UAFA in CIR: What does it mean?

I haven't updated this blog for a while, partially due to personal circumstances, partially due to my belief that nothing was going to change for a while.

But things did change. Hope was reignited when the CIR framework released by Democratic senators included languages similar to UAFA, allowing LGBT citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their partners for a greencard.

While the inclusion was certainly a big step forward, we were soon reminded how toxic the issue of CIR is, with President Obama hinting that CIR is unlikely to be passed this year. He still insists that CIR be introduced, but it's clear that he is reluctant to touch the "third rail", as defined by his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Sure enough, today Senator John Kerry and Joe Lieberman unveiled the Senate Energy bill.

One may ask, what does that have to do with CIR? Well, a couple things:

1. The Energy/Climate bill has been competing with CIR for the next spot after the Senate is done with Financial reform. The fact that Democrats only have a framework for CIR while Energy/climate now has a BILL basically says CIR has lost that next spot to Energy;

2. The lone republican who's willing to work with the Dems, Senator Lindsay Graham, voiced his displeasure when President Obama and Senator Harry Reid indicated that work might begin on CIR before the climate bill. Introducing the climate bill first means the Dems still want to retain Graham's support;

3. There's little doubt that CIR is considered more "toxic" than the climate bill, with the GOP gearing up to retake the House in the upcoming midterm election, the Dems are not willing to hand them "red meat", even with the anti-immigrant law in Arizona putting more urgency to CIR.

Call me a pessimist, but I'm not sure if CIR can be passed in the next couple years. Let's face it: If the Dems couldn't bring CIR to the table with a huge majority in both the House and the Senate, then the odds of CIR being passed in a diminished majority (or even a minority) is next to zero.

So my prediction is basically this: Dems will bring up CIR this year, debate it a little, then let it die after the mid-term election. They might bring it up again next year as a talking point, but don't expect passage any time soon.

Chuck Schumer, As Predicted.

He's NOT going to include UAFA in CIR. I would have loved to be proven wrong by him, alas, he's a politician.

Not that it's too much of big deal, since CIR has little chance of being passed anyways. The Senate would probably introduce it, debate it, then let it die before the Mid-term Election.

Civil Union back on the table?

When asked about what he would do about to allow gay marriage and ensure same-sex couples are entitled to same benefits enjoyed by married heterosexual couples, President Obama avoided answering the first part of the question but made the following comments on the latter:

Look, as I said last night, my belief is, is that a basic principle in our Constitution is that if you're obeying the law, if you're following the rules, that you should be treated the same, regardless of who you are. (Applause.) I think that principle applies to gay and lesbian couples. So at the federal level, one of the things that we're trying to do is to make sure that partnerships are recognized for purposes of benefits so that hospital visitation, for example, is something that is permitted; that Social Security benefits or pension benefits or others, that same-sex couples are recognized in all those circumstances.

So does that mean Civil Union is back on the table? In any case, we should not get too excited. This is definitely not something President Obama would touch during his first term.

Is Immigration Reform dead?

Pretty much, according to Newsweek and others who read the tea leafs from President Obama's State of the Union address. The President, save for one brief sentence at the end, barely said anything about immigration in his speech.

However, during the same speech, he made a commitment to work with Congress to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, which was followed by another announcement today by the Pentagon that they're actively working on it. In the meantime, we were also told that ENDA is probably dead for the year, which means DADT repeal is as far as the President will go this year, and based on his record so far, he never throws more than one bone at any particular dog, so we should pick it up and get out of his way.

As much as I disagree with his handling of LGBT related affairs, it still saddens me to see the man, who one year ago was full of hope and the desire to do right, only to be significantly weakened a year into his presidency. President Obama is a smart guy, and I have no doubt he'll learn from his mistakes from the first year and become a better president. But I'm not sure this pragmatic man would follow his heart and do the right thing, instead of worrying about pleasing everyone. He came in thinking and telling us he could change the system, but the system soon devoured him.

Looking at him, I barely recognized the man who once served as a beacon of hope for people around the world.

Relecting on MA

It's hard to believe how quickly President Obama's support has eroded over the past year. No one expected it to be easy, but no one could have foretold that merely a year into office, he would lose support in arguable the most liberal state of America.

A weak economy and high unemployment is no friend to any president, but most would agree that the President's poll numbers would be higher had he not decided to tackle healthcare in the current environment. Even if a bill was passed, it would not please anyone: those who are for it would find it lacking, those who are opposed to it would use it as ammunition against the President.

I wonder what conclusions the President is drawing from his mistakes. His strategy has long been "ruling from the center", but just because you're ruling from the center does not mean you would please both sides of the political spectrum. If anything it's proven to be the opposite. He failed to bring in the Right while disappointing the Left. The Middle could abandon him as fast as they once embraced him.

Gay rights has also become a victim of this "rule from the middle" philosophy. The "fierce advocate" who never shied from talking about gay rights during the campaign went missing as soon as the job in the White House is secured. In the Prop 8 courtroom, the President's words are being used to justify discrimination against the LGBT community, yet he has not uttered a word of objection. His silence, as David Mixner put it, is hurting us, big time. Mr. President, if by ruling from the center you mean giving up your principals and letting the political machine, the very machine you ran against, dictate your agenda, then you shouldn't be surprised by how people are questioning their support for you.

People voted for what you stand for, only to find out you don't really stand for anything.

Hope for CIR?

An interesting article from Politico detailing the power struggle between Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sen. John Kerry over whose pet project should get to the Senate floor after the Health Care bill.

Schumer is quietly spreading the word within the immigration community that he has the White House’s support to pass a bill by April.

Now that the Dems are in danger of losing their 60th vote, they're rushing the Health Care bill to avoid a possible Scott Brown victory jeopardizing it. If Brown wins and gives the Republicans filibuster power, immigration reform would no doubt face a major obstacle.

Can CIR really happen this year?

Some have speculated that the timeline for CIR probably looks like this: Sen Chuck Schumer introduces a bill in February or March, Senate debates it for several months, then maybe, after the mid-term elections, musters the courage to vote on it.

According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, CIR comes after climate change, financial regulatory reform and a permanent estate tax extension.It's hard for one to believe that after a widely expected bruising mid-term election, the Dems would bring on another controversial topic that's bound to invite more criticism.

I'm not very optimistic.