All four of the major national newspaper editorial boards — including the conservative editorialists of the Wall Street Journal — called on congressional Republicans to pass a bill that fully funds the Department of Homeland Security, including President Obama’s controversial immigration orders.
The left-leaning editorial boards of the New York Times, Washington Post and USA Today voiced similar opinions on the current showdown between the GOP and the president.
After a federal judge earlier this week issued a temporary injunction against implementing the president’s immigration order pending resolution of a suit brought by 26 states, the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board said Tuesday the GOP should see the decision as an out.
“Judge [Andrew] Hanen’s decision is an airlift for Republicans in Congress if they have the wit to accept the relief,” the editorial said. “Immigration hardliners are attempting to defund Mr. Obama’s order but lack a legislative strategy whose end-game isn’t shutting down all of [Homeland Security]. If the [court’s] injunction is sustained on appeal, the president’s unilateralism will be a dead letter until the case is resolved, which should persuade the GOP’s deportation caucus to stand down before another self-defeating flameout.”
Some congressional Republicans threatened in November shortly after voters gave the party majorities in both houses of Congress, to withhold funding from the Department of Homeland Security if it couldn’t be passed minus money for Obama’s executive order.
The ruling against the Obama administration was interpreted by some as a way for Republicans to drop the fight on immigration, at least for now, and go through with fully funding the Department of Homeland Security. Many Republicans, however, maintained that they wanted to pass funding for Homeland Security with language that stripped money that would support the new immigration policies in the event that Hanen’s decision was overturned.
President Obama has said he would veto any bill that did not fully fund Homeland Security, including his new immigration directives. He is backed by Democrats in the Senate, who have filibustered attempts by the GOP to send their proposed funding to Obama’s desk.
The Journal editorialized on the issue more than a week ago, saying it was “defensible” for the GOP to attempt to thwart the president but that without support from some Democrats, “Republicans are now heading toward the same cul de sac that they did on the ObamaCare government shutdown.”
A federal government shutdown in 2013 resulted in damage to the GOP’s image among voters, though Democrats’ favorability also dropped. The 16-day shutdown occurred after Congressional Republicans attempted to exclude funding for Obama’s new healthcare law from a fuller government budget. Congress eventually passed funding and implementation for the health care law began.
After the November midterm elections, which saw big gains for Republicans, the Times editorialized: “Once Republicans take over both houses of Congress next year, they have every right to pass an immigration bill of their choosing, which Mr. Obama would have a right to veto. But threatening to shut down the government or any part of it to achieve their aims is outrageous.”
“At this point, it’s anyone’s guess whether the stalemate can be broken,” said the Washington Post on Monday. “Congress returns Feb. 23 from recess, at which point it will have just five days to resolve the deadlock. House Republicans are so far refusing to budge, imagining they will be able to shift the blame for another shutdown onto the Democrats. This is magical thinking.”
Last week, USA Today’s editorial board said the GOP is “hurtling toward the governance-by-temper-tantrum approach that has failed it in the past and is likely to hurt the GOP in next year’s election.”
“Sooner or later,” wrote USA Today, “we hope they [Republicans] remember that playing budgetary blackmail backfired on them during the disastrous 2013 government shutdown and previous political fights dating to the mid-1990s.”
Though the editorials did not place any responsibility on Obama for the possible outcome of a shuttered Department of Homeland Security, the Journal, the Post and USA Today have each editorialized in the past against his unilateral action on immigration policy.
In November, the Journal wrote that Obama would likely “harm the immigration cause and his own legacy,” if he were to act on his own.
USA Today, three months before that, said Obama would “set a dangerous precedent for future presidents to act on other significant matters without the assent of Congress.”
The Washington Post in December called Obama’s actions “indefensible.”
The New York Times was along in describing them as “wise.”
