An earlier letter from CRS says that even in cases where Congress can’t exercise control through annual appropriations, it always retains the power to determine the amount of a fee and how it can be spent.

Tweet

It’s taken almost a month, but it is now becoming clearer how Republicans in Congress can stop President Barack Obama’s decision to grant amnesty and work permits to as many as five million illegal immigrants, if not more, depending on the specifics of the proposed actions.

To recall, President Obama announced on November 20 that he is directing immigration agencies to halt deportations of illegal immigrants who are parents of children that were either born in the United States or entered the country as minors. That policy has since been issued as a memo by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.

As part of the plan, those covered will not only be shielded from deportation, they will also receive permission to work in the United States as though they are legal residents. This will entitle beneficiaries to access many of the work-related rights and programs available to native or otherwise legal workers, including qualifying for Social Security and Medicare.

It should be noted that all of this is technically “temporary” since the next president can theoretically rescind Obama’s directive, and return immigration policy to its previous enforcement pattern. The reality, however, is that once this program is entrenched it will be politically unfeasible to unwind, setting a dangerous precedent for future presidents to disregard whatever laws impede their goals.

So, what can Congress do?

Here’s what we’ve learned so far.

The most important line of attack could and should begin with the new Republican-controlled Congress that gets sworn in next month. As Byron York details, Congress knows exactly how to control spending decisions by federal agencies.

As proof, York points to the 1,695 page spending bill Congress approved last weekend. More than 450 times the bill uses the phrase “none of the funds” to command how money can be spent by federal agencies. In one of many examples highlighted by York, the bill says, “none of the funds available to the Farm Service Agency shall be used to permanently relocate county-based employees that would result in an office with two or fewer employees without prior notification and approval of the Committee on Appropriations.”

A potential complication to Congress’ power of the purse in the immigration context is the fact that many of the agencies implementing Obama’s amnesty are funded by user fees.

As a recent Congressional Research Service report put it, “Current law further provides a permanent, indefinite authority for use of the adjudication fees in that account for specified purposes. As a consequence, the authority to expend these fees is controlled outside the annual appropriations process and does not depend on annual action by Congress.”

But that doesn’t mean Congress is out of options.

An earlier letter from CRS says that even in cases where Congress can’t exercise control through annual appropriations, it always retains the power to determine the amount of a fee and how it can be spent. “Where Congress has done so, an agency is not free simply to disregard statutory responsibilities,” the letter reads. “Therefore, if a statute were enacted which prohibited appropriated funds from being used for some specified purposes, then the relevant funds would be unavailable to be obligated or expended for those purposes.”

In other words, Congress can use the granular-level detail described by York to ensure that “none of the funds” – or fees – collected by federal immigration agencies go to support Obama’s amnesty program. All it has to do is pass an amendment to the authorizing statute with the new specifications. That will be much easier come next January when Republicans control both houses of Congress.

Thereafter, it’s anyone’s guess what will happen. President Obama would almost certainly veto the measure, and Republicans likely wouldn't have the supermajority of votes necessary to override it. But by next spring the optics of this issue may have changed dramatically.

Reporting by Katie Pavlich indicates that if President Obama relies on fees alone to fund his immigration amnesty, he’ll be doing so on the backs of millions of legal immigrants. That’s because, “Waiving a fee for one applicant transfers the cost of processing their application to other applicants through higher fees,” notes the website for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Amnesty will also mean longer wait times for legal immigrants.

In such a scenario, it’s possible to imagine President Obama continuing to defy legal norms and forcing legal immigrants to subsidize the cost of his amnesty program. But if he does, Republicans in Congress and elsewhere should hammer him for it.