From LaMalfa's office:
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) today voted against a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill that allowed the President’s immigration amnesty plan to move forward. H.R. 240, which funds DHS for the remainder of the fiscal year, passed 257-167 with only Republicans in opposition.I understand that immigration is important to agricultural industries, which I'm sure is why a couple of San Joaquin Valley lawmakers were among the 75 Republicans who voted for the bill.
“I could not in good conscious vote for a bill that allows the President’s immigration plan to move forward. There is nothing clean about this bill. For it to be clean, it would not include radical changes to our nation’s immigration system, such as those the President is attempting to enact outside of our laws,” said LaMalfa. “The President has said 22 times that he lacks the power to change the law without working with Congress, and yet his immigration plan would do just that by giving legal status to millions who entered the country illegally.”
The House had previously passed a DHS funding bill that would prevent the President’s proposal to allow as many as five million illegal immigrants to remain in the country. However, Democrats used procedural tactics to force a vote on H.R. 240 as passed by the Senate, which allows the President’s plan to move forward.
But as much as the AP and other agenda-driven media tried to portray what has been going on in Congress as "dysfunction" and "a mess", the fact is that members have engaged in a serious constitutional debate about the separation of powers. I'm sure everyone had opinions as to how it should play out, but to shrug it off as simply another example of congressional gridlock or some members being difficult is frankly intellectually dishonest, not that I would expect anything different from left-wing media. And for Boehner to face a revolt from 167 members of his own party on such a fundamental issue of our time -- and have to form alliances across the aisle to fund an activity one judge has already ruled is illegal -- can't bode well for his future in leadership, or perhaps maybe it shouldn't.