Just a flesh wound.
I was working a tempt at a utility company, there was a guy there who was a crew leader, had a hat that said “I am their Leader! Where are they?”.
That’s called covering the asses of your vulnerable members. THey had the votes they needed, the issue was to see how many they could let vote against so they could go home and claim they didn’t support Democratic policies even though they were Democrats.
In terms of policy? I don’t think tea party policies are any mystery. That’s the theocratic/populist/libertarian coalition of the GOP. The Presidential wing cares about attracting swing voters during Presidential elections as well as contributions by various CEOs. Think about the US Chamber of Commerce (not to be confused with the local Chambers). Immigration, infrastructure and the common core are wedge issues, but the GOP’s componentry is united by tax cuts for the rich and rhetoric for the remainder.
The key sticking point is that Tea Partiers think compromise is a bad thing. The Chamber, Wall St, and those who dislike rocking boats take issue with that. Things come to head when debt ceilings are breached: serious people believe the US government should pay its debts. Tea partying dead beats and economic hostage takers disagree.
Fox News conservatives won’t. And again, the state of the federal government is thought to be the responsibility of the President by even middling information voters. After all, an accurate depiction of the political reality sounds kinda shrill.
The state of the federal government is the responsibility of the President, unless you can point to a law that is vitally necessary that hasn’t been passed. Like for example if he needed to defend the country but oh, Congress forgot to give him an army.
THe President currently has a million things he has to do. Blaming the state of the federal government on the fact that Congress didn’t give him additional tasks to perform is nonsense. If anything, the President should be grateful. A Democratic Congress would be giving him more jobs he would be neglecting right now.
Specifically as it relates to immigration matters, Congress has plenary power, meaning their decisions are largely exempt from judicial review. They could pass laws that are narrowly tailored to limit discretion of the executive branch.
As it related to immigration this could be by authorizing spending specifically related to border detention and repatriation while denying spending authority for transporting illegal immigrants inland or for providing legal representation to those who do not specifically qualify under US law. Another example is that Congress could pass a law specifying that no work permission shall be valid for anyone receiving deferred action on deportation and that any deferral be strictly time limited.
Whether Congress has sufficient votes to pass any immigration matter, including passing a law over a potential presidential veto, is another matter entirely.
Of course Congress could pass more narrowly tailored language with other issues, but often defers to the executive branch to promulgate regulations. For example, Congress could have included a list of mandatory coverage items when they passed the PPACA, listing one-by-one the types of contraceptives to be covered or not. Instead Congress authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop such regulations which greatly empowered the executive branch in the matter.
That’s why I still read your posts. You make me laugh out loud at least once a day. I know you don’t even believe it yourself, but damn boy, you are funny sometimes. 
Update: the House did pass a bill now:
Making Boehner much more competent this time around than Harry Reid.
The guys at TPM have the score:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/house-gop-votes-rebuke-obama-deport-dreamers
You really have no idea how the federal government operates, do you?
Unaccountably, with no elected officials in charge?
Considering his typical level of understanding on most fields of knowledge, why should this one be different?
You tease, you! 
That doesn’t seem right.
Center for Immigration Studies
That says explicitly that both the legislature and executive branches have plenary power. I still don’t see how Congress can therefore deny it to the President.
Boehner’s bill -passed with overwhelming Republican support and Democratic vote shares under 5%- requires that the government deport US soldiers growing up in the US with foreign unregistered parents. Supporters believe that the sins of the father should be visited on their sons, even those sons who risked life and limb for the country they love. For the Republican caucus, it doesn’t matter whether you served bravely in Afghanistan or even Iraq. Whether you have earned a purple heart or other commendation is immaterial: what matters is your country of birth.
I accept that. I accept those who thumb their noses at the Statue of Liberty or lack any sense of gratitude or who seek to undermine this great country. They have a right to their opinion. For myself, I stand with America.
Details, please.
Unintentionally Ironic Post/Link Combo of the Week!
The plenary power thing isn’t really helpful here. Federal plenary power over immigration basically just means two things: (1) courts will defer to the actions of the political branches on immigration matters, and (2) any state legislation on immigration is automatically void as a result of the Supremacy Clause.
It doesn’t tell us anything about the relationship between Congress and the POTUS with regard to immigration matters. Both have inherent powers. However, the Constitution specifically empowers Congress to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization”.
So, it will “effectively require” that. Which, supposedly, is different from “require”. But note that Obama’s policies will also “effectively require” the same thing, only to smaller number of the same folks since his executive order only applies to subset of people who came here illegally as children.
I rise to a pedantic quibble about grammar. The phrasing “came here illegally” implies some volition on their part, as if they willfully broke the law. And while it is strictly true that they “came” here, and their arrival was illegal, they came because their parents brought them. They did not choose to act illegally.
And I hasten to add I mean this in a spirit of correction and precision, not as a rebuttal and certainly not as a rebuke. I have no doubt that you did not intend to suggest some culpability on the part of the children.