Given the president's amnesty, why wouldn't the Republican-controlled Congress make their first legislative proposal on this issue one that purely focuses on border security (quoting Ed Morrissey) rather than one that tries to de-fund or block the amnesty?
After all, will the president actually deny that securing the border is important? When he's already addressed the illegals already here?
And given that Republicans often say that border security must come before legalization and naturalization, this fits their claims of proper order; and can be supported by saying action is urgent given that the president jumped the gun (after doing nothing for his Bible-inspired order for the last 6 years).
The funding issue of the president's executive action can be done later for the next FY budget. And somebody else can sue over the issue, no?
And other responses like blocking nominations can simply be done quietly without raising a stink over why the committees have higher priority things to do. Don't give the president ammunition to claim victim status.
With border security put in place by legislation, actual negotiations over legislation to replace the president's amnesty orders--as he invited--can happen.
Or will the president really want to go to court to defend his unilateral orders?
Tip to Instapundit.