nounced last November. Hanen, a vocal critic of the Obama Administration's immigration policy, believed it had failed to comply with basic administrative procedures for putting such a far-reaching program like this into effect. Texas and 25 other states filed a lawsuit opposing these initiatives, arguing that the new provisions would impose huge new costs on their state budgets and therefore unjustly affect other state projects. Upon making his ruling, Judge Hanen wrote that "...lack of enforcement, combined with the country's high rate of illegal immigration, significantly drains the states' resources.
Texas attorney general Ken Paxton wrote that Obama's executive order was "an affront to everyone pursuing a life of freedom and opportunity in America the right way," elucidating the strong sentiment in many border states. The White Houses responded to the judge's ruling, stating that the President acted well within the law and had decades of legal precedent to back up his actions.
Whatever your opinion on Hanen's ruling, this Mother Jones article asserts that this headline-making ruling may not mean too much in the grand scheme of the Obama administration's immigration policy.
Questions to consider:
Do you think the states have the right to sue over federal programs that may impact state budgets, or believe that the states should acquiesce in this instance? How do you see this issue playing out-- in favor of dissenting states, with a weakening of these immigration programs or in favor of the federal government with the overturning of this ruling? What are the possible costs of each outcome? Do you think the boosts to the economy that might come from these immigration programs overshadow the possible burdens put on state budgets?