Biden Says He's Pardoning 'All' Federal Weed Possession Offenders. He Isn't.
If you aren't a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, you're out of luck.
President Joe Biden announced Thursday that he is "pardoning all prior federal offenses of simple marijuana possession." This is a welcome move but a modest one, since it provides relief to only a small share of U.S. citizens with federal marijuana records. And despite that declaration that he's pardoning "all" offenders, the pardon's language specifies that only "current United States citizens and lawful permanent residents" are eligible for relief.
According to David Bier, associate director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, someone wouldn't be eligible for a pardon if they committed an offense while unlawfully present in the country, "even if you subsequently received a green card or U.S. citizenship." The pardon's language even excludes people, such as tourists, who are here lawfully but are not permanent residents.
Noncitizens comprise a significant share of people with federal marijuana possession records. From 2015–2021, the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) recorded 6,276 federal offenders with marijuana possession charges. Of those, it listed 4,341—roughly 70 percent—as noncitizen offenders. Nearly all of them were reported in districts along the U.S.-Mexico border. The number of noncitizen marijuana possession offenders has dropped from 1,670 in FY 2015 to just six in FY 2021.
A USSC report covering FY 2013 found that 94.3 percent of border offenders were noncitizens, while 16.5 percent of non–border offenders were. "Nearly all" marijuana simple possession offenders apprehended at the border that year "had little or no prior criminal history." They were carrying a median weight of 48.5 pounds of marijuana, which the USSC says "does not appear to correspond to simple possession."
Rather, those may have been the result of "marijuana drug trafficking cases in which the offender was sentenced only for a possession offense," the USSC reports. Nearly 98 percent of simple possession offenders at the border in fiscal year 2013 received prison time, with a median sentence of six months, while 26.4 percent of non–border offenders got jail time. That same year, per a 2016 report from the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), less than 1 percent of those deported were drug traffickers.
By contrast, the DPA notes, simple marijuana possession was "the most common cause of deportation for drug law violations" in 2013. Failing to pardon people who aren't citizens or lawful permanent residents keeps them at risk of removal. "A pardon wipes out the grounds of deportability for a noncitizen," says Bier, so noncitizens without "legal permanent resident status (e.g., refugees, asylees, etc.) would still be deportable based solely on a marijuana conviction."
That's true of noncitizens with state and federal marijuana records. According to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a Syracuse University organization that analyzes immigration data, over 45,000 people were deported for marijuana possession from FY 2003 to August 2018. Noncitizens who have consumed, sold, or possessed marijuana may be barred from entering the U.S. or receive denials on their citizenship applications.
Even as states—and now the Biden administration—have relaxed their stances toward marijuana use, someone's immigration status can lead to drastic punishments for drug convictions. Though Biden's marijuana announcement called for a review of how marijuana is classified under federal law, he issued no such request that government bodies review the Immigration and Nationality Act to remove marijuana use, possession, and distribution as grounds for a migrant's inadmissibility. Even if Biden had extended his pardon to noncitizens, Bier explains that immigrants would "still be subject to the controlled substance grounds of inadmissibility."
Biden rightly notes that marijuana relief will help people "who may be denied employment, housing, or educational opportunities" by virtue of their drug convictions. That line of reasoning applies just as much to noncitizens as it does to citizens.
"There is no good reason to exclude any noncitizen from this order," says Bier. "The president lays out all the reasons why Americans have come to believe that marijuana [possession] convictions lack legitimacy and impose unnecessary harms, yet he still wants to apply those penalties and others to noncitizens as well as to U.S. citizens and green card holders who were once here illegally."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How about the non citizens get deported?
That would be worse than keeping them in a US prison. Unless they had colon cancer, then various socialized medicine schemes throughout the world would be better than the private medical practices operated in US prisons.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of (aos-02) greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
Just open the link——————–>>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, [res-28) I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://workopportunity23.blogspot.com
I’m going back and forth on this one. I worry about executive pardoning powers in general, and I somewhat fear this is counterproductive to forcing the Congress to actually change laws as needed.
Right now the president’s pardon power is pretty much unlimited.
Do you think the Constitution should be amended to change this? If so, how?
I’m aware. I actually don’t know. This was a discussion in the Anti-Federalist papers as there was a lot of concern about this pardoning power, it is arbitrarily unlimited and that is an obvious usurpation of Congress.
I don’t have an answer at this point, as I’d have to think more. But the ability to override laws passed by Congress and ruled on by a Judiciary is not good. This is effectively the attempted overriding of an entire law as it is not particularly narrowly scoped to specific individuals in the way most pardons tend to be. I think that part bothers me the most, but I don’t know.
Though quick addendum. The fact of the pardoning power is unlimited does nothing to justify either way the wisdom of any given pardon. I believe Biden has done many unconstitutional things, but I don’t think this is one of them. I just question the decision.
The pardon power is only unlimited to the level that Congress is unwilling to impeach.
Likewise, an unconscionable law or misapplication of law has pardon authority as a check. A law being applied in an unfair way, or an overzealous sentencing, or whatever, and the problem can be rectified. If the President goes too far, Congress can impeach.
They do, theoretically, counter each other in a world where Congress is different than President, and where the institutions actually stay on watch to retain their powers.
Where it’s Democrat v Republican and the institution is subservient to the political party, that might be a different calculus than when it’s legislature against executive. But from a constitutional checks and balances standpoint I don’t find it any more objectionable than a veto and an override on legislation.
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I did not ever think it would even be achievable , however my confidant mate got $13k only in four weeks, easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail.
For more detail visit this article… https://incomebuzz7.blogspot.com/
The Presidential pardon is restricted to “Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” It is the equivalent of the power to pardon granted to governors. It is the appeal of last resort.
It wouldn’t be very significant barring the abuse of the commerce clause by the federal government, encouraged by the courts, that created a vast jurisdiction where none was intended to exist. Along with the courts allowing state and federal prosecution for a single act.
“Nearly all” marijuana simple possession offenders apprehended at the border that year “had little or no prior criminal history.” They were carrying a median weight of 48.5 pounds of marijuana, which the USSC says “does not appear to correspond to simple possession.”
Can someone with a higher IQ break this down for me?
How in interpret this statement is… if I drive across the US border as a non-citizen with 50lbs of weed in my trunk, I will be guilty of “simple possession”. Or no, we’re in an article about simple possession, but here’s a statement about people that were doing something that WOULDN’T be simple possession.
Ok, I’m lost.
I’m not sure either. I saw that, and a couple of other comments, and I find the article to be somewhat unclear unfortunately.
But I increasingly don’t trust Reason to report facts accurately.
Biden is pardoning some people for simple possession. Here are some people, some of those people had kids chained to their water heater in their basement, some didn’t. Next up: Libertarians for Polyamorous Rent Control.
It’s a frustration I have with Reason, which is their younger writers aren’t taught to talk through a topic neutrally then presenting an argument, pluses and minuses.
Which leads to weird cases. A lot of the housing stuff feels like this where possible issues feel like they’re being avoided in order to not muddy the waters. Here it feels similar, like something is being left out because they like the ends.
It might also just be that the author is young though and is still learning to write. I can’t hold that against anyone considering I’m basic Ken Jr in my ability to produce run-ons.
It actually makes Joe Hawley’s point from a few days ago: he argued that most of the federal “simple possession” prison population had pled down from something more serious. The fact that 91.5% (94% of that being noncitizens) of all “simple possession” offenders were arrested at the border, carrying distribution weight means there’s a significant population of marijuana drug-runners in prison for simple possession.
However, if the pardon for marijuana simple possession only applies to US citizens and most of these aren’t US citizens, we’re talking of a total of around 200-250 pardons, give or take. That’s not really the massive, blanket action people were hoping it would be when it comes to emptying out federal prisons of minor offenders.
I’m not sure the author’s goal is to make Joe Hawley’s point, though, nor do I think that’s something the editors would be happy about, as a whole.
Actually it was Reason’s article about Tom Cotton… and he eats birfday cake, maaan.
I was going to comment on that article with something that was kind of explosive that came directly out of the Administration’s Mouth, but I decided not to, because as best I could tell, Reason’s beef with Cotton was he said “those people guilty had ‘pled down’ to simple possession’ with Reason and Ken “I’m going full Sam Harris” White from popehat saying “Nuh uh”. I don’t have any dog in that narrow, technical fight, so I left it alone.
But here’s from the White House Official Website:
That’s is from the horse’s mouth.
There are literally zero people in federal prison for “simple possession”. In a 30 year span… thirtyyyyy years 6500 people ( in a country of 330,000,000) were convicted of simple possession under Federal Law. That’s ~200 people a year. That is less than a rounding error.
I often conflate Cotton and Hawley because they’re similar kinds of dickheads from the same general area. Yes, that’s right.
So yes, Ken the Copehat said some bullshit and this article proved that there’s actually a lot of pleading down to simple possession when it comes to drug mules, since they’re carrying with intent to distribute but are getting charged with possession. It’s good to know that he’s full of shit, which is what I suspected.
Doesn’t mean Cotton is right that we need “more incarceration,” but it’s always better to stand on firm ground when you attack dumbasses because having them seem smarter than you really undermines your point.
I thought we were supposed to be arresting more non-black people frivolously in order to bring the exonerations into parity?
I can help with one point: Use of the word ‘median’ indicates that either they haven’t arrested enough people to get a very representative number and/or they’ve arrested a number of people with an amount of marijuana so large as to make 50 lbs. seem like the more credulous and/or representative statistic.
It’s called “not understanding your own argument.”
Taking the statements at face value, what it means is that the vast majority of non-residents with convictions for “simple possession” of marijuana were drug mules, often with prior criminal histories, bringing in large quantities of marijuana, caught at the border. It just happens that the convenient way for AUSAs to handle them was to plea them down, have them serve a short sentence and then deport them.
This understood, it then follows that it was, in fact perfectly rational for Biden to distinguish lawful residents with simple possession convictions (who generally had recreational amounts on federal property) from those who weren’t when issuing pardons, because while the crimes were the same on the books, they reflected different underlying realities.
“Can someone with a higher IQ break this down for me?
Probably, but I’ll try too.
“we’re in an article about simple possession, but here’s a statement about people that were doing something that WOULDN’T be simple possession.”
The distinction is between the definition of “simple possession” to a layman (first use in the quote you posted) vs a federal agent (second use).
To a layman, it is “simple” possession because the only crime you committed was possessing pot, but the feds are going to stack the charges on you with some intent to distribute.
While I can’t argue that “intent to distribute” isn’t a reasonable assumption for someone with 50 lbs, you are technically being charged for a thought crime or future crime.
Whatever. Biden could actually expand the War on Drugs and I’ll still vote for him in 2024 because of his refusal to enforce a national border.
#LibertariansForBiden
#CheapLaborAboveAll
A nation without borders is just a piece of land between real nations. Do you enforce borders at your house or do you just let every swinging dick in town come use your stuff as they desire?
So Biden hates illegals after all. We should forgive him 0.01% of his assholery.
The biggest difference between Biden’s immigration policy and Trump’s immigration policy is the mean tweets.
I mean, he’s not building a wall, which was always a dumb idea anyway. And he’s actually obeying international treaties (more or less) when it comes to permitting asylum seekers to pursue their claims lawfully. But other than that not much has changed. He’s still awful on the entire idea that people should have permission from the state in order to even breathe air in this country. The idea that Biden favors open borders is completely laughable and just another right-wing talking point designed to drum up tribal hate and increase voter turnout for the election.
you live in a wall-less house?
And Jeff still doesn’t understand how asylum works in international norms. Nor admits the low acceptance rates if claims with leftist groups teaching migrants how to make false claims.
Then again, he also ignore 2.5 million known illegal entries so far this year.
Wait, Jesse, I thought you favored the liberty of the individual. Isn’t that what you said?
So what if the asylum approval rates are low. So what if there are people coaching migrants to make false asylum claims. Each individual migrant is still legally entitled to make a claim of asylum at the border and have that claim adjudicated via regular channels of due process. When are you going to stand up for the liberty of THESE individuals, Jesse?
You claim to support the liberty of the individual. This is a lie, and your treatment of these migrants is smoking gun evidence that demonstrates this lie. You are more than happy to use liberty-sounding words to promote the interests of Team Red. But the moment that someone from outside of your tribe has a claim to liberty, then all the liberty talk goes away. Then it’s “they’re on welfare” or “they’re lying about their asylum claims” or “the rate of valid asylum claims are so low who gives a shit about the small percentage that really are valid” or “hooray for DeSantis for treating migrants like disposable trash and throwing them away in someone else’s backyard because it made the libs cry”.
You don’t support the liberty of the individual. You support the interests of your tribe and your abuse of liberty-sounding words to promote their interests is an insult to those of us who genuinely do support liberty for all.
Not if they are entering from Mexico. Not if they enter the US illegally. Not if they originate from a country where they cannot make a credible claim of political persecution.
It is legal to enter the US at a port of entry and claim asylum even without government-issued immigration papers.
And it is up to the immigration judge, not you, to decide if the claim of asylum is justified or not.
I certainly do not support the liberty of every individual human being on the planet because such a position is logically inconsistent with the principles of liberty.
lol I’m saving this one. Supporting the liberty of every individual is inconsistent with the principles of liberty?
What I support is creating a society based on individual liberties within the borders and political unit we call “the United States”.
Right so you favor the interests of the society over the liberty of the individual. That makes you a collectivist.
Sure, a wall can work. A wall that is continually manned and backed by the credible use of deadly force can work. Is that what you suggest for a border wall? Patrolling a 3,000-mile wall 24/7 and shooting people who cross it?
And just to be clear, you think the US should emulate the Soviet Union in its treatment of Warsaw Pact countries? Really?
The US is under no obligation to permit people entering from Mexico without authorization to pursue any asylum claims; that’s because Mexico is a safe country.
That is up to an immigration judge to decide, not you. They are entitled to pursue their claims via the usual procedures of due process.
Furthermore, the US can turn down 99% of asylum applications based simply on country of origin, since for most countries in South America, no valid asylum claims are possible.
No, that is not legal. The immigration judge must consider whether the migrant has a credible fear of torture or harm if that migrant is deported, regardless of country of origin.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/208.30
The Biden administration wants to flood the country with low-skill, cheap labor, blah blah blah
you’re just repeating Team Red fearmongering. They do this every election season, weaponizing migration and those dirty icky brown people “flooding the country” to cynically drum up support and votes for the midterms. it’s bigoted and disgusting and you’re a willing participant in this scheme.
“My family was stuck for decades behind the iron curtain. Yes, walls really do work.” They work when you put a man with a machine gun on top of the wall every 10 yards or less, _and_ order those men to shoot to kill. That’s what the Soviets + East Germans did all around West Berlin and everywhere else near a city or transportation corridor, but it took a lot of guards. And according to a friend who once manned a US Army listening post near the East German border, it’s not how they guarded the rural border. The only East German guard on the border near them was one man and a dog, walking a several mile sector once or twice a day to pick up the scent trail of any crossers. Not that he’d be able to do anything if they had crossed east to west except file a report and see if someone could correlate those reports and catch whoever was driving the escapees to near the border. OTOH, if he picked up a trail going the other way, I expect there was a large squad ready to head the infiltrator off while the K9 team followed the trail and radioed position updates.
And that’s more or less what the Border Patrol has to do along most of the border; look for the tracks of crossers and try to have someone pick them up when they reach the road. (Except that this isn’t very effective either, considering that catch and release has been the usual policy!)
The last time I looked up the Border Patrol manpower, they had about enough people to stretch them along the Mexican border barely in sight of each other for one shift. Split up into several shifts, and with the normal time for paperwork, court appearances, and training, spreading them out evenly would put each officer guarding more than a mile – too far apart to see someone climbing the wall between two of them, too far apart to assist each other, and too few to arrest any group of more than two or three – and that’s without anyone left to man the official crossings. Without more than least 10 times the manpower, all a wall will do along most of the border prevent is accidental crossings.
OTOH, if we built a few dozen miles of wall where most of the crossings occur, guarded them well, sowed the rest of the border with sensors, and had helicopter squads to follow up on alerts, we could bag most of those trying to sneak across. But two problems: (1) Most of the illegals don’t walk across the border, but come through checkpoints, sometimes hidden in a vehicle or with false papers, but mostly with valid temporary papers and no intention of going back when they expire. (2) The BP and INS have clearly been told to play catch and release in the USA, under both Republican and Democratic presidents.
>>Biden rightly notes that marijuana relief will help people
certainly does. Brandon accidentally correct one time.
If you aren’t a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, you’re out of luck.
If they have a problem with it, transfer them to a prison in their home country.
One wonders if there are other benefits you might not enjoy if you’re not a lawful resident of Canada or France.
“If you aren’t a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, you’re out of luck.”
This has nothing to do with weed.
It has EVERYTHING to do with the mid-terms.
I’m not a rocket scientist but if UR “unlawful” beyond weed possession I’m not sure how weed possession dismisses that other matter.
Reason writers; still big fans of U.S. Invasion…
“I don’t get it.. Why does the USA have land-borders?” /s
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I did not ever think it would even be achievable , however my confidant mate got $13k only in four weeks, easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail.
For more detail visit this site… http://www.Profit97.com
This article is hard to reconcile with itself…
“Average of 48 pounds”
“No good reason to exclude non citizens”
I think the “they are in jail for cross border drug trafficking but it was plead down to possession” is probably the reason there.
Ms. Harrigan is pretty good at righteous indignation, but doesn’t do so well with rational thought.
So people that compound their violation of immigration law with violating drug laws should be simply released? I’d suggest deportation immediately for those that can be deported and the rest… oh well, sucks to be them…