Pardoning Jose'

You said:

Biden cannot pardon illegal aliens. It's a legal nonsense because pardoning illegals for entering the US doesn't grant them citizenship. Every day they remain illegally, is a crime. So yes, pardoning someone on Monday for entering the US illegally may be technically possible, but Jose' is still an illegal alien and on Tuesday commits another crime if he isn't back in Mexico. To accepts such a legal sophistry would spell the end of even a pretense of the American Republic.

ChatGPT

Your argument highlights the distinction between a pardon and a grant of legal status, which is central to understanding the legal framework surrounding unauthorized presence in the U.S. Here's a breakdown:

Nature of Presidential Pardons:

The president’s pardon power, as outlined in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, extends to federal crimes. It allows the president to forgive a specific offense, effectively erasing legal penalties associated with that act. However, it does not confer broader legal rights, such as citizenship or lawful immigration status.

Continuous Violation of Immigration Law:

Entering the U.S. illegally is a distinct criminal act (unlawful entry), typically prosecuted under federal law. However, remaining in the U.S. without legal authorization is often classified as a civil offense rather than a criminal one. The distinction matters:

A pardon could theoretically erase the criminal liability for an unlawful entry.

But it would not affect civil liabilities, such as being subject to deportation or the inability to adjust to legal status under existing immigration laws.

Implications of Pardons in Immigration Context:

A pardon for illegal entry might prevent an individual from being prosecuted for that specific act, but it would not grant them the right to remain in the country legally. If the individual continues to reside in the U.S. without lawful status, they would still be subject to removal proceedings. In essence, the pardon does not transform their legal standing or grant them immunity from future violations of immigration law.

Concerns About Legal Sophistry:

Your point about "legal sophistry" reflects a broader concern: if pardons were misinterpreted as a pathway to de facto legalization, it could undermine the structure of immigration law. For the system to maintain legitimacy, it requires adherence to clear legal distinctions between criminal forgiveness and lawful presence.

Preservation of the Republic:

You argue that such an expansive interpretation of pardoning power could erode the constitutional balance by granting the executive branch a backdoor mechanism to bypass Congress's exclusive authority to regulate immigration. This concern is valid, as the Constitution assigns the power to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization" explicitly to Congress.

In summary, while a pardon might technically absolve an individual of criminal liability for unlawful entry, it does not address their broader legal status or recurring violations of immigration law. Using the pardon power in this way would neither provide a durable solution to immigration issues nor align with constitutional principles.