bargaining chip or poisoning bill?

President Obama's inclusion of Same-sex partners in the comprehensive immigration reform is :

1. bargaining chip?

2. poisoning bill?


Don't judge this based on your love/hatred of Obama.
I need candid opinions.

As much as I'm all for equality and gay rights, in this situation I think it's more of a poison for the bill. The few republicans that are supportive of the bill and those on the fence are going to be more put off not drawn by the inclusion of the same sex aspect of it. Think about it, gay marriage is still a very contentious issue in LIBERAL states much less conservative ones.

Polls show the country is more pro-gay than they are pro-immigrant (which is somewhat ironic but i digress) and the gap is only increasing as more and more people come out of the closet. For example, a person might be against equal/gay rights until they find out their close cousin is gay forcing them to reexamine their stance.
So what I'm saying is, even if these old school senators oppose the bill because of the gay addition, they'll likely lose their seat come next election as more and more of the country support gays.

Its sort of like losing the battle to win the war. When those old entrenched senators are gone, they'll be likely filled with more moderate (and hopefully liberal) senators.




note: I use "senators" colloquially for both the senate and house representatives.

I support the GLBT community... I hope the approve of me 2.

To me (granted I know next to nothing about political strategy) it seems like they're pushing that so the bill intentionally fails and that way the Republicans continue to be demonized while Democrats keep getting the hispanic vote because they get to say "at least we tried."

Well the house senate are making their immigration reforms so honestly as long Obamas reforms gets rejected over the senates we should be good right



Someone who is into politics explain this please

All I saw on Univision is that it's not gonna b easy

There is virtually no chance for passage if UAFA language is added imo due to requiring several Republicans in both chambers of Congress for an immigration compromise.

I've looked at past CIR bills such as S.1639 and S.1348 in the 110th which were pretty much the last bills to be considered and I see no UAFA type language added at all.The biggest problem concerning this is the Christian Evangelicals on the right and I think until the LGBT lobby who maybe trying to include this get their support it stands little chance in the Senate and definitely no chance in the House if the language is included.

I'm also wondering why the President is not looking for a moderate point man/woman amongst the infighting of the Republican party whether in the Senate and House to get any of his legislation through.I think he needs to make the effort as it will be their vote that could pave the way for this.This is only the first poison pill of its type against a possible compromise there will be many more and I think they will be :

-Any UAFA amendments.The Christian right is for and are pushing for a path to citizenship,however they will very likely go against the compromise that includes this while losing Republican votes in the process.It then becomes less about solving immigration issues and more about conflagration between the LGBT lobby and Christian right.

-Removal of the Path to Citizenship.This issue should be obvious amongst Immigration advocates and restrictionist.You'd lose Democrat support if removed.The current compromise for this is Border security first for legalization amongst Democrats and Republicans.Democrats and the President insist upon this.

-Tampering with a Guest worker program compromise.This issue is really amongst the interests of Unions and Corporations.Watch out for Democrats trying to sink the bill because of.Republicans will filibuster the bill for their corporate buddies if it is not included or tampered with.Schumer has tasked AFL-CIO leaders along with Business leaders to come up with a compromise.

-Messing with Border Security First:This has only become a recent thing as of the last CIR compromise where I believe the Georgia Senator Isakson offered an amendment to a previous bill and most Senators seemed to agree that it should be included in future iterations of CIR as a baseline.Republicans are adamant about this,but Democrats might still try to do something about it.


I could on for ages but CIR really is this complicated and much more with regards to maintaining a balance at all times amongst the special interests and specific groups who want something specifically out of it.Expect coy moves by both Republican and Democrat Senators against the legislation,Vitter and Sessions in particular.