High hurdles for states’ suit to block executive action

The legal arguments of 18 states suing to block President Barack Obama from deferring the deportation of up to 4.3 million undocumented immigrants face high hurdles, according to a spectrum of scholars in constitutional and immigration law. Pursuing the suit and other actions against executive action also may pose broader political risks to the Republican Party heading into the 2016 presidential election cycle, some analysts said, if it helps alienate the rising number of Latino voters. “I think this is going to carry long-term implications for the Republican Party, and not in a very positive way,” said Marshall Fitz, vice president of immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank in Washington, D.C. “The more they do this, the more it cements the anti-immigrant brand for the party.” Gov. Jan Brewer announced Thursday that Arizona would join Texas and 16 other states — all represented by Republican governors or attorneys general — in seeking to block Obama’s executive action on immigration, announced Nov. 20. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the governor-elect, filed the suit Wednesday in federal district court in Brownsville, Texas. The suit argues that the executive action is unlawful and unconstitutional and would harm the states. That harm, according to the suit: The action will draw huge numbers of new undocumented immigrants, which would force states to spend more on law enforcement, health care and education, among other areas. The suit’s key legal argument is that Obama’s action effectively changes immigration law and violates… [Read full story]

Speak Your Mind