“The biggest problem is we are not asking them for their vote,” said Dr. Julie Martinez Ortega, vice president of  policy and advocacy for PowerPac, a progressive political action committee.  Ortega conducted a poll of over 2,600 randomly selected Hispanic registered voters.  According to the poll, 57 percent of Latino registered voters said Democrats best represent their views on social issues like same-sex marriage, religion and abortion, and 57 percent say Democrats best represent their views on jobs, economy and immigration.

And though Texas is considered a “red” state, only 23 percent of Latinos said they generally vote Republican, whereas 52 percent said they generally vote Democrat and 16 percent say they vote Independent.

One of the reasons why Republicans are still winning elections by about a million votes is that there are over 3 million Latinos “sitting on the sidelines,” according to Democratic state representative Trey Martinez Fischer and founder of One Texas PAC.   There are over 2 million Latinos in Texas not registered to vote, he says, and another million mostly Hispanic registered voters who are not voting.

Yet one of the poll’s findings was that only 54 percent of Latinos recall being contacted by a campaign in the last presidential election. “When pretty much half of Latinos didn’t even get a piece of mail, we have a problem,” said Martinez Ortega.  She added that while a third of Texas Latinos who voted for Obama also voted for conservative Republican Senator Ted Cruz, about a third of Latinos who voted for Senator Cruz did not know he was a Republican, according to the poll’s findings.  ”Here in Texas we didn’t make a concerted effort to educate Latinos on who Ted Cruz really is,” said Martinez Ortega.

Texas Republican Joshua Treviño takes issue with the Democrats’ contention that more Latino voters would turn Texas blue. “This is the old trope that gets trotted out, that demographic change in the state will go Democrat, and you hear this a lot these days from them,” says Treviño, who was a speechwriter for George W. Bush and is currently vice president of communications at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. “While there are partisan tendencies among groups, the fact is that as affluence and social integration occurs, political pluralism increases,” he says.

Treviño adds it is not a “safe assumption” that more Latino voters will translate to increased Democratic numbers and Democratic elected officials, though he does say current Hispanic voter participation does not represent the proportion of Latinos in Texas.

But Texas Democrats say a focus on 6 key counties in the state where the majority of Latinos reside can make a big difference in increased voter registration, turnout — and future Democratic victories.

“Some look at my district and think it should be functioning as a Republican district,” says Senator Wendy Davis, who represents an area that is 29 percent Latino, 19 percent African-American and 47.6 percent non-Hispanic white.  ”But we’ve demonstrated that by talking and connecting with these voters — it will happen,” Davis said.  She adds that while many areas have been redistricted as “purely Democrat” or “purely Republican,” the strategy is to take a district approach and apply it statewide — “focus on places where you have the biggest potential gain,” says Davis.

Democrat Martinez Fischer stated he is not concerned whether Texas turns blue in 2016 or 2020 — “the key is not to be fast, but to be right,” he said.

This week a high-profile Latino Republican, the former head of Hispanic outreach for Florida’s RNC, publicly left the party.  For Pablo Pantoja, the straw that broke the camel’s, or in this case the elephant’s, back was the Heritage Foundation’s anti-immigrant report and its co-author’s public defense of Latinos as a group having low IQ scores.  In his public farewell letter Pantoja references the general harshness of the Republican rhetoric toward immigrants, then points to a specific racist exchange at this year’s Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC), and concludes with a rejection of the likes of Dr. Jason Richwine (author of the Heritage study) as a voice for the GOP.  To sum up his rationale, Pantoja simply states that his former party had resorted to “intolerance and hate.”

He’s not the first and he won’t be the last.

Another high-profile Republican departure occurred close to two years ago, half way across the country in Arizona.  Dee Dee Garcia Blase had helped establish the Somos Republicans, a national organization for Latino Republicans based out of Arizona.  But in the wake of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 she also publicly rejected her party.  Though a fiscal and social conservative, she simply could not synthesize the GOP’s anti-immigrant rhetoric into her politics.  So she left the Republican Party and Somos Republicans and became officially “unaffiliated.”  Not too long after her departure the organization itself, Somos Republicans, took a similar route, officially abandoned the GOP and became Somos Independents.

The departures of Pantoja and Garcia Blase made the headlines because they were public partisan figures.  However, thousands of other Latinos have taken the same path of migrating out of the GOP.  Their decision is just not public, but rather taken in the privacy of a voting booth.

The out migration is especially stark when we compare the most recent presidential election with George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election.  The 2004 election was the Republican Latino high water mark.  At that time half of Latinos identified as being Democrats, 27 percent Republican, and 24 percent Independent.  Democrats clearly were the preferred party of Latinos, but slightly more than half did not identify as Democrats.  Moreover, in his re-election, Bush received 40 percent of the Latino vote.

Fast forward to President Obama’s re-election.  In 2012 the percentage of Latinos identifying as Democrats jumped to 57 percent and the number of Republicans decreased by half with only 14 percent of Latinos claiming a GOP affiliation.  The group that had the least movement was Independents or those unaffiliated.  In 2012 they rose to 29 percent.  But the biggest shift came in presidential vote choice, with Romney receiving only 27 percent of the Latino vote.

The correlation between the GOP’s Latino communications and outreach strategy is linear.  The harsher and more racially negative the messaging, the fewer Latinos will stand by your label and vote for you.  It’s not a complicated concept.

The Republican National Committee has publicly discussed its intention to not just retain but actively recruit Latinos.  However, mixed messaging will not staunch the migration.  Being a Latino-friendly party will require all segments of the party, not just the moderate ones, to put aside harsh rhetoric, or what Pablo Pantoja pointed to as intolerance.  No one wants to stick around where they’re not welcome.

Dr. Victoria M. DeFrancesco Soto is an NBC Latino and MSNBC contributor, Senior Analyst for Latino Decisions and Fellow at the Center for Politics and Governance at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, at Austin.

Some have speculated that the Republican Party is facing impending doom because of the party’s resistance to jettisoning their extremist base and their obstructionist enablers in Congress. While it may be difficult to disagree with this view, a funny thing happened yesterday when the incredible shrinking brain of the GOP — otherwise known as the Heritage Foundation — released its long-anticipated report on the costs of immigration.

The report, which Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint claimed was “peer-reviewed,” was laughed out of the room by economists before it even hit the Fox News backslapping circuit.  Respected economists on the right spent the day giving the country a lesson in “dynamic scoring” and the American Enterprise Institute turned away from the Heritage Foundation’s vilifying of immigrants and instead turned its ire towards the unsustainability of our entitlement programs.

RELATED: Conservative groups blast Heritage Foundation’s $6.3 trillion “amnesty” cost

Even conservative politicians got into the act, with Senator Flake, Rep. Paul Ryan, and Former Governor Haley Barbour dismissing the Heritage Foundation report as flawed and political.

Jim DeMint resigned his seat as Senator to head the Heritage Foundation, and his impact on the intellectual side of the conservative movement was anxiously awaited. But five months after becoming president of Heritage, it is clear from this report that Mr. DeMint is only using half his brain.

The Heritage Foundation has not released such a thud of a report since, well, its last report on immigration in 2007.  However, back then the libertarian argument was still being drowned out by the influential gasbags on the right clogging up the airwaves.

Today, the political calculus has changed.  Ideologues — driven by the shoddy research machines of folks like Heritage Foundation and Center for Immigration Studies — are losing steam. Their work is nothing more than a warm blanket for the converted and the selective misanthropes who make up the far right.

So if you thought the GOP was dead, yesterday was a sign of life, a blip on the screen that just maybe the Republicans will finally get on with the business of winning national elections.

The GOP leadership would be wise to listen more closely to their growing libertarian base, who do not have the same cultural hangups that their traditional intellectual base has over at Heritage, the Hoover Institution, and the National Review.

It’s not clear yet that the new breed of think tanks, such as Cato and Reason, will have the intellectual flexibility to advise the GOP on a wide range of issues, but it has been clear for a while that they are attracting impressive talent committed to libertarian thinking.

I certainly have my qualms with libertarians, but their arguments have penetrated the right side of the political spectrum far more effectively than anything coming from the left over the last decade.

If immigration reform makes progress this time around, Latinos should be mindful that it was this new breed of Republicans that helped make immigration reform a reality.  And Latinos should certainly be mindful that it was the current Democrat president who has deported more immigrants than any previous administration has, regardless of political affiliation.

The divide between the GOP and Latino organizations is still far too great to expect them to be indebted to these Republicans for their efforts, but it’s a start.

Stephen A. Nuño, Ph.D., NBC Latino contributor and an Assistant Professor in the Department of Politics and International Affairs at Northern Arizona University. He is currently writing a book on Republican outreach into the Latino Community.

Obama says that recognizing same-sex relationships in the bill is “the right thing to do.” But he says it would be premature to telegraph what he will or won’t do before lawmakers send him a bill.

Gay rights supporters are pushing for an amendment to the bill to allow gays to sponsor their partners to come to the U.S.

But Republicans, including some who helped draft the bill, have made it clear that amending the legislation in that fashion would cost their support.

Obama commented at a news conference Friday evening in San Jose, Costa Rica, with President Laura Chinchilla.

RELATED: Catholic bishops conflicted over gays and immigration

The pro-immigrant storyline has gained the upper hand in the debate because of a clear cultural shift in what Americans value, i.e. money.  In the past, major moments of immigration reform centered on cultural issues and labor competition, but the focus on today’s discussion over immigration has revolved around the economic viability of the migrants themselves.

Perhaps this is a better discussion to have than the alternatives we’ve had in the past, but one wonders if the money lining up behind reform will be enough to overcome the strong sentiments levied against immigrants.

Old habits die hard. Ancient prejudices and backwards thinking is still prevalent in the anti-immigrant discussion.  The Boston bombing has been the gift that keeps on giving for those who want to slow down immigration reform, and the focus on Muslims, terrorists, and barbarians at our gates is the right-wing fairytale equivalent of lions, tigers and bears.

Despite the hold these arguments still have, there has been a clear shift in how we measure the value of immigrants, and heavyweights across the economic spectrum are lending their resources to promote reform.

Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook has put together a group of like-minded millionaires to lobby Republicans to support immigration reform and Mayor Bloomberg has also been at the forefront of moving forward on reform.

On the right, Republican bundler Paul Singer and Ruport Murdoch of Fox News have gotten behind immigration reform, and this influx of interest by the rich folks is overwhelming the anti-immigrant crowd by garnering political support across the spectrum, from conservative stalwarts like Haley Barbour of Mississippi to libertarian favorites like Paul Ryan.

The greatest hope that the anti-immigrant crowd has is the incapacity of Congress to get anything done and the legislative advantage small groups have to thwart progress.  If you were following the Manchin-Toomey gun legislation, you’ll know that popular support for a bill does not guarantee its passage.

Despite the advantage that the pro-immigrant crowd has, it’s clear that greater momentum will be needed to push reform through.  The shift in the argument over who gets to come here based on economic necessity has been timely given our recent recession, and anxiety over global competition and a lack of jobs has allowed pro-reformers to promote high-skilled immigrants who would help create jobs and low-skilled immigrants who will do the jobs Americans won’t do.

But the window to get something of substance done may close if the economy shifts and events abroad stoke cultural anxieties that have in the past overwhelmed logic and reason.  For now, the big money is on reform and it will take some creative thinking on the part of the anti-immigrant crowd to stoke the flames of cultural incompatibility.

For instance, the Gun Owners of America has taken a particularly novel approach to raising the anxiety level of red-blooded Americans by claiming that immigration reform will spell the end of gun rights.  Major brownie points for the effort goes out to the GOA, but history has shown that this low-level of thinking has borne fruit in the past.

If the deep pockets want to achieve their goal of reforming our immigration system, they’ll need to dig deeper and perhaps pray a little more at the altar of the almighty dollar.

Stephen A. Nuño, Ph.D., NBC Latino contributor and an Assistant Professor in the Department of Politics and International Affairs at Northern Arizona University. He is currently writing a book on Republican outreach into the Latino Community.

If Obama is too closely aligned with the legislation, it could scare away Republicans wary of appearing to hand the president a win. But if he stays on the sidelines and the overhaul runs into trouble on Capitol Hill, Obama likely will be criticized for not using his presidential powers to fight for votes, as he was following the recent failure of gun control measures he championed.

In the coming weeks the White House will test whether Obama can take on a more public role in the immigration debate after largely ceding the issue to Congress for much of the year. The president will ramp up his immigration-related travel this spring and summer, including a trip this week to Mexico and Costa Rica. The White House also is planning to use Spanish-language media to bolster public support for a comprehensive bill.

RELATED: Senate immigration bill revealed: a path to citizenship, shift to employment-based visas

Still, Obama signaled during a White House news conference Tuesday that his primary talking point will be that he’s backing a bill drafted by the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight, a group of four Democrats and four Republicans.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

“I’ve been impressed by the work that was done by the Gang of Eight,” Obama said. “The bill that they produced is not the bill that I would have written – there are elements of it that I would change – but I do think that it meets the basic criteria that I laid out from the start.”

Immigration reform gained little traction in Congress during Obama’s first term, in part because of opposition from GOP lawmakers. But the November election changed the political calculus for some Republicans, who watched Hispanic voters overwhelmingly side with Obama and Democrats as they increased their share of the national electorate.

At the request of the Gang of Eight, Obama kept a low-profile as the Senate working group set about the delicate task of crafting a draft bill earlier this year. The potential damage caused by White House involvement was underscored when a copy of Obama’s own draft bill was leaked in February, raising suspicions among Republicans about his motivations and threatening to upend the effort.

RELATED: 10 lesser-known provisions of the Senate immigration bill 

But now that the Gang of Eight bill is public and is winning some Republican support, White House advisers say there’s less risk in Obama taking on a larger public role in the debate too.

The focus on immigration in the capital comes as rallies are expected in dozens of cities around the country Wednesday in what has become an annual cry for easing the nation’s immigration laws.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a favorite of conservatives and potential GOP presidential candidate in 2016, is one if the bill’s architects, as is Arizona’s Republican Sen. John McCain. And even in the Republican-led House, where an immigration overhaul faces a steeper challenger, the Gang of Eight measure has won praise from House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

The bill would strengthen border security, allow tens of thousands of new high- and low-skilled workers into the country, require all employers to check their workers’ legal status and provide an eventual path to citizenship for some 11 million immigrants now here illegally.

The measure is similar to the immigration principles Obama outlined in January during a visit to Las Vegas, his only immigration-focused trip of the year, though there are key differences. For example, the Senate bill makes the pathway to citizenship contingent on securing the border, which Obama opposes, and does not recognize gay couples, which Obama supports.

RELATED: Senate hearings still show deep clashes on immigration reform

Many immigration advocates say they support Obama getting more involved in the debate as the draft bill weaves its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee, and likely to the Senate floor.

“He needs to be an advocate and push for the bill in the Senate to make sure this gets done,” Eliseo Medina of the Service Employees International Union said of the president. “We need continued sustained pressure from all facets.”

McCain also welcomed the prospect of a more proactive Obama, saying the president is committed to being heavily engaged. But the Arizona Republican, who has spoken with Obama about the immigration negotiations several times in recent weeks, added that the president “doesn’t want to harm the passage of the bill either. And I believe him.”

But some Republicans remain suspicious of the president’s efforts and say he’s trying to sink the bill in order to use the legislative failure for political gain.

“I think the president wants to campaign on immigration reform in 2014 and 2016,” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said in an interview with CBS News. “I think the reason the White House is insisting on a path to citizenship for those who are here illegally is because the White House knows that insisting on that is very likely to scuttle the bill.”

Obama advisers insist he would rather be able to claim victory on the immigration overhaul that has eluded him than use a failure as leverage in the midterm elections – a proposition that has no guarantee of working in his favor.

—

Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

“We’ve had probably five or six lunches with a bunch of Republican senators standing up and looking at Rand and Mike and me and yelling at the top of their lungs — I mean really upset – why did you do this,” said Senator Cruz, referring to the letter Cruz, Rand and Lee sent to Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid threatening to filibuster if need be to make sure gun control legislation did not pass.  Cruz said that the senators said, “as a result of what you did, when I go home, my constituents are yelling at me that I’ve got to stand on principle,” said Cruz.

“I mean, I’m really not making that up,” added Cruz to laughter. “I don’t even argue with them. I just sort of let them yell,” said Cruz. The Texan Senator added that in the closed-door hearings, the Senators said they would now look like a bunch of “squishes” if they voted in favor of background checks.  The vast majority of Republican Senators did not vote for background checks, and the gun control measure failed in the Senate.

Cruz credited his, Senator Paul’s and Senator Lee’s filibuster letter with mobilizing the anti-gun control “grassroots” which then pressured Republican Senators to vote against the gun background checks.

“Let me tell you something the media ain’t telling you — we’re winning,” said Cruz to cheers.

RELATED: Latino voters support gun control laws, regardless of political party

That is not the case for all Republican senators who voted against expanded background checks for gun purchases. In a recent poll, New Hampshire Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte’s approval rating went down 15 points after voting against the background checks, and another poll found lower ratings for Arizona Senator Jeff Flake and Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski. In addition, 65 percent of  Americans said in a Gallup poll released today that the Senate should have passed the measure to expand background checks for gun purchases, while 29 percent agree with the Senate’s failure to pass the measure.

In terms of policy, however, Latino Decisions political scientist Sylvia Manzano says Cruz is right.

“Right now, Cruz raises a fair point — months after the president was re-elected, and even after the Newtown shooting, in the policy scoreboard, the Republicans won against gun control legislation,” says Manzano.

What about Cruz? While he may be ruffling many feathers — including those of Republican colleagues — Manzano says the Texan Cuban-American Tea Party Republican has been consistent.

“The voters who elected him like his style; and he plays well to that base and the national Tea Party base which feels like it doesn’t have that much representation left,” says Manzano.

“We need it for national security reasons. We need it for the economy,” said Ryan in Chicago about the need to reform current immigration laws. “We do not want to have a society where we have different classes of people who cannot reach their American dream by not being a full citizen,” said the young conservative Congressman.

And while some Republicans have said the Boston bombings are a reason to step back and reassess whether reform could make the country less safe, Ryan took the opposing view.

RELATED: Senate hearing still shows deep clashes on immigration reform

“If anything, this is an argument for modernizing our immigration laws,” said Ryan. “So the last thing we ought to do is make some kind of knee-jerk assessment as to how this affects some other bill in Congress,” he added.

Congressman Luis Gutierrez tells NBC Latino that Ryan “is no Johnny-come-lately to the immigration issue, and has been an ally of mine and of Jeff Flake’s on immigration reform bills in the past.” Gutierrez also cited the fact that Ryan had previously worked for pro-immigration reform Republicans like Jack Kemp and Sam Brownback.

“The big difference since November,” explains Gutierrez, “is that Republicans who support legal immigration and sensible immigration policies are coming forward to challenge the opponents of legal immigration who have been driving the issue for Republicans and boxing them into a corner,” he says. “Those who want to push out or deport 11 million undocumented immigrants and their families are increasingly on the margins of the Republican party, and a much more pragmatic, enforceable, and economically beneficial approach is taking root. And nobody articulates that approach better than Paul Ryan,” Gutierrez adds.

RELATED: RNC sets sights on Latinos, polls show immigration reform key ingredient

The conservative Wisconsin Republican’s vocal support for immigration comes at a crucial time, as the House readies to debate a soon-to-be unveiled immigration reform proposal by House members including Gutierrez, Idaho Republican Congressman Raul Labrador and Florida Republican Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, among others.  Support from conservatives like Ryan can make a difference in the House, say political observers.

“Some of the resistance on the Republican side to immigration reform is because House members face a threat of a more conservative challenger in their primaries,” explains Nathan Gonzales, deputy editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, a non-partisan publication which covers Congress. “I think Congressman Ryan’s actions could give cover to other Republican members to support reform, by being able to say Ryan supported it,” says Gonzales.  ”Ryan is well-respected and it could blunt some of the criticism,” adds Gonzalez.

While the Senate is still weeks away from voting on their Gang of Eight immigration proposal, advocates as well as political observers are looking toward what may happen in the Republican-led House. One alternative, says Gonzales, is that House Speaker John Boehner does not invoke the Hastert rule (requiring that a majority of Republicans support the bill), and allows an immigration bill to go through with a small group of Republicans joining the Democrats to vote “yes.”

While Republican House members representing conservative constituencies may be feeling pressure from GOP members such as Ryan to support an immigration reform bill, it ultimately comes down to two different philosophies, says Gonzales.

“Do you represent your constituents on everything they believe, or are you voted into office and constituents entrust you with two years to make decisions you think are best for the country, and later voters decide if you did the right thing or not?” says Gonzalez.

In the meantime, Congressman Luis Gutierrez says Ryan’s support for immigration legislation matters. “He is important to other Republicans and a leader on the Hill,” Gutierrez says.

But what happens afterwards?  What does a post reform political landscape look like?

The scenarios can be boiled down to three – the good, the bad, and the ugly.

First, the good–immigration disappears as a political wedge issue.

All of the components of the reform bill work as intended and we see millions of undocumented immigrants gain citizenship within a context of efficient border security and a legal immigration system seamlessly shift toward a work-based system.

Within this first scenario, immigrants, primarily Latino immigrants, are folded into America’s political system.  For example, how European immigrants assimilated into the American political system over the course of the 20^th Century.  If all goes as planned, close to ten million new voters, previously undocumented immigrants, could enter the political landscape by 2017.  Those who had been living in the shadows would not only be able to emerge from the shadows, but do so with a political voice and vote.

And the incorporation of Latinos into the political landscape does not necessarily have to be politically one-sided.  If Republicans continue to support immigration reform and if the GOP draws away from the right and moves toward the center, then some of these new immigrants may be amenable to calling the GOP home.

Next, comes the bad—immigrants live in a legalization limbo.

According to the legislation, current undocumented persons can apply for non-citizen Registered Provisional Immigration Status (RPI) status.  After ten years, RPIs can apply for legal permanent residency (LPR) but only if border and immigration enforcement has been deemed successful.  But what if enforcement is deemed unsuccessful?

The enforcement “trigger” may not be met for years or decades after its deadline.  There could be millions of RPIs living in a civic limbo.  They will be able to live in the United States, but without any of the safeguards or rights of a citizen or even legal permanent resident.  In other words, a two-tiered system could emerge of citizens and non-citizens with (RPI) status.  The status of these individuals couldn’t even be classified as that of “second class” citizens, they would merely be “provisional people.”

And finally, the ugly, the worst of both words — immigrants live in a legalization limbo and undocumented immigration reappears as an issue.

In this policy nightmare scenario, RPI status becomes indefinite because of the border enforcement trigger not being met.  But on top of that, the legal immigration system, namely the temporary visa system, does not work as planned.  The idea in reforming the current temporary visa program is that U.S. labor demands will be met by a labor supply supplemented by a temporary immigrant labor supply.  It’s Econ 101, making sure that demand is met by supply.

Currently, labor demand outstrips U.S. labor supply (both for high-skill and low-skill workers).  Moreover, labor demand is also greater than the number of available work visas.  This imbalance is the primary cause for the growth of undocumented immigration.  What if this imbalance cannot be balanced?

Under the proposed immigration reform, temporary worker supply and demand issues would be overseen by a new federal entity, the Bureau of Immigration and Labor Market Research.  In theory, the bureau would calibrate the number of visas to ensure that in times of economic contraction fewer immigrants would be allowed in and in times of expansion, more.  For high-skilled workers a proposed range of 65,000 to 180,000 has been proposed.  Such a wide range requires careful calibration by the bureau of Immigration and Labor Market research to get the balance just right.  Otherwise, we again enter the cycle of employers ignoring legal pathways and seeking out illegal pathways for bringing in employees.

The current immigration legislation holds out the opportunity for only good coming out of the reform.  However, unintended consequences can and do arise.  In moving the legislation forward, both Republicans and Democrats will need to consider the potentially bad and ugly scenarios.  By planning for the worst, we can better ensure the best.

Dr. Victoria M. DeFrancesco Soto is an NBC Latino and MSNBC contributor, Senior Analyst for Latino Decisions and Fellow at the Center for Politics and Governance at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, at Austin.

There’s nearly unanimous, bipartisan agreement that the nation’s immigration laws need fixing more than a quarter-century after the last overhaul.

Some 11 million immigrants live illegally in the U.S., many with no prospect of ever legalizing their status under current law. Notwithstanding Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s call during the last presidential campaign for people here illegally to “self-deport,” polls find even Republicans do not view mass deportation as a practical solution. Businesses from agriculture to high-tech companies to hotels and resorts are demanding a way to hire a steady supply of foreign workers legally, something they say can now be insurmountably difficult. Many take what can be the easy way out and hire workers here illegally instead. Deportations separate families, and millions wait overseas for years, even decades, as their applications for U.S. residency languish in backlogs. While the border is more secure than it was, it is still not secure enough to prevent illegal crossings and drug smuggling.

—

The campaign promise:

“I can promise that I will try to do it in the first year of my second term,” President Barack Obama said of a comprehensive immigration overhaul during an interview with Univision in April 2012. “This is something I care deeply about. It’s personal to me, and I will do everything that I can to try to get it done. But ultimately I’m going to need Congress to help me.”

—

The prospects:

Congress and a succession of presidents have recognized the need to rework the nation’s immigration laws. George W. Bush tried in his second term, working with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., among others. Their comprehensive legislation collapsed on the Senate floor in 2007 amid a fierce public backlash and interest group opposition. Obama himself promised to try to get it done his first term. To the disappointment of Latino voters, he didn’t deliver.

This time around, chances are a lot better Obama will make good on his promise to rewrite the nation’s immigration laws to strengthen the border, crack down on employers, smooth legal immigration and provide eventual citizenship to people in the country illegally. But even after a bipartisan Senate group released legislation this week to accomplish those goals, success is still no sure thing.

And if Obama does end up signing a bill later this year or next, it won’t be only because of his own efforts. Arguably the single biggest factor making the political climate ripe for change is a marked shift in attitude among Republican officeholders and voters after the 2012 elections, which saw Latino and Asian voters back Obama in record numbers, helping to seal his re-election.

That demonstrated to Republican leaders like McCain that the GOP had to confront the immigration issue or risk consigning itself to permanent minority status. The view is widespread enough among Republicans that it might help ease the legislation McCain produced with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. and others through the Senate, possibly even the conservative-dominated House, though that’s less certain.

Meanwhile, Obama has taken steps on his own to alleviate conditions for those in the U.S. illegally, who’ve complained about the record deportations under his administration. Most prominently, he announced last year that certain immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children would be protected from deportation for two years and allowed to work with legal status.

If a comprehensive immigration law fails, it’s possible Obama could take more such steps. But he’s said repeatedly that he needs Congress’ help to enact the overhaul that the nation requires.