AUSTIN -- After 16 hours of often contentious debate, the Republican-led Texas House tentatively approved a sweeping bill Thursday that would require local sheriffs and police chiefs to comply with federal requests to hold onto individuals in this country illegally or face a misdemeanor criminal charge.

The House began a marathon debate on Senate Bill 4, or the "sanctuary cities" measure, around noon Wednesday and approved the bill on a party-line vote, 93 Republicans to 54 Democrats, at 2:58 a.m. Thursday. A final vote, which likely will break along party lines again, is expected later Thursday morning.

At issue is whether local law enforcement should honor every request by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold individuals in the country illegally until federal officials give further instructions or take them into custody. As noted by several of the bill's opponents, the decision to honor ICE requests, known as detainers, is voluntary and Texas counties already comply.

In the most heated and prolonged moment of the debate, the GOP majority added a major change late Wednesday that allows police officers to inquire about someone's immigration status during detainments, stripping earlier language that required an arrest.

Texas will not tolerate sanctuary campuses or cities. I will cut funding for any state campus if it establishes sanctuary status. #tcot https://t.co/2wN4eo1YLG — Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) December 1, 2016

The proposal by Rep. Matt Schaefer, R-Tyler, which prevailed on a 81-64 vote, held up the chamber's proceedings for hours and encountered fierce Democratic resistance. They said it was similar to legislation Arizona lawmakers passed in 2010, commonly referred to as SB 1070, that drew negative attention to the state and sparked a costly legal battle over the constitutionality of the measure.

The change means the House version more closely mirrors the Senate's proposal, doing away with what was expected to be a major point of contention between both chambers as they try to negotiate an identical bill to pass and get to Gov. Greg Abbott. The governor has made the legislation a priority item this session.

The Senate passed SB 4 in February, but its House sponsor, Republican Rep. Charlie Geren of Fort Worth, made several changes before it arrived on the House floor. The chambers' differences colored much of the House's debate on the legislation, especially as lawmakers considered Schaefer's amendment.

Before a vote on the Schaefer proposal, Democrats tried several times to raise technical issues and considered negotiating a deal with Republicans to have Schaefer withdraw his amendment. When it became clear that they could no longer stall, they implored their GOP colleagues to reject the amendment, saying it amounted to a racist "show me your papers" provision that will be used to profile Latinos in daily interactions with police.

Democrats argued that a routine traffic stop or a minor offense like jaywalking could prompt a police officer to inquire about a person's immigration status and potentially lead to deportation proceedings. It also would have a chilling effect on crime victims who are in the country illegally, making them afraid to report crimes to police, Democrats said.

As she sobbed at the front of the chamber, Rep. Mary Gonzalez, D-Clint, said she was a victim of sexual assault and the amendment would push survivors like her into the shadows.

"If I have the bravery to stand up here and tell you things that I don't like to share in hopes that you'll change your mind … I'm asking you to be as brave as me who has survived it all and still made it," she said, adding that she did not want to speak ever again to lawmakers who voted for the amendment.

Rep. Byron Cook, a senior Republican from Corsicana, urged his colleagues to oppose Schaefer's amendment because it went far beyond the scope of the bill's original intent.

"This is about getting dangerous criminals off the street," Cook said. "That's the mission. It shouldn't be any less than that or any more than that."

In the end, nine Republicans voted against Schaefer, including Rep. Gary Elkins of Houston and Rep. Dan Huberty of Humble. Every Democrat voted against it.

Lawmakers filed nearly 200 other amendments to the bill, including many from Democrats who wanted to shield children from inquiries about their immigration status and to exempt college police departments from the bill. Both proposals failed.

The House and Senate versions also include a provision that would charge a sheriff or other local officer overseeing a jail with a Class A misdemeanor for refusing to comply with immigration detainer requests. A Class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $4,000, or both. Such a charge effectively would force the elected officials, if convicted, out of their jobs and bar them for life from working as a police officer or jailer in Texas.

It also would impose a civil penalty between $1,000 and $1,500 on a local entity or campus for the first violation. Each subsequent violation would cost the entity at least $25,000 each day that it continues.

Geren has said the criminal penalty is enough to deter sheriffs and constables from violating the law. He eliminated a provision in the Senate proposal that would have withheld state grant money from local jurisdictions that fail to comply, a punishment Democrats have argued would hurt domestic violence programs, veterans' courts and other services.

Rep. Ana Hernandez, a Houston Democrat, cautioned her colleagues against demonizing people in the country illegally, which Democrats claimed is the impetus for the Republican-backed bill.

"During the time we lived under undocumented status, and although I was just a little girl, I remember the constant fear my family lived with each day - fear my parents experienced each day as their two little girls went to school, not knowing if there would be an immigration raid that day," she said.

Around 2 a.m., Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, made a motion to cut off debate on the bill and sweep the remaining amendments into a single party-line vote, which meant they all would be defeated simultaneously. The maneuver, which some Democrats said was unprecedented in their time in the House, won the requisite two-thirds vote with the help of several Democrats, 114-29.

The House approved Senate Bill 4 shortly thereafter.