Though the type of thing that could get you indicted by prosecutors in Texas.
Right – another possible approach of the President could be to welcome this strategy.
“You want to fund all the government except the guys who deport illegal immigrants? Okay. Let’s do it!”
I still don’t quite see how responding to Obama’s action to halt deportations by defunding the organization that does the deporting furthers GOP aims. Since it is so obviously counter to their stated policy preferences (more money for enforcement an deportation) it is blatantly political.
Obama will just veto the bill, and say that immigration enforcement has been de-funded by the GOP refusing to pass a bill that funds it. As soon as a clean funding bill hits his desk he will sign it. We’ve seen this show before…
In the end the GOP presidential candidate will have to state his position on immigration enforcement. Then the voters will decide which party they want to execute immigration law.
There’s legitimate and illegitimate obstruction. In my view, one of the things that separates the two is the nexus between the thing being withheld and the end goal. So it is less legitimate to refuse to appoint a federal judge because you object to EPA policy, and it is more legitimate to refuse to appropriate money to the EPA.
Withholding funding is especially appropriate where Congress has no other mechanism of action. They have already passed a law saying these people should be deported. If the President elects not to do so, they are powerless except for the power of the purse.
I don’t think a government shutdown would be principled. I don’t think impeachment would be principled. I don’t think over-the-top congressional hearings about ebola-bearing immigrants would be principled. But withholding money from the agency whose presidentially-determined policy you disagree with is about as germane and constitutionally legitimate as it gets.
The one argument I see against it being principled is that Republicans are lying about Obama’s actions being the reason they refuse to pass immigration reform. So to the extent they don’t want to pass reasonable legislation because they think they can win political points, then the whole deal is unprincipled.
I thought Perry’s prosecution was silly, but de-funding an agency that is investigating you certainly raises more questions than de-funding an agency whose policies you disagree with.
That is not what they would be doing. There are a lot of government offices that need funding to implement the executive order - from processing the applications to printing out the documents for registering the illegals. Those can be defunded.
It seems like it takes more money to deport than not deport. So in order to stop an agency from not deporting you’re going to cut off the funds that they would need to deport?
But why throw away an opportunity! They are “illegals”, which is to say their very *person *is illegal, criminal. So, throw them in prison!
Then, they are available for the sort of sub-minimum wage work they were probably already doing, but at a considerable saving in wages! We still have plenty of stoop-labor to be done, they can put those “cantaloupe calves” to good use. And the American housewife will smile at iceberg lettuce at a dollar a head!
That way, we can mollify those bleeding hearts whining about “breaking up families”. Not true, Mamacita and Papa are only as far away as the nearest jail! Heck, we could have “Family Day” celebrations, maybe even let them touch their kids, rather than pressing their hands against the plexiglass wall. Hey, we’re the Americans, compassionate as all git out!
And it won’t take much more than the slightest hint to let those illegal kids know that their behavior may be a factor. Troublemakers, protestors and that sort of unpatriotic behavior, they should know that this is not the sort of thing that shows true commitment to one’s country! Not really a “team player”, know what I mean?
And if the kid joins the military and comes to an unfortunate end, well, no hay problemo. Bury 'em, give their folks the flag and the medals, and boot their asses right out!
A modest proposal.
There are procedural principles and substantive principles. You can object to a tactic even if you agree to its goal, and you can object to a goal even if you agree with the tactic.
I don’t think liberals ought to abandon the notion that there is something Congress can properly do when it disagrees with presidential enforcement priorities. If President Rubio decides that he won’t prosecute income tax evaders who pay at least 80% of their tax bill, as a way of introducing a 20% tax cut, is there any action Congress can take to fight that?
Agreed. It’s legitimate when my party does it; illegitimate when yours does it.
This is a demonstration of the kind of thinking I meant - the Republicans try to fund the parks, the Dems shoot it down, therefore it is the Republicans’ fault the parks didn’t get funded. Whereas if the Dems try to fund the parks and the Republicans shoot it down, then it is the Republicans’ fault that the parks didn’t get funded.
:shrugs:
Heads I win, tails you lose.
Regards,
Shodan
You give me that sarcasm in a thread in which I am saying this is legitimate for the GOP to do? Or maybe it wasn’t sarcastic. Maybe it was a sincere statement of your position? That would make a lot more sense.
From everything he’s ever written, it’s a conscious repudiation of his unconscious position.
If the government shuts down republicans will get the blame, you should know this by now.
You’d think the would be content to rest on their laurels, after defeating Obama’s plan to flood America with illegal gay Ebola viruses. But, nooooo!
The truth is that the GOP wants immigration reform as bad or more as the democrats do, their base simply won’t let them do it without punishment. They are not going to stop the president even if they could, they just have to act tough for their base.
Another strategy, if that is not too strong a word: Outgoing Senator Tom Coburn warns of “anarchy” and “violence” if Obama signs the EO.
A small problem with this strategy, apparently, is that CIS is funded by user fees, and not appropriations from Congress. So even with a government shut down, or with selective funding bills, the CIS will march on doing what it does, funded by user application fees and the like.
Sorry Terr.
This. They have objections to it, but politically speaking they’re better off just opposing it, and running on it in 2016.
The Democrats keep doing things to alienate the white working class, which is an essential part of their coalition; first rule of politics holds that you let the other guy keep digging his grave.
Are there any issues for which that’s not true?
'The USCIS union president has already warned that the agency lacks the resources to properly screen applicants now—and he stressed just last month that the President’s executive amnesty would make the situation “exponentially worse—and more dangerous,” ’ Sessions argued.
Not sure what this quote has to do with how the CIS is funded. Nothing in that article (except perhaps the frustrated baying of a few Republican clowns) disputes that the CIS is not funded by House appropriations, but rather by user fees.
Congress could pass a bill to shut down the CIS, but then Obama would veto it. I don’t see how Congress shuts down the activities of a part of the government that isn’t funded by Congress without the President’s approval.