Posted on 07/06/2016 4:38:38 AM PDT by reaganaut1
WHEN the history of President Obama’s legacy on immigration is written, he will not go down as the president who boldly acted to protect millions of families from the brutality of our nation’s unforgiving immigration laws. The Supreme Court made sure of that last month, when it deadlocked on the legality of his program to defer the deportation of parents of American citizens and residents. Instead, he will be judged on what he actually did: deport more immigrants than any other president in American history, earning him the moniker “deporter in chief.”
However, President Obama can still act to bring humanity and justice to an immigration system notoriously lacking in both. He can do so by using the power the Constitution grants him — and only him — to pardon individuals for “offenses against the United States.”
The debate over the deportation deferral program has been framed as a question of the division of powers. Both sides agree that Congress is the only entity that gets to define offenses against the United States. Reasonable commentators also agree that the president enjoys prosecutorial discretion to determine which deportation cases to pursue and which to forgo. The difficult question is whether a categorical decision to decline to prosecute millions begins to intrude on Congress’ power. While the program is consistent with the way previous presidents have used prosecutorial discretion, without guidance from the Supreme Court, debate will surely continue.
...
Finally, some would surely argue that a pardon protecting a large category of immigrants from deportation would, just like the deportation deferral program, effectively amount to a repeal of laws enacted by Congress. However, pardons do nothing to alter the law. They protect certain past offenders from punishment and prosecution, but leave the law unchanged as applied to any future violators.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Can a Republican president pardon people who have broken environmental laws (according to the EPA) or who have not paid whatever the IRS demands?
The web site of Professor Markowitz is here. Quoting it,
"Peter L. Markowitz is an Associate Clinical Professor of Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law where he founded and directs the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic. The clinic focuses on the intersection of immigration and criminal law and on immigration enforcement issues. It provides deportation defense representation to individuals and represents community-based and national advocacy organizations on impact projects. The clinic has been awarded the Daniel Levy Award for outstanding and innovative advocacy in the field of immigration.
Professor Markowitz and his clinic has been responsible for numerous innovations in the field, for example: spearheading the developing of the nation’s first public defender system for detained immigrants, developing the concept of detainer discretion, and initiating the nation’s first full-service in-house immigration unit located in a public defender office."
President Trump can immediately unpardon them.
the brutality of our nation’s unforgiving immigration laws.
WTF the left and the media in this country have gone totally insane. The propaganda is mind blowing.
Wouldn’t they be committing the same crime again just as soon as they were pardoned? How can one be pardoned for future crimes?
If that were true, a whole lot of unpardons would have been granted.
But, does a pardon require a specific name, or can it be general like this?
So basically we are not a nation of laws anymore.
And the left never thinks these tactics will ever be used against them one day.
You forget, laws no longer apply to Presidents. They have pens and phones and can do anything they want.
Why stop there? Why not just pardon all convicts everywhere? Think of all the votes the Democratic Party would get!
... our nation’s unforgiving immigration laws ...
We have carefully crafted and generous immigration laws that allow for lawful and logical entry for most anyone who abides by our system. What the NYT and Obama seek is to trash the rule of law and our culture.
I don’t think the President can pardon for future crimes. One day after a pardon, a person continuing to stay in a country illegally would again be breaking the law.
“...from the brutality of our nation’s unforgiving immigration laws.”
That they can write that statement means they think the overthrow of American civilization is complete.
“Forgiving” immigration laws essentially mean no laws at all, I suppose, right NY Slimes, since you obviously haven’t checked other countries laws. Like - I don’t know - Mexico’s??
Well the esteemed senior Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, just announced that when Trump loses the November election, the Gang of Eight amnesty bill will be passed 2017. I guess we will not need to worry about pardons.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/immigration-reform-gang-eight-225028
>
the brutality of our nation’s unforgiving immigration laws.
***
WTF the left and the media in this country have gone totally insane. The propaganda is mind blowing.
>
Fine. Easy solution: reciprocity of immigration laws (I’d also consider voting laws too).
I mean, THEIR laws are *better* than ours, no? So, let’s use ‘em!
The media/Left can’t b!tch then /s
He has proven time and time again he can do as he damn well pleases. No one will oppose him.
Linda has a real surprise coming.
Actually that is not correct. Once pardoned the crime cannot be re-prosecuted (double jeopardy applies)
BUT. Since each day is a new offense President Trump can deport them for being in the country on Jan 20,2017. (or on Jan 21, or Jan 22 etc. Each day is a new offense)
Unless the Republican Party can come up with a plan to neutralize the electronic voting machines, there is not going to be a President Trump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.