Here’s a good summary article of some of the legal questions involved in Obama’s immigration executive order, and how the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel got it wrong.

The basic points:

First, the OLC justified the policy as a prioritization of government’s “limited resources.” But the executive order does more than prioritize. It rewrites existing law…

Second, the OLC incorrectly concludes that the president’s plan involves case-by-case scrutiny. The OLC admits “a general policy of nonenforcement that forecloses the exercise of case-by-case discretion poses ”˜special risks’ that the agency has exceeded the bounds of its enforcement discretion.” It argues, however, that there are no “removable aliens whose removal may not be pursued under any circumstances.” And although the policy “limits the discretion of immigration officials . . . it does not eliminate that discretion entirely.”

It is absurd to assert that the theoretical possibility that a small percentage of the more than four million likely applicants may be rejected is meaningful “prosecutorial discretion.” …

Third, even if Mr. Obama’s plan is accepted as case-by-case discretion, it creates a remedy””deferred deportation””for a category that Congress hasn’t allowed and the president lacks authority to create…

Fourth, the OLC claims that past presidents have taken similar actions, yet it fundamentally misrepresents their legal basis…

Fifth, the OLC ignores that the new Obama policy profoundly harms the states, which bear the costs of educating and providing health care to millions of illegal immigrants now allowed to remain. The policy also injures state sovereignty.

There’s much, much more, and I suggest you read the whole thing.

The OLC has responded to the president’s request to find him legal cover to do what he had already decided to do. Their answer seems not just incorrect but transparently, obviously incorrect. But that doesn’t matter. Most people aren’t interested in parsing the legal points, or taking the time to read something like that or think deeply about it. Lawyers argue, but most people will justify the president’s action if the ends are something they desire, and condemn it if the ends are something they don’t desire. Very few people have the integrity of a Jonathan Turley, and that’s what Obama is counting on.

[NOTE: In the comments to the WSJ article I found this, which I think makes some excellent points about how Obama has tested the waters, bit by bit, to get to where we are now, and beyond:

First the Bammer disregarded the DOMA act, no one did a thing, Then he disregarded the bankruptcy laws for GM (too big to fail?) and no one did a thing, then he told Dreamers you can stay, and no one did a thing, then he rearranged the Obama care ‘law’ a gazillion times to suit his fancy and no one did a thing. then then then….

NOW why are we shocked that he has created a whole class of law breakers into (‘legal’ Americans) with a pen and a phone. And people are outraged, of course but he has been getting away with it for 6 years.

Indeed—although some of us have been outraged for 6 years, or close to it.]