April 2013

Officials fear new wave of immigration fraud

By Laura Ernde
Staff Writer

G. Thaddeus Gembacz, a retired Los Angeles immigration judge, saw the scam play out in his courtroom countless times.

Law enforcement officials are concerned that unwary immigrants may targeted in a new wave of fraud.

An immigrant would appear seeking asylum after having paid hundreds or even thousands of dollars to a third party for assistance in filling out the paperwork. But there were little or no facts to support the asylum case.

“All the form did was get the person thrown into immigration court,” he said. “From the shadows to the fire.”

With possible changes to immigration laws on the horizon, Gembacz and law enforcement officials in California are concerned about a spike in that type of fraud. The State Bar organized a summit last month to bring together many of the federal, state and local agencies who are trying to combat the problem.

Immigration is one area where non-attorneys are allowed to assist consumers in completing forms, translating documents and submitting forms. But dishonest immigration consultants charge consumers for forms they can get for free and make false promises that extra fees will give the immigrant a leg up in the process, officials said at the summit. Some identify themselves as “notarios,” which, unlike notaries in the United States, are allowed to practice law in some Latin American countries.

Immigrants may fall for dishonest pitches because they come from countries where bribery is common and people are vulnerable, said Rigo Reyes, chief investigator at the Los Angeles County Department of Consumer Affairs.

As the U.S. Congress starts to take up the issue of immigration reform, authorities said they expect more scammers to try to take advantage of immigrants’ strong desire to become American citizens.

“Uncertainty draws out the unscrupulous who prey upon the uninformed, the misinformed and the frightened,” Gembacz said at the summit.“The level and extent of fraud is limited only by the imagination of the perpetrators.”

As a judge, Gembacz said he had little authority to intervene when he noticed consumers being victimized.

The State Bar can take complaints about attorneys who are licensed in California, but the bar does not have jurisdiction over non-attorney immigration consultants, Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim said. Law enforcement agencies can prosecute these individuals for crimes, including the unauthorized practice of law and theft.

Unfortunately, much of the fraud goes unreported because immigrants are distrustful of police and fear any contact could lead to deportation, officials said.

Last year, when the federal government eased the immigration rules for some of those who were brought to the United States as children, Attorney General Kamala Harris warned consumers about potential scams.

Los Angeles County, home to many immigrant communities, is unique in having its own Department of Consumer Affairs. Reyes said among the 300,000 calls received per year, immigration fraud is one of the top 10 most common complaints.

The Federal Trade Commission also accepts complaints and enters them in a secure online database used by law enforcement worldwide.

The U.S. Department of Justice has made combating notario fraud a top priority, Assistant U.S. Attorney Rozella Oliver said. But the challenge is getting victims to report fraud. Her agency can’t promise immigrants a path to citizenship in exchange for their cooperation.

Oliver applauded the agencies for starting the dialog. “We are the only ones who can stand up against this new wave of fraud,” she said.

Immigration reform divides Republicans

The party is having an unusually emotional debate on the immigration reform bill, in the Senate and beyond.

By Lisa Mascaro and Brian Bennett, Washington Bureau

May 8, 2013, 6:37 p.m.

 

WASHINGTON — The immigration reform bill crafted by a bipartisan group of senators has deeply split the Republican minority even as lawmakers prepare to take the first votes on the proposal Thursday.

Alabama's Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, a conservative former prosecutor with a courtly drawl, has emerged as the leading opponent of the bill. He is aiming at his GOP colleagues with unusual zeal, and calls out the architects of the bill as, essentially, dishonest.

"Sen. Flake is wrong: It's not a 13-year path to citizenship or welfare," blared one recent missive from Sessions targeting Arizona's Republican senator, Jeff Flake, who helped draft the legislation. "The mass legalization occurs immediately."

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, another Republican author of the bill, punches back almost daily with his own "Myth vs. Fact" campaign, separating what he considers truth and fiction in the immigration debate — with much of the latter attributed to his fellow Republicans.

"MYTH: This bill will hurt American workers," reads one recent entry fingering Sessions as the perpetrator.

Republicans are not accustomed to this sort of public infighting, especially in the Senate.

But recent elections changed that as the dominance of the GOP's right flank grew. At the same time, its leaders have sought to broaden the party's appeal to minority and female voters, who have recoiled from the right turn.

The immigration debate splits Republicans with an emotional tone not apparent in recent rifts on the budget and other top issues.

A growing coalition of religious and business leaders has rallied around the argument that newcomers bring many benefits to the nation. On the other side, supporters of more restrictive policies see high levels of immigration as a drag on the wages of U.S. workers and a threat to the country's traditional culture.

"Our duty is to represent the people that are here, the people whose parents fought the wars and made America great first," Sessions said Wednesday as he walked through the Senate halls. "And even though we have sympathy for the people who want to come here — and even those who've been here a long time illegally, we have sympathy for them — we need to be sure that what we do does not place our workers, our people who need jobs, at an adverse advantage."

"I believe that's the moral position. I believe that's the right legal position," he said.

The divide within the party will be on full display Thursday as the Senate Judiciary Committee begins the painstaking task of reviewing the 844-page bill and debating amendments, which is expected to take the rest of the month.

The bipartisan proposal drafted by four Republican and four Democratic senators involves complex trade-offs. It would beef up security on the Southwestern

border to prevent future illegal crossings and create new guest-worker programs, particularly for low-skilled labor. Employers would be required to verify the legal status of all workers.

Within 13 years, most of the estimated 11 million people who have entered the country illegally or overstayed visas would eligible for citizenship if they pay back taxes, fines and fees. Some immigrants who work in agriculture or who were brought to this country as minors and now serve in the military or attend college could begin the legalization process sooner.

Hundreds of amendments have been proposed. Some Republicans have proposed changes that would gut the overhaul. Some Democrats would extend immigration rights to gay couples, a move others in their party oppose because it would cost crucial GOP support.

But it is the Republican feud that is the most stark.

The party's leadership has embraced reform, believing it will help Republicans with Latino voters, who have tilted heavily toward Democrats in recent national elections — dramatically so in President Obama's reelection.

"The fact of the matter is, some of our friends are on the wrong side of the line," said one Republican aide, who asked for anonymity to discuss the party tensions. "They get hit with some of the shrapnel."

Sessions has attacked the bill in the same vigorous way he pushed for convictions as a U.S. attorney in Alabama.

Copyright © 2013, Los Angeles Times

Warning: New Reports of USCIS Telephone Scams (Updated 4/8/13)

 AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 12071935 (posted Apr. 8, 2013)

AILA has received reports of a new scam potentially victimizing aliens. According to one report, the individual will receive a call purporting to be from a USCIS officer, who will have certain correct information on the individual, including the individual’s name and address. The caller will state that there is some discrepancy in USCIS records, and ask for confirmation of data, such as an I-94 number, an “A” number, or a visa control number. The caller will then tell the individual that there is a penalty for not clearing up the discrepancy, and that the individual is to send a sum of money via Western Union, to an address the caller provides. Be on alert that your clients may be receiving such calls, and if they do, report them to appropriate law enforcement authorities, which may include the FBI, and to the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, whose Consumer Sentinel database is accessed by criminal and civil law enforcement authorities worldwide.

Most Californians favor citizenship path for illegal immigrants

USC DORNSIFE / L.A. TIMES POLL

Only 19% of California voters said illegal immigrants should be required to leave. More than half see immigrants as a positive economic force in the state.

By Maeve Reston, Los Angeles Times

March 24, 2013, 5:00 a.m.
 

In a dramatic reversal, California voters now see undocumented workers as a positive economic force in the state — and they overwhelmingly favor allowing a path to citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants in the country.

Only 19% of California voters in a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll said those in the country illegally should be required to leave the United States. About two-thirds of survey respondents said illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay with eventual citizenship rights. An additional 10% said they should be permitted to remain in this country to work but should not be allowed to apply for citizenship.

At a time when the push for immigration reform has gained momentum in Washington, more than two-thirds of California voters say the current immigration system isn't working and nearly three-quarters favor President Obama's plan to change it, the poll found.

Across different ages and ethnic groups, voters were largely supportive of the measures outlined by Obama and a bipartisan group of senators, including enhancing border security, requiring employers to verify the legal status of their employees and permitting certain undocumented workers to become citizens as long as they pay taxes and fines and are processed behind those who come legally.

Though Obama's association with the proposal made it less palatable to some Republicans, a slender majority of GOP voters in the state said they backed the president's plan — a finding that, along with the drubbing their party took from Latino voters last fall, helps to illustrate why Republicans have grown more comfortable aligning themselves with citizenship for illegal immigrants.

"There's really not much of a debate in California about immigration anymore, and there may not even be a national debate," said Drew Lieberman of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, a Democratic firm that conducted the poll with the Republican firm American Viewpoint. "It's no longer a partisan or racial issue for Californians."

The state's voters have long held more moderate views on immigration than voters in other parts of the country, in part because of California's burgeoning Latino population. But the poll results illustrated that, even here, views about illegal immigrants have changed notably.

In 2010, when pollsters asked about the effect of illegal immigrants on the California economy, 48% of respondents said their effect was negative and 40% said it was positive. In the latest survey, only 36% said their impact was negative, and 53% said it was positive — a "huge shift," Lieberman said, that spanned all age groups and could not be explained simply by the surging population of Latinos in the state.

Part of what appears to be driving that change are the personal connections that many California voters have formed with illegal immigrants. Latinos were more likely than whites to know one — a majority of Latinos described that person as either a friend or family member — and among all voters who knew any, only 8% said illegal immigrants should be forced to leave the country.

"That tells me that immigration reform is really about la familia, especially for Hispanics, but even white voters can kind of understand that," said Dave Kanevsky, the research director at American Viewpoint.

And that familiarity has affected views across political lines. Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC, noted that California Republicans live in a much more multicultural society than party members elsewhere, "so the lives they live every day and the people they see are probably the main reason that their feelings are different than their national counterparts'."

That has been the case for 33-year-old Fresno Republican Chris Leake, who said the friendships he developed with undocumented workers in the U.S. and while doing volunteer work in Mexico have made him more inclined to support a path to citizenship.

"I understand why they come up here illegally — I don't agree with it, per se, but I understand why," said Leake, who works in Internet marketing. For many workers, he said, "it was extremely expensive and they ran great personal risk to do it, but they did it because they felt like they needed the income."

Leake, along with 73% of poll respondents, said he would favor the inclusion of a guest worker program in any new immigration package, which he said "would start to solve the problem."

"There's a significant percentage that want nothing more than to come up here, earn money for a time and then go back to Mexico," Leake said. "Instead they stay for years at a time, because it's so hard to get up here in the first place. And that's having devastating effects on their families."

Julie Rapoza, a 54-year-old Democrat from Manteca, said her brushes with illegal immigrants have had the opposite effect. The number of illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, she said, has hardened her view that most undocumented workers should be required to return home — a view that puts her at odds with most in her party.

At the same time, however, Rapoza said she believed illegal immigrants had a beneficial effect on California's economy. "A lot of them do jobs that even unemployed citizens won't do," said Rapoza, who favors an expansive guest worker program. Otherwise, employers "would be paying an arm and a leg to get workers to do it and that would make prices go way up."

Other poll respondents said they felt it would be impossible to deport an estimated 11 million immigrants.

"We don't have any choice," said James Scoville, a 67-year-old independent voter, when asked whether he favored giving illegal immigrants a way to become citizens. "Some of them have been here 20, 30, 40 years and have jobs and houses and everything else. Create a path for them, put them at the bottom of the list. I think that's pretty much the only sensible thing to do."

Some demographic differences were evident: White voters were more likely than Latinos to support stricter border security measures and requiring employers to verify, under threat of fines, that all employees are legal. Still, a majority of Latinos backed both those ideas.

But white respondents were nearly as supportive of a path to citizenship as Latino voters — 81% and 86% respectively. Not surprisingly, Democrats were the most supportive of all. In the survey, 88% said they favored creating that path, compared with 76% of Republicans and 83% of decline-to-state voters.

The poll, which interviewed 1,501 registered voters by telephone, was conducted March 11-17 for the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and the Los Angeles Times. The survey has an overall margin of error of 2.9 percentage points, with a higher margin of error for subgroups.

maeve.reston@latimes.com

Copyright © 2013, Los Angeles Times

Lack of immigration reform threatens California farmers

Growers have difficulty fielding adequate crews to harvest crops; Washington has a shot this year at providing meaningful relief.

George Skelton
Capitol Journal
4:19 PM PST, February 20, 2013

SACRAMENTO — Except for illegal immigrants, no group has more at stake in the national fight over immigration reform than California farmers.

"It doesn't pay to plant a product if you can't harvest it," notes Mark Teixeira of Santa Maria, who says he had to let 22 acres of vegetables rot last year because he couldn't find enough field hands to gather the crop. "That hurts."

As security has tightened along the California-Mexican border, the flow of illegal immigrant labor into the nation's most productive agriculture state has slowed significantly, farm interests say.

"It's very difficult to find crews compared to three or four years ago," reports Greg Wegis, a fifth-generation Kern County farmer who grows cherries, almonds, pistachios and tomatoes, among other crops.

Last year, Wegis had to cancel a cherry pick for lack of labor. "It cost me several thousand dollars."

"Migrant workers are moving to other states that are friendlier and where there's less likelihood of getting harassed and deported," he says.

"Obviously [the feds] are doing a better job at the border. Which is great. But it definitely is putting the squeeze on our industry."

Any time some demagogic politician bellows about rounding up all the illegal immigrants and shipping them back to their own country, it sends chills up farmers' spines.

Roughly two-thirds of the state's crop workers "are not properly documented," says Rayne Pegg, who heads the federal policy division of the California Farm Bureau.

"I'm not proud to say I hire illegal aliens," says Teixeira, whose family has been farming for five generations. "Everyone has to show 'documentation.' But I don't work for [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]. Bottom line, if I have to verify everyone, I'm not going to be able to harvest my crop."

One federal program designed to allow temporary entry of foreign agriculture workers — called H-2A — fails in California because "it's fraught with bureaucratic nightmares," Pegg says. "The federal government doesn't act timely enough for picking and harvesting."
At the harvest peak last September, California had 453,000 agriculture workers, according to the state Employment Development Department. They averaged about $13 per hour. Most pay is based on a work crew's production.

Some farmers, like Teixeira, pay by the hour — $9 in his case, $1 over the state minimum wage. "We also provide health insurance and a 401(k)," he says. And unlike San Joaquin Valley farmers, Teixeira offers a great climate along the ocean. But he still can't find enough hands for his 800 acres.

"Not just any bozo off the street can come in and harvest produce," he says, noting there's a special skill to, for example, cutting lettuce just right.

"Americans won't take these jobs," asserts Dave Puglia, senior vice president of the Western Growers Assn. "Not even the farmworkers raise their own children to take these jobs. It's hard work. And it's not unskilled labor."

California growers need a more reliable source of labor — one they believe would come from immigration reform. Workers would be here legally, able to move freely from farm to farm and able to cross back and forth across the border without worrying about being jumped by some federal agent.

There are an estimated 2.6 million illegal immigrants living in California, nearly one-fourth of the nation's 11 million total. They represent roughly 7% of the state's population. The vast majority — about 1.8 million — are employed.

A recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 72% of likely voters believe that illegal immigrants who have worked in this country for at least two years should be allowed "to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status." Only 25% think "they should be deported back to their native country."

Also, 54% feel that immigrants benefit California "because of their hard work and job skills." Conversely, 39% call them a burden "because they use public services.

Ironically, 60% of Republican voters consider immigrants a burden and only 33% see them as a benefit. That's their long-held view. But many big growers are Republican.
And that's ultra ironic because, nationally, it has been GOP politicians — often representing farm belts — who have blocked and politicized immigration reform.

California farmers "are all over their legislators about not helping them," says Tom Nassif, president and chief executive of the Western Growers Assn. "But they don't punish their legislators for not helping them. They should make it clear that they need their support."
In November, Latino voters made it clear to Republican politicians — including presidential candidate Mitt Romney — that they didn't appreciate their immigration views. And that's why farm groups now see the best opportunity in many years for reform.
"I've said, 'Look folks, it's time to deal with this,'" Nassif says.

After Romney made his dumb, right-wing-pandering comment in a debate about the need for illegal immigrants to "self-deport," Nassif was brought in as one of the candidate's agriculture advisors.

"I told him he was going to be in trouble with Latinos if he didn't do something," Nassif recalls. "I advised him to do something about providing a legal workforce. But he felt better served by being more conservative."

We'll soon see whether Republican politicians have learned the political lesson.
If President Obama and Congress "don't come up with something in the next couple of months, the prospects for this year are not very good," says Pegg, who's wired into negotiations. "We'll be getting into the next election season."

There's momentum now. The issue is ripe for harvest.

george.skelton@latimes.com

White House says leaked immigration plan a backup if Congress doesn't act

By Andrew Rafferty, Staff Writer, NBC News

President Barack Obama’s draft immigration proposal is nothing more than a backup plan in case Congress fails to produce comprehensive legislation of their own, a White House official said Monday.

“The administration will be ready to move forward in the event the bipartisan process gets bogged down and is not able to produce a bill,” the administration official said. “But our focus remains on supporting the congressional process.”

The president set off a firestorm Saturday night when USA Today reported it had obtained a draft of the White House immigration plan. Republicans in Congress quickly panned the administration for leaking the proposal with no bipartisan input.

But the White House official said the administration was not “floating anything” and was “surprised” to find out the press had obtained the details. Instead, the official said, the White House was simply preparing for the possibility that the current political climate could cause gridlock that would delay or prevent the president from following through on one of his campaign promises.

“We’ll be prepared in the event that the bipartisan talks going on on the Hill -- which by the way we’re aggressively supporting -- if those do not work out, then we’ll have an option we’re ready to put out there,” White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press.”

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough reiterates key principles in the administration's plan for immigration reform and its potential for passage on Capitol Hill.

But on msnbc on Monday, a former senior adviser to the president, David Axelrod, conceded that the administration likely made an error by circulating the memo to various government agencies and throughout the West Wing. “The mistake there was to disseminate it so widely in the administration that it got leaked, and I’m sure if they could they’d take that back,” he said.

The leak solicited immediate reaction from Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who issued a statement saying the plan would be “dead on arrival” and calling it “a mistake” for the White House to draft a plan without consulting with Republicans in Congress.

Rubio is part of a bipartisan group of senators that announced last month that they had agreed on principles that could pave the way for a bill that would overhaul the nation’s immigration laws. Those tenets include creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country and developing a system to ensure employers don’t hire illegal immigrants.

The White House proposal would allow illegal immigrants to become permanent residents within eight years, as well as create a lawful prospective immigrant visa, require employers to check the immigration status of workers and provide more border security funding.

Since Obama’s re-election in November, fueled by Hispanic voters, the president has renewed calls for comprehensive immigration reform. News of the White House proposal came just days after the president lauded the Senate’s work during last week’s State of the Union address.

“As we speak, bipartisan groups in both chambers are working diligently to draft a bill, and I applaud their efforts,” Obama said. “Now let’s get this done. Send me a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the next few months, and I will sign it right away."

The White House official said the focus “remains on supporting the congressional process” and that after the draft became public late Saturday, members of the administration reached out to senators on both sides of the aisle.

Still, that did not stop Republicans from panning the proposals on the Sunday morning talk shows.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R–Wisc., said on ABC’s “This Week” that the leaked plan “tells us that (Obama is) looking for a partisan advantage and not a bipartisan solution.”

On NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, a member of the group of senators working to craft a bipartisan immigration bill, called on the president to shelve his proposal and allow Congress to continue working on legislation.

“I believe we are making progress on a bipartisan basis,” said McCain. “I believe we can come up with a product.”

And the White House says it is still optimistic that a solution can come from Congress. “The President is pleased by current state of progress being made by bipartisan efforts on the Hill and the Administration looks forward to continuing to work with them,” said the official.

NBC's Shawna Thomas contributed to this report

Obama to announce his immigration reform plan, said to be more liberal than Senate effort

By David Nakamura and Rosalind S. Helderman,

Jan 29, 2013 02:17 AM EST

The Washington Post Published: January 28

The Obama administration has developed its own proposals for immigration reform that are more liberal than a separate bipartisan effort in the Senate, including a quicker path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, people with knowledge of the proposals said.

President Obama is expected to provide some details of the White House plans during a Tuesday appearance in Las Vegas, where he will call for broad changes to the nation’s immigration laws. The speech will kick off a public push by the administration in support of the broadest overhaul of immigration law in nearly three decades.

Obama plans to praise the proposals laid out Monday by an eight-member Senate working group, saying they reflect the core tenets of the administration’s immigration blueprint developed in 2011, a senior administration official said.

But the president’s remarks also are likely to emphasize differences that could foreshadow roadblocks to passage in Congress at a time when both parties say there is momentum for a comprehensive deal.

For example, the Senate proposal would let illegal immigrants obtain legal residency quickly. But it would not allow them to seek full citizenship until border security had been improved and a new system was in place for employers to verify the employment status of workers.

Obama will not endorse such a proposal, the administration official said. The president intends to make clear the need for a more straightforward route for un­documented workers and students to obtain citizenship, reflecting fears among advocates that a cumbersome process would create a decades-long wait for some migrants.

“We see the Senate principles as a centrist set of principles, but we expect the administration to be more detailed to the left,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, a leading immigration advocacy group. “I don’t think it’ll be an immigration advocate’s dream, but it will be a solid left-of-center proposal.”

White House press secretary Jay Carney sought to close the gap between the White House and the Senate group during his daily briefing with reporters Monday, calling the Capitol Hill announcement “a big deal” because it includes a path to citizenship supported by four senators from each party. Similar provisions — opposed by many Republicans who think they would reward lawbreakers over those who come to the country legally — helped doom previous attempts to overhaul immigration in 2007 and 2010.

“This is in keeping with the principles the president has been espousing for a long time, in keeping with bipartisan efforts in the past and with the effort this president believes has to end in a law that he can sign,” Carney said.

He declined to say whether the White House objects to the proposal from the Senate group that would tie citizenship to border security and employment-verification measures. But he noted the administration’s focus on border-security issues, which included deporting nearly 410,000 immigrants in 2012, an all-time high.

The borders “have never been better enforced than they are now,” Carney said.

Months of development

The White House’s immigration plans have been in the works for months. Senior administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations, said the White House has developed specific legislative language spelling out Obama’s proposals. But they said they are not going to make the language public at this point because the administration is encouraged by the Senate group’s progress.

The president also is likely to support treating same-sex couples in which one partner is an immigrant the same as married heterosexual couples — meaning gay and lesbian immigrants in relationships with U.S. citizens could apply for citizenship. Such a provision is almost certain to draw opposition from Catholic and Baptist groups that have been supportive of comprehensive reform.

Immigration advocates said they expect Obama to be forceful in his public remarks Tuesday and offer details that go beyond the blueprint on the White House Web site. But there are risks for the president, who has accused Republicans of opposing his initiatives to avoid giving him political credit.

If Obama’s speech in Las Vegas, in a state with a growing number of Hispanic voters, is too tri­umphant or too hectoring, he could risk alienating Republicans whose support will be necessary, some lawmakers have said. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned Obama against delivering a “divisive, partisan speech.”

Yet the White House also is mindful that Latino and Asian voters expect him to follow through on an immigration overhaul after failing to achieve it in his first term. Obama had promised to make immigration the key initiative of his second term, but it took a back seat to gun control in the wake of the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., in December.

Talks without White House

In the meantime, the Senate working group, which had originally targeted its announcement for Friday, moved it up in advance of Obama’s speech. Senate aides said the White House had minimal involvement in the bipartisan talks, preferring a hands-off approach, in part because of failed bipartisan efforts on deficit reduction and other issues.

One White House official said Obama spoke Sunday to Senate Democrats who briefed him on the group’s progress, which came more quickly than the White House expected.

Despite the optimism of Monday’s announcement, senators on both sides acknowledged that they must settle several thorny issues before drafting a bill. They aim to introduce legislation by the end of March.

Democratic aides said the process could receive a boost if Obama champions a framework that provides a smoother path to citizenship. The Senate outline would appear more centrist by comparison, potentially making it easier for Republicans to support. A progressive White House plan would also help prevent the Senate effort from getting pushed much further to the right over time.

Angela Kelley, an immigration expert at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, called the parallel efforts “a healthy competition” between the White House and the Senate.

“The inevitable question for the White House was: How does a legislative initiative get underway?” Kelley said. “To some extent, the senators answered that, so it’s a nice coupling of developments.”