On April 18, the U.S. Supreme Court heard extensive arguments over President Barack Obama's plan to conditionally allow an estimated 5.5 million illegal immigrants to remain in the country for good.

North Carolina is among the 25 states that joined Texas in challenging Obama's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA, program. Launched in 2014, the initiative would permit illegal immigrants to remain here without risk of deportation, and would authorize them to apply for work permits — that is, provided they pay a fee, have lived in the country since at least 2010, have no criminal record and have children either born in the U.S. or who are legal permanent residents. Once granted permission under DAPA, they would be eligible for Social Security, Medicaid and other government benefits.

Texas and the other states maintain that Obama cannot exercise executive authority to let these folks stay.

Proponents of the Obama plan argue he can. They cite a 2012 Supreme Court decision that struck down Arizona's controversial law forcing suspected illegal immigrants to produce documentation. The majority, in that opinion, stated that the executive branch has "broad discretion" to enforce immigration laws. Federal officials, the court observed, do not have a mandate to automatically deport illegal immigrants, and in each case "must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all."

Texas sued the government on the basis that it would be too costly to provide all its illegal immigrants driver's licenses, which they are now denied but could seek if Obama's order stands. The state also maintains that the federal government did not follow appropriate laws for allowing public comment on the plan.

But the states' supporters maintain Obama's unilateral action has broader issues attached.

Conservative scholar John Eastman has noted that the federal government's argument fails on several counts. For instance, he wrote, a lower federal court ruling blocking the administration's action notes that relevant immigration laws say the government "shall" initiate removal proceedings, thus eradicating any prospect of "prosecutorial discretion." Moreover, that claim is suspect because deportation is a civil matter, and not criminal.

Besides that, Eastman pointed out that the administration, in the executive order, claims the people it is choosing not to "prosecute" still have a "legal presence." In its own brief to the Supreme Court, the government bizarrely argues that the DAPA program declares illegal immigrants "lawfully present," but "does not confer any form of legal status in this country, much less citizenship." Both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito questioned that, asking the government's lawyers how people in the country illegally can still have a "legal" status. It seems obvious they cannot, that Obama cannot allow those here illegally to obtain work permits when Congress has outlawed the hiring of illegal immigrants.

The conservative justices also inquired whether the president could authorize all 12 million illegal immigrants to remain here, or simply throw open the borders to let anyone in. The administration's lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, disputed both points. Yet based on Verilli's argument, it's difficult to see why Obama, or any future president, could not do so.

The Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates stricter immigration policies, observed on its blog, "It is no exaggeration to say that (this case) will determine whether America is a nation of laws or whether it has become a banana republic." That seems a bit extreme, but if Obama prevails, the needle will move considerably toward the latter.

REPRINTED FROM THE JACKSONVILLE DAILY NEWS