They've all been, the difference is how whiney the opposition has gotten.
Then name them so we can discuss.
I've never hears the specific laws that are supposedly being broken.
Mildly oversimplifying, current law doesn't allow for the people he's giving work permits to have them. He's not simply declining to prosecute (we've been doing that forever now, arguably justly, which is why they're still here)- he's going outside what the law allows and working against the intent of the legislative branch.
Reagan/Bush41 simply took care of an unintended consequence of the law, acting *with* the intent of the legislative branch to enact the amnesty they had granted, but filling in the statutory gaps (eg. children of parents who had been here the required length of time).
This precedent was so set long ago it's become a time honored tradition.
EOs have- this kind of action being done with an EO hasn't.
All personal opinion
Sure, but I also think they're inarguable:
Bad idea politically- you think this is going to *improve* the political situation?
Horrible precedent- are you going to be applauding if a Republican POTUS issues an EO saying felons can concealed-carry? You think that would be good for our country?
Largely unnecessary- is it essential that these people get work permits *now* instead of waiting for actual IR to work its way through, which both sides of the aisle want?
Doesn't solve long-term issues- you think *this* is the 'reform' our crppy system needed?
Ensures nothing will get done- you think this will make people more likely to work with him when he essentially gives them the finger?