Trompe news services. According to an anonymous source, President Obama requested research teams to explore the use of presidential pardon in immigration matters. Is it feasible, effective, money-saving, to offer a blanket OK to those entering the United States without documentation. A first draft of the teams' findings has been leaked, of course. In summary, the act of such entry violates Federal Law, and conviction is not required before exercise of pardon, thus this power is within his discretion. The person need only have committed the act. See http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/pardon. This timing before a conviction, however, is not as set forth by the USDOJ at http://www.justice.gov/pardon/commutation_instructions.htm
where a prior conviction by certain courts is required. If in doubt, of course follow the Pardon Attorney. The Presidential toe has already tipped into these waters, see recent immigration pardon, http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/03/obama-issues-rare-immigrationrelated-pardon-158297.html A full pardon does indeed alter immigration status.
Included in the concept are condonation, reprieve, dispensation, deliverance, discharge, exoneration (consider the years of lures of a job, at menial pay, with employers raking in the profits). The source claims to have downloaded draft procedures, before leaving by balloon for Canada (the wind was blowing north). The metadata and commentary are being reviewed by this news conglomerate, prior to full release of an assessment of the president's mens rea, so that specific names of persons against whom retribution by the jail-em-all wing of this party or that may be avoided. Overview follows, subject to those restraints.
History. Pardon has long been a political exercise, and is based in the Constitution, see http://www.historyofthings.com/history-of-presidential-pardons. In immigration, Clinton did it once, thus An Na Peng (Obama's pardonee) is not alone. Pardon is part of western religious life and has been since Day 1. The Department of Justice hosts its own Pardon Attorney, see http://www.justice.gov/pardon/commutation_instructions.htm. Contrapasso: issue of punishment fitting the crime -- there are many deity-type precedents. Note that Eve was pardoned partially (not banished for eating and getting knowledge; Adam was the one banished, as clearly the sin was sharing it with him), even if she decided to amble out of Eden on her own, and ostensibly can return for shade at will. No doubt she had preferential status because she was the upgrade, the kngdv guide imposed on the First Experimental humanoid. Order in the Oval!
Procedural issues. Must use of the pardon in immigration attach individually, to specific identified persons? Or could a mass pardon issue for all members of a class of potential objects of the pardon, blanks to be filled in with procedures until the cap is reached, and provided that criteria be clear and subject to checks and balances to ensure only the persons intended to be protected are indeed so. The USDOJ requirement of a conviction could permit these as soon as the conviction enters, ostensibly? Could the president issue 11,000,000 pardons in blank, for example, the individual names to be filled in based on applications from the subject group. What process would serve: could existing judicial or civil mechanisms suffice. Would only the criminal record of the person be sufficient for possible disqualification, a rebuttable presumption favoring the pardon.
Queries. Would the effect of a pardon, since it wipes an entry bad-deed record clear, then clear the way to citizenship. Why not? Those favoring retribution as the best deterrent to bad behavior faint in horror. Those who favor a strong dose of equity to temper the sense of superiority of the accuser cheer. And how most efficiently to enact such other non-punitive matters as payment of back taxes including social security, and awarding social security numbers. These kinds of details are part of the research now in progress, and all require data -- names, identifiable people, another hurdle.
Immigrants. Means and no means used to come in rather freely. It worked.
Dry runs. Researchers posed questions and possible approaches, and conducted discreet polling among religious and civic leaders across party and state lines, show an odd dichotomy: Many favor the idea of pardon, relief, exculpation, forgiveness, but only in the religious arena, where sinners supposedly are welcome. Even a medieval crusader was assured of religious and criminal pardon of all sins for partaking in the killing of infidels. Double boontime! Others point to the corruption of those who claimed the power of the pardon to fleece the flock. No pay, no way. Influence peddling. How rich did the Church become once it made last rites a sacrament, so that the priest could promise heaven or at least minimum purgatory if the dying one just signed over the farm.
Pardoners' Sampling. Among historical or mythical pardoners are God (which art in heaven), and Jesus (judge not), The Pardoner in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, the self-enricher who sells pardons from the Vatican for cash (the buyers then can stay out of hell), see Tim McInnerny version at YouTube, /http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS8a9FNhkxw; and intellectual discussion at http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/chaucer/ParT.html, and presidents -- see http://www.historyking.com/miscellaneous/History-of-Presidential-Pardon.html; and voters who may well give or not give a second chance to transgressors in some area or another, as in New York's Eliot Spitzer now and Anthony Weiner. There but for grace go I, saith some, watching with interest.
With the nasty Western Religious precedent of people selling indulgences and making fortunes, any class action would have to limit the take of attorneys to a tithe: 10% over expenses to be kept and 90% over expenses to be returned to an immigration fund facilitating further cases. Dreamers and other immigrants without papers who have already identified themselves shall be preferred in time over those who have not risked even that.
Comments. Among the comments received by the researchers is this: Who is ever fully in the right? Did God should apologize to Cain for misleading him. After all, Cain trusted that God meant what God said: if the command is to till the fields, why should God instead favor herder brother Abel who herded and brought fleeces? No issue is clear, no extreme should ever carry the day. That's why we need a resurgence of stronger equity in our courts.
Reactionaries. Marchers in lockstep and in blinders are revolting, clothed in fear and overwhelming the primordial podium. No! No! Blame! Censure! Convict! Deport! Denounce and Sentence! Dilute us not!
Selah. Has the balloon landed?