Cnn.com reported that a bipartisan Senate bill that would creat a path to legal status for many of the 11.5 million undocumented immigrants in the United States could reduce deficits by $175 billion over the first 10 years and by at least $700 billion in the second decade.

That’s according to an analysis released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.  The CBO, working with the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, estimates that 8 million unauthorized residents would become legal in the first decade.

In addition, the report estimates the bill would boost the U.S. population by a net of 10.4 million people by 2023 and by 16 million by 2033.  The rise in legal immigrants and the U.S. population overall would increase spending on refundable tax credits, Medicaid and health insurance subsidies, among other federal benefits. And it would increase spending for the implementation and enforcement of the bill’s provisions.

At the same time, however, the surge would create even more tax revenue by way of income and payroll taxes, the agency noted.

The CBO did caution, however, that “the net impact of the bill on federal deficits would depend on future actions by lawmakers.”

The report didn’t analyze the effects of the increased population on state and local governments but allowed that there would be both positive and negative effects.

In addition, the CBO estimates that the bill, while increasing economic output, would also decrease average wages before 2025 but increase them thereafter. It would also “slightly raise” the unemployment through 2020.

The legislation, known as the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, was introduced in the Senate by a bipartisan group of senators known as the Gang of 8.

The Obama administration backs the bill. “By fixing our broken immigration system … we can grow the economy, strengthen the middle class, improve our fiscal outlook and create new opportunity for Americans everywhere,” the White House said after the CBO report came out.

The Senate is debating the bill. If it passes, it will move to the House, where it could face considerable opposition.

Republicans in general are divided over immigration reform. Among the concerns of those who oppose it:  border security, creating a path to citizenship for those who entered the country illegally, and the potential effect on jobs.

“This bill guarantees three things: amnesty, increased welfare costs, and lower wages for the U.S. workforce,” Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee said in a statement.

On Tuesday, House Speaker John Boehner said he wouldn’t bring an immigration bill to a vote unless he know it has the support of a majority of House Republicans

CNN reported that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” immigration reform bill on Tuesday, sending the measure to the Senate floor for consideration and giving the bill’s backers their first major legislative victory.

Members of the Democratic-controlled panel voted 13-5 in favor of the measure.

If enacted, the plan would constitute the first overhaul of the nation’s immigration policy since 1986.

“The dysfunction in our current immigration system affects all of us and it is long past time for reform. I hope that our history, our values, and our decency can inspire us finally to take action,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said.

Spectators cramming the committee room applauded and cheered loudly following the vote.

The panel’s 10 Democrats were joined in supporting the bill by three Republicans: Arizona’s Jeff Flake, South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, and Utah’s Orrin Hatch. Flake and Graham are two of its four Republican authors.

Both party leaders in the Senate appeared supportive of the effort, a positive sign for backers hoping to win a solid majority in the full chamber.

“I think the ‘Gang of Eight’ has made a substantial contribution to moving the issue forward,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. “I’m hopeful we’ll be able to get a bill that we can pass here in the Senate.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, praised the “masterful” job of Leahy in navigating roughly 300 proposed amendments and advancing the 844-page bill to the floor.

Immigration reform is a priority for both parties in Washington and so far is one example of bipartisanship this year on major legislation in a sharply divided Congress.

A key political aim involves Republicans hoping to attract more Hispanics to their side, while Democrats wishing to keep that growing voter bloc squarely in their camp.

Latinos voted overwhelmingly for President Barack Obama’s re-election. He congratulated the committee on its work and urged the Senate to bring the bill to the floor at its earliest possible opportunity.

“The legislation that passed the Judiciary Committee with a strong bipartisan vote is largely consistent with the principles of commonsense reform I have proposed and meets the challenge of fixing our broken immigration system,” he said in a statement. “None of the Committee members got everything they wanted, and neither did I, but in the end, we all owe it to the American people to get the best possible result over the finish line.”

The measure approved by the Judiciary panel would create a 13-year path to citizenship for most of the country’s 11 million undocumented immigrants.

It aims to strengthen border security while raising the cap on visas for high skilled workers and establishing a new visa program for low skilled workers on America’s farms and elsewhere.

Proponents say the change is necessary to permanently and fairly resolve the status of undocumented residents. Critics insist the proposed change amounts to amnesty, rewarding those who chose to break the country’s immigration laws.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, is leading the charge against the “Gang of Eight” proposal and is a tough critic.

He has tried to derail the bill at nearly every turn, arguing that adding millions of newly legalized workers to the mix over the next few years will only hurt the most vulnerable segments of the American work force. He also has raised security and other concerns.

“This will be a hammer blow to the wages and employment opportunities of American workers—both immigrant and native born,” Sessions said in a statement after the vote.

“This bill is bad for workers, bad for taxpayers and—as immigration officers have pleaded for us to hear—a threat to public safety and the rule of law,” he said.

In a defeat for backers of expanded gay rights, the committee did not approve a pair of Leahy-sponsored amendments bolstering federal support for bi-national same-sex relationships.

Specifically, Leahy had proposed recognizing same-sex marriages in which one spouse is an American, and allowing U.S. citizens to sponsor foreign-born same-sex partners for green cards given proof of a committed relationship.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the most prominent Republican in the “Gang of Eight,” was among those who called Leahy’s amendments a poison pill virtually certain to destroy GOP support for the measure.

Leahy’s amendments could be considered again when the bill is taken up by the full Senate. Doing so, however, would be little more than a symbolic gesture, as the proposals have virtually no chance of winning the 60 votes almost certainly needed to clear the 100-member chamber.

Earlier this month, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, noted the possibility that an upcoming ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the federal Defense of Marriage Act could render the whole issue moot.

“The DOMA ruling could change this whole debate,” Durbin said. “They could eliminate DOMA and impose obligations on our federal government (relating to) same gender marriage, and that would dramatically change what we’re trying to achieve.”

The House is working on its own version of immigration reform.

CNN reported that a top Senate Democrat has offered a pair of amendments to an immigration reform bill bolstering rights for same-sex couples, a politically risky move that threatens to shatter Republican support for the sweeping legislation.

Vermont Sen. Patrick’s Leahy’s amendments would recognize same-sex marriages in which one spouse is an American, and also would allow U.S. citizens to sponsor foreign-born same-sex partners for green cards as long as there’s proof of a committed relationship.

They were among dozens of amendments filed with the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday as the panel prepares to take up the legislation later this week.

“For immigration reform to be truly comprehensive, it must include protections for all families,” Leahy said. “We must end the discrimination that gay and lesbian families face in our immigration law.”

Other amendments proposed by committee members include a proposal by Alabama GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions to significantly cut the number of foreign workers granted admission to the United States under the bill.

“This bill (as currently written) would authorize a dramatic surge in permanent low-skill and chain migration—and would bring in millions more temporary foreign workers—at a time when 90 million Americans are outside the labor force and nearly 50 million are on food stamps,” Sessions said.

“The result would be lower wages and more unemployment.”

Utah GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch filed proposals to boost visas for high-skilled workers, and require both DNA identification and proof of payment of all back taxes for any undocumented immigrant seeking legal status, among other things.

The Judiciary Committee, chaired by Leahy, is currently considering the 844-page bill filed by the so-called “Gang of Eight” — four Senate Democrats and four Senate Republicans who labored for months to bridge a cavernous ideological divide on the hot button issue.

Four members of the group — Republicans Jeff Flake of Arizona and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Democrats Dick Durbin of Illinois and Chuck Schumer of New York — are also members of the Judiciary Committee.

The Gang of Eight’s bill creates a 13-year path to citizenship for most undocumented immigrants while strengthening border security and bringing dramatic change to labor policy on America’s farms.

If enacted, the plan would constitute the first overhaul of the nation’s immigration policy since 1986.

Proponents say the change is necessary to permanently and fairly resolve the status of roughly 11 million undocumented residents. Critics insist the proposed change amounts to amnesty, rewarding those who chose to break the country’s immigration laws.

Marshall Fitz, director of immigration policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, told CNN it’s unlikely the narrowly divided 18-member Senate committee would make significant changes to the legislation.

“Members of the Gang of Eight have indicated they’ll band together to resist substantial changes to the bill,” Fitz noted. “The central structure of this proposal is remarkably solid.”

Fitz, a close observer of the legislative maneuvering surrounding the bill, predicted that only a small fraction of amendments filed Tuesday will actually be voted on by the panel.

Members “will hit a fatigue point,” he said.

Of all the amendments up for consideration, however, Leahy’s same-sex measures are likely to prove the most politically controversial.

Under Leahy’s sponsorship plan, modeled after his Uniting American Families Act, gays and lesbians requesting green cards for foreign-born partners would have to be married if their states currently recognize same-sex marriages.

If their states do not recognize same-sex marriage, they would have to meet a series of requirements proving major emotional and financial commitments.

The list of requirements could include, among other things, jointly owned property, shared child custody, joint bank accounts, joint credit cards, proof of a commitment ceremony and photographs of shared vacations and holidays with extended family.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, arguably the most prominent Republican member of the Gang of Eight, warned recently that Leahy’s proposal is a political poison pill that could undermine any hopes for passage of the broader bill.

“This immigration bill is difficult enough as it is,” Rubio told conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt last month. “If you inject something like this in the bill, it will die. The coalition behind it will fall apart.”

Rubio, a potential presidential candidate, warned that he would withdraw his own support if Leahy’s amendment is added.

“This is not the issue to engage this in,” he warned. “You will threaten the entire product.”

Rubio discussed immigration reform with more than two dozen conservative grassroots leaders in a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, according to an aide to the senator.

Most of the activists are backing the reform effort, the aide said.

Durbin acknowledged Tuesday that while he backs Leahy’s proposal, it could prove problematic for the larger immigration reform bill.

“There are some problems on the Republican side when it comes to dealing with (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) issues,” Durbin told CNN.

The Illinois senator noted the possibility that the upcoming ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the federal Defense of Marriage Act could render the whole issue moot.

“The DOMA ruling could change this whole debate,” Durbin said. “They could eliminate DOMA and impose obligations on our federal government (relating to) same gender marriage, and that would dramatically change what we’re trying to achieve.”

Fitz said Leahy will ultimately “find the right way forward.”

“The Republican-controlled House will never accept (his same-sex amendment) as part of their bill,” he said. Leahy’s “not going to tank this bill.”

Regardless, it is significantly easier for Leahy to add the amendment to the bill while it is being considered by the Judiciary Committee.

Democrats hold a 10-8 majority on the panel, and can approve changes on a strict majority basis if necessary.

In contrast, controversial amendments taken up by the full Senate are virtually certain to face a 60-vote threshold. The Democratic caucus only controls 55 seats in the 100-member chamber.

Backers of the bill have been hoping to win as many as 70 votes in the Senate, in order to give the bill bipartisan momentum heading into the more skeptical, GOP-controlled House.

A bipartisan group of eight House members is currently working on its own immigration reform plan.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reminded employers that beginning today they must use the revised Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification (Revision 03/08/13)N for all new hires and reverifications. All employers are required to complete and retain a Form I-9 for each employee hired to work in the United States.  The revision date of the new Form I-9 is printed on the lower left corner of the form. Employers should not complete a new Form I-9 for existing employees, however, if a properly completed Form I-9 is already on file.  A Spanish version of Form I-9 (revision 03/08/13)N is available on the USCIS website for use in Puerto Rico only. Spanish-speaking employers and employees in the 50 states, Washington, D.C., and other U.S. territories may use the Spanish version for reference, but must complete and retain the English version of the form.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced that it started implementing the automated version of Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record, at air and sea ports of entry and will by week’s end include Charlotte Douglas International Airport in North Carolina, Orlando International Airport in Florida, McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, Chicago O’Hare International Airport, Miami International Airport and George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston. Implementation will continue across the nation through May 21, to include air and sea ports of entry that support international arrivals.

Foreign travelers entering the United States at air or sea ports of entry will be able to access their electronic Form I-94 by visiting www.cbp.gov/I94. Upon inspection at the point of entry, CBP will give foreign travelers a tear sheet with instructions on how to look up their electronic Form I-94 on CBP’s website. From this website, they can print out their Form I-94 in paper format. Foreign travelers may need their Form I-94 when requesting certain USCIS benefits, or when applying for public benefits from other government agencies. To ensure that Form I-94 automation will not disrupt USCIS’s adjudication of benefit requests, USCIS has begun updating certain forms requesting applicants and petitioners to enter the admission number from their Form I-94 and/or their: Passport information, including passport number, country of issuance and expiration date); and Travel Document information, including Travel Document information, country of issuance and expiration date.

As evidence of lawful admission submitted with a benefit request, USCIS will accept the electronic Form I-94 in paper format obtained from CBP’s website (www.cbp.gov/I94). This document is the equivalent of the paper versions of Form I-94 issued by CBP and USCIS. In lieu of submitting the electronic Form I-94 in paper format, USCIS will also accept photocopies of the passport pages that contain the individual’s biographical information, visa and admission stamp. These alternatives will allow applicants and petitioners more ways to provide proof of lawful U.S. entry in order to establish eligibility for certain USCIS benefits.

Brian H. Getson, Esquire writes that the American electorate is energized by the issue of immigration reform, and now that there is consensus among President Barack Obama and influential members of Congress on the central points of much-needed immigration reform, it is likely that Congress will act on this issue soon.

As the President noted in his recent speech on immigration reform, “we define ourselves as a nation of immigrants,” and yet, many Americans mistakenly consider immigrants a threat to American prosperity.  Businesses all too often view the regulations governing the process of hiring foreign nationals as forbiddingly complex and as a result job applications from highly skilled foreign nationals who could obtain work authorization through employer sponsorship and contribute services of great value are turned down.

Employers should understand that immigration laws provide them an opportunity to lawfully hire qualified foreign nationals.  As immigration lawyers we guide employers through the immigration sponsorship process.  We explain available employment-based immigration options, timing issues with regard to when a foreign national can begin employment, the feasibility of a foreign national obtaining the appropriate work visa, the legal requirements involved in hiring a foreign national, the costs involved in the sponsorship process, and how to comply with all regulations once the foreign national begins employment.  We also prepare and file petitions with the proper government agencies for both temporary and permanent employment of foreign nationals.   Most companies want to hire the best available talent regardless of nationality and the benefits of hiring foreign nationals generally outweigh the costs of sponsorship.

As the U.S. population becomes ever more multi-cultural and multi-ethnic, businesses benefit by maintaining a workforce that reflects the diversity of the population as a whole.  Fresh ideas from foreign nationals on management, work flow, and employee relations can make a business more dynamic.  Foreign nationals, especially those with science and engineering backgrounds, provide a diverse range of perspectives to the exchange of ideas.  The linguistic and cultural knowledge of foreign nationals, along with their specific international networking ties, can assist businesses expand into foreign markets or immigrant populations in the U.S.  Additionally, most foreign nationals are highly motivated and hard-working which benefits business.

The fear that foreign nationals are “taking away jobs from American workers” is based on the unfounded assumption that the number of jobs in the economy is fixed.  The number of jobs in the economy is limited only by the number of capable individuals in the economy willing and able to work to meet specific economic demand.  The presence in a company of highly skilled foreign nationals whose abilities and talents complement, rather than substitute for, those of U.S. workers has been proven to create new employment opportunities for U.S. workers rather than take employment opportunities away from U.S. workers.  The creativity and energy with which foreign nationals seek out and create avenues for economic growth contribute value to business and society.

As the U.S. fertility and workforce participation rates continue to decline, hiring foreign nationals will be increasingly advantageous for businesses and a matter of necessity for economic success.  It is hopeful that comprehensive immigration reform will enable U.S. businesses to hire an even greater number of foreign nationals.  Regardless of the ultimate outcome of proposed comprehensive immigration reform, existing immigration laws should be embraced to hire qualified foreign nationals that can help businesses grow.  Hiring foreign nationals contributes towards making the 21^st century what President Obama calls “an American century welcoming of everybody who aspires to do something more, and who is willing to work hard to do it.”

USCIS published that starting Friday, Feb. 1, those who receive an immigrant visa package from a U.S. consulate or embassy abroad will be required to pay a new $165 immigrant fee.

The fee is necessary to cover the costs of producing and delivering permanent resident cards.

Important Points to Remember

• Starting on Feb. 1, 2013, applicants must pay both the Department of State (DOS) application fee and the USCIS Immigrant Fee.
• To simplify and centralize the collection of this new fee, USCIS will require immigrants to pay online through the USCIS website.
• Applicants must submit their payment online after they receive their visa package from DOS and before they depart for the United States.

Children who enter the United States under the Orphan or Hague adoption programs, Iraqi and Afghan special immigrants, returning residents (SB-1s), and those issued K visas  are the only immigrant visa cases exempt from paying the new fee.

The National Journal reported that concerted immigration reform efforts begin next week, with President Obama unveiling a proposal and a bipartisan group of lawmakers working through the weekend to release principles by Friday.

The immigration debate and the fate of any legislation will be so dependent on bipartisan cooperation that the “official” roster of Senate negotiators now leading the charge keeps changing to ensure a balance of Democratic and Republican contributions.

That group now includes Democrats Chuck Schumer from New York, Dick Durbin from Illinois and Robert Menendez from New Jersey, as well as Republicans John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and – importantly – Marco Rubio of Florida, who has released his own immigration reform principles in recent weeks.

Sens. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., Mike Lee, R-Utah and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., have joined the talks at times but what their role will be when the group releases its principles is still murky.

An overhaul of the system has been identified by both Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as a top priority for this Congress. Since the November elections, a bipartisan group of senators has been meeting with the goal of releasing a set of principles by Feb. 1 that would pave the way for legislation by the end of March.

A Republican aide said the principles released by that working group will be “comprehensive” and address border security, how to deal with the 11 to 12 million undocumented immigrants in the country, reforming the legal immigration system, employment verification, and a guest worker program. Another Senate aide indicated that issues will be addressed broadly, with little detail before the process of writing a bill begins.

Though their timing will coincide with the administration’s release of principles, two Republican aides said there has been no coordination, or even discussions, with the White House.

Rubio – whose involvement in the talks had been tenuous in news reports until Friday – was approached in December to join the group. He has met with the other senators several times since then and his staff has been “very engaged” in talks, a Senate Republican aide said.

At the same time, the Florida senator had a unilateral public roll out of his own reform principles, starting with an interview in the Wall Street Journal.

In addition to calls for operational border security and an employment verification system, Rubio sees a conditional path to citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. right now. “They would have to pay a fine, pay back taxes, maybe even do community service. They would have to prove they’ve been here for an extended period of time. They understand some English and are assimilated. Then most of them would get legal status and be allowed to stay in this country,” he said in the interview, though they would have to go through the legal immigration system to obtain citizenship.

His plan has received favorable reviews – or at least a withholding of criticism – from some Republican lawmakers and conservative talk show hosts who at one time would have objected to any path to citizenship for those living in the U.S. illegally.

ABC News/Univision reported that the United States needs more high-level scientists and engineers, according to technology experts. That’s why they’re pushing for immigration reform as a way to educate and retain the most talented workers in the world.

But how that reform should happen — in one big piece of legislation or in a series of small bills — is fueling debate on Capitol Hill.

While lawmakers in Congress agree that reform should be a priority, the comprehensive package that the White House and top Democrats are pushing has House Republicans worried that it will turn into “amnesty” — a dirty word in their playbook — and provide a mass legalization for undocumented immigrants.

“Comprehensive has become a code word for amnesty,” Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said during a Tuesday morning panel on immigration and technology hosted by Politico.

Chaffetz, joined by Republican Representative Raúl Labrador of Idaho, said he prefers the “piecemeal” approach to reform.

“I don’t think it should be comprehensive,” Labrador added, because “every member [of Congress] will find something flawed” in one wide-ranging bill.

Labrador supports a series of immigration bills that tackle specific, narrow issues, such as how to handle visas for experts in science, technology, engineering and math, what are called STEM visas. He said he wants the House of Representatives to vote on all immigration proposals, as many as five or six of them, together.

But Zoe Lofgren (D-California), who also attended the Politico event, thinks one comprehensive bill makes more sense. She says Democrats are waiting “for a signal” from House Speaker John Boehner that he’s open to the comprehensive immigration reform he mentioned in a speech shortly after President Obama’s reelection.

If Republicans such as Lamar Smith (R-Texas) continue to set the GOP immigration agenda, she said, “we’re going nowhere fast.”

Smith favors tighter enforcement of current immigration laws and opposes programs such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which grants two-year deportation reprieves to some undocumented young people. He joined other restrictionists in blasting DACA at a panel hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies, a D.C.-based think tank, on Monday.

A group of technology industry leaders at the event said they want immigration reforms that will allow them to retain highly skilled foreign workers. As it stands, they said, too many workers currently obtain advanced degrees in the United States and then return to their home countries to start businesses that compete with companies here.

Gary Shapiro, president and chief executive officer of the Consumer Electronics Association, said that for business owners, the debate over what type of immigration reform to pass is “like asking someone dying in the desert what type of water they want.”

“We need [reform] desperately,” he said, adding that he has no problem with a path to citizenship being included in a reform bill if the reforms allow businesses to retain highly skilled workers.

“Immigrants create economic activity,” Shapiro said, “highly skilled or not.”

John Engler, current president of the Business Roundtable and former Republican governor of Michigan, pointed out that bringing foreign students into the country does not limit the number of U.S. students who can enroll in advanced STEM degree programs.

“Programs would simply close” if they had to depend on American students, he said.

STEM jobs pay better, the employment rate is higher, and there are a number of federal grants available for students that choose that career path, but not enough American students opt to go in that direction.

It’s a problem with broad consequences and a challenge that concerns leaders in immigration and education alike.

“There’s something in our culture,” Labrador said, that causes kids to opt for non-STEM degrees.

Without a clear solution, technology experts say they want reforms that allow the country to educate and keep the best workers in the world, to help bolster the economy and spur innovation.

But Chaffetz and Labrador contend that the White House has not done a good enough job of reaching out to Republicans on immigration reform.

“I don’t see them as any help in any way, shape or form,” Chaffetz said.

According to Labrador, the White House just wants “a political victory on immigration.”

He noted that Obama failed to take action on immigration during his first four years in office, and blamed him for flip-flopping on the idea of a STEM bill. Labrador criticized Obama for originally saying that he would support a STEM bill before rejecting one proposed by Republicans and demanding comprehensive reform.

But according to Lofgren, that STEM bill, which died in December after the Senate declined to consider it, was flawed because it eliminated the diversity visa lottery, a lottery that awards visas to people from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States.

Labrador argued that the Senate should have considered the bill, removed the provision that ended the diversity lottery program, and sent it back to the House. He thinks it would have had enough support to pass.

Lofgren said lawmakers need to focus on the future of immigration reform and not dwell on the past.

“Let’s fix this,” she said. “We can do this.”

The Hill.com reported that President Obama intends to push lawmakers to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would create a pathway to citizenship for most illegal immigrants, according to a report in the New York Times.

The report, citing senior administration officials, said the White House would press Senate Democrats for action on the measure in the coming months.

Despite coming battles over the budget and the administration’s high-profile push to stem gun violence, Obama has said that immigration reform will be a top priority in his second term.

The move marks a divide with GOP lawmakers, who have suggested that immigration reform be handled piecemeal, with separate bills addressing contentious issues. Many Republicans have also said they will oppose measures allowing citizenship, blasting such ideas as “amnesty.”

White House officials in the report say their proposal would not grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, insisting on fines and back taxes for those seeking legal status. Democrats will also resist any legislation that fails to create opportunities for illegal immigrants to become American citizens, according to the Times.

The plan would also impose a national verification system for all workers, as well as a guest-worker program and efforts to boost the number of high-skilled immigrants.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is also working on a plan, according to the Times and the administration and senators are negotiating over whose proposal will be introduced first.

Earlier this week, White House press secretary Jay Carney suggested that the president could lay out the framework for an immigration proposal in his State of the Union address, which will be delivered on Feb. 12.

“I would say, broadly speaking, that State of the Union addresses tend to include at least a sample of a president’s agenda,” Carney said on Wednesday. “And immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform, is a very high priority of the president’s. But I don’t want to get ahead of the speech.”

At a press conference in November, after his reelection, Obama said he was “very confident that we can get immigration reform done,” and outlined some of his expectations for legislation.

“I think it should include a continuation of the strong border security measures that we’ve taken,” said the president. “I think it should contain serious penalties for companies that are purposely hiring undocumented workers and taking advantage of them. And I do think that there should be a pathway for legal status for those who are living in this country, are not engaged in criminal activity, are here simply to work.”

Obama has faced pressure from immigration-reform proponents in his own party to act quickly, amid concern the issue could lose attention as lawmakers tackle the debt ceiling and gun control.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) told The Hill he wants to “get the process rolling” on immigration reform legislation soon and said he believed both parties were “closer” to a deal on immigration than on budget issues or gun violence.

But Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who has been a GOP leader on the issue, on Saturday said Obama had “poisoned the well” on immigration reform, criticizing a policy change enacted months before the election which halted the deportation of some young illegals and began issuing them work permits.

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Rubio expressed skepticism that Obama would tackle the issue and suggested that Obama’s inaction benefited Democrats politically.

Rubio has outlined a plan which would provide a pathway for citizenship for illegal immigrants, but would also have the U.S. “move toward merit and skill-based immigration” in the future. Rubio has also called for revamping the guest-worker system and pushed technological solutions to help employers better verify that workers hold legal status.