To the disappointment of immigration-enforcement advocates, Judge Andrew S. Hanen last week rejected a key argument that Texas raised in its attempt to establish legal standing. Texas tried to show that Obama’s amnesty policies would lead to an increase of illegal aliens in the state and would strain state coffers as a consequence.
To most Americans, amnesty leading to more illegal immigration is simple cause-and-effect logic (much like “increasing the labor supply leads to lower wages”). Our court system, however, doesn’t treat so-called speculative harms very well, no matter how inevitable they seem. Still, the open-borders lobby no doubt breathed a big sigh of relief at Hanen’s rejection, considering the mass of evidence that Texas put forward.
Although it doesn’t take a doctorate to understand that amnesty encourages illegal immigration, Texas had submitted written testimony from Harvard Ph.D. Karl Eschbach, a former demographer for the state and an expert in racial demographic trends, ethnic health disparities, and illegal immigration. With Texas paying out nearly $1.7 billion over the last two years in uncompensated health care linked to illegal aliens, the state needs this kind of expertise.
Unsurprisingly, Eschbach told the court that amnesty policies “encourage those eligible [for it] to stay in the United States and incentivize other ineligible unauthorized immigrants to remain in the United States with the hope that they will be the beneficiaries of a future adjustment of status.” Further, he said, “the effect of DACA and DAPA is to incentivize residents of other countries to come to the United States.”