Hey guys, just for clarity of thought, there's 3 DHS issues that need to be kept separate.
1) Should the existing DHS be funded?
2) Should the DHS exist, or be broken up into its constituent parts?
3) Should the constituent parts exist (i.e., do we have too much "security")?
I submit to you that the current GOP bill tying funding of DHS to Obama's immigration executive actions is not to the slightest degree - not even epsilon - a step toward addressing either (2) or (3). It does not raise the issues, it does not make people think about the issues, it doesn't move towards (2) or (3) as a side effect. If your goal is the dismantling of the security state, tying DHS funding to immigration is NOT your path forward.
I see not too much point to (2), it seems like a bureaucratic organization chart matter, the sort of thing that management proudly announces will lead of "efficiencies" and "synergies" until the next re-organization by the next manager.
Issue (3) is very important and is going to require attention to detail, persuasion of the voters, electing more and especially better Democrats - you know, work. There's no fast way to undo 13 years of "ZOMG teh terrorists are coming!", and defunding DHS actually makes that work harder, because as we've seen, the reflexive response to taking a meat axe to DHS is to protect it all. The security state is an elephant, and elephants are eaten one bite at a time.