Wedge

Well, it finally happened today. After nearly four months of angst and intrigue, comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) passed the US Senate Judiciary Committee today. However, there was a catch. And for many LGBTQ families, it's a brutal one.

In a bipartisan vote of 13 to 5, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a broad overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws Tuesday evening, sending the legislation onto the floor, where the fight is expected to last through June.

The move came as the committee reached a deal on one of the final snags threatening the legislation — and agreed to hold off on another particularly controversial amendment, which would have added protections for same-sex couples. [...]

The most moving part of the committee process, which stretched over five days and 301 amendments, came late Tuesday, when Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who leads the committee, revealed that he would not offer a controversial amendment allowing United States citizens to apply for permanent resident status, known as a green card, on behalf of their same-sex partners.

Mr. Leahy, according to advocates for gay rights and for immigration, was under pressure from Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and an author of the measure, as well as from the White House, not to offer this amendment. Though both President Obama and Democrats in the bipartisan group support protections for same-sex couples in the bill, Republicans in the group have warned that such provisions would lead them to abandon the legislation entirely.

So tonight, many progressives have mixed feelings. On one hand, CIR is moving forward. But on the other hand, many are deliberately being left behind. HRC President Chad Griffin released this statement (via Towleroad) moments ago.

"As we come together as a nation to tackle our broken immigration system, it is deplorable that a small number of Senators have been able to stand in the way of progress for lesbian and gay couples torn apart by discriminatory laws. Instead of working to achieve common-sense solutions, Senators Graham, Flake, McCain and Rubio threatened to derail the entire immigration bill to appease a small but vocal group of anti-gay social conservatives that will do anything to stop progress for lesbian and gay couples. We are extremely disappointed that our allies did not put their anti-LGBT colleagues on the spot and force a vote on the measure that remains popular with the American people. We will continue to work hard to include bi-national same-sex couples as the bill moves to the floor and remain committed to the underlying principles of inclusive and comprehensive immigration reform. We owe it to the estimated 267,000 undocumented LGBT adults and estimated 24,700 LGBT bi-national couples living in the U.S. today to get the job done."

As we've discussed before, Senate Gang of 8 Republicans have threatened to abandon their own bill of LGBTQ immigrants receive assistance from this bill. And apparently, this threat was enough for Gang of 8 Democrats to force Senator Leahy to abandon his own amendment. He can still introduce it on the Senate floor, but it's unclear whether UAFA has the political juice to be revived on the floor.

Several Democrats decided to sacrifice LGBTQ equality in the Senate CIR bill in hopes that the bill passes with strong bipartisan support. They also did so in hopes that the US Supreme Court will essentially take care of binational LGBTQ families for them by striking down DOMA (which presently prevents the federal government from recognizing marriage equality). And now, they're starting to receive blowback from activists.

Yet while Senate Democrats were forced into an incredibly difficult spot, House Republicans will soon be forced into their own uncomfortable position. Will they allow any CIR bill to pass their chamber?

It’s increasingly looking like House Republicans will eventually face a clear choice on immigration: bring up and pass the Senate bill, mostly with Democratic votes, or take the blame for killing comprehensive immigration reform. [...]

On the House side … well, the best the House bipartisan group can do on key issues is to agree to disagree for now. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders have backed away from the House bipartisan effort because it is too conservative for them, while Republicans still haven’t committed to moving any full comprehensive bill —and with conservative outside groups adding to the pressure,the math of the House will require leaders of both parties to be on board for any House-authored bill to succeed.

In other words, it still appears that the only bill that could win in the House would be something passed by a strong bipartisan vote in the Senate.

As I’ve said before, then the key players will be mainstream House conservatives, who will have to decide who to offend: anti-immigrant voters in Republican primaries, or Latino and other voters who want reform. Many of those conservatives will vote against the Senate bill if John Boehner brings it up, but he won’t do that without their (private) support.

Earlier this year, Reps. Joe Heck (R-Henderson) and Mark Amodei (R-Carson City) signaled willingness to embrace CIR. We may soon see the day when they will have to decide whether to match their words with action. And of course, Speaker Boehner is again wedged between the sane supermajority and the insane 21st Century Know Nothings. Any guesses as to which side he will take?

At this point, we're seeing plenty of wedges, ditches, and hurdles as CIR moves on in Congress. Yet at the same time, it keeps moving forward. Can it finally pass the full Congress? Or will the bill soon be wedged to death?

The 21st Century Know Nothings

In the 1840's and 1850's, American politics was in a state of turmoil. The nation was changing. The industrial revolution was happening. And disputes over slavery continued heating up in a foreshadow of The Civil War to come.

Yet during this period, we saw another foreshadow of what was to come. During this era, what we now call the "Know Nothing Party" gained strength. At one point, it even seemed to be on the cusp of becoming a leading national party as the Whigs were quickly heading toward the dustbin of history.

But wait, why would a party otherwise best known for members responding, "I know nothing", when asked about their party become such a hot national political fad? Simply put, they struck while the iron was hot on matters of immigration policy. The Know Nothings opposed allowing Catholic immigrants into the US, as Catholics were seen as a threat to what they considered the longstanding White Anglo-Saxon Protestant tradition of the country. And amidst the turmoil of the run-up to The Civil War and the beginning of the industrialization & urbanization of America, voters who feared change were willing to give the Know Nothings a chance... Until they were ripped apart over slavery and soon joined the Whigs in that very dustbin of history.

So why are we talking about the Know Nothings and 1850's America now? Think about it. America continues to change. We're an even more diverse nation than we were 160 years ago. State policies continue to diverge on matters of civil rights, even though the general trend is moving in favor of equality. And once again, demagogue politicians are fearmongering on matters of immigration.

And frankly, "Know Nothing" gains a whole new meaning that's very relevant today when we take this into consideration.

Jason Richwine is relatively new to the think tank world. He received his PhD in public policy from Harvard in 2009, and joined Heritage after a brief stay at the American Enterprise Institute. Richwine’s doctoral dissertation is titled “IQ and Immigration Policy” [...]

Richwine’s dissertation asserts that there are deep-set differentials in intelligence between races. While it’s clear he thinks it is partly due to genetics -- “the totality of the evidence suggests a genetic component to group differences in IQ” -- he argues the most important thing is that the differences in group IQs are persistent, for whatever reason. He writes, “No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against.”

Toward the end of the thesis, Richwine writes that though he believes racial differences in IQ to be real and persistent, one need not agree with that to accept his case for basing immigration on IQ. Rather than excluding what he judges to be low-IQ races, we can just test each individual’s IQ and exclude those with low scores. “I believe there is a strong case for IQ selection,” he writes, “since it is theoretically a win-win for the U.S. and potential immigrants.” He does caution against referring to it as IQ-based selection, saying that using the term “skill-based” would “blunt the negative reaction.”

That rhetorical strategy is reflected in Heritage’s current work on immigration. His and Rector’s report recommends greatly reducing “low-skilled” immigration and increasing “high-skilled” immigration. “The legal immigration system should be altered to greatly reduce the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and increase the number of new entrants with high levels of education and skills that are in demand by U.S. firms,” they write.

Jason Richwine is one of the co-authors of this week's Heritage Foundation pack of lies report claiming comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) will cost American taxpayers $6.3 trillion. Since the report's release, economists and immigration policy analysts from across the political spectrum have debunked it as simply a crass attempt to coalesce conservatives behind the New Know Nothing "tea party" campaign to kill CIR. (In fact, a new Social Security Agency study shows CIR will create over 3 million new jobs and ultimately generate revenue over time.)

So far, Heritage stands by its incredibly controversial report. However, it's now cutting Jason Richwine loose for perhaps being a little too forthcoming regarding the "tea party" and its flirtation with eugenics. All I can say about this messy affair is below.



But seriously, teabaggers look increasingly ridiculous when they take such extremist positions and declare debunked pseudo-science to be "scholarly research". Well, at least that's the case with the general public. But remember, teabaggers have more say over what happens in the US House than the rest of us do. And that's why Heritage released its incredibly flawed report in the first place.

Last week, we highlighted the desperate search on the right for excuses to kill CIR. We've lately been hearing economic and fiscal themed excuses. We've also been hearing plenty of terrorism flavored excuses. But of course, no cadre of "tea party" excuses for killing CIR would be complete without the lovely, time honored homophobia/transphobia tinged excuses.

Never mind that the same donors backing the conservative campaign for CIR are also supporting campaigns for marriage equality. And never mind that conservatives are supposed to love federalism and state's rights and individual freedom. So the Gang of 8 CIR bill must allow for continued discrimination against millions of immigrants because some Senators catch the vapors when "teh gayzzz" are brought to attention?



Well, we are talking about people who sometimes boast about their inability to locate Finland on a map. So why shouldn't we call the "tea party" the 21st Century Know Nothings? And why are so many Republican politicians still taking their queues from the 21st Century Know Nothings?

Remember what happened to the original Know Nothings. And remember what happened to the Whigs. One can't resist change and evolution forever. Republicans should really take heed.

Excusas, Excusas...

This spring, we've been keeping close tabs on Congress to see what happens on comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). We've seen a budding bipartisan consensus develop on this issue. Yet at the same time, we've also seen a growing "tea party" campaign to kill the bill.

Long story short: It's complicated. Fortunately, Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Courage) and community organizer superstar Astrid Silva went on "Ralston Reports" to sort it out.



They will both be part of today's May Day rally in Downtown Las Vegas, along with Senator Harry Reid (D-Searchlight, B****) himself. So far, hopes have been high for CIR. But again, the G-O-TEA is quickly causing problems.

But in Washington, uncertainty hangs over the immigration debate. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who helped craft a bipartisan bill on comprehensive reform, said the Gang of Eight proposal "probably can't pass the House." Appearing on a conservative radio show, the senator added that his bill "will have to be adjusted," which may come as a surprise to some of his colleagues, who've been cautiously optimistic about the legislation's chances.

Complicating matters further, Roll Call reports that a House working group tackling immigration policy "is mulling a proposal that involves 'self-deportation' as part of a strategy to make a comprehensive overhaul acceptable to conservatives." [...]

By all accounts, House Republicans hope to win the immigration debate by stretching it out as long as possible. If the Senate passes a comprehensive, bipartisan bill, the lower chamber won't just kill it immediately, but rather, will prolong the process. GOP officials think they can keep this going for months -- holding a series of hearings, sending it to a variety of committees, considering elements of the proposal piecemeal, etc.

But party leaders are acutely aware of the dangers of delays -- the more time elapses, the more Republican lawmakers and activists are able to say offensive things that defeats the purpose of the underlying work.

This is not speculative; we already have ample evidence. One House Republican recently argued that al Qaeda is training its members to go to Mexico, immigrate to the U.S., and "act like Hispanic [sic] when they are radical Islamists." Another House Republican recently used the word "wetback," and had no idea why anyone would consider his choice of words problematic.

No, really. They're going there. And on top of that, they've found a new objection. And of course, it involves "TEH GAYZZZ!!!!!!111111!!!!!!!1111111!"

Oh, joy.

Sen. Jeff Flake [R-Arizona] — a Republican member ofthe Gang of Eight who also is on the Judiciary Committee — put the issue front and centerin a statement provided to BuzzFeed. "There's a reason that thislanguage wasn't included in the Gang of Eight's bill — it's a deal breaker for most Republicans. Finding consensus on immigration legislation is tough enough without opening the bill up to social issues," Flake said in the statement.

Ifthe provision ends up being added into the bill, Republicans could be given an attempt to remove the provision on the floor, but it almost definitely would fail. At that point, the question would be whether Senate Republicans otherwise inclined to vote for the bill would be willing to give up those political gains in order to eliminate the potential for a gay-rights gain in the immigration reform bill.

Even if included in the Senate bill, the measure likely would not find its way into any House version ofimmigration reform, which would either lead to a conference committee ora situation similar to that faced by the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, when House Republicans balked at a more inclusive Senate version in the last session of Congress but relented and passed the Senate version earlier this year.

But [Senator Richard] Blumenthal [D-Connecticut] dismissed that notion that the same-sex provisions could end up being a deal breaker. "There's no justification for that result. My hope is that Republicans who may be talking about this provision being a deal breaker will reconsider," Blumenthal said.

Various Republicans are now huffing and puffing over Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-Vermont) decision to introduce the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) as an amendment to the Gang of 8 CIR bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Why put TEH GAYZZZ in our immigration bill?! Ewww, gay cooties!!!"

Never mind that a Republican former Member of Congress has pleaded for UAFA's inclusion in CIR legislation. And never mind that Senator Leahy already has a Republican co-sponsor in Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine)! No, because a few other Senate Republicans catch the vapors whenever the words "gay", "lesbian", "transgender", and/or "bisexual" are uttered, entire families must suffer continued unnecessary hardship. Oh yes, this makes plenty of sense. (/snark)

Let's face it: Several Republicans who had been showing openness to CIR are now looking for excuses to join the "tea party" "KILL THE BILL!!!" campaign. So they're talking about "TER'RIS!" And they're screaming over "TEH GAYZZZ!!!" And they'll probably soon nitpick over the cost... Despite the fact that their border security demands are the reason for the very costs of the bill!

I've said this before. And I'll say it again now. Watch Senator Dean Heller (R-46%). Watch him very closely. As goes Heller, likely so goes the fate of CIR this Congress. Will he (again) find an excuse to join the "tea party"? Or will he finally do the right thing?