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

  •  Unfortunately we know how this plays out: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lgmcp, CajunBoyLgb, AoT, Larsstephens

    we spend time courting conservative Republican votes and then none of them vote for it anyway.  Getting the House to pass anything that could be viewed as an Obama victory - even in the process of courting a demographic they desperately need - will be a long shot whether it's LGBT-inclusive or not.

    I've been trying to set my own feelings aside on this and take cues from immigrant advocacy groups, who have a lot more at stake than I do.  They are decidedly mixed.

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Wed May 22, 2013 at 12:37:19 PM PDT

    •  I wouldn't bet money (11+ / 0-)

      on this passing the House. Odds are they'll kill it. But again, this is an honest effort to pass it, and that requires compromise. Severe compromise in the case of the current House.

      •  Not disagreeing... Just suggesting that (7+ / 0-)

        acquiescence on a key platform like this requires an assumption of good faith on the Republicans to deliver from their end, and they keep proving us wrong.  That leaves us with egg on our faces with our allies and nothing to show for it except internal divisions and anger.  Still: it's the sausage approach.  Just think it's worth bracing for the expected fallout.

        I'd much prefer it if our party made a much bigger noise about the immigration issue in general and tried to embarrass Republicans (heh) into coming aboard, but I think Dems are timid on this issue, trying to strike a balance between solidifying one coveted demo without losing too much of another (voters ill-inclined toward immigrants.)

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Wed May 22, 2013 at 12:44:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  But if you don't think it will pass (5+ / 0-)

        But if you don't think it will pass the current House, why bother to make the concessions? The bill could have passed out of committee on a party line vote.  If Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster, then you could pass it easily in the Senate; with the filibuster in place, you'd have to find 5--maybe Kirk, Collins, Murkowski, and two others.  The Senate could then have a bill. If the House refuses to do anything, then you campaign heavily against them next year, forcing them to either come to the table or face the reaction of a Latino population that might turn out to vote in higher numbers.

        •  EXACTLY (4+ / 0-)

          Can't anyone here play this game? NO CONCESSIONS, pass it out on a party line, and force the GOP to explain why they are against it. Day in and day out. At some point the Democrats are going to have to force the issue or nothing will ever get done. And that point ought to be now.

        •  To put the entire blame for the bill's death on th (0+ / 0-)

          Republican controlled House, I imagine (I don't presume to speak for Kos, I'm just guessing that that's his thinking on the matter).  If the "Democratically controlled" senate kills the bill (even if all Dems vote for it, but it fails because it failed to get 60 votes, the media will report it as "Democrats fail to pass immigration bill", as the MSM always does), then that muddies the waters as to which party killed the bill.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site