Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Showing posts with label compromise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label compromise. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Leahy Submits Pro-LGBT Amendment To Immigration Bill


Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has introduced a pro-gay amendment to the comprehensive immigration bill being debated on the floor of the United States Senate which would solve the immigration problems for most same-sex binational couples. This a surprise because Leahy shocked (and disappointed) many LGBT people when he decided at the last minute to withdraw his pro-gay amendments when the bill was before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, in order to help the bill advance with Republican votes.

The text of the amendment states that its purpose is:
To recognize, for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act, any marriage entered into in full compliance with the laws of the State or foreign country within which such marriage was performed.
It does so by saying that any marriage (including same-sex marriages) which are legal n the jurisdiction in which they were performed will be recognized as a marriage for the purposes of immigration law. Importantly,  the marriage would still be recognized for immigration purposes even if the state in which the couple lives or moves to does not recognize that marriage as legal.

Lavi Soloway of the DOMA Project explains implications of the Leahy amendment:
With this bold move, Senator Leahy has carved out an exception to the Defense of Marriage Act for lesbian and gay binational couples that will provide access to existing marriage-related family unification provisions of our immigration law. The Leahy amendment does not actually amend any current provision of our immigration law, but simply removes the extrinsic barrier caused by DOMA that prevents lesbian and gay Americans from filing petitions for their spouses, fiance(e)s and stepchildren. The implication of Senator Leahy's focus on equality is that LGBT families are no different than any other American families comprised of citizens and non-citizens.
The unfortunate part of not having the amendment pass in committee as opposed to on the floor of the Senate is that in committee it needed a majority vote (which could have been provided by all Democrats) while on the floor it will almost certainly require 60 votes to be included in the comprehensive immigration bill working its way though the Senate.

Stay tuned!

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Congress Passes Act Reducing Cocaine Disparity

Finally! The disparity between criminal sentences for possession of two different forms of the same illegal substance has long been a bitter pill for progressives like myself to swallow. Happily, this week, Congress passed legislation t reduce the disparity in sentences for powder versus crack cocaine from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. As I put it before, they made the war on drugs 82% less racist.

From The New York Times:

Under the current law, adopted in 1986 after a surge in crack cocaine smoking and drug-related killings, someone convicted in federal court of possession of five grams of crack must be sentenced to at least five years in prison, and possession of 10 grams requires a 10-year minimum sentence. With powder cocaine, the threshold amounts for those mandatory sentences are 100 times as high.

In the bill passed Wednesday, the amount of crack that would invoke a five-year minimum sentence is raised to 28 grams, said to be roughly the amount a dealer might carry, and for a 10-year sentence, 280 grams.

While crack use has declined since the 1980s, arrests remain common, and some 80 percent of those convicted on crack charges in recent years have been black. A growing number of criminologists have concluded that the sentencing disparity is unjustified and has subjected tens of thousands of blacks to lengthy prison terms while offering more lenient punishment to users and sellers of powder cocaine, who are more often white.

Of course, many people are unhappy with the compromise legislation that has passed, since the new law is still racially discriminatory, as James Rucker of the online activist group Color of Change argues in The Root:

The Senate's compromise is still racially discriminatory and morally wrong, and we have yet to hear anyone explain why a disparity is necessary. It's time for those of us who care about this issue to force Sen. Sessions and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.,--the architects of the compromise--to offer an explanation that actually holds water. If Jeff Sessions really wants to argue that 18:1 is better for our country, we should create a media stir that requires him to defend that position in public. And if the explanation doesn't pass muster, if it doesn't appear to be in line with our communities' interests, we have to say so.

We understand that compromise is sometimes necessary, and we agree with our allies that some level of sentencing relief is better than none. But we can't afford to fold before the final hand has been played, and we shouldn't be negotiating from a position of weakness. That's how we ended up with an 18:1 compromise in the first place versus 10:1 or a 5:1. Real change--on ending this sentencing disparity and on other policy issues important to our communities--depends on our willingness to shine a light on backroom deals and apply grassroots energy to hold our elected officials accountable. That's the way democracy is supposed to work, and our responsibility to raise our voices in protest is not something we should ever compromise.

My position is that one can both argue for a 1:1 bill and still celebrate the progress inherent in the reduction of the previous draconian sentencing disparity. Compromise does not have to be a dirty word, as long as everyone involved realizes this is just one stage, not the end, of a long struggle for change.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin