Should an arsonist be granted money to repair and “deal with the crisis” he helped create after starting the fire in the first place? That is the question House Republicans should ask in response to President Obama’s request for $2 billion to deal with the border crisis.

Presidential requests for supplemental appropriations usually come on the heels of natural disasters or other catastrophic events. But as we’ve known for some time, the border crisis is not a natural disaster; it is a man-made crisis which Obama’s DHS now admits was the result, in large part, of widespread suspensions in deportations over the past few years. The collective result of Obama’s public declaration of independence from immigration enforcement has telegraphed an unambiguous message to Central American countries that America is open to any and all forms of illegal immigration. The word spread quickly, and it is now apparent that the administration has been gearing up for this invasion for quite some time.

Should this same administration now be granted another $3.8 billion, which will largely go towards caring for the illegal immigrants rather than repatriating them to their countries of origin?

Instead of playing defense, it’s time for House Republicans to go on offense and use their Article I powers to control the existing funds allocated to the DHS and HHS in order to ensure that our sovereignty as a nation is preserved. The supplemental request should be rejected outright, while Republicans should condition all existing funding to the relevant agencies to focus on enforcement, instead of subsidizing the illegal invasion. Any new funding granted to Obama will only encourage more of this behavior, which will, in turn, serve as a bailout for the drug cartels and human traffickers.

Republicans must place the following conditions on the next DHS appropriations bill:

The answer to a raging fire is to first stop pouring on the gasoline. We need a change in policy, not more taxpayer funding to support the government-sponsored arson.