House leaders may seek to restrict spending on the Department of Homeland Security, which is tasked with overseeing executive action on migrants

This article is more than 5 years old

This article is more than 5 years old

Republicans leaders in the House of Representatives are pushing a plan that will fund the Department of Homeland Security only until March next year in retaliation against Barack Obama’s sweeping executive reforms of the immigration system.

The proposal outlined to Republican representatives at a closed-door meeting on Tuesday could avoid a government shutdown by enabling Congress to authorise 95% of annual government spending through next year.

However, it also separates the portion of government funding that relates to the DHS – which is overseeing Obama’s unilateral action to shield almost five million people from deportation – into another bill.

The second bill would fund the department until March, a stalling tactic allowing Republicans to revisit the issue when they take control of both houses of Congress next year.

Jeh Johnson, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, described the proposal as “a very bad idea” that would endanger homeland security.

It also remained unclear whether conservatives would back the plan, which could also involve passing a symbolic bill in protest against Obama’s executive action, which many Republican critics have argued is tantamount to an amnesty.

The Republican speaker of the House, John Boehner, emerged from Tuesday’s meetings saying only that “various options” remain on the table. “It’s going to be difficult to take meaningful action as long as we have got Democratic control of the Senate,” he told reporters.

Republican aides have dubbed the plan a “cromnibus” because it combines a broad, omnibus spending bill – which will fund the government until 30 September 2015 – with the more piecemeal continuing resolution (CR) bill that applies only to the DHS.

A Republican congressman with knowledge of the leadership’s thinking said no decision had been made. Both the omnibus and continuing resolution legislation would require the backing of Senate Democrats – and the president’s signature.

Johnson used an appearance before the House committee on homeland security on Tuesday to dismiss the proposal, arguing it would hamper his ability to hire new secret service agents and open a new immigration detention facility in Texas.

“I know that there are some contemplating some form of short-term CR for the Department of Homeland Security,” he said. “That is in my judgment a very bad idea for homeland security.”

He added: “We’ve got some homeland security priorities that need to be funded now.”

Johnson had been expected to face a barrage of fierce criticism from Republican critics, but the hearing turned out to be a fairly subdued one.

Johnson insisted the president’s actions were lawful, emphasised the work that was going into further strengthening the border and cautioned that Republican retaliatory tactics could themselves undermine border security.

He repeatedly appealed for a renewed push for bipartisan legislation that would satisfy both Democrats and Republicans.

“I believe if we could just strip away the emotion and the politics on this issue, and you brought me the right group of members of the House of Representatives, I could negotiate a bill with you,” he said. “It really should not be that difficult.”

The Republican charge was led by Mike McCaul, a Texan who chairs the committee. He argued that Obama had subverted the democratic process by taking unilateral action.

Contrary to research that indicates the brief spike in unaccompanied children crossing the border and seeking asylum over the summer was largely due to drug cartel-related violence in Central America, McCaul said Obama’s 2012 deferred action against childhood arrivals (Daca) order had “enticed” more than 60,000 children to cross the border illegally.

He argued DHS was unprepared to deal with the next surge. “I’m telling you, it is coming,” he said. “In my judgment, there is no doubt about it.”

McCaul also said Obama’s latest actions would encourage many more people to believe they can immigrate to the US illegally and will eventually receive safe haven. “If we don’t think that message is making its way back to Mexico and Central America we are simply fooling ourselves,” he said. “We will see a wave of illegal immigration because of the president’s actions.”

Johnson responded that the department was in fact prioritising the removal of recent border crossers and pointed out that Obama’s action only applies to those who can prove residence in the US for five years or more.

He called on Congress to authorise the additional $750m requested by the DHS to increase surveillance and security along the US-Mexican border, where several of his Republican critics on the committee have their districts.

In one of the more colourful exchanges, Utah Republican Jason Chaffetz played a short video from a speech in which Obama said he had “taken action to change the law”. Johnson insisted Obama was acting within the law.

“I’ve been a lawyer for 30 years. If someone plays me an eight-word excerpt from a speech I’m suspicious,” he said.

Chaffetz, among the secretary’s most animated inquisitors at the hearing, also raised the case of four Kurds who were detained in September crossing into Texas. Johnson previously said the men would be deported.

Two were released by a judge and fled to Canada, where they are seeking asylum. The men belonged to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party which, Chaffetz said, had been designated a terrorist organisation by the State Department.

“Mr Secretary, this is the problem,” Chaffetz said. “You come, you tell the world you are going to deport these four people. These are terrorists! And they get released!”

Lou Barletta, a Republican from Pennsylvania, argued that the surge of undocumented migrants now qualifying for work permits would be unfair competition for American citizens looking for jobs. Johnson retorted that undocumented migrants were already part of the workforce, albeit illegally.

“If that’s not apparent then I suggest you spend some time in a restaurant here in the Washington DC area to see for yourself,” he told Barletta.

Yet Barletta did land one of the Republicans’ few punches when he pressed Johnson over the fact that undocumented migrants granted permits to stay in and work in the country would not qualify for benefits under the Affordable Care Act.

He said that put them at an advantage over US citizens, who he referred to as “American workers”.

“You don’t think an employer will think, ‘Do I keep an American worker and provide health insurance or pay a $3,000 fine, or do I get rid of the American and hire an undocumented worker?’” Barletta asked.

“I don’t think I see it that way,” Johnson said. “You don’t think any American workers would see it that way?” Barletta continued.

“I don’t think I see it that way,” Johnson replied. “No, sir.”