Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP bill would defund Obama's immigration order
The Hill ^ | 11/21/2014 | Cristina Marcos

Posted on 11/21/2014 11:27:08 AM PST by SeekAndFind

Reps. Ted Poe (R-Texas) and Diane Black (R-Tenn.) have introduced legislation to prohibit funding to implement President Obama's executive action on immigration.

Their bill, titled The Separation of Powers Act, would block the use of funds for deferring deportations of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally or providing work permits.

Poe said the legislation would reinforce the constitutional principle of checks and balances. "This legislation will allow Congress to exercise its 'check' on an out-of-control White House that treats the Constitution as a mere suggestion, not the law of the land," Poe said.

Black said the measure could be one of the options for Republicans to respond to President Obama's action.

"My colleagues and I will explore our options to stop this overreach and restore the proper Constitutional balance to our government — this legislation is an important start," Black said.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: aliens; amnesty; congress; dianeblack; immigration; obama; tedpoe; tennessee; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
Myhumble opinion: The Bill is useless. Why? Because Obama won't sign it even if it passes both houses.

In fact ANYTHING that has to go through the President won't be signed into law.

1 posted on 11/21/2014 11:27:08 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Also, according to the article....

It is unclear if congressional Republicans can actually defund the executive action, given that the agency that processes work permits, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, is funded through application fees and not subject to the appropriations process.


2 posted on 11/21/2014 11:27:55 AM PST by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Obama would veto this, and spend money already allocated.


3 posted on 11/21/2014 11:30:21 AM PST by Hugin ("Do yourself a favor--first thing, get a firearm!",)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Here’s an option:

Congress tells the directors of the departments that would implement the EO that they will be charged w/contempt of congress if they do.


4 posted on 11/21/2014 11:30:26 AM PST by fruser1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I find it hard to believe that any government organization can function simply on application fees. You know they’re siphoning off our tax dollars in some way.


5 posted on 11/21/2014 11:31:38 AM PST by Kenny (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kenny

RE: I find it hard to believe that any government organization can function simply on application fees. You know they’re siphoning off our tax dollars in some way

Let’s say that what the article says is not true, that it is not purely funded by application fees...

How is Congress to defund the INS without affecting the other LEGAL functions that they do (i.e. processing LEGAL applicants?)


6 posted on 11/21/2014 11:34:03 AM PST by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fruser1
Congress tells the directors of the departments that would implement the EO that they will be charged w/contempt of congress if they do.

Not only contempt of Congress but an actual violation of the law that they are sworn to uphold as a condition of their employment. This is particularly true for the agency heads who I believe have to take an oath as a condition of their job. Right? Not right?

7 posted on 11/21/2014 11:34:37 AM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fruser1

RE: Congress tells the directors of the departments that would implement the EO that they will be charged w/contempt of congress if they do.

Actually if you really think about it....

Obama did not (yep you hread it right, DID NOT) exactly grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

He just said that henceforth the government wasn’t going to do anything about enforcing the law. Worried about being deported? Relax. “All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you.”

So, what’s Congress to do in this case? charge the directors of departments for NOT DOING what they’re supposed to do? How do you prove that?


8 posted on 11/21/2014 11:37:09 AM PST by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Funding deportations would block the law (inadequate funding is Obama’s rationale for this) and could not be filibustered. Obama could not veto it without taking blame for the resultant shutdown.

Of course the GOPe does not want to do this LOL!


9 posted on 11/21/2014 11:38:50 AM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All
It's a (expected) C.Y.A. by GOP/e.

10 posted on 11/21/2014 11:38:51 AM PST by skinkinthegrass ("Bathhouse" E'Bola/0'Boehmer/0'McConnell; all STINK and their best friends are flies. d8^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Let him veto it and let the Democrats be on record to not override the veto. Do this often and let his legacy be that he vetoed more legislation than any other President.


11 posted on 11/21/2014 11:38:55 AM PST by ActresponsiblyinVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fruser1

Good idea


12 posted on 11/21/2014 11:39:30 AM PST by hoosiermama (Obama: "Born in Kenya" Lying now or then or now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone; Kenny

RE: Not only contempt of Congress but an actual violation of the law that they are sworn to uphold as a condition of their employment.

OK, let’s say they actually tell the directors that they’re in contempt of congress...

THEN WHAT? Who is supposed to charge them and jail them?

The attorney general right? Good luck with that.

Need I remind everyone that ERIC HOLDER, the attorney general himself has already been charged with contempt of congress.

Why is he still in office?


13 posted on 11/21/2014 11:39:50 AM PST by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It’s silly anyway. How do you prevent funding, when the department to facilitate the funding will have to exist anyway to process legal immigration?


14 posted on 11/21/2014 11:41:07 AM PST by DoughtyOne (The mid-term elections were perfect for him. Now Obama can really lead from behind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

Funding deportations would block the EO!


15 posted on 11/21/2014 11:42:13 AM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kenny

Even if the funds are raised by application fees there still needs to a Congressional appropriation to spend those funds. If this has not been happening it needs to be restored.


16 posted on 11/21/2014 11:42:40 AM PST by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Not reported by US media — the German Press had to do it.
The German caption reads: “Obama declares the New World Order”.

http://stg.do/mfuh


17 posted on 11/21/2014 11:43:16 AM PST by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Separate the Immigration Service AND THE WHITE HOUSE from the rest of the appropriations. Add a rider blocking Obama’s plan. If he vetoes it then both the Immigration Service and the White House close down while the rest of the government continues to function.


18 posted on 11/21/2014 11:45:34 AM PST by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

RE: Funding deportations would block the law (inadequate funding is Obama’s rationale for this) and could not be filibustered. Obama could not veto it without taking blame for the resultant shutdown.

Of course the GOPe does not want to do this LOL!

________________

I’ve been thinking of all the options that Congress has in this siutation and I can think of only the following:

1) IMPEACH ( which will be useless sicne we do not have the numbers to convict and remove ).

2) POWER OF THE PURSE, which will again result in a test of wills ultimately resulting in another government shutdown.

Other than those two, I can only think of a third option....

A type of under-reaction (yes you read it right). It is simply a detached acknowledgment of the president’s ploy, coupled with a tone that suggests Congress’ intention to make it irrelevant.

Draft an immigration bill that makes sense, and do it very early in 2015 so every GOP presidential candidate can run on it.

Newly elected and incumbent Republicans should be working on it right now and straight through the holidays so that the first big story of the new year can be the best response conservatives can muster— not the doomed drama of impeachment or a flurry of well-intentioned but probably equally doomed lawsuits, but a POSITIVE AGENDA that will bring additional Americans on board for a Republican wave lasting the rest of the decade.

It can be phrased with a simplicity that will resonate with even the least-informed voter: Confirmable border security first, then a gradual non-amnesty path toward legal status for non-criminals with a willingness to assimilate.

This will means English fluency in addition to fines and back taxes. BUT ONLY AFTER BORDERS HAVE BEEN MADE SECURE.

Not one of them moves one day toward legal status until we get that full year of demonstrable border security. No deals, and no surrender. No legal status in return for the promise of border security— we have been hosed too many times. Secure border first, then we begin step one of the path to legal status.

Barack Obama will veto this, invoking as many heart-rending anecdotes as he can pack into his terse refusal. He will thus become The President of No, obstructing the first immigration reforms real majorities of Americans— and both houses of Congress— can embrace.

LET HIM. At least the American people shall have been given a clear and discernible choice.

Other than that, I can’t think of any better option short of revolution.


19 posted on 11/21/2014 11:49:19 AM PST by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

RE: If he vetoes it then both the Immigration Service and the White House close down while the rest of the government continues to function.

What happens to all pending LEGAL visa applications then?


20 posted on 11/21/2014 11:50:29 AM PST by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson