Rachel Swarns of the New York Times offers "Bipartisan Effort to Draft Immigration Bill", about various Congressmen thinking they can pass immigration "reform" early next year. Most of this was already covered in the article linked to in McCain, Kennedy, Gutierrez, Flake collaborating on immigration "reform".

Unbelievably, they want to create an even more open borders version of the Senate bill. The latter had a three-tiered approach that treated illegal aliens differently depending on how long they'd been here. The version they're trying to create would do away with those tiers and basically offer amnesty to all. No illegal aliens would even need to leave the U.S. first to get their amnesty.

They also want to block financing for the 700 mile fence bill.

Of course, some of their ideas might be considered to be bargaining chips, but even after compromise what remains will be opposed by most Americans. The best outcome would be for them to try something like this and fall flat on their faces, which might allow us to discredit even more open borders hacks in the process.

And:

[Aides] said the bill might include incentives for illegal immigrants to leave the country.

That's certainly an interesting statement, but as could be expected Swarns doesn't explore it. If offering incentives to leave the country would work, why don't we try that first? Clearly, the putative U.S. elected officials involved in this scheme strongly support illegal immigration and want illegal aliens here now to stay.

As for the article, it's among other things internally inconsistent. The Hispanic vote myth is trotted out, and we're told that "reform" is a winner (including with the Graf/Hayworth canard), but we're also told that the schemers need to tread carefully, such as:

The House Democrats are concerned about protecting newly elected moderate and conservative Democrats, some of whom had campaigned against legalizing illegal immigrants.