, told the committee that the policy that prevents him and thousands of otherwise successful Indian immigrants in the United States from acquiring a permanent visa is the requirement that the fixed quantity of employment-based visas not exceed a certain percentage for each country of origin. Thus, the disproportionately large number of Indian immigrants to the U.S. means that Arora must wait many years on a long waiting list before getting his green card.

Chuck Grassley

One point of controversy, picked up on by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), was whether there really are labor shortages in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) reliant industries. Dr. Ronil Hira, an immigration policy expert from the University of Rochester, said that other experts on the panel (those representing the employer side of the immigration debate) were misrepresenting the extent to which high-skilled jobs are really going unfilled because of a lack of qualified workers. He pointed out that high-skilled native-born American workers are suffering from high unemployment rates (although not as high as low-skilled workers are). But other panelists, including the chief executive of NASDAQ OMX and the president of Cornell University, responded that looking at raw unemployment numbers fails to capture the ways in which jobs requiring very particular skills aren’t being filled for lack of candidates.

“For years, our country has struggled to find a way forward on immigration reform. Since the debate reached its peak in 2007, our economy has experienced turmoil comparable to the Great Depression. Americans are out of work, families are being foreclosed on, and businesses are suffering. I agree we must do all we can to improve our economic situation. However, I have concerns with the notion that increasing immigration levels and enacting legalization programs is the answer to the current economic downturn,” Grassley said.

Hira argued that temporary visas are abused by companies located in the United States that use them to hire foreign engineers at below-market prices. Schumer agreed that he believes this is a problem, which was why he sponsored last year’s border enforcement bill, which raised the fees that high-tech companies must pay if they wish to sponsor foreign workers.

Perhaps the most contentious moment in the hearing was when Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), after lecturing the business leaders present for supporting the torpedoed 2007 Senate comprehensive reform bill, began to debate Microsoft’s top lawyer Brad Smith over whether a Canadian style points system would be better than the United States’ employer-driven immigration system: “I would take Canada’s system in a heartbeat,” Sessions said, because it was a “national policy” rather than a policy allowing businesses to pick and choose who should get a visa.

Canada’s immigration system assigns points to visa applicants based on their economic desirability, including such factors as the education level, languages spoken and other specific skills possessed by the immigrant. Business leaders and immigration experts have criticized points systems because they fail to directly take employers’ needs into account.

During the second part of the hearing, the committee heard from three mayors from across America, one of whom was the Republican mayor of Uvalda, Ga., who is a party to the lawsuit against that state’s new immigration law. Mayor Paul Bridges argued that the immigration law will devastate Georgia’s economy and actually decrease public safety because local police will be diverted to enforce the law.

Mayor David Roefaro of Utica, N.Y., highlighted the contribution that Bosnian refugees had made to his city’s economy. These Bosnian immigrants were admitted under the humanitarian, not employment or family, visa quota provided under existing U.S. immigration law, but Roefaro stated that they had nevertheless empowered Utica to create more jobs than they would have otherwise.

Schumer concluded the hearing with the concurring observation that many different types of immigrants can contribute to economic growth.

“Right now the South Carolina law is in court,” says David Woodard, a political scientist at Clemson University and a GOP consultant. He’s referring to Arizona v. United States, the case over the preliminary injunction of certain provisions of Arizona’s S.B. 1070, which legal scholars believe will determine the fate of all of the Arizona-style laws, including South Carolina’s.

“I suspect that the outcome of the Court decision will dictate the rhetoric in the election,” says Woodard. “However, I have poll data that shows that the Arizona law is very popular among GOP base voters, somewhere in the 70s is the usual support number.”

Because of the South Carolina primary’s importance, GOP candidates in the primary could be forced to embrace South Carolina’s new law, but may come to regret it in the general election. Gloria Montaño Green, from the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO), says that Arizona-style laws are causing increased Latino politico mobilization. She says Latinos are going to be watching “those who pass, and those who stand up to fight against these [Arizona-style] laws.”

“The Latino electorate is increasing. It increased in 2004 and 2008, and we believe it’s going to continue to increase in 2012 and 2016,” says Montaño Green. And although the majority of Latinos have consistently supported Democrats, a Republican still needs to have above a certain threshold of Latino support to win the White House — generally thought to be above 40 percent.

Unfortunately for candidates looking to avoid the immigration issue in South Carolina, many prominent GOP leaders who have significant influence over who wins the primary have made passing immigration enforcement laws their signature issues. Most importantly, tea party favorite Sen. Jim DeMint: “An endorsement by Lindsey Graham or Nikki Haley pales in comparison to good words from DeMint,” says Woodard (who co-authored a book with DeMint).

And although DeMint has become a conservative hero for his opposition to tax increases in the Senate, his first moment of national glory was helping to torpedo bipartisan efforts at passing comprehensive immigration reform in 2007.

There’s also South Carolina’s four Republican freshman U.S. House members, all staunch conservatives and self-identified tea party members: Representatives Jeff Duncan, Trey Gowdy, Mick Mulvaney and Tim Scott. These four “have worked in unison on legislation, and their endorsement in the primary might be very significant,” says Woodard.

All four freshmen expressed very strong support for an Arizona-style law before it was passed in South Carolina. Three — Duncan, Mulvaney and Scott — cosponsored a similar bill to what was eventually passed while they served in the state Legislature in 2010.

As for the presidential candidates themselves, in general, they can be divided in two groups when it comes to Arizona-style laws. Those considered the more tea party-friendly candidates have fully embraced “papers, please” laws and called for even stronger laws. The more “establishment” candidates have expressed support for the enforcement-only states (and condemned the federal government for suing Arizona), but qualified their statements by saying that the federal government, by failing to pass immigration reform, has forced the states to act; this allows these candidates to avoid talking about the more controversial provisions in the laws.

Mitt Romney made immigration enforcement a prime issue in the 2007-2008 primary, criticizing Sen. John McCain for his moderation and cooperation with Sen. Ted Kennedy on path-to-citizenship legislation. He made such an impression on immigration conservatives that Maricopa County, Ariz., sheriff Joe Arpaio himself not only endorsed Romney but was considered an unofficial chairman of his Arizona campaign. Romney also received DeMint’s endorsement in 2008, but nevertheless placed fourth in the final vote tally.

However, Romney has also sounded notes of caution on the implementation of Arizona’s law, specifically referring to the possibility that it might lead to racial discrimination.

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann has not held back in her support for Arizona-style laws in the past. She also told Bill O’Reilly in 2008 that law enforcement should be checking legal immigration status, calling the issue one of “anarchy versus the rule of law.”

Tim Pawlenty has tried to highlight his conservative credentials on the immigration issue. In his final year as governor of Minnesota, he issued two executive orders, one increasing cooperation between Minnesota law enforcement and federal immigration officials, and the other mandating the use of E-Verify, the federal I.D. verification system, for public employees and contractors (both orders expired once Pawlenty’s successor Mark Dayton took over as governor). During the New Hampshire debate on June 13, Pawlenty endorsed Arizona-style laws if the “federal government won’t do its job.”

He’s also received an early endorsement from Rep. Joe Wilson, the only South Carolina non-freshman in the House of Representatives, who became a hero to tea party conservatives when he yelled “You Lie!” at President Obama during a joint address to Congress in 2009. The comment Wilson objected to was Obama’s assertion that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would not provide health insurance to undocumented immigrants.

Of the mainstream candidates, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman has the least credibility on immigration to conservatives, as he was a supporter of a path to citizenship at one point. Now he says he wants border security first.

Herman Cain has been particularly vocal in his support of stringent immigration enforcement laws, telling Alabama Republicans (who have passed the most expansive version of the “papers, please” laws) that “I wouldn’t have sued Arizona, I would have given them a medal.”

Of the two libertarians, Texas Rep. Ron Paul has praised the Arizona law’s intent but raised questions about its potential infringement of civil liberties, while former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson opposes it entirely.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has yet to announce his candidacy but is considered a strong contender to fill the satisfaction gap many Republican voters are experiencing with the current candidates, has the most immediate record on Arizona-style legislation. As The Texas Independent has reported, Perry failed twice this year — both in the regular session and in a special session of the Texas Legislature — to pass a bill that would prohibit municipalities from stopping police from checking immigration status, a so called “sanctuary cities” ban.

Perry has often courted Latinos, like his predecessor George W. Bush, and supported a guestworker program for Texas during his 2007 inaugural address. But he received a tepid reaction when he addressed the Hispanic leaders in NALEO after pushing for the “sanctuary cities” ban.

NALEO’s reaction to Perry is a preview to the kind of reaction that the final GOP presidential candidate is expected to face during the general election if they are perceived as anti-Hispanic. But South Carolina’s law — and the state’s outsized importance in the GOP primary season — could force the candidates to cement positions on enforcement-only laws that they may come to regret when it comes time to run against Obama in 2012.

Now, the stakes are somewhat different: In the lame-duck session, Democrats are up against tight time constraints and an additional Republican senator, the recently elected Mark Kirk from Illinois, to pass any immigration bills. But Menendez still says the DREAM Act, which would allow some undocumented students and military service members to gain legal status, should be the fallback to passing a far more contentious comprehensive immigration reform bill:

“The White House is ready and willing, and we may be having another meeting with the White House very soon this week,” Menendez said on a conference call, adding that Obama is “clearly interested” trying to reach a deal on immigration before the Congress convenes. [...]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have said they would like to push for the DREAM Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were brought to the country as children, during the lame-duck session.

Menendez said that although he supports the legislation, he would “like that to be a fallback.”

“I would not like to start there,” Menendez said. “I am a strong supporter of the DREAM Act. If that is all that can be achieved, then I certainly support the opportunity.”

Granted, Menendez has some good reasons to continue pushing for comprehensive immigration reform: He introduced a reform bill just before the pre-election recess, and with Republicans set to take over the House in January it may be the last chance for reform for a few years. Obama will likely state his support for immigration reform — one of his campaign promises — and the DREAM Act.

But given the difficulty of rounding up 60 votes for even the DREAM Act, Reid and Pelosi seem unlikely to push for comprehensive immigration reform. The likelihood of passing comprehensive immigration reform during the lame-duck session is very low, and DREAM Act supporters have argued the act should not be held hostage to broader reform efforts if those efforts cannot gain Republican support.

“Americans are practical on immigration issues,” David Mermin, a partner at Lake Research Partners, said in a press release. “Americans support comprehensive immigration reform as a practical solution, even among a cranky electorate this year. Republican leaders thinking they have a  mandate to pursue enforcement-only approaches are really mistaken.”

In the poll, interestingly, most members of both parties said they supported comprehensive immigration reform — even before they were given a description of what it would entail. After a description, support rose even higher: 72 percent of Republicans said they strongly supported it, versus 68 percent of Democrats.

Most people in both parties said border security should be tackled at the same time as other immigration issues and that deporting all of the illegal immigrants in the country would be unrealistic.

Of course, those views are different from the ones held by most of the Republicans voted into office last Tuesday. The next session’s House GOP leaders on immigration issues, Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Steve King (R-Iowa), have advocated enforcement-first approaches to immigration, and many other Republicans in the House and Senate claim nothing can be done on immigration until the border becomes more secure.

Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, a group that advocates stricter immigration enforcement, claimed in its post-election analysis that the election results proved widespread support for enforcement-first immigration efforts and “opposition to the Obama Administration’s version of ‘comprehensive’ immigration reform.” In the exit poll results the group released last week, most voters agreed when asked if “President Obama has not been aggressive enough in enforcing immigration laws.”

America’s Voice claims its results indicate that most people support comprehensive immigration reform — even under the Democratic definition — but voted based on economic issues instead. Very few people polled from either party — 3 percent of both Democrats and Republicans, and just 1 percent of independents — said immigration was the most important issue they considered when choosing a candidate.

“The American people are out in front of the politicians on this issue,” Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, said in a press release. “There’s a vocal and visible anti-immigrant minority that makes some politicians believe they speak for the majority. As this polling makes clear, they don’t.”

It makes sense for advocates to reiterate that Latino support for Democrats should not be taken for granted: It’s how they can motivate politicians to act on issues important to them. For the most part, it seems unlikely that pro-immigration reform Latino voters would vote for Republicans who oppose paths to citizenship, even if Democrats don’t move on passing reform. But the Politico story mentions one interesting option for the GOP to garner more Latino support: Nominate Marco Rubio for president.

Rubio, a Republican who won Florida’s senate race last week, is Cuban-American and received a large portion of the Latino vote in the state. A poll of Latino registered voters the night before the election found 62 percent planned to vote for Rubio — far higher levels than for Republican candidates in other states.

Politico reports that Republican leaders are considering pushing for Rubio to run for president partially to challenge Obama’s support among Latinos:

His campaign could be their template. The son of Cuban immigrants, Rubio advertised heavily on Spanish-language television, broadcasting his personal story as the centerpiece of an inspirational message to Hispanics.

Similar to former President George W. Bush, Rubio spoke about his opposition to legalization “in a respectful and empathetic tone, focusing on law-and-order aspects and not using people who cross the border illegally as political punching bags,” said Ana Navarro, a Miami-based Republican strategist and adviser to Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Of course, there are a few potential problems with the strategy. Rubio will be only two years into his first Senate term in 2012, meaning he would have served even less time in the chamber than Obama did before he was elected.

Beyond that, it may not make sense to extrapolate much out of the high Latino support for Rubio last week. Florida’s Latino population often displays different trends from Latino voters nationwide because it is largely made up of Cuban-Americans, who can easily gain citizenship if they come to the United States, and Puerto Ricans, who are born citizens. These groups typically place immigration concerns lower and vote for Republicans more often than Latinos in the country overall. Rubio actually lost to Democrat Kendrick Meek among non-Cuban Latino voters in Florida, according to a pre-election poll.

Rubio also saw few challenges during the campaign over his immigration positions, a Democratic pollster told Politico. He may have lost some support among Latinos if his conservative views on immigration had been more widely known. He advocated border security, steered clear of controversy over Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration crackdown and focused most of his Spanish-language messaging on his background as the son of immigrants. In a drawn-out political race, though, the strategy may be more difficult.

“We built this infrastructure to mobilize voters to support our friends,” Field Director Rudy Lopez of Campaign for Community Change said on a conference call this afternoon. “For those who choose not to be our friends, go ask Ken Buck and Sharron Angle how they feel about the election results.”

This year’s efforts in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada and Washington included canvassing for votes and massive voter registration drives. The numbers differ on how many Latinos turned out to vote: Exit polls report Latinos made up eight percent of the electorate this year, the same as in 2006, while a poll of Latino voters the night before the election estimated turnout would be up from the previous midterm elections. (For more on discrepancies between the polls, read this Nate Silver post on polling and the Latino vote.)

Latinos may be to thank for some Democrat victories, but at least this year, the pattern of anti-immigrant candidates losing doesn’t hold true in all states — particularly non-Western ones. Hazleton, Pa., Mayor Lou Barletta (R), who presided over a now-overturned law to drive out illegal immigrants, won his race for the House. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) won re-election after signing SB 1070, and Florida’s Rick Scott (R) won the governor’s race while pledging to create copycat legislation in his state.

Still, immigrant rights groups have a point: Demographic evidence does point to Latinos making up an increasing share of the electorate. Given that a majority of Latino voters support comprehensive immigration reform that includes options for some of the illegal immigrants already in the country to stay, enforcement-only candidates are unlikely to receive major Latino support.

It’s a message at least some Republicans have heard. At a panel on immigration policy and conservatism in August, several advocates of lower illegal immigration numbers said the GOP should be careful to avoid alienating voters through rhetoric against immigration. Failed California governor hopeful Meg Whitman (R) attempted to soften her immigration positions to appeal to Latino voters late in her campaign — which arguably could have worked if she hadn’t made hard-line immigration stances a focus of her GOP primary.

Although immigrant rights groups said Latinos would not be won over by anti-illegal immigration rhetoric, few went so far as to say they were mobilizing voters specifically for the Democratic Party. The idea, instead, is to get the Republican Party to recognize its need for Latino supporters. Although the party presented a few major Latino candidates this year, such as New Mexico governor-elect Susana Martinez and Florida senator-elect Marco Rubio, overall support from Latinos for Republican candidates remained low.

“The dilemma we have is also a dilemma Republicans have,” Angelica Salas of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles Action Fund said on a conference call. “If want a chance at the presidency, they can’t ignore us.”

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is expected to push for heavy immigration enforcement as chairman of the House immigration subcommittee next session. (Tina Fultz/ZUMApress.com)

During his campaign for the presidency in 2008, Barack Obama made the now-broken promise to Latino supporters that he would pass comprehensive immigration reform in his first year as president. But in remarks to the press on Wednesday, after Republicans took control of the House and won back several seats in the Senate, talk of immigration reform was noticeably absent.

[Immigration1] Democrats will still hold a majority in both chambers during the lame-duck session, when leaders hope to pass the DREAM Act to give some undocumented young people and military service members legal status. But after January, immigration reform efforts that include paths to legal status for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States seem next to impossible, meaning the next few years will see little progress for immigration reform advocates.

“The new leaders of the House have made it clear that they’re going to continue to push an enforcement-only strategy,” said Mary Giovagnoli, director of pro-reform Immigration Policy Center. “It’s going to be a hard couple of years.”

The Republicans ushered into power in the midterms favor tight border security, strict enforcement and policies that would allow states, along with the federal government, to police immigration. Many campaigned on hard-line immigration positions that cost them support among Latinos, but won backing from the broad segments of the population that approve of illegal immigration crackdowns like Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law.

In short, Republicans who won on Tuesday hold radically different views on tackling illegal immigration from the president and Senate Democrats. Prospects are bleak for anyone who hopes to see meaningful change on immigration policy: A Democratic Senate will have trouble getting immigrant-friendly measures past the House, while the House will have trouble getting enforcement-only measures past the Senate — or the president’s desk. The result will likely be more of the same on immigration policy.

There are a few areas where Republicans have brought forth proposals to reform the immigration system. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who is expected to take over as chairman of the House’s immigration subcommittee, plans use his leadership position to call in Obama administration officials and question them on immigration enforcement, claiming “they’re not enforcing the laws.”

It’s a common argument from Republicans, who have repeatedly accused the Obama administration of taking a lax approach. After reports that immigration courts were throwing out deportation cases for illegal immigrants who were deemed non-dangerous or had pending citizenship applications, the seven current Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano demanding to know how much it would cost to find and deport every illegal immigrant in the country.

“[Immigration and Customs Enforcement] has cited a lack of resources as one of the reasons for its prioritization of cases and for its selective enforcement,” the Oct. 21 letter reads. “But to date, we have not seen any efforts by ICE, your Department, or the Administration to request an increase in ICE funding. … As a result, it appears that your Department is doing the very thing that we have raised concerns about in several letters – allowing illegal aliens to evade the law.”

If Republicans attempt to force increased immigration enforcement, it would require a huge increase in funding for ICE. The agency currently receives $2.6 billion from Congress each year to detain and remove illegal immigrants. ICE Chief John Morton says this budget allows the agency to deport about 400,000 people per year — a number it approaching this year. Deporting the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, then, could cost as much as $70 billion.

Of course, most Republicans don’t advocate a deportation-only method to decreasing illegal immigration numbers in the country. GOP members also say they hope to pass legislation to eliminate possible incentives for foreigners to stay in the country by cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, eliminating the few social services illegal immigrants can receive and in some cases even eliminating citizenship for children born in the country to undocumented parents.

A GOP-led initiative to end birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants under the 14th Amendment received support from 95 House members in 2009, although the bill never made it out of committee. Instead of attempting to amend the Constitution, the bill would create a statute limiting citizenship to children with at least one parent in the country legally.

King plans to push for the bill again in the next session of Congress, where support for the measure will be even stronger. King insists the bill is both legal and necessary to stop the “anchor baby” phenomenon — the idea that illegal immigrants come to America and have children in order to gain legal status — which most immigration experts agree does not exist because citizens cannot petition for legal status for their families until they are adults.

Expanding E-Verify, a controversial program that allows employers to check the immigration status of potential employees, is another likely priority for the Republican-led House. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who is expected to head the Judiciary Committee, co-sponsored a bill to make use of E-Verify mandatory for all employers. (Federal agencies and contractors are already required to use the program.)

Of course, House Republicans cannot enact any laws without the support of Obama or the Democratic-controlled Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is unlikely to risk angering Latino voters by passing enforcement-only immigration measures. But even if it means gridlock, House leaders seem committed to blocking comprehensive immigration reform.

“The best solution to the problem of illegal immigration is to enforce current laws,” Smith told the Chicago Tribune last week. “Attrition through enforcement can reduce the number of illegal immigrants already in the U.S.”

Salazar lost to Republican Scott Tipton, a Tea Party-backed candidate who will likely support heavier immigration enforcement without paths to legal status for the illegal immigrants already in the country. In Texas, Republican Francisco “Quico” Canseco defeated Rodriguez, a six-term congressman, and Republican Blake Farenthold took out 14-term congressman Ortiz.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus is made up of Democrats and supports immigration reform that would allow some of the illegal immigrants in the United States to remain if they paid fines and taxes, learned English, passed background and civics tests and registered with the government. Losing three members from the caucus may seem minor given the size of Congress, but it means at least three pro-immigration reform members will be replaced in the House with members who support restricting immigration and tightly enforcing immigration laws to drive out current undocumented immigrants.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who chairs the immigration task force of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, easily won re-election yesterday. But he acknowledged that enacting immigration reform will be more difficult with a GOP-led House. “If Republican opposition prevents us from seriously addressing immigration legislatively, then the President must address the toll deportations are taking on American families and neighborhoods through administrative action,” he said in a press release.

All of the races listed below could go either way, but it’s worth speculating on where the election could have an effect on immigration policy:

Majority leader: The Senate race between Sen. Harry Reid (D) and Sharron Angle (R) could open up the position of majority leader, which Reid currently holds. It’s unlikely Republicans will take over a majority of the Senate, but losing Reid would put another Democrat in charge of the push for immigration legislation. Luckily for reform supporters, both of the senators likely to take over as majority leader if Reid loses are equally strong supporters of immigration reform as Reid — perhaps even stronger.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), currently second in command, is the chief sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would provide legal residency states to some undocumented students and military service members, and supports comprehensive immigration reform. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is considered the favorite to take over as majority leader because of his past success as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. He also supports comprehensive immigration reform, and wrote a blueprint for comprehensive immigration reform this spring with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

Immigration subcommittee: Schumer heads the Judiciary subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, which will remain in the hands of Democrats unless Republicans take over a majority of the Senate. The committee could see some shifting if the current members lose their seats, but most who are up for re-election have comfortable leads. Schumer looks certain to win against Republican challenger Jay Townsend, while Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) looks like he’ll be safe against Republican candidate Len Britton and his five other challengers. The other Democrats on the committee — Durbin, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse — aren’t up for re-election this year.

On the Republican side, only Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is up for re-election. He is favored to win over Democratic challenger Roxanne Conlin. The other GOP members of the subcommittee — Texas Sen. John Cornyn, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl and Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions — aren’t up for re-election. In the very unlikely event that Republicans win control of the Senate, Cornyn would be the chairman of the subcommittee on immigration.

Other immigration-related races: In the Senate especially, every member’s views on a given issue are important for passing legislation. A few races between pro- and anti-immigration reform candidates could make the difference for passing comprehensive immigration reform or, in lieu of that, smaller-scale legislation such as AgJOBS to create paths to legalization for some farm workers.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) faces a challenge from Republican Carly Fiorina, who supports the DREAM Act and reform of the guest worker system but argues against “amnesty” for illegal immigrants — the derisive term used by conservatives to refer to efforts to allow some undocumented immigrants already in the United States to earn legal status. Boxer, on the other hand, has been a consistent supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, arguing Congress should pass a bill increasing border security and enforcement efforts while also allowing some illegal immigrants in the country to remain here legally.

In New York, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who was appointed to Hillary Clinton’s old seat, is favored to win over Republican Joseph J. DioGuardi. Gillibrand was originally considered an anti-immigrant pick for the Senate seat, but has since shifted to a pro-immigration reform view and advocates legislation that would allow some undocumented immigrants in the country to become legal residents.

Open seats could see the addition of some immigration hardliners. Rand Paul, a Republican running for Senate in Kentucky against Democrat Jack Conway, supports state-led solutions to illegal immigration such as Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law. He also wants to built an electric fence between the United States and Mexico and move overseas military bases back to the country to man the border. Conway, on the other hand, said he supports more border agents but also paths to legalization. “Let’s take people out of the shadows and turn them into taxpayers,” he said during a debate.

Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Alexi Giannoulias are facing off for Obama’s former seat in Illinois. If Giannoulias wins, the Democrats will have a nearly sure vote for comprehensive immigration reform as well as the DREAM Act. But Kirk has said that the Senate should tackle border security first, and that he would vote against the DREAM Act and other immigration reform.

Latino voters could make a big difference in certain races, given their status as the largest and fastest-growing minority group in the country. The San Francisco Chronicle has a good list of the races in which Latinos could have the biggest impact next week, all in states where Latinos make up a large proportion of the population.

Here are the Chronicle rankings, along with my summaries of the candidates’ stances on immigration:

1. Sharron Angle (R) vs. Sen. Harry Reid (D) for Nevada senator

Angle has taken a harsh stance on illegal immigration in her ads against Senate Majority Leader Reid, with two fairly extreme ads depicting the evils of undocumented immigrants. (She didn’t earn any more love from the Latino community with her talk of Latino teens looking “more Asian.”) Reid’s campaign hopes her statements, along with Republican inaction on immigration reform, will motivate Latino voters and his Democratic base to vote for him in the primary. His argument is that Latinos who support reform don’t have a better option: “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican,” Reid said in August.

2. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) vs. Carly Fiorina (R) for California senator

Fiorina supports a few immigration reform measures, such as the DREAM Act and reform of the guest worker system. A conservative Latino group supports her candidacy and a National Organization for Marriage-backed group funded Spanish-language ads praising her values. But Boxer has consistently supported immigration reform — including a comprehensive overhaul of the system that would allow some illegal immigrants in the country to gain legal status — and has the edge among Latino voters.

3. John Hickenlooper (D) vs. Dan Maes (R) vs. Tom Tancredo (I) for Colorado governor

The three candidates for governor have wildly different views and rhetoric on immigration, mostly because of the near single-issue campaign Tancredo has run as a third party candidate. Tancredo, a longtime anti-illegal immigration hardliner, has accused Hickenlooper of running Denver as a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants and aired an ad blaming his Democratic opponent for the death of a toddler struck by an undocumented driver. For his part, Hickenlooper has taken a more positive angle — he even ran an ad in which he showers to wash away negative campaigning — while shooting down “sanctuary city” charges. Maes took increasingly conservative positions on immigration during the Republican primary, and now opposes pathways to legalization. Hickenlooper was excepted to win, but Tancredo seems to be catching up in the polls and could overtake him next week.

4. Alexi Giannoulias (D) vs. Mark Kirk (R) for Illinois senator

Giannoulias supports both comprehensive immigration reform, which would allow some illegal immigrants already in the country to become legal residents, and the DREAM Act for undocumented students and military service members. Kirk has said he would vote no on the DREAM Act and other reform legislation unless border security were addressed first. “This is not the time to do this,” he said of the DREAM Act during an Oct. 19 debate. “We have a decisive, bipartisan majority right now for border control. For making sure the United States can defend itself and make sure that illegal entry into the United States is not possible.” (Notably, this was after the Senate passed a $600 million bill aimed at improving border security in August.) The candidates are close in the polls, but Giannoulias could be put over the edge if Latino voters show up in large numbers as they did for Obama in 2008.

5. Bill Brady (R) vs. Gov. Pat Quinn (D) for Illinois governor

Brady and Quinn have been largely quiet on their immigration views, perhaps because of Illinois’ large number of immigrants from Mexico, Poland and India. While Quinn condemned Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration crackdown as “un-American,” Brady declined to state an opinion on the law. He has also remained silent on the DREAM Act, but says the country should find a way to secure the borders and mend legal immigration without “amnesty.” For now, Brady reportedly has a slight edge.

Also on the Chronicle list are five congressional races: Texas’s 23rd Congressional District, Arizona’s 7th, Colorado’s 3rd, California’s 47th and Nevada’s 3rd.