The federal case against Obama’s executive amnesty is getting ready to start, and the documents 24 states have provided to the court detail the economic burdens his actions have caused. The crux of the case is on the constitutionality of the president’s actions, but the states must prove they are directly harmed by the actions to bring a lawsuit. In more than 1,100 submitted documents, they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are legally entitled to sue.
According to the lawsuit, Obama’s amnesty will burden the states with “billions of dollars in costs,” a factor that should be enough on it’s own for Judge Andrew Hanen to rule against the administration. Not that I have much hope for the success of this lawsuit. Obama is throwing too much money and too much political weight against this thing for the Constitution to reign victorious. Still, if the media does it’s job and tells the American people the truth about this suit, it could be enough to inspire a political revolt. Of course, that’s a big “if.”
The litany of burdens is extraordinary:
– $130 per person – the amount it will cost Texas to provide driver’s licenses to illegals who qualify.
– Illegals will be eligible to apply for concealed weapons permits, posing both a public safety threat and an economic burden.
– Unemployment benefits will go towards illegals who qualify for amnesty.
– More employees will be needed to process driver’s license applications, a cost that will be passed on to taxpayers.
– Businesses can hire illegals to get around the Obamacare mandate, making it harder for citizens to compete for jobs.
– Amnesty will encourage more illegal immigration, putting even more financial burdens on the states.
These were but a few of the charges launched against the Obama administration in the opening volleys of a lawsuit that will likely play out over several months. For their part, administration lawyers contend that the courts don’t have the right to stop the president’s “discretion.” They argue that Obama’s amnesty is only “deferred action,” a step that has precedent in earlier administrations.
But that’s an illegitimate argument, and supporters of Obama’s actions know it. Earlier examples of deferred deportation worked in conjunction with congressional lawmaking, not in direct opposition to it. What Obama did has no precedent in United States history. He simply got irritated by Congress’ failure to push through the law that he wanted. And so he took it upon himself to make law in the Oval Office. That’s the real problem here, and it’s one that should not be forgotten in the smaller details. Whether it costs the states billions of dollars or 10 cents, the action remains illegal.
Comments are closed.