House GOP Blocks Obama Administration On Immigration
House GOP Blocks Obama Administration On Immigration
http://s.huffpost.com/images/v/ap_wire.png
Posted: 06/03/2015 8:41
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans voted Wednesday to block the Obama administration from spending any money to defend against a lawsuit over the president's immigration policies.
The 222-204 vote came on an amendment by leading immigration hardliner Rep. Steve King of Iowa to a spending bill for the Commerce and Justice Departments.
House Republicans spent weeks earlier this year trying to overturn President Barack Obama's executive actions from last fall that granted work permits and stays of deportation to millions of immigrants living in this country illegally. The House efforts were unsuccessful, but Republicans have claimed success anyway, noting that the policies have been put on hold by a federal judge in a lawsuit by a group of states seeking to overturn the actions.
More than two dozen states argued that Obama's executive action was unconstitutional.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans will hear arguments next month in the lawsuit. King's amendment would block the administration from spending any money to defend against it.
It was one of a handful of immigration-related amendments offered by King and approved by the GOP-controlled House.
By voice vote, the House adopted an amendment that would block spending for trade deals that add visas.
The House also voted 227-198 for an amendment that would block certain federal funds to localities that refuse to report names to federal immigration authorities. That's become an issue in recent months as localities refused to participate in a federal program that turns over the names of people picked up for crimes to federal immigration authorities.
"All we're saying is follow the law. ... They are undermining the rule of law," said King.
Democrats objected to his approach.
"This is not the appropriate bill for this," said Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Pa.
The spending bill has already drawn a veto threat from the White House over cuts in domestic programs, and the addition of the immigration measures will only harden the administration opposition.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...usaolp00000592
House votes to block Obama from defending immigration actions in court
House votes to block Obama from defending immigration actions in court
http://thehill.com/sites/default/fil...?itok=41l5aWZz
By Cristina Marcos - 06/03/15 06:42 PM EDT
The House on Wednesday endorsed a proposal to block the Obama administration from further pursuing its legal defense of the president’s executive actions to shield illegal immigrants from deportation.
Rep. Steve King’s (R-Iowa) amendment to the annual funding bill for the Justice Department passed on a party-line, 222-204 vote. Nineteen Republicans voted with all Democrats in opposition.
King, one of the most vocal opponents of illegal immigration, said his amendment would prevent the administration from using taxpayer dollars to defend what he described as its “unconstitutional executive amnesty position.”
“A lot of money has been spent and wasted in an attempt to, let’s say — the gracious way to say it would be to stretch the Constitution beyond any bounds that it had been stretched before,” King said.Twenty-six states, led by Texas, are suing the administration to challenge the constitutionality of the executive actions. A Texas district court judge in February issued a preliminary injunction to temporarily freeze the immigration executive actions announced by President Obama after the November midterm elections.
Last week, a three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Obama administration an emergency request to lift the hold on the executive actions. The court will hear oral arguments in July in New Orleans to appeal the Texas judge’s decision.
Democrats dismissed King’s proposal as circumventing due process. Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, maintained that the president acted within his constitutional authority.
“It is unfair for us to deny the executive branch an opportunity to put forth its arguments in court,” Fattah said.
The Pennsylvania Democrat noted that the legal process takes time, saying, “the wheels of justice grind slowly.”
King offered a second amendment, adopted by voice vote, that would prohibit the use of funds to negotiate immigrant visas as part of a trade agreement. The wide-ranging appropriations measure also includes funding for the Commerce Department.
Obama administration officials and the House Ways and Means Committee have maintained that the Asia-Pacific trade deal would not impact U.S. immigration policy. King maintained that his amendment should consequently be easy for supporters of Obama’s trade agenda to endorse.
“It has been an important issue to maintain the separation of immigration policy and the Congress from the executive branch negotiations in trade,” King said.
Fattah suggested prohibiting discussion of a topic over the course of international trade negotiations would be unrealistic.
“I may not support what he negotiates, but to say you can’t even discuss something in a negotiation I think is unfortunate,” Fattah said.
The House is expected to take up legislation in the next few weeks to grant the president “fast-track” authority to negotiate trade deals by preventing Congress from amending them.
Wednesday’s votes marked the second time in recent weeks the House has voted on immigration policy. House Republicans stripped a provision in the annual defense authorization last month that would have edged toward allowing illegal immigrants to enlist in the military.
The 19 Republicans who voted against the amendment were primarily centrists and lawmakers who represent large Hispanic populations.
They were Reps. Mike Coffman (Colo.), Carlos Curbelo (Fla.), Jeff Denham (Calif.), Mario Díaz-Balart (Fla.), Robert Dold (Ill.), Dan Donovan (N.Y.), Chris Gibson (N.Y.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), Joe Heck (Nev.), Bill Johnson (Ohio), David Jolly (Fla.), John Katko (N.Y.), King, Tom MacArthur (N.J.), Martha McSally (Ariz.), Devin Nunes (Calif.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) and David Valadao (Calif.).
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/24...tions-in-court
