Posted on 11/20/2014 10:58:39 AM PST by Mount Athos
President Barack Obama’s executive order on immigration hasn’t even been issued yet, and already congressional Republicans are desperately trying to come up with reasons why they’re powerless to do anything about it.
Here’s what the House Appropriations Committee spokesman told The Hill earlier today:
It would be “impossible to defund President Obama’s executive order through a government spending bill, House Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Jennifer Hing said Thursday.
Congress doesn’t provide funding to U.S. Citizenship and Immgiration Services (CIS), the agency responsible for issuing work permits and green cards. Instead, the agency is funded through fees.
“We cannot, literally cannot, defund that agency in an appropriations bill because we don’t appropriate that agency. That agency is entirely-fee funded,” Hing told reporters.
“As of right now, our understanding is the primary agency responsible for implementing any type of executive order is CIS and we don’t fund CIS. There are no appropriated dollars,” she added.
That is absolute nonsense. The notion that Congress can turn on a money spigot but is banned from turning it off is nonsense. And the worst part is that it’s willful nonsense. There is simply no law whatsoever that says that the House is only allowed to X and Y but not Z on an appropriations bill.
Now why would appropriators be so invested in pushing something completely false about the Congressional power of the purse? Easy. They don’t want another defund/shutdown fight. I get that. I understand that a lot of Republicans think the 2013 shutdown seriously hurt the long-term interests of the party. I don’t agree with it, but I understand that concern. But what’s happening right now is that rather than just saying, “We don’t want another defund/shutdown fight,” appropriators are dishonestly pretending that even if they wanted one, it’s impossible. Which is balderdash.
The excuse they’re trying to make is that because the USCIS, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, is funded primarily by mandatory, rather than discretionary spending, that they have no way to whack it with an annual appropriations bill. USCIS is funded by fees it collects, the argument goes, and since those fees aren’t subject to annual appropriations, Congress can’t monkey with them in an annual appropriations bill.
It’s a clever little argument. Completely wrong, but clever. What these appropriators want you to believe is that “not subject to annual appropriations” and “cannot be changed via an appropriations bill” are synonymous. They’re not.
They’re correct that USCIS spending is funded primarily by fees collected by the agency, and that the spending is mandatory, rather than discretionary. That means that USCIS does not need annual authorizations to use those fees to offset expenses. This is actually written into the 1882 law establishing the fees and the authority of the federal government to spend them:
The only thing that differentiates mandatory and discretionary spending is how often each must be re-authorized. Every single dollar spent by the federal government must be first appropriated by Congress. Just because some spending is not subject to annual appropriation doesn’t mean it’s not subject to appropriation at all. Congress can’t block Obama’s executive order by shutting down the government, but it most certainly can defund it by law.
Congress adds riders and prohibitions to appropriations bills all the time. Why? Because it can. That’s kind of the whole purpose of Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law[.]
And from that power of the purse come the most powerful words in federal law: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds shall be appropriated or otherwise made available for ______.”
That’s it. That’s literally all it takes. It doesn’t matter if the spending is mandatory or discretionary, good or bad, wasteful or essential; when that sentence becomes law, it nukes whatever spending it touches up until the point at which that sentence is repealed or superseded by a future law.
Republicans can add defunding language to any bill whenever they so choose. The issue is not that they can’t use the power of the purse to block Obama’s lawless power grab. The issue is that they don’t want to. The real shame is that they can’t even be honest about that.
Obama has enough cash stashed away in other agencies to cover anything
Apparently, many Repubs are co-conspirators. Disgusting criminals. Didn’t these bums take an oath????????
Limp Whimper Tyrannus
First, I don't believe this.
Second, even if true, they can pass a law forcing the fees to zero. Call it the "Republicans Help Make Immigration Affordable Act".
The Republicans of Washington, it would appear, have all undergone spinectomies.
Voting for restraint by electing Republicans is as useless as teats on a boar hog.
“Didn’t these bums take an oath????????”
Money apparently overrides any other consideration.
I remember a little piece of legislation called the Boland Amendment. It failed on its own, but was passed barely noticed within another bill. It forbade spending of any sort to oppose the Sandanistas or support the Contras. Led to “Iran-Contra”.
No reason on earth the appropriations bill cannot have language forbidding federal spending related to any Obama executive orders on immigration, and forbidding benefits, “entitlements”, etc., of any “immigrants” or “refugees” admitted or allowed to remain under his EO’s. A weakness in this is that much of what Obama wants to do is non-enforcement of the law, for which the massive costs are indirect. No doubt language could be worked out to stop that too.
GOP needs to decide if it wants to get 10% of the immigrant vote or lose 90% of the citizen vote. So far, they seem to prefer the foreigners, who show every sign of being Democrat socialists.
Yes while the Republicans are drinking cocktails celebrating their victory the president is hard at ‘work’ screwing us. With few exceptions they are self-serving calculating, ____________ (supply your own word.)
Republicans can’t do anything until January next year.
For something that is funded through fees, failure to act means funding continues. Congress can pass a bill all day long stopping the funding through fees, but if the Kenyan anti-Christ vetoes it, the funding continues.
While many illegals will sign up for whatever Obama announces, many more will be wary of coming out of the shadows for such a contentious process. All the Republicans need to do is say in their response is that they will repeal this as soon as they take control and all information provided can and will be used against you. On second thought, maybe they should keep quiet for now and encourage all to sign up.
I predicted a Republican sweep of the House and Senate.
My concern was "would anything really CHANGE after that occurred?"
It appears we have a one party system.
No, I don't think Congress passes laws to determine fees. The agency would do that.
However, I heard that Congress is mulling the idea of cutting funds for social security cards. Thing is...how do you get Obama to sign it?
How much money does it take to do nothing, which is what King Obola is tell all the government to do about illegals?
They can't. But they can make it very difficult for the 10-12 Senators from blue states that would need to vote to override a veto. Even in deep blue states like Oregon, this immigration BS is very unpopular.
And we’ve known the Repugnants don’t want to do the right thing. They just want what all politicians want, to be re-elected. A vote for them is a vote for same old same old.
Enough with the government shutdown talk, everyone. Republicans will only get the blame and be portrayed as the bad guys, and it won’t stop Obozo from doing other executive action.
Take Obola to the Supreme Court!
If the Supremes rule that he has acted unconstitutionally, then not only will it stop him in his tracks, but there will be a legal ruling to curtail him from future actions.
So much for the hopes and expectations of many that were raised so high in the midterm elections. Unfortunately the GOPe appears to be meeting, if not surpassing, my low expectations. I would love to be wrong about the impotence of the GOPe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.