All eyes are on the House Republicans and Speaker Boehner. President Obama has pledged to take a more active role in the House debate. With 20 million Americans unemployed and underemployed, Obama is teaming up with corporate special interests to lobby House Republicans to pass an amnesty and a large-scale expansion of temporary and permanent immigration for foreign workers.

Pro-expansionist groups from the Left and the Right are preparing to spend big money to convince House Republicans to back a Senate-style comprehensive bill. Pro-amnesty conservative groups are urging House Republicans to expand foreign-worker immigration even further than the Senate proposed.

Specifically, the pro-amnesty groups hope to pick off 20 Republicans from this list of 99 to back a comprehensive bill.

The prevailing wisdom is that the fate of American workers impacted by mass immigration is in the hands of Speaker Boehner, who has promised that the Senate bill will not get a vote in the House. But Andrea Mitchell hinted on Sunday's Meet The Press that Boehner might have sent signals to the White House that he can get an amnesty passed by the end of summer.

Meanwhile, a "small group of House and Senate Republicans," including Paul Ryan, met privately last night to discuss how to get a legalization & expansion bill through Congress.

Conservatives William Kristol and Rich Lowry, on the other hand, are urging House Republicans to avoid a conference with the Senate bill at all costs, fearing that any bill that passes the House would be used to push the Senate bill through conference.

However the House proceeds, it is clear that all of your work exposing the legalization-before-enforcement nature of the Senate bill has paid off. Boehner and others have cited that as a chief flaw in S. 744. Polling has long indicated that American voters prefer an enforcement-first approach and a new poll suggests that includes Hispanic voters as well. Sixty percent of Hispanic voters support a plan to offer legalization only after 90 percent of future illegal immigration is stopped. According to the Congressional Budget Office the best case scenario for the Senate bill is a reduction in illegal immigration from 33-50 percent.

Conn Carroll uses the Obama administration's delay of the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate to explain how any enforcement promises will be summarily ignored once the amnesty is secured. Back in May, Obama told a private meeting of advocates that he would revisit their concerns once Congress had secured an overarching bill.

And what would happen to the illegal aliens who aren't expected to get legal status under the Senate amnesty? They would remain in the country illegally until the next amnesty comes around. If the sponsors and supporters of the Senate bill have different theories, they aren't saying.

Who are you fighting for?

Ronald Mortensen lists the winners and losers of the Senate bill. Interestingly, illegal aliens are on both lists. The monied interests all stand to gain. The Americans who have less political clout stand to lose.

For instance, 21 percent of young veterans are unemployed. Yet much of Washington D.C. is consumed with adding millions of foreign job seekers.

Only 47 percent of working-age Americans have a full-time job.

Gil Smart asks us to consider the drawbacks to immigration expansion, including another decade of declining wages for low-skilled workers.

Norm Matloff asks us to consider how corporate immigration policies push innovative workers out the workplace and discourage talented U.S. students from pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering, and math.

David Frum tweeted: "Maybe the most fundamental q about immigration bill: do you want a higher GDP - or a higher GDP per capita? More output or higher wages?"

Elites aren't concerned about the downside to amnesty and expansion, perhaps because their wages are not adversely affected (while lowering the wages of other workers is the point). And, let's face it, they are seldom confronted with the realities faced by people who live in towns like Thomasville, North Carolina. What's more likely to give a less-educated worker a shot at a life of dignity? Less immigration and a tight labor market or amnesty and immigration expansion?

The pressure will be on Boehner and the House of Representatives to exchange a decade of increased unemployment and lower wages (for working-class Americans) for continued illegal immigration and, inevitably, another amnesty debate a few years down the road.

Tell your Representative that is a deal not worth taking.

JEREMY BECK is the Director of the Media Standards Project for NumbersUSA