...(Rep. Hal) Rogers is pushing the rarely used parliamentary procedure as a middle ground option that essentially would allow lawmakers to pass a spending bill next month -- with a Dec. 11 deadline -- but then allow them to go back later on and strip out any money allocated for Obama's immigration plan.

But the idea has its pitfalls for Republicans, and already has prompted some pushback among conservatives.

While "rescission" would allow Republicans to propose a bill to repeal Obama's immigration funding, like any other bill, it would need to pass both chambers -- including a likely 60-vote threshold in the Senate -- and survive a presidential veto.

Even with control of the House and Senate next year, Republicans likely would not have the votes to override a veto.

"Umm, glaring problem here," a Senate Republican aide told Fox News, in response to Rogers' idea. "A rescission bill isn't some sort of special bill. It's just like most bills. The president would still have to sign a rescission bill. If he vetoed, we'd need 67 votes to defund executive amnesty. So what's being proposed here is giving the president the money and we wouldn't be able to take it back. Nice try." (...)