Greg Abbot, the Texas Attorney General and Governor-elect, is suing President Obama over his executive order regarding immigration. He says his suit has standing similar to the suits other states have taken against the Affordable Care Act, namely, the exorbitant costs to taxpayers. In the case of the President’s executive order deferring deportation of undocumented immigrants, these costs are allegedly incurred in social services. But he cannot deny the contribution immigrants make to the State’s economy nor can he quantify the countervailing costs incurred in their use of social services. His only supportive statement is the fact that there are immigrant children currently in Texas’ schools. And his comparison to the ACA suits is irrelevant since he is suing over an executive order whereas the ACA suits concern provisions of existing law that quantifiably affects a specific class of people. In effect, he is questioning the President’s Constitutional authority to decide how to enforce established law, specifically, his executive authority. Now this bone of contention has arisen before between the executive and legislative branches of our government and has been carefully skirted by our judges. In other words, the courts have stayed clear of the fray, leaving the dispute to the bickering participants to work out. His suit, then, has more to do with the Constitutional authority of the President than with any harm done to Texas taxpayers. Faced with this fact, he was asked what harm the President’s executive order has caused, or specifically, who has been harmed? His answer (ref “Meet the Press,” 12/7/2014) was the Constitution. He claims that when the President acts without Congress he erodes the Constitution which is the main attraction for legal immigration to America. Now if you allow me to break down this argument, Governor-elect Abbot is stating that (1) the President is violating the Constitution, (2) the Constitution is the main attraction that draws legal immigrants to our shores, and therefore (3) by violating the Constitution the President is removing that attraction and by implication is negatively affecting legal immigration. So, by this logic, the harmed party is the legal immigrant, for the Constitution can be “violated” but not harmed except by insurrection or amendment. Do you see the irony of his position? If he truly wanted to support legal immigration, why would he not support a policy that would in due course make the undocumented among us legal? Why, instead of a lawsuit, would he not engage Texas congressmen/women in comprehensive immigration reform? Simply stated, why not support the bipartisan Senate bill that maps a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants? Making the illegals legal is one way to affirm the “land of opportunity” for migrants to this country and to reaffirm our Constitutional rule of law.

Executive orders affecting immigration policy have been issued by various Presidents over the last several decades, though perhaps of less scope than this recent action by President Obama. That his action has led to debate is actually a good thing, for it has brought this issue to the forefront. In fact, the President has admitted that his order was only a stop-gap measure and that he preferred Congress to act. What prompted him to defer some deportations for three years was the inhumane breaking up of families, many of whom have lived in America for most or even all of their lives. He was echoing his predecessor who, when Governor of Texas, argued that “family values do not stop at the Rio Grande.” Then Governor Bush went on to say that people come to this country to work and feed their families. He felt that “there must be a humane way to help these people attain citizenship while still securing our borders.” When Governor-elect Abbot was asked whether he agreed with his predecessor, he replied, “I understand this even more powerfully because my wife will become the first Hispanic first lady.” His “understanding” implies that he agrees with the last two Presidents on their immigration positions, though he obviously opposes the current President on his executive order. So I must repeat the question: why, instead of a lawsuit, would he not engage Texas congressmen/women in comprehensive immigration reform?

The answer to my twice repeated question should be obvious: the Governor-elect, like many Republicans in the House, would rather indulge in “double-speak” than commit to any policy that provides a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. And yet the Republican platform supports outreach to Hispanic minorities. Many Republicans, as witnessed in the Senate, actually support comprehensive immigration reform along the lines outlined by the President. Perhaps the President’s opponents on this issue are just upset that he has forced their hand. They appear more committed to opposing him than his policy position. Is Congress actually determined to deport (or “self-deport,” as the last Republican nominee for President suggested) 11 million undocumented members of our society? I think not. Can Congress pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation or will it just maintain the inhumane situation under which many now live? For how long will Congress dither, procrastinate, and indulge in diversions like lawsuits when the outlines of a solution are not only well known, but are actually embodied in a bipartisan piece of legislation before the House of Representatives?

Put in blunter terms: should party politics preclude actual governing.