According to The Miami Herald:

Florida’s Tea Party activists say they will accept nothing short of requiring every employer to check the immigration status of their workers through the federal E-verify program in January when legislators convene in regular session. But armed with the support of Florida’s powerful agriculture and business groups, the same legislative leaders who last year promised Arizona-style immigration reform are now barely offering tentative support for it.

The Herald adds: “House Speaker Dean Cannon, whose chamber proposed but never passed an Arizona-style immigration enforcement plan last year, said that immigration reform may take a back seat to balancing the budget, reapportionment and strengthening the economy.”

Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolis, R-Merritt Island, said last week that his chamber would pass the same immigration bill it passed in the 2011 session. At this year’s RedState Gathering, Gov. Rick Scott said that an immigration enforcement bill “will happen this session.”

According to Numbers USA — an organization that wants “lower immigration levels” — Perry’s results in the Florida straw poll can be blamed on his weak stance on immigration enforcement. The group writes that “Texas Gov. Rick Perry is proving that appearing to be more concerned about illegal-alien workers than about unemployed Americans doesn’t work in Republican primaries.”

According to Immigration Daily, an immigration law publisher, “during the Republican presidential debate in Florida, Governor Rick Perry’s stand on immigration landed him in second in the straw poll. The issue that cost him a large number of supporters was his support of the Texas bill that made Texas the first state to let illegal immigrant children pay in-state college tuition.”

The Daily adds that despite this position on college tuition, Perry “opposes the DREAM Act, opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, and has spent ten years and $400 million securing Texas’ border from illegal immigration.”

The Immigration Policy Center adds to the debate, stating that Perry’s Republican opponents “mischaracterize in-state tuition for unauthorized immigrants, claiming that it comes at the expense of native-born students.” The Policy Center argues that “providing in-state tuition is the government’s recognition that kids who have already been educated in the state should be able to complete that education.”

At a Wednesday press conference, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised that the bill would get a vote on the floor of the Senate, but it’s hard to imagine how he’ll pull that off. The Senate fell five votes short of killing a filibuster on the bill during the lame duck session in December and the Democrats now have a smaller majority than they did at the time.

Obama said the lack of progress on immigration reform occurred despite work from people on both sides of the aisle.

“We’ve seen leaders of both parties who try to work on this issue, but then their efforts fell prey to the usual Washington games,” Obama said. “And all the while, we’ve seen the mounting consequences of decades of inaction.”

Obama said that Republicans have been looking to “move the goal posts” on securing the border.

“They wanted a fence,” Obama said. “Well the fence is now basically complete.”

“We’re here at the border because we also recognize that being a nation of laws goes hand in hand with being a nation of immigrants,” Obama said in his address at Chamizal National Memorial in El Paso.

Rep. Steve Pearce, the lone Republican in the New Mexico delegation, said before Obama’s speech that the president should have met with constituents in border communities in New Mexico.

“We cannot possibly address immigration without first facing our border security problems,” Pearce said in a statement. “It is unfortunate that the President missed an opportunity to hear from my constituents about the need for serious measures.”

Sen. Tom Udall, a Democrat, said that he supported former President George W. Bush’s call for immigration reform and praised Obama for bringing it up again.

“Comprehensive immigration legislation is necessary to fix our broken borders and advance the educational and economic progress of the country,” Udall said in a statement. “I hope that the president’s speech is just the beginning of a bipartisan effort to pass real reform.”

Sen. Jeff Bingaman also called for immigration reform.

“Obviously, we must make security a centerpiece of comprehensive immigration reform,” Bingaman said. “But I do believe Congress needs to finally find a way to create a more thoughtful immigration system that works for our economy.”

After being “encouraged” by Obama’s speech, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico Regional Center for Border Rights called for Obama to change its focus “on a costly, enforcement-only model.”

“Our national security, while critical, should never come at the expense of civil and human rights,” said Vicki Gaubeca, director of the ACLU-NM Regional Center for Border Rights. “At the very least, we need more transparency, accountability and oversight to prevent the border region from becoming a Constitution-free zone.”

Any sort of immigration reform seems unlikely over the next two years. The House of Representatives is controlled by a Republican majority, while the Senate has a Democratic majority. The two chambers have been unable to agree on a number of high-profile issues.

Watch the speech:

Following a tour of the cargo facility at the Bridge of the Americas Port of Entry (according to the White House, of the half-billion inspections conducted every year at 327 ports of entry nationwide, approximately 10 percent enter through the El Paso Port of Entry), at 3:30 p.m. EDT, the president will speak at the Chamizal National Memorial in El Paso, Texas, to lay out a plan for immigration reform and improving national economic and national security, so that “America can win the future,” according to a White House press release.

The speech will be live-streamed at WhiteHouse.gov/live, starting at 3:30 p.m. EDT.

Among his planned points, the president will address ”how Americans can work together to foster a constructive national conversation on this important issue as we work to build a bipartisan consensus in Congress.”

In recent meeting,s Obama has asked Democrats and Republicans to elevate the immigration debate publicly and has organized 30 community conversations around the country, according to the White House, including a conference call among business, labor, law enforcement and faith leaders on Wednesday; a roundtable community conservation in Omaha, Neb., among business leaders, administration officials and U.S. Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra on Thursday; and also on Thursday, a community conversation in Silicon Valley among AOL found Steve Case and senior administration officials. On May 19, Asian-American and Pacific Islander leaders are scheduled to converse on a national conference call with Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis, and on May 31, Solis is scheduled to speak in Albuquerque, N.M., at a roundtable hosted by the Albuquerque Hispano Chamber of Commerce.

Roll Call notes that Tuesday’s speech will mark the fourth week the president has publicly addressed immigration reform and calls it a re-election campaign move to win over Latino voters.

From Roll Call:

Republicans maintain that the administration needs to commit more resources to protect the border before any legislative action is taken on immigration. Additionally, GOP lawmakers have expressed concerns that sweeping reforms that grant citizenship to more immigrants would harm the nation’s economy.

[...]

Obama supports legislation known as the DREAM Act that would create a path to citizenship for college students and members of the military. But Democrats were unable to pass that bill or other immigration legislation during the previous Congress, despite controlling both chambers, and action this year is unlikely.

The politically difficult issue has taken a back seat to jobs, the economy and, more recently, foreign affairs in the wake of the killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Nevertheless, the senior officials said Obama is pressing immigration in an attempt to rally supporters and potentially prompt legislative action.

Less than an hour after delivering his immigration plan, Obama is scheduled to fly to Austin, Texas, where he will speak at two Democratic National Committee events, one at the Moody Theater (located on Willie Nelson Boulevard), where the PBS program Austin City Limits is taped live, and another at a private residence.

Texas was the first state to institute a DREAM Act in 2001, and other states have formally or informally used the term to refer to similar bills ever since. The federal DREAM Act, which would have offered a path to permanent resident status for undocumented immigrants who graduate from college, failed in the U.S. Senate in December.

The vote approving the bill in both the Maryland House and Senate came in the last hours of the state’s regular legislative session. The vote is galvanizing news for immigration reform advocates, who have in recent months condemned attempts like several in Texas seeking to repeal DREAM Act legislation. The three Texas bills that would undo in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants have been languishing in committee since their introduction.

The Maryland bill (PDF) is actually a bit stricter than other DREAM Acts around the country. In addition to requiring students without legal immigration status to complete high school and register for the Selective Service (if male), the bill requires that undocumented students attend two years of community college before being eligible for in-state rates at four-year institutions. Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) has promised to sign the bill and is expected to do so soon.

Meanwhile, on the schedule for today in the Connecticut House of Representatives is the state’s own version of the DREAM Act. The less pithily titled “Act Concerning Access to Postsecondary Education” not only codifies the notion that anyone living in the state should be considered an in-state student for higher education purposes, it also specifically addresses applying for legal status. From the bill:

A person, other than a nonimmigrant alien as described in 8 USC 1101(a)(15), shall be entitled to classification as an in-state student for tuition purposes, (A) if such person (i) resides in this state, (ii) attended any educational institution in this state and completed at least four years of high school level education in this state, (iii) graduated from a high school in this state, or the equivalent thereof, and (iv) is registered as an entering student, or is enrolled at a public institution of higher education in this state, and (B) if such person is without legal immigration status, such person files an affidavit with such institution of higher education stating that he or she has filed an application to legalize his or her immigration status, or will file such an application as soon as he or she is eligible to do so.

So under the bill, undocumented students in Connecticut would qualify for in-state tuition as long as they’ve finished high school and plan one day to obtain legal immigration status. While the bill has received some opposition from Republican legislators in public hearings, it is expected to pass in the Democrat-controlled House and Senate, who passed a similar bill in 2007, only to see it vetoed by then-Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican. The current governor, Democrat Dan Malloy, has pledged to sign any DREAM Act-like legislation that crosses his desk.

A New York version of the DREAM Act has also been introduced in recent weeks by State Sen. Bill Perkins (D-Harlem). It has been in the Senate Finance Committee since its introduction.

From an article posted today at Media Consortium, a few examples of tax dollars being used to defend state and local immigration laws:

Hazleton, Pennsylvania, the leader of the court fights for local immigration enforcement, is in the tank for at least $2.8 million with some estimates totaling $5 million as it defends its ordinance all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Riverside, New Jersey suffered a local economic downturn before the city rescinded its anti-immigrant ordinance and welcomed the return of immigrants.

Farmers Branch, Texas, has spent nearly $4 million in legal fees and is expected to spend at least $5 million to defend its anti-immigration statute with no end in sight.

Prince William County, Virginia dramatically scaled back a tough immigration statute after realizing the original version would cost millions to enforce and defend in court.

Fremont, Nebraska, increased the city’s property tax to help pay the legal fees for its anti-immigration ordinance which it intends to defend.

That information and more can be found in a recently released study by The Center for American Progress.

Likely economic fallout hasn’t stopped Colorado legislators from introducing a bill that mimics Arizona’s 1070, nor from introducing one targeting immigrants who need bonds, nor from introducing one requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. Colorado legislators have not yet introduced a bill to sidestep the 14th Amendment.

More from the Media Consortium article:

Arizona lawmakers are expected to introduce an “anchor baby” bill today that would deny birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. Modeled after birthright citizenship legislation unveiled by the nativist coalition State Legislators for Legal Immigration (SLLI) earlier this month, the measure is, unabashedly, part of a larger effort on the part of SLLI to challenge existing citizenship law in the United States.

Lawmakers from Georgia, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Carolina have likewise committed to introducing citizenship bills at the state level, while legislators from Nebraska, Indiana, Colorado, Texas and others are determined to implement similarly controversial Arizona-style enforcement measures in their states.

In recent years, communities that implemented harsh anti-immigrant laws have experienced a number of economic and social repercussions which lawmakers continue to overlook in their determination to tighten enforcement. But as nativist policies bleed public coffers and anti-immigrant political speech incites new strains of ethnic violence, the stark consequences of such extremism are becoming harder and harder to ignore.

If the 14th Amendment was appealed, stripping automatic citizenship from babies born in the U.S, women checking in to hospitals presumably would need to carry proof of citizenship, making that final last minute packing for the hospital just a little more problematic for citizens and non-citizens alike.

Both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have signaled they hope to hold votes this session on the act, which would allow some undocumented young people to gain legal status if they attended college or served in the military for two years.

Politico has the full readout from the meeting, which also states Obama’s continued commitment to comprehensive immigration reform “at the earliest opportunity”:

“The President reiterated his support for fixing the broken immigration system and urged the CHC leaders to work to restore the bipartisan coalition backing comprehensive immigration reform. The President repeated his hope that, with the election season’s pressures past, Congressional Republicans would work with their Democratic colleagues not only to strengthen security at the nation’s borders, but also to restore responsibility and accountability to what everyone agrees is a broken immigration system. The President reiterated his strong support for bipartisan Congressional action on immigration reform at the earliest opportunity, noting that the American people expect both parties to work together to tackle the challenges confronting our nation.”

Obama has consistently stated his support for the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform. But with a likely tight vote ahead for the act in the Senate, Gutierrez said the president’s support is needed to ensure a united Democratic effort to pass the bill.

“With the White House, Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and every Democratic Leader in the House and Senate pulling in the same direction, we can pass the DREAM Act before the end of the 111th Congress,” he said in a press release after the meeting.

Right now, it is unclear whether all Democrats would vote for the DREAM Act, which is a problem given the Republicans’ larger share of the Senate after the newly elected Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) takes Obama’s former seat. At least five Democrats who voted against the DREAM Act in 2007 told The Hill they are still uncertain on how they would vote this year, and only two Republicans have said they would vote for the act as a standalone bill. Reid needs at least 60 votes to prevent a Republican filibuster — the tactic that took down the effort to insert the DREAM Act and a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” into the defense authorization bill in September.

“Allowing undocumented students to attend primary and secondary schools but requiring that they pay out-of-state tuition for college creates an unfair financial burden that many, even very talented, students cannot overcome,” Diaz-Balart said in a press release. “We should stop hampering these deserving students’ educational opportunities due to the decisions of their parents and allow a vote on the American DREAM Act.”

I explain some of the votes up in the air in our preview of the lame-duck session today. Pelosi has said she hopes to call for a vote on the bill, as has Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). But so far, it’s unclear whether the Democratic leadership has the votes to pass the bill, with some members of the Democratic caucus likely to break with the party to vote against the bill.

For immigrant rights groups, the stakes are high: If the DREAM Act cannot pass with Democrat majorities in both the House and the Senate, it will almost certainly be delayed until at least 2013, when Democrats could again take control of Congress. Immigrant rights groups are stepping up their efforts by staging protests and lobbying politicians to vote for the bill.

One reason supporters want the bill passed this year, beyond the obvious desire to provide more immediate relief to undocumented immigrants, is to prevent further problems with the DREAM Act’s age constraints. The current bill would allow undocumented immigrants who had attended two years of college or served in the military for two years to gain legal status if they had a clean permanent record and were under the age of 35.

For some, that age sounds too high — people who are in their 30s may no longer be students, whom the bill is theoretically meant to help. But Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the chief sponsor of the bill, said in October he wants to help those the bill was initially aimed at when it first came up in 2001 — some of whom may now be reaching the upper age limits of the bill.

If the bill is delayed, future efforts could raise the upper age cutoff — at the risk of losing some votes — or would no longer benefit those immigrants, some of whom have been advocating for the bill for years.

It also stands in direct contrast to a bill being written by state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom (R), who promised a bill similar to Arizona’s controversial SB 1070 immigration law for the next legislative session.

“Enforcement-only policies like an Arizona-style law are harmful,” Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said at a press conference on Nov. 11. “What we need is a fair, reasonable alternative. We need to incentivize people to become legal, and not drive them further underground. That is the only option for reasonable, rational, effective law enforcement.”

Former Republican governors Olene Walker and Norman Bangerter also signed onto the compact, along with the current mayors of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. The Church of Latter Day Saints, the Catholic Diocese and the Sutherland Institute, which advocates limited government, also agreed to the pledge.

Utah is interesting to watch as immigration hardliners push for state legislation because some of its policies toward illegal immigrants can be considered friendly. The state is one of three that allows undocumented immigrants to drive, and high-level Republicans have come out in support of comprehensive immigration reform. Gov. Gary Herbert (R) has said he wants to see an immigration bill that would address guest workers and employment as well as enforcement. This contrasts with Republican governors from a number of other states who have spoken out in support of strict enforcement-only laws in their states.

Utah’s demographics may be part of the reason for the state’s complicated relationship with immigration. Nearly 12 percent of Utah’s population is Latino, according to 2008 census data. Beyond that, the politically powerful Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which counts many Utah residents among its members, has generally been moderate on immigration. While most members of the church are politically conservative, the church is reportedly torn between a majority who favor compassion to illegal immigrants and some members of the leadership who prefer stricter enforcement.

The church’s support for the “Utah Compact” puts it squarely on the pro-reform, rather than pro-enforcement, side of the issue. After the church announced its position on Nov. 11, Sandstrom said the church should stay out of the debate over immigration policy. “I kind of wish I’d been given more of a heads-up because it is taking aim at the bill I’m doing,” Sandstrom told the Salt Lake Tribune. “My other thought was that I thought the church’s no-position was the best way to go and to let this be the purview of government.”

“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.”