To the editor: Legal scholars Erwin Chemerinsky and Samuel Kleiner believe that President Obama's immigration amnesties are legal because the "executive branch of government always has discretion as to whether and how or when to enforce the law." ("Texas judge's immigration ruling is full of legal holes," Op-Ed, Feb. 18)
Though we can all agree this is normally the case, the two professors overlook other aspects of the executive order, which also allows for the issuance of work permits. This is not only the creation of a new law, but a violation of an existing law.
Before Obama issued his memorandum, he stated many times that he could not act unilaterally on immigration. The president lost patience with constitutional protocol and decided to issue a memorandum, knowing he could find "legal experts" who would ignore our laws and the Constitution.
Hopefully, higher courts will read the Constitution before making their judgment.
Bill Cool, Corona del Mar
To the editor: Chemerinsky and Kleiner are missing the point of U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen's decision.
The primary grievance of the plaintiffs (the states opposing Obama's questionable executive amnesty) is not the deferred deportation of millions of illegal immigrants, it is the numerous benefits conferred upon the beneficiaries as a result of Obama's unlawful amnesty and the economic burden those benefits place on the states.
Perhaps it is for this reason that Obama only mentioned the deportation deferment during his national address and omitted the morally questionable issuance of work permits and Social Security cards and access to healthcare and tax benefits that the 26 states are objecting to.
Henry Clifford, San Diego