"Gang of Eight' freezes out gay immigrents from bill

[FollowerofOdin]

I'm posting this because I don't know if any of you seen this. This will be my last post of the day.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/01/gang_of_eight_freezes_out_gay_immigrants_in_reform_bill/singleton/twitter.com/kmcdonovgh/

[sailor]

I'm posting this because I don't know if any of you seen this. This will be my last post of the day.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/01/gang_of_eight_freezes_out_gay_immigrants_in_reform_bill/singleton/twitter.com/kmcdonovgh/

 
Same issue as the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell had.  Including the DREAM Act was a deal breaker for enough Democrats and Republicans that repeal was dead until Lieberman introduced a bill that didn't include the DREAM Act in the DADT repeal.  Gee, even a number of Republicans voted for DADT repeal.

You can get 99% of what you want or try for 100% and get nothing. Come back in a year and it won't be a problem probably.

[FollowerofOdin]

Same issue as the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell had.  Including the DREAM Act was a deal breaker for enough Democrats and Republicans that repeal was dead until Lieberman introduced a bill that didn't include the DREAM Act in the DADT repeal.  Gee, even a number of Republicans voted for DADT repeal.

You can get 99% of what you want or try for 100% and get nothing. Come back in a year and it won't be a problem probably.

 
True, but it's like watching two dogs fight over a bone. It's pathetic and stupid! The immigrant advocates want their people to have a green card, but doesn't want the gay immigrants to have one. The gay rights advocates want this amendment, even if it kills the bill. Can't we all agree on something, people :hdsk:?

[Altair]

Same issue as the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell had.  Including the DREAM Act was a deal breaker for enough Democrats and Republicans that repeal was dead until Lieberman introduced a bill that didn't include the DREAM Act in the DADT repeal.  Gee, even a number of Republicans voted for DADT repeal.

You can get 99% of what you want or try for 100% and get nothing.

I'll heartily disagree, on several levels.

First, we should note that in the case of DADT repeal, a pro-gay measure was presumably held up because of an immigration measure attached to it. In this case the reverse is true: Republicans are saying that an immigration measure will be held up if a pro-gay measure is attached to it. The distinction is important, because while the first situation might lead one to believe that Republicans in general are open to pro-gay measures, the second shows that they decidedly are not.

Second, the situations aren't comparable. The DREAM Act had little if anything to do with military service, so attaching it to DADT would seem of marginal relevance. The pro-gay amendment proposed for the immigration bill directly addresses the immigration status of foreign nationals here in the U.S., as that bill is supposed to do. It is completely relevant...but because these particular foreigners happen to be gay, the Republicans say no way. Nice.

Come back in a year and it won't be a problem probably.

Demonstrably false. Congress has had the chance to pass standalone legislation to address the immigration injustice done to binational same-sex couples since 2000, when Congressman Jerry Nadler first introduced the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, which has been reintroduced in every Congress and has a new name, the Uniting American Families Act. It was again introduced most recently this year, as standalone legislation.

It has gone nowhere in Congress, because it has ZERO Republican sponsors. After 13 years, I don't think coming back a year from now is going to change that.

http://www.unitingamericanfamilies.net/status-of-uafa-in-congress/

But the Supreme Court may. If Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is struck down in June, as anticipated, married same-sex couples will have access to the same immigration provisions as heterosexual married couples.

[FollowerofOdin]

I'll heartily disagree, on several levels.

First, we should note that in the case of DADT repeal, a pro-gay measure was presumably held up because of an immigration measure attached to it. In this case the reverse is true: Republicans are saying that an immigration measure will be held up if a pro-gay measure is attached to it. The distinction is important, because while the first situation might lead one to believe that Republicans in general are open to pro-gay measures, the second shows that they decidedly are not.

Second, the situations aren't comparable. The DREAM Act had little if anything to do with military service, so attaching it to DADT would seem of marginal relevance. The pro-gay amendment proposed for the immigration bill directly addresses the immigration status of foreign nationals here in the U.S., as that bill is supposed to do. It is completely relevant...but because these particular foreigners happen to be gay, the Republicans say no way. Nice.



Demonstrably false. Congress has had the chance to pass standalone legislation to address the immigration injustice done to binational same-sex couples since 2000, when Congressman Jerry Nadler first introduced the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, which has been reintroduced in every Congress and has a new name, the Uniting American Families Act. It was again introduced most recently this year, as standalone legislation.

It has gone nowhere in Congress, because it has ZERO Republican sponsors. After 13 years, I don't think coming back a year from now is going to change that.

http://www.unitingamericanfamilies.net/status-of-uafa-in-congress/

But the Supreme Court may. If Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is struck down in June, as anticipated, married same-sex couples will have access to the same immigration provisions as heterosexual married couples.

 
Wow, you really read up on this stuff. Have you ever thought of being a reporter.