• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can Obama Pardon Millions of Immigrants?

Can Obama pardon Illegal Aliens


  • Total voters
    33
I think he could pardon them for violating our laws in the first place but a pardon is not equal to granting citizenship. Getting citizenship is a privilege, not a natural response to being absolved of a crime.
 
I read the article and I didn't see anything that addressed Excon's point. Perhaps you could quote the portion that you think does?

I gave him my answer. If either of you dislike that, fine with me.
 
Most of them come here for work so that they can provide for their families either back home or here when their family comes with them. When they buy things with the money they earn they pay taxes on those things which then goes to the city or state that they live just like your taxes. They are contributing to their community in many ways. Rounding them up like cattle and sending them back is inhumane in my personal opinion and not in the spirit of community. Poverty and hardship will make people do desperate things such as crossing deserts in their country to work on a ranch in ours all for much less money than most Americans will make at a fast food restaurant. If I were to look at logically i'd say it's logical to want to try to improve your life by going where there is more opportunity. We'd all do the same thing if in their shoes. I think that most Americans take their lives for granted and where blinders when it comes to the plight of others across our own border. We must follow law, but reasonable law, and we must also be empathetic to others and help in any way we can.
Thats why legislators dont govern with their feelings.

We do have 'reasonable' laws in place. The us brings in 1 million legal immigrants a year. What we cant have is an open door policy. It isnt smart and it isnt sustainable. You know better...you wouldnt do it in your home even if you wanted to because you are smart enough to know you couldnt sustain it.
 
Sure...why not. After all, Reagan did it in 1986, right?

Okay, I was kidding. Reagan didn't pardon illegal aliens but he did sign the 1986 Immigration reform bill that granted amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. And if you consider coming into the country illegally as a violation of standing law, then yes, he pardoned alot of lawbreakers. So, in that since, if Congress presents Pres. Obama with an immigration reform bill that authorizes amnesty, then yes, he'd be granting pardons to illegal aliens, too.

Well, no, that's not a pardon. A pardon is an executive action, not signing a legislated bill.
 
Please, quit drinking the Kool-Aid. President Obama commuted the sentence of a batch of felons serving time.
:roll:

Non-violent offenders, mostly on petty drug offenses, stuck in jail on mandatory sentences. And 350 people is a long way from 11 million.


He can do as he damned well pleases, legal or illegal, as he has been doing....
No, he cannot, and does not.

Every branch of government pushes the boundaries of the current balance of powers. Presidents, legislators, judges have done this since day one. You can scream about it all you want, but the reality is that this is how the system was designed.


He encouraged children to cross the border, scooped them up and off to secret facilities and we haven't heard what's happened with any of them.
That is a complete batch of nonsense.

No, he didn't encourage anyone to cross the border. He did not "scoop anyone up," there are no "secret facilities," and we know exactly what's happening. They are largely applying for asylum, processed by the courts, and until their status is determined, they are kept in detention centers or with family.

Spare us the conspiracies from Glennbeckistan.
 
I think they actually have to be convicted first.

I do as well.
Found these links but have not had time to go thru them
https://www.usamnesty.org/

Amnesty legal definition of amnesty


Amnesty allows the government of a nation or state to "forget" criminal acts, usually before prosecution has occurred. Amnesty has traditionally been used as a political tool of compromise and reunion following a war. An act of amnesty is generally granted to a group of people who have committed crimes against the state, such as Treason, rebellion, or desertion from the military. The first amnesty in U.S. history was offered by President George Washington, in 1795, to participants in the Whiskey Rebellion, a series of riots caused by an unpopular excise tax on liquor; a conditional amnesty, it allowed the U.S. government to forget the crimes of those involved, in exchange for their signatures on an oath of loyalty to the United States. Other significant amnesties in U.S. history were granted on account of the Civil and Vietnam Wars.

Because there is no specific legislative or constitutional mention of amnesty, its nature is somewhat ambiguous. Its legal justification is drawn from Article 2, Section 2, of the Constitution, which states, "The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Because of their common basis, the difference between amnesty and pardon has been particularly vexing. In theory, an amnesty is granted before prosecution takes place, and a pardon after. However, even this basic distinction is blurry—President gerald r. ford, for example, granted a pardon to President richard m. nixon before Nixon was charged with any crime. Courts have allowed the two terms to be used interchangeably.
 
I gave him my answer. If either of you dislike that, fine with me.

Your answer told him to read the article. I read the article. There's nothing in there that addressed his point.

If you think there is, then prove it.
 
Dude...is it that hard for you to just give a guy a "Like" and move on even when he agrees with you? Damn...:roll:

Why should you get a "like" for pretending to correct me when I wasn't wrong?
 
Well, no, that's not a pardon. A pardon is an executive action, not signing a legislated bill.

Excatly!

And that's the only way this matter can be resolved...through the legislative process.

It's unfortunate, however, that the DREAM Act failed was because he didn't receive the bipartisanship support it deserved. And the only reason the GOP didn't support it is because they knew their constituency realized that the last two immigration reform efforts were done by Republican presidents (1986 and again during GWH Bush's EO) and both ushered in the flood of illegal immigrants which brought us to the influx of illegal immigrants we have today.

As much as the GOP tries to blame this situation on non-committal by Democrats for not finishing the construction of a wall, the reality is they could have funded it beginning in 2010 if they wanted to since that's when they regained control of the House. Hell, they could do it today if they wanted, but they'd rather have this wedge issue battles instead where they deny one side from gaining in traction on such wedge issues but then sit back and still do nothing when the opportunity to fix the problem is before them.
 
Why should you get a "like" for pretending to correct me when I wasn't wrong?

Never said that you were. If anything, I added to/expanded on your commentary. Didn't take anything away from it. But if that's how you saw it that's your own fault.
 
Never said that you were. If anything, I added to/expanded on your commentary. Didn't take anything away from it. But if that's how you saw it that's your own fault.
Clarification after the fact rarely helps and often reads as an CYA/CMA.
 
Clarification after the fact rarely helps and often reads as an CYA/CMA.

And arguing with someone who for all practical purposes agrees with you is just plain stupid!

I'd rather you just said thank you and be on your way. But if you can't bring yourself to do that, then just place me on ignore and be done with it.
 
And arguing with someone who for all practical purposes agrees with you is just plain stupid!
I agree, but you did not appear to be agreeing, but correcting instead.


I'd rather you just said thank you and be on your way. But if you can't bring yourself to do that, then just place me on ignore and be done with it.
iLOL Really? iLOL

I am not going to thank you or give you a like for your CYA after the fact.
 
Well, no, that's not a pardon. A pardon is an executive action, not signing a legislated bill.

And it is important to not that Reagan didn't grant all those 3 million illegals amnesty, but he agreed to allow Congress to do it along with their promise to secure the border to prevent more illegals coming. So the illegals got their amnesty and the Congress didn't take action or provide funding to secure the border, and the whole process put an enormous flashing neon sign over America: "Ya'll come and if you lay low for a little while, they'll let you stay." So now we have 12 to 20 million illegals here, depending on whose scorecard you use, and more coming every day. And nothing is done except that Obama wants to be the 'messiah' who saves them all.

But a pox on both houses of the Democrats and GOP. The Dems won't do anything about securing the border, and the GOP hasn't done anything to keep Obama from getting the credit.
 
That's mighty big of you...:roll:
Oy Vey!
And I bet you are you still wonder why I thought you were correcting/sparing, and then playing CYA. iLOL Figures.
 
Pardons do not cover future violations.
He pardons them and they are still here the following second still breaking the law.

It would not work that way. If he could pardon them, and he probably can, there being here would be blessed....

Such an act probably won't be necessary, however, as President Clinton will not be a no threat to such a particular group of people
 
It would not work that way. If he could pardon them, and he probably can, there being here would be blessed....
Hilarious.
You do not know what you are talking about.

Not to mention that a pardon comes after conviction.
 
Back
Top Bottom