Senator Lindsey Graham (R. SC) just keeps on doing what he does best; be an asshole:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Monday that he would pull support from his own immigration reform bill if his fellow Judiciary Committee members voted to include LGBT provisions.
The immigration legislation put forward by the bipartisan "gang of eight" doesn't address the problems faced by binational same-sex couples, who under the Defense of Marriage Act cannot petition for green cards for their foreign national partners.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, introduced amendments to the gang of eight bill that would give same-sex couples equal treatment to heterosexual ones under immigration law.
But Republicans in the gang of eight, including Graham, have cautioned that such a move would kill the bill. In January, when the group first unveiled its broad framework for immigration reform, Graham said LGBT provisions would be a non-starter for Republicans.
"Why don't we just put legalized abortion in there and round it all out," Graham said at the time.
Two other Republicans in the gang of eight, who are not on the Judiciary Committee, have also said adding LGBT measures would be disastrous for their legislation. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in January that adding "social issues" such as binational same-sex couple provisions would be "the best way to derail" immigration reform, while Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said he opposed efforts to add LGBT provisions to the bill.
"This immigration bill is difficult enough as it is," Rubio told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt last month. "If that issue is injected into this bill, this bill will fail. It will not have the support. It will not have my support." - Huffington Post, 5/13/13
Surprised? You shouldn't be. This isn't the first time Graham's pulled this shit:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
In a move that may derail a comprehensive climate change and energy bill in the Senate, one of the measure’s central architects, Senator Lindsey Graham, has issued an angry protest over what he says are Democratic plans to give priority to a debate over immigration policy.
Mr. Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said in a sharply worded letter on Saturday that he would no longer participate in negotiations on the energy bill, throwing its already cloudy prospects deeper into doubt. He had been working for months with Senators John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, on the a legislation, which they were scheduled to announce with considerable fanfare on Monday morning. That announcement has been indefinitely postponed.
In his letter to his two colleagues, Mr. Graham said that he was troubled by reports that the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and the White House were planning to take up an immigration measure before the energy bill. Mr. Graham has worked with Democrats in the past on immigration matters and was expected to be an important bridge to Republicans on that issue, as well as on energy.
Mr. Graham said that any Senate debate on the highly charged subject of illegal immigration would make it impossible to deal with the difficult issues involved in national energy and global warming policy.
He said in his letter that energy must come first and that Democrats appeared to be rushing to take up immigration because of rising anti-immigrant sentiment, including a harsh new measure signed into law in Arizona on Friday.
“Moving forward on immigration — in this hurried, panicked manner — is nothing more than a cynical political ploy,” Mr. Graham said. “I know from my own personal experience the tremendous amounts of time, energy and effort that must be devoted to this issue to make even limited progress.” - New York Times, 4/24/10
Here's the amendment Senator Patrick Leahy (D. VT) wants included in the immigration bill:
http://abcnews.go.com/...
Leahy's amendment would allow gay and lesbian American citizens who are in a "long-term committed relationship" to sponsor their foreign partners for a green card, according to his office. Heterosexual couples can do so under current law, but a provision for same-sex couples was left out of the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" immigration bill.
"For immigration reform to be truly comprehensive, it must include protections for all families," Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. "We must end the discrimination that gay and lesbian families face in our immigration law."
Leahy's amendment has long been expected, but it could be one of the most controversial proposals to be debated this week, when the judiciary committee will "mark up" the bill with amendments.
Leahy also filed a filed a separate amendment that "provides equal protection"under immigration law to same-sex couples of mixed immigration status.
Immigrant advocates have lobbied Democratic senators to include gay and lesbian couples in the bill. But Republican members of the "Gang of Eight" that crafted the underlying bill have said they won't support the language, saying it could alienate other GOP senators and prevent the bill from passing the Senate.
"I'll do everything in my power to see that it's not there," said Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), according to Politico.
"Bad idea," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), who added that such an amendment would, "kill the bill." - ABC Univision, 5/7/13
To be fair, Graham did warn us that he was willing to pull his support from the bill if he thought it was a bad bill:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
“I don’t mind walking away from the bill if it’s a bad bill — I can do that,” Graham told Bloomberg. “I will do it in a heartbeat.” - TPM, 3/28/13
Graham had been working on building support for immigration reform in the Evangelical community:
Now, the evangelical community is putting its money and its political muscle into the debate. Ads are running on Christian radio stations, a website promotes Bible verses about immigration, and the Evangelical Immigration Table will send text messages to update subscribers. The evangelical campaign for immigration launched earlier this month with a news conference and conference calls with national media.
“As Christians we’re called to be more than just Republicans or conservatives,” said Hal Stevenson, owner of Grace outdoor advertising in Columbia and a board member of the conservative Palmetto Family Council. “We’re called to be thinkers and representatives of Christ in the marketplace. “
Graham is a member of a bipartisan committee that is hashing out an immigration bill to take to Congress. Progress on the bill has stalled as Republicans and Democrats argue over changes to the guest worker program.
Graham insisted he will not back down on the immigration issue this time around, especially since he has the support of the evangelical community. Religious voices from a conservative hotbed like South Carolina will help the cause, he said.
“If you want to run ads, spend all the money you want to spend,” he said. “I’m not backing off.” - The State, 3/26/13
See if the immigration bill fails in the Senate, it's a win-win for Graham in his mind. He'll be able to tout that he supports immigration reform and make him look more tolerant towards immigrants than the rest of his party while at the same time appealing to his party's homophobic base. Graham's act of making himself look tough and standing up to the whack job Tea Party base in support of immigration reform was a way to win over Independents and prove he's the more electable Republican than anyone the Tea Party could come up with. Leahy's amendment, though necessary and right, gives Graham the opportunity to remind his fellow Republicans he hates the gays as much as they do. And he needs to really prove he's one of them, especially if he wants to be their nominee again next year:
http://www.politico.com/...
What so irritates his conservative critics is not just his issue positions but the way he’s unapologetically pragmatic about politics in a way that’s gone out of fashion on GOP circles. To many true believers, Graham exudes the worst of the clubby Washington mentality in which apostasy is to be tolerated because, well, it’s better than the opposition.
As he put it in his speech: “We can have differences about who should be quarterback, we can have differences about what play to call, but at the end of the day we’re on the same team because the other team we don’t agree with hardly at all.”
But to date, Graham’s critics have not been able to mount a credible campaign against him. For example, there was a push in the weeks leading up to the state convention to switch next year’s nominating process from an open primary, in which any voter can participate, to a convention. The latter would benefit a conservative insurgent.
But establishment Republicans and Graham allies killed the effort, in part by a campaign that resonated with the pro-military delegates. A third-party group backing the senator leafleted the arena with a handbill featuring an American soldier and number: “659.”
That is, as the brochure said, the number of troops deployed who voted absentee in a single South Carolina Republican primary.
Switching away from a primary, two veterans noted on the back of the brochure, would deny military overseas the right to participate in the party’s nominating process.
It’s that sort of maneuvering, as well as Graham’s money, that is making potential challengers think twice. That’s not to say he won’t have a race. Richard Cash and two others are considering a run.
Cash, an evangelical Christian who owns a fleet of ice cream trucks and a used-car dealership in the Upstate, narrowly lost a House run-off in 2010.
“Sen. Graham has lost touch with South Carolina voters on a number of issues,” he said, explaining he was running on “the ‘three Cs’ – Christianity, capitalism and the Constitution.”
The others considering running are Spartanburg state Sen. Lee Bright and Charleston businesswomen Nancy Mace, the first female graduate of The Citadel. - Politico, 5/9/13
It's infuriating to think the fate of a bill that could be helpful for millions of people could come apart because clowns like Graham refuse to give gay people the same rights as any other immigrant couple. Passing the immigration reform bill with Leahy's amendment is not only the right thing to do but it endangers Graham's re-election bid. Hence why Graham would be happy to see the bill fail despite helping craft it. But some Senators, especially from red states, remain optimistic that an immigration reform bill can pass the Senate:
http://blogs.wsj.com/...
Senator Mark Begich (D-Alaska) told CIO Journal Monday he believes “the Senate will come out with a bipartisan [immigration reform] bill.” But he has not committed himself to supporting the bill unless it also strengthens border security, and includes a “meaningful and responsible pathway to citizenship.”
Senator Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), in a separate interview Monday, also predicted passage but refused to commit himself to supporting it until the bill, with its amendments, is sent for a full vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ideally, he said, the bill should reflect a broad consensus and gain passage with “north of 70 votes.”
Immigration reform is a priority for businesses looking to expand the number of non-U.S. workers they can hire, notably for jobs requiring strong technology skills. The bill has been in “mark-up” since last week, giving Judiciary committee members a chance to offer amendments. The process is expected to continue Tuesday. Senators of Republican-leaning states such as Alaska and Arkansas are facing pressure from conservative groups on immigration reform, and both Mr. Begich and Mr. Pryor are running for reelection in 2014 in states where immigration reform is largely unpopular. A broad bipartisan bill would doubtless help both senators defend votes in favor of the bill.
Mr. Pryor said immigration reform is “long overdue” but said his support for the bill is contingent on it containing enforcement processes. Mr. Pryor said he has read the summary of the bill, but not the entirety of the proposed measure, which he said is 800 pages long. He said he’ll read it in its entirety once the final bill reaches the Senate floor, and will decide whether to support it based on “how it’s all going to work in the real world.”
Separately, Mr. Begich also cited enforcement as a prerequisite for his support for the measure. As the WSJ’s Sara Murray reported last month, approximately 40% of undocumented workers in the U.S. arrived legally under visas that have since expired. - Wall Street Journal, 5/13/13