Conservatives Warn of ‘Underreacting’ to Obama Immigration Decree
Josh Siegel /
A day after President Obama announced he will reshape the immigration system on his own, conservative lawmakers, policy experts and pundits spoke out against what they view as an abuse of power.
Obama’s moves, which protect millions of illegal immigrants from deportation and allow them to work legally, also sparked disagreements among Republicans about how to fight back most effectively.
>>> What You Need to Know About Obama’s Executive Move on Immigration
While most Democratic and Republican lawmakers flocked home early for Thanksgiving, House Speaker John Boehner stayed in Washington and tried to present a united front.
“The people’s house won’t stand idle,” Boehner declared during a press conference this morning, without giving specifics. “We’re working with members, looking at options, but I will say to you that the House will in fact act.”
By not offering a coherent plan, the Ohio Republican left a gap for conservatives to unleash a point-blank, potentially volatile strategy.
Conservatives inside and outside Congress want to use the budget process, and the ticking timebomb of the Dec. 11 deadline to fund the government, as a battleground on which to challenge Obama’s executive actions on illegal immigrants.
Prominent conservatives, led by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, today used a panel discussion at The Heritage Foundation as a platform to proclaim war.
“The word from a lot of Republicans is, ‘Let’s not overreact … let’s not go crazy,’ ” Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor at National Review, said during the Heritage event. “There is such a thing as underreacting. We are more at risk of underreacting.”
>>> Government Shutdown Not Necessary to Block Obama Action on Illegal Immigrants, Republicans Say
Below, using snippets from that gathering, The Daily Signal highlights conservative talking points from a day that featured plenty of them.
‘Stand Up’ for Americans
“It’s time for us to stand up for the American worker,” Sessions said in his keynote speech at Heritage, during which he explicitly rejected impeachment of Obama.
Sessions argued that illegal immigrants who benefit from Obama’s unilateral actions will take jobs from American workers, including legal immigrants.
“We’re not in a crisis of finding enough workers,” Sessions said. “We’re in a crisis of a lack of jobs.”
Jan C. Ting, a law professor at Temple University, said that giving work permits to those here illegally will amplify the nation’s “surplus of workers.”
Ting asked:
What is the impact on the millions of unemployed Americans in the U.S.? There are 2.9 million long-term unemployed in the U.S. There is 10.9 percent unemployment in the black community. What’s our answer to them? We’re living in a world of job insecurity.
Tone Matters
Conservatives who act firmly in opposition to Obama’s immigration action also are mindful of watching their rhetoric if they want to avoid alienating an important demographic.
“I don’t think the American people are mad at immigrants,” Sessions said. “They are mad at their government and politicians. It’s such a sensitive issue. We all know people [living here illegally]. They are good, decent people.”
Ponnuru offered a similar warning.
“Don’t communicate personal animosity to large groups of people,” Ponnuru said. “Even for those who broke the law, it’s understandable the things they did.”
No ‘Standing’ for Lawsuit
Speakers agreed that a lawsuit against the Obama administration won’t work in fighting his move to provide legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.
Specifically, they contend it would be difficult to prove that Obama’s actions directly harmed anyone.
“[Proving] standing is a difficult challenge,” said John Malcolm, director of Heritage’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. “What’s unique is you have to prove institutional injury.”
Ting is similarly pessimistic that a lawsuit would prevail.
“I am not overly optimistic about a judicial remedy,” Ting said. “Courts are reluctant [to intervene] with political cases.”
Photo: Pete Souza/White House
Power of the Purse
Republicans appear split on how best to use Congress’ “power of the purse” — its authority to appropriate governmental funds.
Leaders want to approve a long-term spending bill — avoiding a budget showdown — in an effort to show the new Congress, with Republicans in control of both the House and the Senate, can govern.
House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers of Kentucky has floated another option of funding the government until the end of the fiscal year and then rescinding immigration-related spending.
>>> Republicans Differ Over’Power of Purse’ to Stop Obama Immigration Action
Sessions is among conservatives who aim to pass a series of short-term bills designed to create opportunities to force the president’s hand and gain concessions.
Poking the Rogers plan, Ponnuru said:
When you have created outsized expectations about what you can achieve and you have press releases calling the president ‘emperor,’ you should have something a little more robust than a rescissions package. You can’t have a year-long budget. Even if it’s not successful, you have to slow him [Obama] down.
Sessions was similarly emphatic, though less specific. The senior Republican on the Budget Committee said:
We are not going to impeach the president. We do have the power of the purse. Congress should use its power that way. Withholding funds is a standard congressional procedure. We need to find a way to push back.
Is Obama’s Move Legal?
Obama’s chief legal argument, revealed in a 33-page Justice Department memo, is that he has “prosecutorial discretion” to decide when to prosecute criminal infractions, including illegal immigration.
Some argue Obama has gone too far.
“Prosecutorial discretion?” Ting said. “It is supposed to be for unique cases. But 5 million people? It defies common sense. Numbers do matter. I don’t think there’s a gray zone here. This is not prosecutorial discretion in the traditional or reasonable sense.”
Heritage’s Malcolm shares the view that Obama is acting too broadly:
This is wrong. While the president has wide authority as commander in chief, he is more limited authority with domestic affairs, particularly when Congress has spoken on a particular issue.
Fair Factor
Opponents also say Obama’s plan is unfair to legal immigrants and will make it harder for those who want to do it the right way to get here.
A protest in Texas. A group of around 20 individuals were present to voice their opinion which included anti-illegal immigration, anti-Obama and a few advocating for the innocent children. (Photo: Marjorie Kamys Cotera/Polaris)
“We have the most generous legal immigration system in the world,” Ting said. “We said, ‘Wait your turn. Don’t come here illegally.’ Some have been waiting for 20 years. Who are we saying is the fool in the system?”
Ponnuru said the main agency charged with implementing Obama’s plan, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, won’t be able to handle the rush of illegal immigrants who apply for legal status.
“There’s a question about the bureaucratic capacity of USCIS to carry out the plan,” he said. “Legal immigrants will get unserved.”
>>> Watch: A Response to President Obama’s Executive Action on Immigration