Since the immigration issue is the most interesting thing happening on the NY Times politics page, here’s another post about it. Seventeen states apparently think the President’s immigration plan is placing an unnecessary burden on their future budgets. The complaints by the states essentially say that since congress did not have a say in the plan so therefore it is illegitimate. President Obama has countered that his plan is being issued is authorized by existing statutes and that there is no legal basis to object their action.
Texas Governor Rick Perry and incoming governor of that state Greg Abbott argue that the immigration plan will encourage more illegal immigration into their state. They think that word will get out to Central and South America that if you can successfully cross the border into the United States, you will not face the threat of deportation anymore. The governor and governor-elect also make the case that they are already spending an enormous amount of money on border enforcement, and that will only go up if Obama’s plan goes forward.
Some legal scholars have also had some reservations about the plan. A prominent lawyer testifying for the House Judicial committee said that the President’s actions set a dangerous precedent that could lead to unilateral revision of many other areas of policy such as the tax code and criminal law. A group of lawyers that previously served as counsel to the immigration agency state that the president is well within his rights.