So far, it seems, 17 states are suing the President over his immigration amnesty. I wonder if we'll be able to force the governors, attorneys general, and others who are filing these suits to give back the taxpayers' money they're wasting on them.
Most likely, the suits won't proceed very far. There's an obvious question as to whether the plaintiffs have standing to sue, for one thing. They'll need to be able to show how this injures them, and that has to be an actual injury, not an imaginary one. For instance, they'll need to show how their state is hurt by the addition of a large number of new taxpayers.
If any do make it to trial, there's virtually no chance the plaintiffs will win. A major claim is that the President is usurping a power the Constitution gives to Congress to set immigration policy. Except the Constitution doesn't. What it actually gives Congress is the power to enact "an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Immigration law is tenuously covered by the blanket authorization to create laws to implement any particular enumerated power. Something Congress has notably failed to do in the past, with existing laws being far from uniform, and mostly based on then-current racist myths about Asians, Poles, Jews, Italians, or just about anyone who isn't a white, Protestant european.
Perhaps the Constitution mentions naturalization, but not immigration, because the Founding Fathers' idea of immigration was essentially, "Come on over." When Congress eventually did start passing immigration law, it was to keep out people they didn't like. It doesn't hurt to remember that there was no limit on "New World" immigration until 1965. Keeping Mexicans out would never have occurred to the Founding Fathers, who tended to envision the then Spanish colony of Mexico eventually becoming a part of the United States (along with Canada, and everything north of Panama).
As far as the Presidential amnesty is concerned, the critics might want to keep in mind it's conditional, and the President stopped well short of his actual powers in the area. He could have simply issued a blanket pardon for everyone in the defined category. You see, the Constitution does give the President the power of pardon over all federal crimes with the exception of impeachment. If crossing the border is a crime, he can pardon it at will. In this case, all he did was tell the Justice Department to withhold prosecution and deportation in a set of narrowly-defined circumstances, and at the same time tell Congress that if they don't like the policy, get off their asses and pass an immigration law to deal with the situation.
Remember, the President's power to pardon is constitutionally defined and absolute, and not merely derivitive of a Congressional power to decide who gets to become a citizen.
The 'secure the border' people probably deserve most of the blame. Before we made it so hard to get across, people tended to come up, work for a while, and then go back home. A couple years later they might do it again. Now crossing the border is so difficult and dangerous that they tend to just stay here. This is sometimes referred to as the "law of unintended consequences." For that matter, when Mexicans could more or less come and go as they pleased, the Mexican immigrant population never grew very large, because most of them didn't really want to stay.
I sort of hate to point it out, considering my own family has lived here for 400 years now (which I suppose means we were illegal immigrants as far as the Indians in Virginia were concerned), but a lot of people from other countries actually like the one they were born in better and, while they'll come here to work, or to study, don't want to stay.
A lot of this is probably pathological. For all they like to talk of love, evangelical Christians can be a particularly nasty bunch of people. Years ago, Barry Goldwater warned of the dangers of letting religious extremists take control of the Republican Party, specifically mentioning Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as examples. Personally, I knew the party was in grave danger when David Duke started running as a Republican. Goldwater warned about exactly what we see now; the inability of the fanatic to compromise. There are simple solutions to most problems, but they involve seeing all sides of an issue. Or, perhaps, I should say all valid sides of an issue, since you have creationists, climate change denialists, and all manner of conspiracy theorists wanting to inject their provably false viewpoints into areas that are problematic enough to begin with.
The main point of this is that, in fact, the President is well within his rights to do what he did. Congress is within theirs to pass legislation to change it. Lawsuits, on the other hand, are just a waste of time and money, and are being filed strictly for publicity purposes. There's nothing wrong with free publicity, but when it involves politicians the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it.