Immigration activists who crowded into the Senate committee room to hear the proceedings shouted “Yes, we can! Si se puede!” after the 13-5 bipartisan vote.

The legislation would grant a change at citizenship to the nation’s approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants, create a new program for low-skilled foreign labor and increase the amount of visas given to foreign workers to come work in this country.

“Of particular importance is the fact all of the Senate Democrats on the committee as well as Gang of Eight Republicans Jeff Flakes (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) helped to ensure the path to citizenship remains achievable,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the pro-immigration reform organization America’s Voice.

Three Republicans – Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Orrin Hatch of Utah — voted in favor while five Republicans – Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn of Texas, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mike Lee of Utah and Jeff Sessions of Alabama — voted against the legislation. Ten Democrats, including those who are part of the Gang of Eight, who drafted the 844-page legislation voted to take the legislation to the full Senate floor.

The 13-5 vote came with compromise from gay rights supporters who decided to sidestep the same-sex spouses provision in favor of reaching a solid bipartisan agreement.

In a statement, Obama said the measure is “largely consistent with the principles of common-sense reform I have proposed and meets the challenge of fixing our broken immigration system.”

Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio, who staked his conservative Republican credentials on the need to reform immigration as part of the Gang of Eight, released a statement saying “The amended bill that heads to the Senate floor would make significant progress to secure our borders, make E-Verify mandatory for the first time in American history, effectively crack down on immigrants who overstay visas, and modernize the legal immigration system to meet America’s 21st century economic needs for both highly skilled talent and guest workers to fill labor shortages.”

New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Menendez and Gang of Eight member also  praised the vote and said he was pleased that the original foundation of the legislation was not weakened.

Before the vote today there was some final tense moments as Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who serves as chairman, proposed to give same-sex and heterosexual spouses equal rights under immigration law, which Republicans like Senator Rubio had said would be a deal breaker.

“I don’t want to be the senator who asks people to choose between the love of their life and the love of their country,” said Leahy.

But Senators like Illinois Democrat Richard Durbin said that while “I believe in my heart of hearts that what you’re doing is the right and just thing- this is the wrong moment, that this is the wrong bill.”

The panel also agreed to a last-minute compromise covering an increase in the visa program for high-tech workers from 65,000 to 100,000, a deal that brought Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah over to the “yes” ranks on the vote.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he will bring the legislation to the Senate floor early next month for a debate that may last the month of June.

In the Republican-led House the immigration bill is more uncertain, though there will be a hearing in the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

“It’s a long road ahead – but the diverse coalition that has formed in support of comprehensive immigration reform continues to grow,” said Senator Menendez.

AP White House Correspondent Julie Pace contributed to this report.

The high-tech issue involves a negotiation at arm’s length between industry, which relies on ever-increasing numbers of skilled foreigners, and organized labor, which represents American workers, according to lawmakers and officials close to the talks.

RELATED: Tech and labor spar over immigration reform

As drafted, the bill would raise the current cap on so-called H-1B visas from 65,000 annually to 110,000, with the possibility of a further rise to 180,000. At issue in the talks are the costs that companies must bear to bring foreigners into the United States, the steps they must first take to seek out American citizens for the jobs and other conditions.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, whose state has a large high-tech industry, told reporters on Monday he will vote in favor of the legislation in committee if agreement is reached on the issue. He has been negotiating with Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who said in late afternoon no deal had been sealed.

On the other major remaining unresolved issue, officials said there was a growing if unspoken expectation that the measure would likely emerge from committee without a provision granting same-sex spouses the same access to legal status as heterosexual spouses are entitled to.

RELATED: Obama supports including gays in immigration bill 

Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who chairs the Judiciary Committee, has introduced a proposal to give equal treatment under the bill to same-sex couples, a provision gay rights groups seek. Several lobbyists and others noted during the day he has not yet said definitively said if he will seek a vote on it before the panel completes its work, and neither the White House nor other Democrats on the committee have made a strong push for its inclusion.

A vote on the proposal could create political difficulty for Democrats on the committee who support gay rights and are also members of the so-called Gang of Eight which negotiated the main features of the legislation. That includes Sen. Chuck Schumer or New York and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois.

Durbin has told outside groups he will back the change if it is offered. Schumer hasn’t said which way he would vote.

All eight have pledged to maintain the essential outlines of the legislation. A vote to add the gay rights provision could lead to approval on a party-line vote in committee, but lead to the collapse of Republican support on the Senate floor and the bill’s demise.

In addition, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling by early July that could render the issue largely moot.

RELATED: Union of immigration enforcement officers to oppose Senate bill 

At its core, the legislation would provide an opportunity of U.S. citizenship to millions of immigrants living in the country illegally, create a new visa program for low-skilled workers and permit a sizeable increase in the number of high-tech visas, at the same time it mandates new measures to crack down on future unlawful immigration.

Final committee approval is expected by midweek, with the full Senate likely to begin debate next month.

The measure is one of President Barack Obama’s top domestic priorities, although the administration has generally let the committee work on its own.

In a show of support, though, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden arranged to meet Tuesday in the Oval Office at the White House with individuals directly affected by the measure.

In a long day of drafting on Monday, the panel voted to begin phasing in a requirement for foreigners to undergo fingerprinting when they leave the country. Lawmakers also agreed to make an immigrant’s third drunk driving conviction a deportable offense in some cases.

The committee rejected other proposals that backers of the bill said were unworkable.

Among them was one by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., to require that every application filed as a first step toward seeking citizenship be done so online.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, sought to include a provision requiring applicants to disclose any Social Security numbers they had used previously, but that fell on a party-line vote.

Democrats, too, were forced to scale back some of their proposals to win support.

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, dropped a provision making Pell Grants available to individuals who have embarked on the path to citizenship. She won agreement for more limited benefits, such as access to financial aid.

Republican Carlos Gutierrez, former Commerce Secretary under George W. Bush and co-chair of the center-right Hispanic Leadership Network,  says, “Republicans are right in pursuing the IRS scandal, which sends shivers down the spine of the average American, because these are tactics that are used in authoritarian governments,” says Gutierrez.  ”If an authoritarian leader wants to go after an enemy, they send the IRS-type government arm,” he adds.

Today Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio said he was “concerned” about a report that the Obama administration had investigated a Fox News reporter regarding a possible national security leak, and said “we must insist” it was not done for partisan reasons, saying the IRS scandal shows “this White House has created a culture where we do have to explicitly make these kinds of requests.”

Cid Wilson, a New Jersey-based Democratic activist and national Dominican-American leader, says the IRS scandal needs to be dealt with to ensure this does not happen again, but says this has also been an issue for Republican administrations as well, saying the NAACP was targeted during the Bush administration.  Wilson lashed out at Congressional Republicans.

“Americans should start calling out the Republicans for what they are; they haven’t gotten any legislation passed, and all they’re doing is obstructing,” said Wilson.  ”They’re getting paid very nice salaries, they’re getting the best health care, but want to defund health care for the rest of Americans,” adds Wilson. “I think the Republicans, especially in the House, need to stop pleasing their extreme right-wing and do what’s right and put country first.”

RELATED: White House defends IRS scandal, McConnell asserts ‘culture of intimidation’

Gutierrez, who started a political action committee to fund and to back Republicans who favor immigration reform, concedes there is a danger of Republicans “overplaying their hand.”

“I am worried about the IRS scandal potentially slowing down or in the worst case derailing immigration reform,” says Gutierrez, who says he would advise Republican legislators to continue pushing for immigration reform while not belittling the IRS issue.

Maribel Hastings, senior adviser of the pro-immigration group America’s Voice, issued a warning to Republican legislators.

“It would be imprudent to allow the desire to deny Obama a legislative victory to supersede the Republicans’ need to recover their electoral viability at the national level by appealing to the Latino vote—and to waste the opportunity that immigration reform presents them to do so,” Hastings said. “It would be imprudent—scandalous, even, in its own way. And it would surely demonstrate a low IQ,” she added, in a not-so-veiled reference to the Jason Richwine/Heritage scandal.

Democrat Cid Wilson says, “Republicans are making a huge strategic mistake if they think the only thing Latinos are concerned with is immigration.

“If they try to block the highly qualified Thomas Perez for Labor Secretary, you will see major reaction next November for Republicans who blocked the first Latino appointment of Obama’s second term,” Wilson adds.

University of Maryland political scientist Stella Rouse says Republicans could use the IRS and other issues to put aside voting for immigration reform if it gets too tricky in the House. “It will be interesting to see if Republicans come back and say ‘we were working on immigration reform but then we had to deal with the IRS scandal, and this took priority,’” she says.

Democrats, Rouse states, should focus on the fact that the economic indicators are better, and tie comprehensive immigration reform to improving the economy. “Democrats don’t always use the momentum to help themselves out,” says Rouse.  ”On immigration, it’s now or never.  You can’t let that die again.”

“We’re having people from all political beliefs coming over, saying how excited they are about my candidacy and how they can’t wait to send someone who is not a career politician to Washington,” he says.

In liberal-leaning Massachusetts, Gabriel Gomez touts himself as politician who promises to work across the aisle. “I am not going to tow the ideological hard-line,” says Gomez in an interview with NBC Latino.  ”In DC you have not only career politicians but hyper-partisan politicians who refuse to work across the aisle, and we can’t do that,” Gomez says.

In Massachusetts, this is a wise strategy, says Arizona State University political scientist Rodolfo Espino. ”If he wants to win, he needs a message appropriate to his state’s base – he just needs to say enough to appeal to more than half of the electorate, and in Massachusetts, you have to be left of center” says Espino.

While Gomez is a Catholic married father of 4, he supports gay marriage. On abortion, while Gomez has been facing many questions on what he does and does not support, Gomez repeatedly says he does not believe in overturning Roe versus Wade, though he is personally opposed to abortion. Gomez supports immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship, though he says he agrees with Senators Rubio and McCain on securing the border as a priority.

“Ninety nine-point nine percent of undocumented immigrants are like you and me, good people who are here because it’s better than where they came from, and want to be taxpayers and in many cases start their own business,” he says. “It’s not just a moral issue – it’s a net plus on the economic side.”

To win the Republican primary, Gomez emphasized his background – and this is still his main selling point in the Senate race. Gomez is a former Navy fighter pilot as well as a former Navy Seal.  And being the son of Colombian immigrants, explains Gomez, has given him a unique – and optimistic – perspective.  ”I saw how hard my parents worked, and how my country embraced my parents with open arms – that was one of the reasons I decided to join the military, to give back,” he says.

He also touts his years in the military as a plus if he gets elected. “It gives me real experience with national security issues and threats we’re facing – we were reminded of the dangers we’re living with here in Boston a month ago,” he says. Gomez ran in the Boston marathon that day, but was not injured. Veterans issues, he adds, would be one of his top priorities in Washington.

After the military, Gomez obtained his MBA at Harvard, and then made his wealth in the private equity business. He says he would use his experience in the private sector to clear the “uncertainty” businesses are feeling right now. Gomez is opposed to the Affordable Care Act; he thinks there should be basic access to healthcare only through the state, like in Massachusetts. When asked if he would vote to repeal the ACA, he says he would vote to repeal parts of it, like the medical device tax.

Moderate Republicans in more liberal states like Massachusetts face a double challenge. If they are elected in the first place, their more liberal stance clashes with the conservative base in the Republican party, which was the case with former Republican Senator Scott Brown.  ”Brown had initial Tea Party support, but as he was elected they soured on him for some of the stances he took,” says Espino.

Still, Gomez says he feels “great enthusiasm” about his campaign, which today released his first ad.  ”For a kid who didn’t know English until he came to school, I’ve lived the American Dream,” he says in the ad.

As a Latino politician, Espino says, Gomez’ more affluent and educated immigrant background shows that  ”the life experiences of Latinos are very diverse,  just like that of white politicians.”

The law marked a bold step by a state into an area that had long been the domain of the federal government, and it paved the way for Arizona’s landmark 2010 immigration law. It also represented a key moment in the immigration battles that continue today as Congress mulls a proposed overhaul of the immigration system.

But an examination of the law by The Associated Press found that it has done little to crack down on problematic employers. Only three of the state’s 147,000 employers have been brought to civil court on illegal hiring allegations, while several hundred employees who are living in the U.S. illegally have been arrested under a section of the law that made it a felony to use fake or stolen IDs to get jobs.

RELATED: Arizona governor loses appeal over day labor rules 

While the law has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and hailed as a tool for states to confront illegal immigration, it has faced several problems:

- Hundreds of immigrant workers arrested under the law have spent months in jail on ID theft charges, while only two businesses – a sandwich shop and now-defunct amusement park – had their business licenses suspended for several days. The case against the third business, a custom furniture maker, is still pending.

- A high legal standard for proving violations by businesses and a lack of subpoena power in getting employment records are almost insurmountable barriers to making cases against employers.

- Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office is the only police agency in the state that has raided businesses in enforcement of the employment law. It has arrested hundreds of workers in 72 business raids since 2008. The office has since been accused by the U.S. Justice Department of discriminating against Latino workers, allegations the sheriff denies.

- Despite the small number of cases against employers, the county prosecutor’s office in metropolitan Phoenix has spent $4.5 million since 2008 investigating businesses suspected of hiring workers who aren’t in the country legally and to pursue criminal ID theft cases against employees. Nearly a third of the money – $1.4 million – was given by the prosecutor’s office to Arpaio’s agency to investigate such cases.

Backers contend the enforcement numbers tell only a piece of the story. They say the law has helped combat identity theft and prompted immigrants living in the country illegally to leave Arizona. They also believe that the fear of business raids has caused employers to follow the rules.

RELATED: Arizona Rep. wants to ban government documents mailed in Spanish

“We are never going to get 100 percent compliance, but we have made a difference,” said former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, the driving force behind the employment law and the state’s 2010 immigration law that requires police officers, while enforcing other laws, to question people’s immigration status if they are suspected of being in the country illegally.

The number of immigrants living in Arizona without permission to be in the U.S. declined by 200,000 from 2008 to January 2011, when the total estimated number stood at 360,000, according to a U.S. Department of Homeland Security report. While the law’s backers say the decrease shows the state’s immigration laws are working, other factors contributed to immigrants leaving the state, such a construction industry that hemorrhaged jobs during that period.

Democratic state Sen. Steve Gallardo of Phoenix, an opponent of the law, said the imbalance in the number of cases against employers versus workers is a reflection of legislators who wanted to appear tough on illegal immigration but gave employers plenty of wiggle room.

“You have an employer sanctions law that doesn’t go after the employers,” Gallardo said. “We should call it the employee sanctions law.”

More than 500 immigrants who weren’t authorized to be in the country have been arrested on charges of using forged documents or stolen identities to get jobs at businesses raided by Arpaio’s office since 2008. An unknown number of additional ID theft arrests were made by other police agencies, which don’t raid businesses in enforcing the law but make cases when people complain that their identity has been stolen.

Lawyers for immigrants accused of ID theft say their clients used fake or stolen identities to get jobs, not to rack up debt under another person’s name. Their clients spend months in jail without the chance of getting a bond set, because a voter-approved law denies bail to people who aren’t in the country legally and are charged with serious felonies, such as murder, sexual assault and aggravated identity theft.

Immigrants desperate to earn money to support their families often plead guilty to felony charges to get out of jail, walking away with time-served but often facing deportation and unable to ever again enter the U.S. legally, their lawyers said.

The law’s backers say illegal immigrants who steal identities to get jobs are still committing a crime. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, the top prosecutor for the state’s most populous county, said identity theft victims may get a letter saying they owe back taxes for jobs they’ve never held, could have problems getting loans and face hassle in untangling the mess.

While most of the ID theft cases end in guilty pleas, one case that went to trial last year ended with an acquittal, even though the man from Costa Rica told jurors he used someone else’s Social Security number to get a job.

Walter Flores-Garcia, a 47-year-old concrete company worker, told jurors that he didn’t return to Costa Rica after he overstayed his visa because his daughter wouldn’t get the same type of treatment for her cerebral palsy back home. He also told jurors he used someone else’s information on work documents to get a job and had no intention to defraud the true Social Security number holder.

Jury forewoman Marilee Avina said jurors concluded Flores-Garcia wasn’t leeching off others and took all possible steps to be legitimate. “One specific juror said, `This could have been me,’” Avina said.

The chief difficulty in making cases against employers is that it’s not enough to prove a business hired an illegal immigrant. To prove a case, prosecutors say they need a confession from an owner or hiring manager, or a recording of an owner admitting to breaking the law – all of which are difficult to come by.

Another barrier is the law doesn’t give prosecutors civil subpoena power to make suspected violators hand over records while the case is being investigated.

Business owners say the law puts them in a tight spot. They note they aren’t document experts, and insist they would open themselves up to civil rights lawsuits if they were to inquire too deeply into whether a prospective employee is in the country legally.

“It’s not the employer’s job to be the Border Patrol,” said Marion “Mac” Magruder, an opponent of the law who runs a human resource business and grew so frustrated with Arpaio raids that he resigned as a volunteer in one of the sheriff’s posses.

The sheriff stands by his raids and fake ID arrests, saying there’s no rationalization for stealing a person’s identity and that his officers aren’t raiding businesses with the goal of seeing if workers are here illegally.

“I am going in there to lock these people up. They just happen to be here illegally. That doesn’t change that they are violating the law with fake IDs,” Arpaio said.

The sheriff said he’s bothered that so few employers have been brought to court and called the law’s penalties for employers weak. “I would love to catch the employers,” Arpaio said.

It came after months of secretive talks among the four Republican and four Democratic House members had seemed to stall in recent days even as an immigration bill in the Senate moved forward. The House members met for two hours Thursday evening, emerging to announce they had a deal.

“We have an agreement in principle. We’re now going to work on finishing up the drafting of the bill,” said Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, a leader of the group.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., another member, said over Twitter: “Important breakthrough, some details still to be worked out, but very pleased things are moving forward.”

Carter and others declined to give details, saying they’d agreed among themselves not to do so.

Group members had been saying for months that they were near a deal, but in recent days talks appeared close to breaking down over a few unresolved details. These included a new visa program for lower-skilled workers, and how to handle health care coverage for immigrants in the country illegally who would gain legal status under the bill. Lawmakers and aides suggested earlier Thursday that one option would be for the group to release a bipartisan bill that simply left those issues out, allowing Republicans and Democrats in the group to offer their own plans on those aspects of the legislation.

Meanwhile, members of the group were under pressure to deliver from other lawmakers and outside advocates who feared they would lose their window to have a voice in the debate if they didn’t produce something soon. A bill released last month by leading senators is moving toward a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee and has become the focus of the immigration debate.

“I am concerned that the bipartisan group has been unable to wrap up their work,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters earlier Thursday, before the group announced its deal. “And I know that there are some very difficult issues that have come up. But I continue to believe that the House needs to deal with this and the House needs to work its will. How we get there, we’re still dealing with it.”

The House group had struggled to come up with a plan that could have a possibility of passing the Republican-controlled House while also satisfying Democrats in the group. They have discussed a path to citizenship that would take 15 years for the estimated 11 million people living here illegally, two years longer than contemplated by the Senate bill, which is backed by Obama.

Overall, the legislation would share the same goals as the Senate plan: boosting border security, an increased focus on workplace enforcement, new means to allow workers to enter this country legally and the eventual prospect of citizenship for millions.

As the House group bogged down, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., separately has moved forward with individual, narrowly focused bills on immigration, including one on workplace enforcement that was discussed at a hearing Thursday.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held its third work session Thursday to plow through some 300 amendments to the Senate immigration legislation. The committee voted down an amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, that would have required the implementation of an electronic employer ID verification system in 18 months, instead of the four years contemplated by the bill.

Republican Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina – two of the bill’s Republican authors – voted with Democrats against the amendment, which was defeated 13-5. So did Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a potential swing vote on the bill.

Thursday’s committee action was low-key, but behind the scenes efforts were under way to reach a deal on a series of amendments by Hatch that would benefit the high-tech community by making it easier for companies to access and use H-1B visas, which go to highly skilled workers. The bill increases the supply of these visas but also adds in protections aimed at ensuring U.S. workers get the first shot at jobs, and tech companies have objected to some of those provisions, which have been championed by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a principle author of the bill, was working with Hatch to try to find a compromise but the issue was unlikely to be resolved before next week.

In addition to Carter, Republicans in the House group are Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Sam Johnson of Texas and Raul Labrador of Idaho. On the Democratic side, in addition to Gutierrez, they are Zoe Lofgren and Xavier Becerra of California and John Yarmuth of Kentucky.

U.S. District Judge David Campbell denied a request from immigrant rights advocates for a preliminary injunction and threw out one of their arguments, but their lawsuit remains alive as they pursue arguments that the young immigrants are suffering from unequal treatment.

Arizona’s refusal to view those in President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program as legal residents has become the most visible challenge to his announcement in June that some young immigrants would be protected from deportation. The Department of Homeland Security has said immigrants with work permits issued under the policy are lawfully present in the U.S.

Campbell rejected the argument by immigrant rights advocates who said Brewer’s policy was unconstitutional because it’s trumped by federal law.

“This portion of the ruling is not only a victory for the state of Arizona – it is a victory for states’ rights, the rule of law and the bedrock principles that guide our nation’s legislative process and the division of power between the federal government and states,” Brewer said in a statement.

But the judge said the immigrant rights advocates are likely to succeed in arguing that the state lets some immigrants with work permits get driver’s licenses but won’t let immigrants protected under Obama’s program have the same benefit.

Cecillia Wang, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups representing the immigrants, said those who challenged Brewer’s policy will examine their options in court for protecting the young immigrants.

“It’s keeping people out on a limb,” Wang said of the ruling.

Last summer, the Obama administration took administrative steps to shield thousands of immigrants from deportation. Applicants for the deferment program must have come to the U.S. before they turned 16, be younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, be in school or have graduated from high school or GED program, or have served in the military. They also were allowed to apply for a two-year renewable work permit.

Arizona’s policy allows anyone with lawful immigration status to get a driver’s license, and more than 500 immigrants with work permits have obtained Arizona driver’s licenses in recent years. But Arizona officials have said they don’t want to extend driver’s licenses to those in the new program because they don’t believe the youths will be able to stay in the country legally.

Brewer’s lawyers argued that Obama’s policy isn’t federal law and the state has the authority to distinguish between immigrants with work permits who are on the path toward permanent residency and those benefiting from Obama’s policy. The state’s lawyers argued Arizona isn’t violating its own policy by refusing to grant licenses to the immigrants in the program, because the youths haven’t been granted legal protections by Congress.

Immigrant rights advocates filed their lawsuit in November on behalf of five young-adult immigrants who were brought to the U.S. from Mexico as children. They were granted deferred-deportation protections under the Obama administration’s policy but were denied driver’s licenses in Arizona.

The lawsuit said Brewer’s policy makes it difficult or impossible for such young immigrants to do essential things in their everyday life, such as going to school, going to the grocery store, and finding and holding down a job.

A similar lawsuit was filed in Michigan after officials there initially decided to deny young immigrants licenses, but the case was dropped when the state changed its policy last month. At least 38 states have agreed to give driver’s licenses to immigrants benefiting from the Obama policy, but Nebraska and Ohio officials have also balked.

Brewer has clashed with the Obama administration in the past over illegal immigration, most notably in the challenge that the federal government filed in a bid to invalidate Arizona’s 2010 immigration law. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law’s most contentious section, but threw out other sections.

On the Senate floor yesterday, Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio said about Perez, “We have a nominee right now to the Labor Department who has an admirable personal story which I admire and applaud but who has a history of using the government and his position in government to intimidate people to do what he wants them to do,” said Rubio. Other Republicans have said Perez, who is Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice, is too ideological.

This is disputed by other Republicans who have come out in support of Perez, who would be the first and as of now only Latino in the president’s second-term Cabinet.  John R. Dunne, who had Perez’ same job at the Justice Department in the first Bush Administration, wrote a letter to Senate leaders saying he hired and worked with Perez, “and as a result of those experiences, I found Tom to be an excellent lawyer, a dedicated public servant with a deep commitment to the common good.”

RELATED: Obama nominates Thomas Perez for Labor Secretary, calling him an “advocate” for working families  

New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Menendez lashed out today at the Republican Senators in the HELP committee who voted against the nomination. “At a time when Republicans should be reaching out to Hispanic Americans rather than reverting back to the same old political strategies that failed them during the last election, it is unfortunate that the president’s first Hispanic choice for his second-term cabinet continues to be under attack,” said Menendez. “I urge my Republican colleagues to stop the obstructionism and do what’s right for the country: vote to confirm Tom Perez as the next Secretary of Labor when his nomination comes before the full Senate for consideration,” added Menendez, who chairs the Senate Democratic Hispanic Task Force.

Today California Democratic Congresswoman Linda Sanchez and 138 House Democrats sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid urging him to ensure Perez gets confirmed by the full Senate.  The legislators touted the fact that Perez has worked for both Democrat and Republican administrations.  They also stated Perez had successfully increased human trafficking prosecutions and ensured enforcement of voting rights laws in his current role, as well as enforced wage protection laws as Maryland’s Labor Secretary.

Many of the nation’s most prominent Latino leaders have been denouncing Republican opposition to Perez.

“We are outraged over the unjustified and unfair delays in his confirmation and in the unjust treatment of his nomination,” said Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza.

Most Republican leaders have expressed the need to reach out to Latino voters after their dismal showing in the 2012 elections.  The question is whether they will keep Latino voters in mind as they vote on whether to confirm a son of Dominican immigrants to the nation’s top Labor post.

“While I am sure Republicans are sensitive to the fact that the Perez nomination definitely matters to many Latinos, I suspect that if it were a major issue to Republicans you wouldn’t see such a clear difference in today’s vote,” says University of New Mexico political scientist Gabriel Sanchez.  ”When it comes to the full Senate, it will probably be an individually-based decision for some Republican Senators, depending on their districts,” Sanchez adds.

If there are not enough votes, the question is whether Senate Majority Leader Reid will consider the “nuclear option” –  where Senate Democrats vote to change Senate rules to prevent Republicans from filibustering the nomination by requiring 60 votes.

In the meantime, for some Latino leaders, a Perez rejection goes beyond the nominee.

“Senators who are threatening to filibuster him and prevent an up-or-down on his confirmation are filibustering the Latino community,” said Hector Sanchez, chair of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda and executive director of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLLA).