Blanket pardon for illegals after the midterms?

[Balog]

It makes sense, it's in line with Obama's style, and it wouldn't technically be outside of his Constitutional powers. 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/after-cantor.php#!

Let’s look down the road a bit from here.  We know that President Obama is enamored of executive power.  He said on climate change that he wouldn’t wait on Congress, and we saw last week his bold use of the Clean Air Act to impose a regulatory scheme that Congress would never pass.  He’s said much the same thing about immigration.  So what might he do?

How about this: after the election next fall, especially if the GOP takes the Senate and with an eye to the 2016 election prospects for Democrats, Obama might well decide to use his pardon power to grant a blanket pardon to all illegal aliens presently in the United States.  This would not, strictly speaking, be a legal abuse; the president’s pardon power is unconditional in the Constitution.

[RevDisk]

A pardon doesn't grant citizenship. It would allow people that were illegal immigrants to not have a criminal past if they applied for citizenship.

IMHO, that'd be an awesome way to not get amnesty. Guaranteed, a lot of people would be absolutely furious.

[Balog]

A pardon doesn't grant citizenship. It would allow people that were illegal immigrants to not have a criminal past if they applied for citizenship.

IMHO, that'd be an awesome way to not get amnesty. Guaranteed, a lot of people would be absolutely furious.

Aren't a lot of the citizenship requirements administrative vs strictly spelled out in actual law? So the immigration authorities "reinterpreting" the statutes could open the floodgates, once the presently in country illegals are pardoned?

Also, we should fly Viking out here to stay just in case this goes through so he can get in on that sweet sweet amnesty. 

[Viking]

Also, we should fly Viking out here to stay just in case this goes through so he can get in on that sweet sweet amnesty. 

I honestly considered it for a minute. Apparently, apartment prices in my 'hood are higher than expected according to a friend who just moved out the other day. Granted, his is a 3 room and probably in better shape. He expected to get close to 100k. I wonder if I could get 50k for mine...then I'd just have to fly in on a tourist visa, overstay my 3 months, and then I'd be good to go with that amnesty, amirite?

[SADShooter]

I suppose it's possible/plausible, particularly if Senate control shifts. Obama can maintain his unilateralist, posture, while Congressional Democrats keep chanting rationalization mantras for it attacking those obstructionists on the other side. The alternative would be Obama retreating to abject lame duck status, and I don't see that happening in light of the cheeky hubris he's already exhibited.

[RevDisk]

Aren't a lot of the citizenship requirements administrative vs strictly spelled out in actual law? So the immigration authorities "reinterpreting" the statutes could open the floodgates, once the presently in country illegals are pardoned?

Also, we should fly Viking out here to stay just in case this goes through so he can get in on that sweet sweet amnesty. 

Sorta. There's a checklist they successfully make before they can apply. I believe we have quotas, and it's done on a lottery basis.

And no. Unless they essentially refused to do their jobs and conspired to break the law.

[KD5NRH]

A pardon doesn't grant citizenship. It would allow people that were illegal immigrants to not have a criminal past if they applied for citizenship.

Note to self; if we ever have another Constitutional Convention, there should be a requirement for Presidential pardons to be entirely handwritten by the President himself, and apply only to a single person for each document.

Good luck pardoning millions.

[roo_ster]

Note to self; if we ever have another Constitutional Convention, there should be a requirement for Presidential pardons to be entirely handwritten by the President himself, and apply only to a single person for each document.

Good luck pardoning millions.

Paging Jimmy Carter...

[Balog]

And no. Unless they essentially refused to do their jobs and conspired to break the law.

Sounds like what they're already doing.

[RevDisk]

Sounds like what they're already doing.

This would be pretty blatant. Think the police beating a celebrity with baseball bats on live TV.

Government breaks the rules all the time. It's usually done in ways that no one can prove without long costly court battles, in grey areas of paperwork or similar. Think the FDA trying to ban independent cheese makers. Or the BATFE making an overreaching judgment in firearm regulation. Or BLM redefining areas so that people could no longer use federal property for recreational purposes.

Government drones are not mustache twitching villains in secret volcano layers. They're middle age office workers, with a mortgage, kids, a car loan, etc. They rationalize their pretty evil. Obviously, nature is Good (ok, it is, we're on fairly firm ground here), so it's Good to keep icky humans from using land. People getting sick is bad and I think wood is too dangerous to be used in food preparation, so let's ban wood in food preparation. Or I don't feel like reading approximately five THOUSAND pages of boring regulations and another couple thousand pages of existing decisions because it's a Friday, so I'm going to write something good enough and call it a day so I can pick up little Suzy from daycare.

There's generally three types of evil government wankers.

- The blatantly evil bastards. The sort of folks who mandated methanol during the Chemist wars, and killed thousands. They do exist, but they're pretty rare. Folks who plant evidence, frame an innocent person, etc and justify that the ends justify the means .
- For Your Own Good wankers. Too common, and arguably the most evil. Blatant evil bastards know they're doing something bad, they just rationalize it away. FYOGW literally think they are doing a good thing when they try to enslave other people through thousands of petty restrictions.
- Just Doing My Job. Folks just doing what they're told.

[Balog]

This would be pretty blatant. Think the police beating a celebrity with baseball bats on live TV.

Government breaks the rules all the time. It's usually done in ways that no one can prove without long costly court battles, in grey areas of paperwork or similar. Think the FDA trying to ban independent cheese makers. Or the BATFE making an overreaching judgment in firearm regulation. Or BLM redefining areas so that people could no longer use federal property for recreational purposes.

Government drones are not mustache twitching villains in secret volcano layers. They're middle age office workers, with a mortgage, kids, a car loan, etc. They rationalize their pretty evil. Obviously, nature is Good (ok, it is, we're on fairly firm ground here), so it's Good to keep icky humans from using land. People getting sick is bad and I think wood is too dangerous to be used in food preparation, so let's ban wood in food preparation. Or I don't feel like reading approximately five THOUSAND pages of boring regulations and another couple thousand pages of existing decisions because it's a Friday, so I'm going to write something good enough and call it a day so I can pick up little Suzy from daycare.

There's generally three types of evil government wankers.

- The blatantly evil bastards. The sort of folks who mandated methanol during the Chemist wars, and killed thousands. They do exist, but they're pretty rare. Folks who plant evidence, frame an innocent person, etc and justify that the ends justify the means .
- For Your Own Good wankers. Too common, and arguably the most evil. Blatant evil bastards know they're doing something bad, they just rationalize it away. FYOGW literally think they are doing a good thing when they try to enslave other people through thousands of petty restrictions.
- Just Doing My Job. Folks just doing what they're told.

I've seen plenty of blatantly illegal actions. No one seems to care, and those who do are just raciss Republicans. Besides, what could be done about it? Obama isn't up for re-election, the bureaucrats are insulated from consequences, and it gives the 2016 DNC field a way to separate and distance themselves from Obama by saying "Well gosh, he shouldn't have done that."

[HankB]

Hmmm . . .

As I understand it, a pardon can excuse crimes the person has already committed . . . but can a President - or anyone else - issue a blanket pardon for FUTURE crimes?

If so, we're screwed.

If not, then wouldn't the illegal alien be in violation of the law beginning the instant AFTER the pardon was issued? I mean, he'd still be here illegally, right?

[Regolith]

I kind of doubt it, unless Obama simply doesn't care anymore and doesn't mind gift wrapping the White House and Congress and handing them over to the Republicans.

[seeker_two]

I kind of doubt it, unless Obama simply doesn't care anymore and doesn't mind gift wrapping the White House and Congress and handing them over to the Republicans.

....who will do the exact same thing that they're letting Obama do now. Big difference.... 

[RevDisk]

Hmmm . . .

As I understand it, a pardon can excuse crimes the person has already committed . . . but can a President - or anyone else - issue a blanket pardon for FUTURE crimes?

If so, we're screwed.

If not, then wouldn't the illegal alien be in violation of the law beginning the instant AFTER the pardon was issued? I mean, he'd still be here illegally, right?

There have been sweeping pardons. President Gerald Ford and Watergate. President Jimmy Carter and draft-evasion acts. Washington and whiskey rebellion. Andrew Johnson and the South. The closest I can think of is Harrison and and his pardon for any crimes of polygamous marriages by LDS members. I believe the LDS was moving away from this practice at the time, but still had some practitioners. I could look up some more on the subject if anyone wanted.

But per SCOTUS, it can only apply to past crimes.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=71&invol=333

The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. This power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions.

So three limitations. It cannot be a future crime, it cannot return a person to office and it cannot restore property or interests vested in others in consequence of the conviction and judgment. It's an interesting and relatively short judgment, worth reading in its entirety.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_clemency_by_the_President_of_the_United_States

Some other interesting pardons. My favorite was Andrew Jackson. He pardoned someone that refused to take the pardon.

[fifth_column]

Hmmm . . .

As I understand it, a pardon can excuse crimes the person has already committed . . . but can a President - or anyone else - issue a blanket pardon for FUTURE crimes?

If so, we're screwed.

If not, then wouldn't the illegal alien be in violation of the law beginning the instant AFTER the pardon was issued? I mean, he'd still be here illegally, right?

If they want blanket immunity for future crimes they can do like everybody else does:  join the police!

[Scout26]

If he thinks he has nothing to lose by doing so, he just may.   Especially if everything (Iraq, the rest of the ME, Russia, IRS, VA etc) is going down the crapper. 

I wouldn't be surprised if he did as much and more with his pen and his phone, via unelected bureaucrats (EPA and Coal for example), to impose as much socialism on this country as he can.