Why a clean DHS funding bill makes political sense for GOP

What’s that saying about looking a gift horse in the mouth?

Congressional Republicans could use a little reminder.

Late Monday night, a federal court in Brownsville put a sizable dent in President Obama’s plan to begin implementing a controversial executive order — cynically issued after his party took a beating in the 2014 midterms — that would have effectively re-written immigration law.

In a fairly exhaustive 123-page memorandum opinion and a more succinct order temporarily enjoining federal action, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen agreed with Texas and 25 other state co-plaintiffs that the president’s order would cause “irreparable injury” to the states, therefore giving them the standing necessary to bring their case to trial.

While certainly not a resounding victory — Hanen did not rule on the merits of the suit — the order underscores the necessity of sorting out the constitutional questions surrounding what the president has admitted was an “action to change the law” without congressional involvement before it is implemented.

Administration officials appeared stunned, agitated and surprised by the rebuke, particularly since Hanen’s order came fewer than 48 hours before the government’s immigration service was scheduled to begin carrying out the directive.

But the court’s temporary reprieve gave congressional Republicans something they probably didn’t expect either: the impeccably timed gift of political cover in what has quickly become a futile fight over funding the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

If only they are willing to use it.

Thanks to a temporary funding patch passed last fall, financial support for DHS runs out in a week.

A House-passed bill funds the agency but blocks the president’s attempt to circumvent Congress by shielding up to 5 million undocumented immigrants from the potential of deportation. It sits stalled in the Senate, where Democrats, behaving much like Republicans did when they were in the minority, are refusing to allow it to come to the floor.

Like most policy failures in Congress, both parties would be responsible if DHS was shuttered for lack of funding. But let’s be honest, when anything in Washington shuts down, the GOP gets the blame.

In reality, the question of DHS funding is somewhat of a tempest in a teapot, or what Washington Post writer Max Ehrenfreund calls “the ultimate Washington contrivance, almost all symbolism and almost no substance.”

Sure, the optics are terrible: shutting down the agency responsible for protecting the homeland during a time of emerging threats that Republicans, for good reason, want to keep in the headlines.

As ominous as it may appear, in reality only a fraction — about 14 percent — of DHS employees wouldn’t have to show up to work in the event of a shutdown. Most are considered vital to national security and are exempt from furloughs. What’s more, the offices responsible for carrying out the president’s dubious executive orders are largely funded by fees, so a lack of congressional funding wouldn’t necessarily force them to shut their doors anyway.

For the party base, tying DHS funding to what many believe was extra-constitutional action by Obama is a matter of principle.

But it’s also now a matter for the courts to decide.

Republican’s should accept Hanen’s unexpected gift and fully fund DHS.

This story was originally published February 18, 2015 at 5:58 PM with the headline "Why a clean DHS funding bill makes political sense for GOP."