Immigration hawks have no 'Plan B' on DHS bill

[Formerly Once-Ler]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/immigration-hawks-have-no-plan-b-on-dhs-bill/article/2559738

Guess who else doesn’t have a strategy to reverse President Obama’s executive action on immigration? The conservatives who oppose it most.

Republican leaders are under pressure from immigration hawks to find a way to overcome a Democratic filibuster and force Obama to sign a Department of Homeland Security funding bill that would reverse unilateral action to legalize and grant work permits to 4.1 million illegal immigrants.

Senate Democrats, even centrists like Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., are sticking with the president on immigration and vow to support only a “clean” DHS funding bill — and GOP leaders don’t have a “Plan B.”

But neither do the Tea Party-affiliated Republicans most vocal about stopping “executive amnesty.” Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, among the most outspoken, anti-immigration Republicans, suggested that the responsibility to change minds and apply pressure lies with American voters, although there doesn’t appear to be any sort of national campaign underway to harness the opposition.

“We just need to get them to put pressure on the senators that if they want their seat in two years, they need to get behind this,” Gohmert said. “It takes the word getting out to the people to let their senators know, and that’s where the media comes in.”

Gohmert isn’t the only immigration hawk without a plan to sway Senate Democrats. Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., signaled that he could vote for a softer DHS funding bill than passed the House last month, but not for one that fails to roll back executive legalization. Asked what should be done, Yoho said: “They’re going to force DHS to run out of money. That action by those few [Senate Democrats] will force that, not us."

Congressional Republicans are almost unanimous in their view that Obama’s immigration action exceeded his constitutional powers. But they're in a pickle about what to do about it — even if DHS runs out of money on Feb. 27, Obama’s executive action will continue. They would blame the Democrats for the department’s partial shutdown, but there’s no guarantee the public would buy their argument.

On Monday, Obama unveiled his fiscal 2016 budget proposal from DHS headquarters in Washington and warned congressional Republicans not to threaten national security by using agency funding to oppose him.

Immigration services are overseen by DHS but funded by direct user fees. Federal law does not require Congress to approve the spending of those fees on immigration services, let alone appropriate the money. So letting funding for DHS lapse would leave the GOP vulnerable to attacks that it is jeopardizing national security at a time of heightened fears of domestic terrorist attacks without accomplishing their goal of blocking executive legalization.

House Republicans argue that they have passed a bill that would fund DHS and stop Obama’s executive action. And in fact they did so seven weeks early. But the totality of their strategy to win the debate in the Senate, as communicated in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., from Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., appears to be, essentially, just figure it out. Duncan's letter was signed by more than 40 House Republicans.

“We believe that Senate Republicans must honor the promise they made to the American people last year to stand firm against the President’s lawless actions and preserve Congress’ constitutional role as a lawmaking body,” the letter read.

On Tuesday, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, called out by name Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the Senate’s most outspoken immigration hawks, saying it was up to them to find a way to whip 60 votes for the House bill. Sessions’ influence among immigration hawks in the House was considered a driving force behind the strong enforcement language attached to the DHS funding package.

But if he has a plan to assemble a bipartisan, 60-vote coalition for the House bill, he wasn’t talking when interviewed on the matter last week.

“I’m not speculating on ‘ifs.’ I’ll let y’all speculate on that,” Sessions said, when asked whether he had a “Plan B” strategy in mind for blocking Obama if Democrats won’t back down. “I think we should challenge members on both sides of the aisle to do the right thing for history.”

Cruz, at least, does appear to have a strategy in mind to counter Democrats and the president.

He has proposed that the Senate should refuse to confirm all non-national security Obama nominees until the president reverses executive legalization. The senator declined to say in an interview whether Senate GOP leaders were considering his plan. And according to National Review, Cruz now favors narrowing the scope of the House bill to overcome the Democrats’ filibuster of the House DHS bill.

“At the end of the day, every senator, including every Democratic senator, is going to have to decide where he or she stands on the president’s illegal and unconstitutional executive amnesty,” the Texan said. “We had an election in November. And as President Obama rightly said, his policies were on the ballot all across the country, and the voters overwhelmingly rejected executive amnesty.”

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's wrong.

Plan "B" has long been in place. It's the current de facto immigration hawk "A" plan and a cousin to the Democrat's war on Poverty/racial division "A" plan.

It's called inertia.

Retain the status quo.

The immigration status quo is as valuable to immigration hawks as those two plans above are to Democrats.

Without the problems of illegal immigrants, poverty, and racial divisions, votes would be difficult to get during election times for either side. 

So, the "A" plan for immigration hawks is to maintain the issue unchanged.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/02/03/senate-democrats-block-dhs-spending-bill-targeting-obamas-immigration-actions/

When Senate rats were the majority they blocked House bills.  Now that they are the minority they are filibustering.  Gridlock in times of peace and a great economy is good strategery politically.  When times are bad gridlock can costs elections.

The rats are playing with fire.  I like it.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

That's wrong.

Plan "B" has long been in place. It's the current de facto immigration hawk "A" plan and a cousin to the Democrat's war on Poverty/racial division "A" plan.

It's called inertia.

Retain the status quo.

The immigration status quo is as valuable to immigration hawks as those two plans above are to Democrats.

Without the problems of illegal immigrants, poverty, and racial divisions, votes would be difficult to get during election times for either side. 

So, the "A" plan for immigration hawks is to maintain the issue unchanged.

I wish I had written that.  So true.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Indeed, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) re-filed cloture on the same bill Tuesday night — a rare procedural move that would effectively allow three more votes to advance the DHS measure and force Democrats to repeatedly block the legislation.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/dhs-bill-democrats-filibuster-114870.html