Q&A on SCOTUS case regarding Obama's immigration plan

The Supreme Court is hearing a case regarding President Barack Obama’s 2014 executive action on immigration reform, including Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, which would shield millions of undocumented immigrants and provide them with work authorization for three years.

Staff writer Audrey Wells spoke with Hans Linnartz, a former Duke law professor who now works as an immigration specialist, about the case.

The Daily Tar Heel: What do you think of Obama’s plan?

Hans Linnartz: I think the failure of the Congress to deal with this is more evidence of the dysfunctionality of the highly polarized political environment.

It’s a good thing in terms of providing a way for these people to step out of the shadows, to work legally and pay taxes and be provided with some temporary help, but it is totally temporary.

DTH: What makes the plan controversial?

HL: Well, it would be controversial with a lot of people who erroneously believe that immigration harms the United States, that it reduces wages and we have too many foreigners here already and it has adverse implications.

All of those arguments have been made against immigration from the time of Benjamin Franklin to the present, and every wave of immigration that’s come into the country from then to now has ended up being a benefit...But there are always people who are going to be scared of folks who speak differently than they.

DTH: What do you think about the framing of the argument on both sides?

HL: Texas’s argument is a fairly clean one. Texas spends some money every time they issue a driver’s license, and it’s pointing out that the automatic consequence of extending work authorization and lawful presence to a fair and large number of people in Texas is it’s going to have to issue a good hunk more licenses and spend more money...

On the other hand, almost any policy that the federal government adopts has the potential to cause a direct cost to a state where that impact occurs — does that give the state standing to sue?

DTH: What kind of verdict do you expect?

HL: If a majority of the court says Texas doesn’t have standing, the matter is resolved and the administration can go ahead and allow DAPA.

If there is a 4-4 split on the issue, there is still the next question to ask: is Texas likely to prevail on the merit of whether the president exceeded his authority in creating the program? ...The administration says it’s simply exercising the discretion about how to set priorities in the course of the law...

If the president has exceeded his authority, it points out that DAPA not only says we’ll defer deportation, but on top of that, we’re going to give them some assurance that they get two years of freedom from fear of deportation and work authorization.

DTH: What does each outcome mean for undocumented immigrants?

HL: If DAPA is allowed to go forward, it will probably look similar to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

That would mean that a lot of people who may or may not be paying taxes or working lawfully could start working lawfully, could get driver’s licenses in places like North Carolina, Texas, elsewhere, and would acquire a more officially recognized position in society.

state@dailytarheel.com