So, it's a "right" to continue doing something illegally?
They could come to MA, where the state AG (among others) is pushing for in-state tuition rates at state colleges for illegals.
Which brings us to the larger question of how office-holders supposedly sworn to uphold the law can decide on their own which laws (or non-laws, as with Spitzer) to uphold and which to brazenly announce that they will not enforce. I'm not usually one to resort to "there oughta be a law," but isn't there something wrong with this picture?
I can see being in such a position -- faced with a law one is opposed to, but wouldn't the honorable thing be either to enforce it anyway or to explain why one is opposed and then to resign? Oh, wait, these are politicians . . .