The globalist Economist is accusing Republicans seeking to defund President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty of pursuing an “impeachment-lite” strategy, sparing Democrats who are putting executive amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants above guaranteed funding for the Department of Homeland Security of any blame.
The publication, which has often advocated for open borders and a comprehensive amnesty bill in the United States, accuses Republicans of “political weakness” and “pandering to their party’s angriest grassroots supporters, who have convinced themselves that Mr Obama is not just mistaken in his policies, but is a constitution-trampling tyrant.”
The Economist concedes, though, that Republicans may just be trying to keep their promises to voters in the midterm electorate that gave them back control of Congress. In one poll, 75% of those voters opposed President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, and the Economist acknowledges that “calling the president a serial law-breaker helped power Republicans to a thumping win in the mid-term elections last November, handing them control of both chambers of Congress.”
It even admits that the Founding Fathers “might even have been alarmed at the scope” of Obama’s executive amnesty, but then argues that Republicans should let the executive amnesty process play out in court even though Congress, under the Constitution, has the power of the purse.
“Today’s Republicans fear even to use the I-word, remembering the backlash that followed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton,” the Economist opines. “As a result, they seem tempted to use their budget powers as a sort of impeachment-lite.”
Senate Democrats have already filibustered the Homeland Security funding bill three times and have vowed to unite in opposition to it next week. But the Economist absolves them of blame.