Skip to main content

View Diary: Have Dems sold out too early on immigration? Not if they want something to actually pass (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Then maybe we shouldn't do anything (16+ / 0-)

    We're back to being thrown under the bus any time it's convenient.  Why are LGBT's Democrats again?   I thought it was for THIS type of legislation right here.

    Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

    by lostboyjim on Wed May 22, 2013 at 12:23:59 PM PDT

    •  What is the objective of the Democratic Party (16+ / 0-)

      now?

      Good policy and legislation?

      Or just passing something regardless of whether it is good policy or legislation?

      What is the purpose of electing "more and better Democrats" if we end up with Republican policy and law?

      •  If you can argue (31+ / 0-)

        that passing nothing is better than legalizing 11 million undocumented immigrants including tens of thousands of dreamers, then I'm all ears.

        •  I would argue (15+ / 0-)

          that passing nothing this year, letting the GOP get blamed by Hispanic voters, and letting them come back to the table when they are even more desperate than they are now is a better (and certainly fairer) strategy than cutting same-sex bi-national couples out of the bill.

          •  Say that to the 11 million (7+ / 0-)

            Who get no guarantees anything will necessarily change given the Republican voter base, while slipping, isn't suddenly just going to vanish whole into thin air.

            http://callatimeout.blogspot.com/ Jesus Loves You.

            by DAISHI on Wed May 22, 2013 at 12:52:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Hispanics are paying attention (10+ / 0-)

            If at this point we fumble Immigration reform we will actively depressing the Hispanic vote for a looooong while.

            The issue of rights for same sex couples is right now at the Supreme Court. What's the point of sinking immigration for something that is going to be ruled on very very soon?

          •  There comes a time to make policy (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wadingo, askew

            Even if that policy excludes much needed reforms.

          •  how about passing something now, (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Miss Blue, zizi, Larsstephens

            and letting the GOP not get any votes out of it because Latinos will still distrust them on economic issues and at least half of beneficiaries are women.

            You think you'll see the kind of enthusiasm if the explicit policy of the party is to practice bait and switch?  That WOULD be a sell-out, and with gerrymandering, there will likely be sufficient safe Republicans who hate "shamnesty" to go along with the voices on the left to whom no bill will ever be good enough.

            Pass something now, and fix it when we reap the benefits of having actually done something for people.

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Wed May 22, 2013 at 02:25:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nobody is going to want to revisit this. (7+ / 0-)

              Not anytime soon. The UAFA will not pass as a stand alone law. The GOP has gerrymandered itself into power in the House for the next decade. And Senate Democrats have hardly been a profile in courage (re: ENDA). The only way UAFA becomes law is if it is part of a comprehensive package where people vote for things they hate in exchange for getting things they want. And when was the last comprehensive immigration bill?

              •  Fixing laws that discriminate on the basis (0+ / 0-)

                of sexual orientation do not have to be done in the immigration context, and it makes a lot of sense to do one hot button issue at a time.  

                Either way, the benefits of scuttling the bill and hoping for something better are completely undermined by the premise that the Republicans have gerrymandered themselves into power -- while that's what it looks like based on political coalitions in 2010 and 2012, we don't know what kind of shifts or migration patterns will occur in the next two years.  The fact that comprehensive immigration takes a while is the reason to do what we can, when we can, and the fact a bill was passed out of Senate Judiciary seems to mean that it's now.

                Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                by Loge on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:43:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  fix it in the future? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nokkonwud

              Yeah, we know how that works.   The future never happens.  We're not chumps.

              You know, honestly I'm feeling pretty good about being a Democrat right now. But let me be clear.  This is my home issue.  I live this bigotry in Texas every day.  I didn't vote in 2010, and I'm not afraid to withhold my vote again (and encourage my friends to do so) if I get escorted off the bus again and again.

              Gay rights, equal rights, are moving forward.  People are very pro-LGBT rights, very supportive of equality.  Why not take a stand when you have the population at your back?

              Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

              by lostboyjim on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:33:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Because legislation still has to satisfy (0+ / 0-)

                the sensibilities of the 20th least conservative House Republican.  And they believe they have safe districts, and are looking for a basis to vote against it on any basis other than simply not liking immigrants.  

                Not passing a bill doesn't do anything for Latinos or for gays.  Your argument would make more sense if there weren't real progress on gay rights in the last few years, but that's not the case.  The amendment is right on the merits, but politically, it's a poison pill, and it's not the Democrats who want to scuttle the legislation by pitting the interests of gays against Latinos.  There's an immigration bill that's out of committee.  That's a 100% good thing, even if the bill is only 80% of what I'd pass by ukase.

                And if you didn't vote in 2010, I'm not interested in listening to you claim the high ground, especially when the Obama administration repeatedly proved not voting on the basis of gay rights to have been remarkably foolish, from your own premise.  Nothing you said is entirely wrong, but nothing you said makes the political trade-off go away.  That's Kos's point.  And if you didn't vote, I don't know why you bother calling yourself a Democrat.  You may be a fan of the Democrats and the San Antonio Spurs, but if you don't take the court, you're not really a member of the team.

                Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                by Loge on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:55:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Full circle (0+ / 0-)

                  Dems constantly sell the LGBT community down the river.  Before 2011, our sucess has been competely in the COURTS, not in Democratically held institutions.  

                  It was a painful decision not to vote, and not one I took lightly.  It was the first election I have missed since I hit my majority in 1988.  

                  I bother calling myself a Democrat because I believe in Democratic goals.  If the Democrats I can pull the switch for DON'T belive in those goals, then I'm not going to vote for them.

                  The "Democrat" running in my district in 2010 had an anti-gay plank in his platform.  I did not knock on a door, I did not give one dollar, I did not vote for him.  The Obama administration had just caved on LGBT rights before the election.   Exactly what was I supposed to vote for?

                  I'm not a member of the team?  That's just fine.  The Democratic Senate made it crystal clear they don't want us on the team as anything other than a bench-warming cash machine.  FUCK THEM.   I'm not your fucking ATM.  If you want to ride that, "You MUST suppor the part no matter what" line, you are welcome to it.  I would note that such adherence to party over reality is what got the Republican party so lost in the weeds they don't even understand what true "Conservatism" is.

                  Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

                  by lostboyjim on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:43:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  so, by Democratically-appointed judges then. (0+ / 0-)

                    The Democrats made it clear they want to pass an immigration bill, no more no less, and I think all but one or two are on record supporting marriage equality, the President's endorsement of which led to a huge spike in support for it; fought DOMA in the courts and successfully repealed DADT.  Around the time DADT was repealed, in fact, the administration prioritized it over the DREAM Act and made a budget compromise a lot of people hated to clear the decks to move on that legislation.   Focusing exclusively on negatives is the reality distortion field (confirmation bias - if you believe there's "selling down the river," that's what you'll find), and all of the gay and lesbian campaign staffers I worked with last cycle would tell you that we're all responsible for our own choices.  Nobody's saying in an ideal world we'd still have these discussions, but raging at Democrats doesn't actually make equality one bit closer; quite the opposite.  

                    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                    by Loge on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:07:54 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thanks for the more even-handed reply (0+ / 0-)

                      I agree with much of what you say.  But almost all of this is post 2010, where a watershed moment happened and being pro-LGBT isn't seen as "risky" by Democrats (unless you're a Senator).  

                      Yes, President Obama's verbal support of LGBT rights was a huge moment, and I have been vocal in acknowledging that.  But again, this was after 2010.  

                      My point was that there was a strong feeling the party had really ignored gay rights leading up to 2010, and a lot of the LGBT community stayed home.  Was that the reason for the 2010 landslide?  Of course not.  Did it motivate the party to try to woo us back?  Maybe.  

                      It's only been 4 years, but I guess you don't remember how upset, how disenchanted LGBTs were moving into 2010.  Democrats had held House, Senate, and White House for 2 years, and had absolutely nothing to show the LGBT community.   DOMA was still in effect.  So was DADT.   ENDA was only a dream.  Yeah, I stayed home.

                      And then you come along and accuse me of not really being a Democrat because I refuse to vote for an anti-gay Democrat representative.  

                      The good news is that more Democrats are on board with equality for, you know, everyone.*  Unless it is slightly inconvenient politically.   Will I vote in 2014?  Almost certainly.  But I will never again vote for anyone, not a (D), not a (I), NOBODY who denies that I deserve equality.  Does that really mean I'm not a Democrat?

                      _____________
                      *Trans community need not apply.

                      Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

                      by lostboyjim on Thu May 23, 2013 at 10:26:23 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  I don't see where you made a case for this (15+ / 0-)

          current law passing based on its merits.  This diary only discusses process.  

          And, Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency yet we are always backpedaling on policy.  And that's because Democrats in the Senate allow the process to be used against us so that the Senate is basically a draw - or more typically a loss.  The party should own that.  

          Democrats are losing on process because they allow it to be that way.

        •  Don't screw your base (16+ / 0-)

             Labor is the heart of the Democratic Party. Who do you think provides all those boots on the ground for elections? Approving all the Hatch amendments was unnecessary and self-defeating. Labor negotiated in good faith for the provisions in this bill and the Dems caved just to please Orin Hatch.  

        •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          virginislandsguy

          Not passing something does nothing to help the undocumented, nor does it help the cause of equality.  The interests of 11 million folks in the shadows without any protections should count for more than some percentage of STEM workers fighting a few amendments -- better have those workers here than move the entire damn firm abroad.

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Wed May 22, 2013 at 02:22:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You Know What, Fuck You (4+ / 0-)

            The interests of 11 million folks in the shadows without any protections should count for more than some percentage of STEM workers fighting a few amendments

            And I'll keep it in mind that the Democratic Party values non-citizens who entered the country illegally over American citizens who have been shit on by the Democratic Party for fifteen years now when it comes time to vote.

            I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

            by superscalar on Wed May 22, 2013 at 02:42:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That presupposes (0+ / 0-)

              that the economic impact of immigrants, legal or otherwise, are zero sum, that is, if one group wins, another group loses.  Demonstrably false.  Certain industries probably will experience dislocation, but, as I said, if the tech firms want those workers, they know where to find them and how to get them, with the consequence that the next generation software companies are in the subcontinent.  Let's hope they have more progressive immigration policies in 20 years if this bill fails.  As immigration and diversity have always been America's strength, more people would be better off with those jobs in Santa Clara than would be worse off.

              And even if it zero sum, I'd still favor the interests of 11 million people living on the margins with no legal or economic protection, over a much smaller number of reasonably educated people.  

              Not all of the 11 million undocumented immigrants broke the law, either.  

              It's not the Democrats who shit on people at voting time, either.  Just look at Ohio.  And I'm sure you can find plenty of Democrats willing to take a nativist line, if that's your thing.  Big tent.

              The irony is most of the time people who tell me to fuck off usually have a point.  It's remarkable you could take such an easy target and whiff completely.

              Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

              by Loge on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:01:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  All 11 million are breaking the law by being here. (0+ / 0-)

                20, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
                politicohen.com
                Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
                UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.4.12, -4.92

                by jncca on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:33:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  and a lot of them are paying taxes (0+ / 0-)

                  for retirement benefits they'd never receive.

                  Do you really want to defend that position w/r/t DREAMers?  It's moot anyway to a debate about what the law should be -- if anything, the path to citizenship is too hard, but permanent legal status only makes sense, and more HB1 visas are better than wholesale offshoring.

                  Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                  by Loge on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:37:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I knew this would eventually show up: (0+ / 0-)
                And even if it zero sum, I'd still favor the interests of 11 million people living on the margins with no legal or economic protection, over a much smaller number of reasonably educated people.
                So gay people should get screwed because we're a numerically small minority?  (Not to mention a "reasonably educated" one.)  

                Tell me, would you apply the same reasoning to Jews?  

                "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                by FogCityJohn on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:02:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I was referring to the HB1 visa issue there, (0+ / 0-)

                  as you can probably tell.

                  If the Leahy Amdt wouldn't prompt the House to scuttle the bill, of if its removal had the effect of taking away existing rights, the argument would be very different.  The best case scenario is it gets removed in conference.  So, I don't accept the premise that gay people are being screwed, just not sufficiently unscrewed, but not every piece of legislation solves every issue. The whole point is that forcing the bill into a situation where conservative republicans feel the need to choose between the interests of gays and Latinos makes everyone worse off.  That's different from the real world effects of immigration, which are a net positive. (Gay undocumented immigrants of course have neither economic security nor adequate political rights, and the former is more quickly solveable.).

                   And before accusing people of bigotry, a least respond to more than an out of context paragraph (sort of odd to cherry pick like that unless you were hoping that comment were made).  It wouldn't even make sense to apply that reasoning to gays - probably around 11 million if not more.  But since you "knew" that would be the thinking, it must be there, somewhere, anywhere, even though the sentence verifiably refers to something else.  This is more explanation than this deserves.  

                  Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                  by Loge on Thu May 23, 2013 at 04:41:04 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Wrong vehicle (26+ / 0-)

      this bill won't pass with that LGBT language in it, period. So how does that help same-sex couples?

      Kill this bill, then eliminate DOMA, and same-sex couples are still equally screwed under the current immigration regime.

      Pass this bill, then eliminate DOMA, and then same-sex couples are covered.

      See?

      •  Are they covered everywhere? (8+ / 0-)

        What about same-sex couples in Florida, where gay marriage is banned?

        UAFA will NOT become law unless it is part of a comprehensive package. If it is not included in this bill, we are at the mercy of the courts. Same-sex binational couples have to wait. Again.

      •  Do you really think this will pass the House? I (11+ / 0-)

        don't and yet we send the message that we are willing to run straight to center....for absolutely no reason.  Both on same sex rights and definitely on the issue of workers here at home.

        My husband is union and they are livid this morning with the  cave on H1B for multiple reasons...even if some of those up the ladder are okay with it.  The workers are not happy about it.

        •  I know. It would be a shame to show that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew

          we like to govern once in a while.

          "But the problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence." - President Clinton

          by anonevent on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:55:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Bingo (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tweedledee5

          The least ythey  could have done is passed it in the Senate, then let the House strip the provision and accepted that in the committee.   Then it's very clear where the animus is.  Right now the animus is coming from Democrats.

          Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

          by lostboyjim on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:38:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  And there is no future. Nothing ever happens (7+ / 0-)

        again.

        Really, Kos, it's just fucking genius to bail the Republicans out of their own jam and let them pass a "Bi-Partisan" bill they can take to immigrants in 2014 to show that they're not the nasty racist assholes the Democrats make them out to be.

        THAT will really weaken their electoral position.

        In 2010, there was a 9 point swing their way among hispanic voters.  You think 14 would be better?

        "The thing about smart motherfuckers is that they sound like crazy motherfuckers to dumb motherfuckers." Robert Kirkman

        by JesseCW on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:04:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm pretty certain Jesse (5+ / 0-)

          that pretty much any position you take anymore is exactly opposite to what we ought to do.  You pretty much are the anti-progress guy on here from what I can tell, never what should be done but always what shouldn't.  You want to lay out some details to how we move forward on immigration reform under the Jesse Plan?  

          •  Win back the house and get rid (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CajunBoyLgb, stevemb, Dallasdoc

            of the filibuster.

            I'm sick of this bullshit "what is your plan."

            It's not rocket science.

            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

            by AoT on Wed May 22, 2013 at 02:41:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh win back the House (0+ / 0-)

              Let's talk about that one, specifically about tearing down the present leader of the Democratic Party and much of the leadership, calling them sellouts, while pretending that it's your goal to build a Democratic majority in the House.  Somehow to me those two actions don't seem to support one another.  

              You're sick of the bullshit "what is your plan" because like the guys on the right you have no plan.  Getting rid of the filibuster is a noble goal but there seem to have been Democratic Senators that were blocking that action (actually postponing it since the deal was struck to allow it to still be done mid term).  The votes weren't there out of fear that it would come back and bite them in future Republican majorities.  It's a moot point to remove the filibuster now with the House Republican majority anyway so really that's the only issue, retaking the House.  

              So we'll get more specific in my request.  How would you or Jesse go about taking back the House given the current political and media mess?  I'm truly curious what YOUR SPECIFIC PLAN would be that differs from what the Democrats are doing now.  Would you advocate standing firm on every negotiation, with the risk that calling the bluff might throw the country into a full blown depression?  Would you stop going after terrorists with drones knowing the political and media firestorm that would erupt if one of these guys that was targeted and stopped carried out a huge terrorist attack on the country?   Would you have the President and Congressional leaders scream and yell knowing that the media is not friendly and would take those sound bites and turn them all into video clips portraying them as the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse?  

              All I hear from the likes of Jesse and your ilk is a bunch of hot air and bluster.  Well he shoulda....It's like you're the Moe Howards of DKos.

              •  "Tearing down the present leader" (0+ / 0-)

                Yeah, if we just cheer louder we'll win back the house, promise.

                All I hear from the likes of Jesse and your ilk is a bunch of hot air and bluster.  Well he shoulda....It's like you're the Moe Howards of DKos.
                Yeah, I'm bluster. You're the one trying to up the fear with claims about terrorists. That was a lot of text to say nothing new. The fact of the matter is that we have no clue what's going on in the white house because this admin lied about transparency. So no, I can't have a plan, but trusting the same person who has lied over and over about incredibly important things sounds like a shitty plan to me.

                If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                by AoT on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:24:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Social Security was improved many times, (0+ / 0-)

          including adding coverage of all blacks, for instance (initially most blacks were excluded, by design, as a gift to Dixiecrats).  And Social Security is just one example of a program that was severely flawed when initially passed, then improved on when revisited.  So your "Nothing ever happens again" statement is simply wrong.

      •  Naive you are (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CajunBoyLgb, AoT, stevemb

        No immigration bill is not going to pass the House and I doubt even the Senate, much like gun control and single payer (remember those?). So why not demand what you want. At the end of the day you have at least stood up for your base and the result is the same.

      •  Understand - but don't expect LGBT support on this (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CajunBoyLgb, Dallasdoc

        I understand your logic, but hopefully you can still see my logic.

        Because Pres Obama and Senate Democrats told the LGBT Democrats that they are second class citizens, LGBT voters cannot be expected to lift a finger to help get this bad bill (bad for LGBT people) passed - not send emails, make calls, write letters to Congress or letters to the editor, help OFA, when telephone pollster calls, say "Yes, I support that bill" - not do any of those things.  

        At best, Obama may hope that the LGBT voters will just shut up, stand aside and not do anything to help kill the bill.

        I suspect most LGBT voters and their supporters will do that.

        I suspect others will take action and work to kill the bill.

        It is a logical and expected reaction, and will not come as a surprise to Pres Obama and Congressional Democrats.

      •  Oh please. (0+ / 0-)

        For someone who claims to be a political realist, this is a piss poor argument:

        Pass this bill, then eliminate DOMA, and then same-sex couples are covered.
        You know perfectly well that DOMA repeal isn't going to pass on its own.  The only way we might be able to get rid of it would be to attach it to a must-pass bill like this one.  Yet we can't even get the narrow issue of immigration equality for gay people in an immigration bill.

        So what you're offering as a strategy is no strategy at all.  It's just telling gay people to wait -- again.

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:07:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site