Meet Ted Yoho, the man leading charge to nullify Obama's immigration action

The freshman lawmaker from Florida, who ran against 'career politicians' in Washington, is part of the rebellion against GOP leadership. On Thursday, the House passed his bill nullifying the president's executive action on immigration.

Those who would stand and cheer the US House for passing legislation Thursday to nullify the president’s executive action on immigration can thank Rep. Ted Yoho (R) of Florida, who authored the bill.

A large-animal veterinarian who is a freshman lawmaker, Congressman Yoho has taken on a Leviathan in the immigration issue. But he’s not one to cower.

In the 2012 primary for his reconfigured district in north Florida, he stunningly defeated a 12-term Republican incumbent in a grassroots campaign. His campaign was run by a young manager who had never organized a congressional race. Yoho easily won the general election in this very Republican territory around Gainesville that’s made up of horse country, swamps, and Gators fans.

Yoho, who ran against the “career politicians” in Washington, has no concerns about offending his colleagues. He told the National Journal after his election that a 1,200-pound stallion and a growling Rottweiler are far more intimidating. “I think I can handle Congress,” he said.

The Floridian (actually, a Minnesotan by birth) is a textbook pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps kind of guy.

He and his wife, Carolyn, married at age 19 (they met in the fourth grade) and worked their way through college – she as a court reporter and he packing vegetables at night, according to the congressman’s official profile on his website. They were once on food stamps, which he called a “humiliating” experience. 

Later, after their three children were born, the couple turned real estate investments into family projects.

On Capitol Hill, the freshman belongs to what’s known as the “hell no” caucus – for its rebellion against GOP leadership. A tea party favorite, he is one of the most vocal proponents of impeaching the president for “not enforcing the laws.”

The child-migration crisis over the summer caused him to cosponsor three bills to strengthen border security. In August, he introduced a bill that would allow border states to take operational control of their own borders.

Before Thanksgiving, he approached the Republican leadership in the House with a request to consider his bill declaring the president’s executive action that shields millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation to be “null and void.” Mr. Obama may be able to exercise prosecutorial discretion over individuals, but not over whole groups of people, Yoho argues.

Ironically, Yoho had voted against John Boehner for speaker in 2013, but that didn’t matter in this case. The leadership saw in Yoho’s bill a way to register Republican opposition to the president’s move and allow the conservative flank to formally voice its disapproval. Its beauty was that it was stand-alone legislation, not attached to the budget – and so it didn’t threaten a government shutdown, which the leadership wants to avoid.

There’s only one problem for Yoho and those who would like to see this bill become law. It never will. It barely passed the House on a largely party-line vote of 219 to 197 and 3 “present” votes (it takes 218 votes to pass a bill in the House). 

When asked this week whether he would take up the bill in the Senate, majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada, had a one-word answer: “No.”

But Yoho’s still got fight in him. He told CQ Roll Call that he’s not going to vote for the speaker’s plan to fund the federal government – it runs out of money on Dec. 11 – unless it strips funds to implement the president’s order. 

It looks now, however, like the speaker will do an end run around the GOP hardliners. He said Thursday that he doesn’t plan to change the budget bill much and expects bipartisan support for it. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.