US House Votes Against Obama’s Immigration Order

By a vote of 218-209, the US House passed Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s amendment to roll back the President’s recent Executive Order on immigration. Actually, though news blurbs read that way, the Blackburn Amendment goes further and stalls new admissions to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program announced in 2012. The bill also funded the Department of Homeland Security through September of this year, despite earlier rumors that it would be de-funded in response to the President’s immigration actions.

All of Georgia’s Republican Congressman voted for the measure. None of the state’s Democrats joined them. A sampling of congressional press releases below the fold

Rep. Barry Loudermilk

By the end of his presidency, President Obama will have granted amnesty to nearly half of the illegal immigrants living in the U.S. While the majority of Americans agree we need to reform our immigration system, circumventing Congress is not the way to achieve this goal. The president is not tasked with writing laws; he is responsible for enforcing the laws that are already on the books. These unilateral actions to subvert the legislative process demonstrate a blatant disregard for our Constitution, existing immigration law, and those who came to our country legally.

Rep. Rob Woodall

Last November, President Obama made the decision to bypass the American people’s Congress – and recklessly tether the legitimate responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security to his unconstitutional actions,” said Rep. Woodall. “With this bill today, we in the House have unequivocally rejected the President’s unilateral action and overreach, while enabling the men and women within DHS to continue working diligently to keep America safe.

There is a great deal we can accomplish in the 114th Congress, and today’s vote is a clear indication of our commitment to the legislative business at hand, but it’s also a defense of the Constitution and separation of powers.

Rep. Tom Price

This legislation does exactly what House Republicans said we would do – address our homeland security needs while simultaneously taking action to halt President Obama’s unlawful executive amnesty. The president has increasingly shown little to no respect for the limits of his constitutional authority. Therefore, Congress is obligated to act, on behalf of the American people, to restore and protect the integrity of the rule of law.

Rep. Austin Scott

I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and made a promise to represent the people in Georgia’s Eighth Congressional District,” said Congressman Austin Scott. “Today, I stood with my constituents who overwhelmingly disapprove of President Obama’s dangerous overreach, and I cast my vote to defund his unlawful executive order on immigration in its entirety. With passage of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, the House of Representatives sent a clear message to the President: enforce the immigration laws that currently exist on our books and allow the Department of Homeland Security to defend our country and protect our borders. I intend to do everything in my power to uphold our country’s system of checks and balances, and I encourage the President to work with Congress towards a long-term solution.

Rep. Buddy Carter

President Obama’s executive actions are not only dangerous, they’re unconstitutional. House acted today to stand up to the President, uphold the rule of law and restore the balance of powers. It is unacceptable that the President continues to directly ignore the will of the people, the law and most importantly, the United States Constitution.

Of course, the vote is meaningless. There aren’t enough Republicans in the Senate to overturn the 60-vote filibuster, much less the Presidential veto. It’s doubtful the GOP elite even wants to revoke privileges already given. Bad optics.

In a new Congress expected to be quarrelsome, party lines held firm. But the first major vote of the term was only theater.

26 comments

  1. saltycracker says:

    So who wants to hold their breathe until we Republicans present a revised/enforceable mmigration bill ?

      • saltycracker says:

        It doesn’t work to solve the mess we are in. In my experience, Florida, Carter brought the house down (moved it to biblical proportions) in the ’80 boat lift. The ag and construction business took full advantage of illegals being a heck of a lot better deal than the laws in place, which neither Demo or GOP wanted to enforce as exploitation was sweet.

  2. benevolus says:

    Feels like bullying to me. We pick on immigrants because they are poor and powerless. Because we can.
    It takes courage to fight the powerful.

    • newby says:

      They are not immigrants. They are illegal and have broken our laws. Failing to defend the borders and ceasing to be a sovereign nation is shameful. Allowing them to step ahead of legal immigrants should not happen. They are apparently not poor and powerless because they seem to have a lot of lobbyists and that is not cheap. They are taking resources that belong to Americans and that should have stopped long ago.

  3. Noway says:

    Why is Barry getting all spun up on Obama’s “blatant disregard for our Constitution” when he had no problems with his own “disregard” for his most important campaign promise by voting for Boehner? Everything he utters in the next two years should simply be ignored.

      • Noway says:

        Thanks, John. He’s my and your congressman and to quote Fred Ward from The Right Stuff, he “screwed the pooch” right from the start.

  4. Three Jack says:

    Wouldn’t it be something if the GOP for once put forth a valid piece of legislation addressing a real issue instead of just being obstinate opposers?

    It’s really quite simple; Hispanics want to work, America needs hispanics to fill numerous labor jobs that generate billions for our economy because American politicians have created a non-working class of citizens living off welfare programs. The GOP is pandering to an ever smaller base of xenophobic/bigoted morons which offends the majority of us who used to call ourselves ‘Republicans’. So in the end, the GOP will not only lose hispanic voters, they will also alienate many thinking white voters who have enough common sense to know we need and should welcome additional workers to our labor pool

    • Harry says:

      I work with lots of immigrants. I will be the greatest supporter of expanding legal immigration once the border is secured. The measure of effectiveness is the reduction of number of those who are successful in circumventing the controls.

      • Jon Richards says:

        Harry, that sounds like the typical excuse I hear from people who want to sound tolerant, but really don’t want to do anything to solve a problem. I’m a big fan of X, but I can’t really do much until we solve problem Y. But Y is defined in such a way that it can never be solved, so therefore, you can never support X.

        Like it or not, the border is more secure than it has been in the past. Undocumented people who used to be able to come to America to harvest the farms and then go home don’t do so anymore, because they fear they won’t be able to get back in.

        Does that mean that every potential illegal immigrant crossing the border is caught? No, but you are never going to get there, especially if you want to maintain some liberty for American citizens. The only way you can solve the “overstayed the visa” problem that is at the source of much of the illegal immigration is to require everybody (including American citizens) to be able to show their papers. Do we really want to go there?

        • Harry says:

          We used to document seasonal workers. Since LBJ we don’t do that anymore. He had his agenda.

          No, we’ll never catch every illegal immigrant, nor should we, but let’s quit pretending the border is secure. The border guards tell another story. Just look at what happened last summer with the 60,000 kids.

          • DavidTC says:

            You mean the 60,000 kids that entered the country *legally*?

            Look, it’s yet another conservative who doesn’t understand how the border works. Anyone, by definition, can walk into this country. Because there are gates, and that’s how you enter legally. Everyone who crosses at a border crossing and then follows procedure at said crossing is in the country legally. Those kids did that, hence they entered legally. (We had some laws that made sending them back rather difficult, but that’s nothing to do with ‘border security’.)

            I swear to God, for a party fixated on ‘the border’, a lot of you seem to know nothing at all about how the border actually operates.

            There is no actual way to *stop* people from entering the country, because we have openings in the border fence called ‘border crossings’, and we cannot act on the non-US side of those crossings, meaning it is *physically impossible* to stop someone from walking into the country. Border guards to not stand linked arm-to-arm stopping people from walking across until documents are handed across the border. (How would that even with talking to people in cars, which obviously 99% of the people are in?)

            Instead, the border guards interact with people *once they walk through*…by the time you talk to US personnel at a border, you are *already in the US*, because, duh, the guards can’t stand in Mexico.

            If this concept is too complicated for you, imagine the US is a theme park, and you need a ticket to get in…but when you think about it, the theme park *owns the parking lot* also, and the ticket gate, so in a legal sense, you’re already on their property before buying a ticket. Why? Because they obviously can’t stand out in the street selling tickets and checking cars there. And someone who parks and walks up the gate without enough money for a ticket is *entirely legal*…they’ll get turned away, but they’ve broken no laws. And if some unoccupied random kid walks up, and the park decides to have the kid wait while it looks for their parents instead of turning them away, that also is entirely legal on the part of the kid. The only time ‘legality’ enters into it is if people *enter without talking to the ticket people*.

            Border security is catching people who *sneak in without talking to border guards* (Usually via crossing the border somewhere besides a designated crossing.), not what the laws say we have to do with a bunch of unaccompanied kids once they show up at the actual border crossing and enter and talk to a border guard. (You want to change that law, fine, but it’s got nothing to do with ‘border security’.)

            • Harry says:

              What you write makes no sense. Either there is more-or-less effective border control (security) or there isn’t. The test is how many undocumented people cross over. During most of the past years there have been many of them. That’s all.

              • DavidTC says:

                The 60,000 children that crossed the border *were* documented. They walked up to border patrol, which *documented* them. Right there, their names ended up in a computer, and they were *documented*.

                Documented isn’t the same thing as ‘allowed to stay’. Documented means ‘We know who they are and where they are’. We knew where all those kids were, at all times. Like I said, they were even there *legally*.

                You don’t even understand what simple words mean, do you?

                The fact various Federal law made it difficult to send back unaccompanied minors had nothing to do with ‘border security’.

                You’re basically attempting to say we have poor prison security because the courts have a low conviction rate and prisoners keep being released. That is so fundamentally stupid that you cannot possibly be that dumb and still managed to post online.

                • Harry says:

                  Where did I mention the Central American children? They should have immediately been airlifted back to Central America, but that’s another story. What you are refusing to recognize is that there are still millions of undocumented illegals crossing that border, including plenty of gang members and drug mules. They are eluding a very lax border security force who are not being allowed to effectively interdict them. And thanks for the personal insults. It’s really the way to win friends and influence opinion.

  5. Three Jack says:

    Define ‘secure’.

    According to a recent report published in the WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/undocumented-immigrant-population-levels-off-in-u-s-led-by-mexican-decline-1416330120), “Since 2007, there have been more people leaving the U.S. for Mexico than coming here from Mexico…”

    Seems folks are stuck in the past hoping to continue a false premise for political gain. I know it generates contributions and keeps a certain element within the GOP invigorated, but it is not a real problem.

  6. Andrew C. Pope says:

    Blah blah blah. Everyone with a brain and a lick of political sense knows this bill isn’t becoming law. But, I’m glad that our brave GOP Congressmen can beat their chests and pretend to have saved the Constitution from the edge of despair.

  7. Dave Bearse says:

    The GOP establishment has to come to grips that Obamacare is not being repealed, despite the GOP doing everything it could to discredit it, seek its failure, and revel in every misstep.

    No worries, when a door closes a window opens. There’s nearly two years, ample time for 49+ more votes opposing immigration amnesty, before ’16.

    It’s the GOP winning strategy (for individual candidates, not the party, and certainly not the country) of showing what it can get done. Almost as hilarious as Reince Priebus sending a notice to my household requesting renewal of GOP affiliation (and money of course!), citing Dems “sophisticated voter machine”, since RNC records indicated household GOP registration effective on 04 Nov 2015 has lapsed.

Comments are closed.