Getty Images

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) met at the White House yesterday with President Obama and Vice President Biden to discuss immigration policy, and the Republicans left the West Wing ... unusually happy.

"It's one of the best meetings I've ever had with the president," Graham told reporters. "Sen. McCain made a strong point about the border, and the president understands the working components of it, so I was quite frankly encouraged. I think we'll have presidential leadership in a very productive way on immigration reform, and with that, we've got a very good chance of doing it this year."

But what about House Republicans, most notably House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who ruled out a pathway to citizenship just last week? The latest reports suggest there's some wiggle room after all.

Asked by a reporter Wednesday if his position meant that undocumented immigrants legalized under a comprehensive reform plan could never become citizens, Goodlatte replied, "I don't think that."

At issue are the fluid and sometimes vague definitions of terms like a "path to citizenship" and "amnesty," which some Republicans say means undocumented immigrants should be barred from ever becoming citizens and others say means they shouldn't be granted citizenship automatically.

There appears to be some ambiguities to Goodlatte's position, but when TPM asked about some of the provisions in the bipartisan Senate compromise, the Virginian said, "I do have concerns about a lot of the different proposals I've seen and rather than negotiate those concerns in public, I think it's better to let the process work and see what kind of consensus we can develop."

And if nothing else, that sounds a lot more open minded than what Goodlatte said last week.

botetourtview/Flickr

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)

Occasionally, one can be forgiven for feeling optimistic about the odds of success on comprehensive immigration reform. The White House is fully invested in the process; there's real progress in the Senate; and the relevant stakeholders are increasingly on board. Indeed, just today, the AFL-CIO and Chamber of Commerce embraced a shared immigration framework.

And then, just when you think it's safe to feel hopeful, you get a splash of cold water in the face, and think, "Oh right, the Republican-led House of Representatives still exists."

Immigration reform's chances in the House are looking bleaker after one of the top Republicans tasked with shepherding a bill to passage ruled out a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), chair of the Judiciary Committee that will mark up any House legislation on the issue, told NPR this week that he will not support a bill that eventually grants citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in America.

Just so we're clear, including a pathway to citizenship in an immigration-reform bill isn't just some luxury add-on element -- it's largely the point of working on reform in the first place. This provision is at the heart of the entire endeavor. Goodlatte's willingness to tackle the issue, but without a mechanism to help those undocumented immigrants who are already here, is effectively the same thing as opposing reform in its entirety.

His position does not come as a huge surprise. The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month said support for a pathway to citizenship -- a position embraced by the Obama White House, the Bush White House, congressional Democrats, most of the public, and several Senate Republicans -- is an "extreme" position. His formal opposition was only a matter of time.

So, does this mean comprehensive immigration reform is dead, just as the process gets underway in earnest? That's probably an overstatement, but so long as there's a radicalized House GOP majority, reform proponents are looking at a very steep climb.

Remember, Goodlatte is not just some random committee chair -- if immigration reform is going to happen at all, it's going to have to advance through the House Judiciary Committee, which the far-right Virginian chairs.

As those who watch Congress carefully know, in rare instances, major pieces of legislation can bypass the committee process. In fact, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said he wants comprehensive reform to pass in this Congress, and he could, in theory, circumvent Goodlatte and bring an immigration bill directly to the floor in the hopes it might pass.

I'll pause for a moment until you finish chuckling at the notion of Boehner showing this kind of leadership.

Despite the long odds, I can still imagine a set of circumstances that leads to success. Picture this: a bipartisan package is approved in the Senate, President Obama continues to keep the pressure on, polls show the American mainstream expects the House to at least hold a vote, GOP strategists start advising party leaders that killing reform would cost Republicans dearly in the 2014 midterms, and Boehner has to worry about a discharge petition forcing his hand. Could conditions like these overcome far-right opposition? Yes, it's possible.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

Associated Press

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)

At the surface, there's ample reason for optimism on comprehensive immigration reform. President Obama is investing considerable political capital into the issue; the public strongly supports the reform efforts; a bipartisan bill is already progressing in the Senate; and every Republican strategist and consultant is warning the party not to further alienate the fastest-growing voting constituency in the country.

Even House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) recently declared, "This issue has been around far too long. A comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I'm confident that the president, myself, others can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all."

All House Republicans have to do now is be half-way reasonable and reform should become a reality. What could go wrong?

At a House Judiciary Committee hearing exploring an overhaul of the immigration system -- the first of several such hearings expected in the House -- Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia and chairman of the committee, tried to frame what he called the question of the day: "Are there options that we should consider between the extremes of mass deportation and a pathway to citizenship for those not lawfully present in the United States?"

It was a question later echoed by Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas and the former chairman of the committee, when questioning Mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio. "Do you see any compromise area between the current status quo and a path to citizenship for virtually all the 11 million who are illegal immigrants in the country today?" he asked.

Hmm. Apparently, the position embraced by the White House, congressional Democrats, most of the public, and several Senate Republicans is now "the extreme" position, at least according to the far-right chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

What's more, around the same time as Goodlatte's remark, Boehner decided not to endorse a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and told reporters it would be "very difficult" for the House to approve the centerpiece of any credible, comprehensive reform package.

So much for the Speaker feeling "confident" about a "comprehensive" approach.

This is not to say the House GOP wants to do nothing -- their version of a compromise is approving measures they already like.

House Republicans on Tuesday staked out what they cast as a middle-ground option in the debate over immigration, pushing an approach that could include legal residency but not a path to citizenship -- as their Democratic counterparts favor -- for the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country.

Republicans also signaled that they are open to the idea of breaking immigration legislation into several smaller bills, which would allow them to deal with the question of highly skilled workers, as well as a farmworker program, without addressing what Democrats and immigration advocates say is the larger issue of potential citizenship.

As for citizenship, Rep. Raul Labrador, a member of a bipartisan group of House members discussing immigration reform proposals, told reporters yesterday that undocumented immigrants don't really care about citizenship anyway, so there's no reason to make a fuss.

"They're not clamoring for it. It's only the activists here in Washington D.C. who keep clamoring for it," Labrador said.

So, on the one hand, immigrants could celebrate a semi-permanent status as second-class not-quite-citizens, and on the other, a comprehensive approach that nearly everyone agrees is necessary would be broken up so that provisions the right doesn't like could go away.

In fairness, I should note that many notable House Republicans have become rather cagey about what they are and are not willing to consider. They don't want a pathway to citizenship, and they don't like a comprehensive solution, but most of them have not categorically ruled out the possibility. These may be opening moves in a larger chess match in which the House GOP sees what it can get away with and how far mainstream voices can be pushed.

Or maybe the radicalized House Republican caucus fully intends to ignore the prevailing winds and public demand, and once again ruin any chance of serious policymaking in this Congress.

Associated Press

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)

As Rachel noted on the show last night, nearly all the coverage of President Obama's proposals on preventing gun violence came with the same caveat: new gun laws can't pass Congress, so no one should get their hopes up.

Anyone who watches Washington can understand a certain degree of skepticism, but there's also reason to question the prevailing assumptions. For one thing, the White House is pushing a comprehensive set of proposals, but there's no reason to assume there will be one, overarching, all-encompassing bill that will get an up or down vote.

On the contrary, we're likely to see a whole bunch of bills, each with their own set of odds. An assault weapons ban may face a steeper climb, but that doesn't mean we won't see new regulations of high-capacity magazines. Strengthening existing penalties for gun trafficking may be a heavier lift than confirming a new ATF director.

And if we were to create a four-square graph, with "meaningful" on the y axis and "likely to pass" on the x axis, I think a universal background check belongs in the upper right-hand corner.

Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia, who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, dismissed an assault weapons ban as ineffective. "But in terms of background checks, in terms of keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and people who have serious mental health difficulties, we want to do that, and we would take a close look at that," he told C-Span.

And who's Bob Goodlatte? He's the congressman who said five days after the Sandy Hook massacre that he'd defeat any new gun control measures that come up in this Congress.

The Washington Post's Sean Sullivan added, "Compared to an assault weapons ban, there is far greater overall consensus around the issue of strengthening background checks by requiring them in firearm sales at gun shows and in other private transactions, to end the so-called 'gun show loophole.'"

The point is, it seems hard to imagine Congress approving literally every proposal presented by Obama and crafted by Vice President Biden's task force, but there's no reason to see this as an all-or-nothing proposition -- some worthwhile measures may not pass, others might.

And as the legislative phase of the debate begins in earnest, the background-check proposal appears to be at the very top of the to-do list, for the reasons Greg Sargent explained this morning:

Every member of Congress, Democrat and Republican, needs to be asked this question: Do you believe people should be able to buy guns in America without undergoing a background check designed to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from getting their hands on lethal weapons that can ultimately be used in crimes and mass killings?

In one sense, this is arguably the most important question at the heart of the gun debate.... Obama's package of proposals designed to beef up the background check system is in many ways more important than the assault weapons ban. A universal background check is the top priority of many gun control advocates. And the politics of background checks are considerably more favorable to Obama and Democrats then much coverage suggests.

Worse, the focus on the assault weapons ban is allowing members of Congress to dodge the very difficult political question of whether they favor fixing the background check system. For instance, Senator Lindsey Graham's statement comes out against the proposed ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, but doesn't say word boo about the universal background check, even though that is the lead proposal Obama unveiled.

I don't doubt the background-check provisions will face plenty of conservative criticism, but it's worth emphasizing that new Time/CNN and New York Times/CBS News polls show overwhelming public support for this proposal -- including the strong backing of self-identified Republicans.

Opponents of universal background checks will exist, but they'll be on the fringes of the American mainstream.

Over the course of his 20-year congressional career, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) hasn't stood out for doing anything truly remarkable. I generally think of him as the guy who organized the reading of the U.S. Constitution on the House floor last year, as a symbolic stunt (which didn't go well) devoid of any real meaning.

Next year, however, Goodlatte is likely to become the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, replacing Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) who'll be forced to step down due to his caucus' term limits on committees. With that in mind, Ian Millhiser notes just how far to the right Goodlatte really is.

For those who can't watch clips online, the Virginia Republican suggested to his constituents just last year that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security aren't really constitutional, and exist because "the courts have stretched the Constitution."

Millhiser added, "To be fair to Goodlatte, he later states that it would not be practical to 'just say we're throwing out Medicare because it's unconstitutional,' but this does little to change the fact that the man House Republicans want to place in charge of constitutional matters does not have even the most basic understanding of the Constitution."

Goodlatte's other major legislative contribution was spearheading a measure to condemn Supreme Court references to international law and/or legal traditions.