Politics
Illegal Immigrants Seek Governor’s Pardon Over Deportation
Published
9 years agoon
(Via LA Times)
The two Cambodian refugees living in Northern California had been convicted of crimes years ago and, under the Trump administration’s more aggressive immigration enforcement policies, those offenses had placed them on a path toward deportation.
But on Saturday, Gov. Jerry Brown announced the pardons of both men — Mony Neth of Modesto and Rottanak Kong of Davis — saying they had paid their debts to society and now lived honest and upright lives.
Immigration is a federal, not state, responsibility, but attorneys for the men hope the pardons will eliminate the rationale for deporting them. Across the country, immigration attorneys are doing the same: seeking gubernatorial pardons in last-ditch attempts to forestall deportations or allow the deported to return to the U.S.
Targeting convicted criminals for deportation isn’t a new idea; it was a priority under President Obama, who deported more people than any of his predecessors. But during the Obama administration, only those with serious crimes on their records were targeted for removal. President Trump has cast a much wider net.
Shortly after his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize the removal of people in the U.S. illegally who have criminal convictions. In addition to speeding up the deportation of convicts, Trump’s orders also called for quick removal of people in the country illegally who are charged with crimes and waiting for adjudication.
And federal officials began to act swiftly.
In June, immigration authorities in Michigan rounded up more than 100 Iraqi nationals with criminal backgrounds. A month later, about 40 of them asked Republican Gov. Rick Snyder for pardons.
Among those seeking a reprieve was Usama Hamama, 54, who co-owns a market in the Detroit area. Hamama, who came to the United States as a refugee when he was 11, was convicted of felony assault and carrying a gun in a vehicle in 1988. He was sentenced to two years in prison. Since 1992, he has faced the threat of deportation, but that hadn’t been a real possibility until the Trump administration.
Hamama’s attorney, Bill Swor, who works closely with the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, described his client’s crime as a low-level road rage incident. Since then, he said, Hamama has raised a family and opened his small business.
“A pardon would wipe clean this offense and his record,” Swor said of Hamama, who is being held in a federal immigration detention facility in Michigan. “He was in the country legally when the offense occurred, so a pardon takes us back to that status.”
Last month, Hamama’s 12-year-old daughter, Lindsey, wrote a letter to a federal judge overseeing her father’s case. She also sent a copy to the governor.
“All I want for Christmas,” she wrote, “is my dad home and nothing else.”
The governor’s office has not made a decision on a pardon.
Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, received a similar plea — this one from an Army veteran with a felony drug conviction. Miguel Perez Jr., 39, joined the military in 2001 as a legal permanent resident and served two tours in Afghanistan.
In 2008, he was convicted of distributing less than 100 grams of cocaine. Perez, a native of Mexico, served half of his 15-year prison sentence but had his residency revoked as a result of the conviction and is being held in a detention center in Wisconsin.
Rauner hasn’t decided whether he’ll grant the pardon.
Gubernatorial pardons don’t guarantee an immigrant facing deportation could remain in the U.S., but they might have an effect, said Jason Cade, an associate professor of law at the University of Georgia, who characterized it as a case-by-case issue.
For example, Cade said, if an immigrant has a drug conviction that makes them subject to deportation and that conviction is pardoned, then deportation should no longer be an option.
“The bottom line is that full and unconditional pardons should absolutely be effective as a defense against deportation in cases where the conviction triggers certain removal categories — specifically those targeting aggravated felonies … or multiple criminal convictions,” said Cade, who has written extensively on immigration law.
Though the federal government may still have grounds to deport someone, Cade said, a pardon might lead authorities “to exercise favorable discretion.”
But that hasn’t always happened.
This year, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, pardoned Liliana Cruz Mendez, a mother of two who lived in the suburbs outside Washington. Cruz Mendez, who was in the country illegally from El Salvador, was stopped for a minor traffic infraction in 2014; her car had a blown-out headlight.
George Escobar, senior director at CASA — an immigrant rights group in the Washington area — called McAuliffe’s pardon “a show of solidarity for her cause and the belief she should not have to leave this country.”
“We had hoped that it would sway” Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said Escobar, who had worked to secure her pardon. “Unfortunately that was not the case.”
Federal immigration officials deported Cruz Mendez this summer.
But for others, especially people with green cards or other legal status, pardons have helped. Another common thread: living in a state with a Democratic governor who perhaps is looking to push back against the Trump administration.
In May, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, pardoned Rene Lima-Marin, who in 2008 was mistakenly released early from prison, where he was serving time for a robbery conviction. Lima-Marin, who had fled Cuba in the 1980s, got married, had a son and started working. Six years later, in 2014, Colorado officials realized the mistake and took him back into custody.
This year, days after a judge released Lima-Marin, Hickenlooper pardoned him. Even so, Lima-Marin sits in an immigration detention center, though his attorneys are hopeful he will be released.
“In terms of rehabilitation, he demonstrated an ability to contribute to the fabric of his community and Colorado,” Hickenlooper said during a news conference around the time of the pardon. “He rebuilt his life. He’s become a law-abiding, productive member of his community.”
But in a different case this fall, Hickenlooper denied a pardon request from Ingrid Encalada Latorre, who has found sanctuary in churches throughout Colorado for much of the last year. Latorre, a native of Peru, has been living in the United States illegally for 15 years.
“We carefully look at each case and take a holistic approach when considering an application,” Hickenlooper said in an email. “Clemency is not the solution to our country’s broken immigration system.”
In California, Brown, a Democrat, has issued pardons that touched the lives of those facing deportation as well as those already removed from the country.
In 2015, Brown pardoned Eddy Zheng, an immigrant fighting deportation after spending more than two decades in prison for a robbery conviction. Zheng and his family immigrated to the U.S. in the 1980s from China. He remains in the U.S. and became a naturalized citizen in this year.
The pardons announced Saturday were granted to Neth, who was convicted on a felony weapons charge in 1995, and Kong, who was convicted on felony joyriding in 2003. In his pardon message, among several dozen issued, Brown said that since Neth and Kong left prison, both had gone on to become “law-abiding citizens.”
Of Kong, he added, “Indeed, several individuals wrote in support of Mr. Kong, describing him as kind and generous, and as a role model to those who face insurmountable challenges in their lives.”
Last spring, Brown pardoned two former Marines, Erasmo Apodaca Mendizabal and Marco Antonio Chavez, as well as former soldier Hector Barajas Varela. All three had received honorable discharges from the military but later were convicted of crimes and eventually deported.
An immigration judge reinstated Chavez’s green card in November after Brown’s pardon. On Thursday, after 15 years in Mexico, Chavez returned to the U.S.
Moments after walking across the border near San Diego, he told reporters that he could hardly believe that this year his Christmas morning would begin with a hug from his relatives.
Politics
President Trump’s Rally Blitz Will Maintain Control in D.C.
Published
1 week agoon
October 25, 2026
President Trump is proving once again that no one in American politics connects with the people the way he does. With days left before the November 3 midterms, he is on a relentless rally blitz—hitting Texas for Ken Paxton, Kansas for Roger Marshall, Ohio for Jon Husted, Florida for Byron Donalds and the full Republican ticket, Georgia, South Carolina, Iowa, Michigan and beyond—packing arenas and speaking directly to the working men and women who actually build, drive, farm, and keep this country running. The crowds are loud, the energy is real, and the message is simple: pretend Trump is on the ballot, because the stakes are exactly the same. This is not a defensive scramble. It is the most effective turnout machine in modern politics doing what it has always done—cutting through the noise and reminding Americans that their voice still decides who controls Washington.
The legacy media and the Democrat machine keep peddling the same tired blue-wave script, but they are ignoring what is happening on the ground because they have never understood the people Trump speaks to. These rallies are not scripted corporate events. They are town-square moments where a president who has spent years delivering on the border, energy independence, fair trade, and a direct $5,000 Trump Dividend for every adult citizen if Republicans hold both chambers stands in front of the voters the elites wrote off years ago. Trump does not need permission from consultants or focus groups. He knows the cost of living is personal, that secure borders protect communities, and that American workers come before foreign competitors and open-border ideology. That direct connection is why low-propensity voters show up when he asks. It is why Republican candidates in competitive and traditionally safe seats are seeing the boost that only a Trump visit delivers. The permanent class in D.C. and the corporate press cannot replicate it because they do not respect the people enough to try.
When Republicans keep the House and Senate on November 3, it will be because Trump spent the final stretch of the campaign doing what only he can: putting the America First agenda in front of the voters who care about it most and turning that energy into ballots. Control in D.C. means the border stays enforced, the investigations stay dead, the manufacturing and energy gains stay protected, and the Trump Dividend becomes a real check in the hands of American citizens instead of another promise the swamp kills. The alternative—a Democrat-led Congress—would immediately reopen the floodgates, restart the lawfare, and put globalist priorities back in charge of the people’s money and security. Trump’s blitz is the proof that the American people are still in the fight and still respond when a leader treats them like the sovereign owners of the country rather than a demographic to be managed. Early voting is underway. The rallies are filling up. The path is clear: show up the way Trump is showing up, and Republican majorities hold. That is power. That is populism that actually works. That is how control stays in the hands of the citizens who pay for it.
Iowa
Zach Lahn & Chris Jones: Outsiders With Credentials That Can Finally Fix Iowa’s Water
Published
3 weeks agoon
October 15, 2026
Iowa’s water problem is not a mystery. High nitrate loads from agricultural runoff have pushed drinking water utilities like Des Moines Water Works into record stretches of nitrate removal. The state’s cancer rates rank among the highest in the nation and continue rising. Streams that once supported fishing and recreation now carry the signature of the corn-soy-CAFO system. Politicians have promised action for years. Results have been scarce.
This cycle offers something different: two candidates whose combined credentials match the scale of the problem. Republican gubernatorial nominee Zach Lahn brings a farmer’s understanding of what works on the ground and the political will to fund it. Democrat Chris Jones, running for Secretary of Agriculture, brings decades of hands-on scientific expertise measuring, documenting, and explaining exactly what is happening in Iowa’s water. Together, even if Jones serves only a single term, they have the tools to produce measurable improvement where previous administrations produced only reports.
Zach Lahn’s Practical Path
Lahn is a sixth-generation Iowan who bought back his family’s Belle Plaine farmstead after it left family hands. He has made water quality and cancer rates central to his campaign, explicitly linking elevated nitrates to colorectal cancer and other health outcomes. His approach prioritizes proven practices that reduce nutrient loss without bankrupting family farms.
He has called for finally funding the Iowa Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund—the IWILL program voters approved by a 63 percent margin in 2010 but that lawmakers left empty. Lahn wants that money directed first at the most impaired watersheds: the Des Moines and Raccoon rivers and their tributaries. He points to saturated buffers, which Iowa State University research has shown can remove essentially all nitrate from tile drainage in tested settings. He favors incentives structured so farmers make money adopting deeper nitrogen application and other conservation measures rather than merely break even. Upstream and downstream monitoring would measure results. The goal is targeted progress that keeps land in Iowa hands instead of accelerating consolidation through heavy regulation.
Lahn’s record is that of a farmer and businessman focused on implementation. He has argued that the status quo—talking about water while avoiding hard choices on funding and incentives—has failed. His plan is not radical. It is the first serious attempt by a Republican nominee to treat the problem as both an environmental and public-health priority that can be addressed while supporting working farms.
Chris Jones’s Unmatched Expertise
Jones arrives with credentials no other statewide candidate possesses. He holds a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry. For eight years he managed the water quality testing laboratory at Des Moines Water Works, overseeing operations at one of the world’s largest nitrate-removal facilities built specifically for agricultural runoff. He then spent four years as an environmental scientist with the Iowa Soybean Association, helping deploy some of the state’s earliest independent monitoring systems. At the University of Iowa he worked as a research engineer and helped create the first real-time public sensor network tracking nitrate and other pollutants across Iowa’s rivers—the system that later faced funding cuts.
His 2023 book, The Swine Republic, was selected by the Library of Congress as Iowa’s representative at the National Book Festival. He co-founded Driftless Water Defenders to protect northeast Iowa’s waters. For decades Jones has measured the loads, traced the sources, and explained in plain language why the current production system produces the outcomes Iowans see in their faucets and in the Gulf dead zone. He knows the data because he generated much of it.
That body of work is the difference between someone who tours a treatment plant and says he is “listening and learning” and someone who has spent a career inside the problem.
The Combination That Can Deliver
Lahn as governor would set the priority, secure the funding through IWILL and other mechanisms, and structure incentives that farmers can actually accept. Jones as agriculture secretary would bring the institutional knowledge to design the interventions, expand and protect monitoring, and ensure resources go where the data show the biggest return. The two roles are complementary. The governor controls the budget and the bully pulpit. The agriculture secretary oversees conservation programs, technical assistance, and much of the interface with producers. One term of Jones in that office, paired with a Lahn administration that treats water as a top-tier issue, could establish the monitoring baselines, the practice adoption targets, and the accountability mechanisms that have been missing for a generation.
Critics will note the party difference. Lahn has emphasized voluntary incentives and avoided broad mandates that risk farm bankruptcies. Jones has been more direct about the need for systemic changes in the corn-soy-ethanol model. On the narrow but decisive question of cleaning Iowa’s water, however, their credentials align more closely than those of any other pairing on the ballot. Expertise plus political will is a rare combination. Iowa has the first and can elect the second.
The Credentials Gap with Rob Sand
Democratic gubernatorial nominee Rob Sand has released a water plan that includes more monitoring funding, a dirty-water notification system, expanded wetlands, and tax credits for conservation practices. Those are reasonable ideas. What Sand does not have is any professional background in water science, laboratory management, sensor networks, or published research on Iowa’s nutrient problem. His education is a political science degree and a law degree. His career is prosecution and state auditing. He has described his own process as still listening and learning by visiting treatment facilities.
That is not a criticism of Sand’s intentions. It is a statement of fact about the difference between a generalist politician and a specialist who has managed the largest nitrate-removal operation in the region, built the state’s real-time monitoring capacity, and written the most detailed public account of how Iowa’s agriculture produces its water outcomes. When the problem is technical, decades in the making, and tightly linked to the dominant industry, credentials matter. Sand has none of the specialized ones Jones has spent a career accumulating.
Iowans have heard promises before. This year they have a chance to elect a governor who has made water a defining issue and an agriculture secretary whose life’s work is the subject. Zach Lahn and Chris Jones, working from their respective offices, offer the most credible path yet to measurable improvement—even if Jones’s tenure is limited to a single term. The alternative is more of the same: plans without the people who actually know how to execute them.
Iowa
Rob Sand Scrambles as Handlers ‘LGI Chemical Co.’ Are Exposed
Published
3 weeks agoon
October 14, 2026
Iowa’s open gubernatorial race has exposed a stark difference in substance and accountability. Democratic nominee and current State Auditor Rob Sand has spent the campaign leaning on accessible, low-complexity appeals—temporary gas tax relief, ending the privatized Medicaid system, raising the minimum wage to $12, and legalizing recreational marijuana regulated like alcohol. His cannabis plan, released on 4/20, focuses on capturing tax revenue currently flowing to neighboring states and treating the substance like beer. He also positions himself as an anti-partisan reformer calling for term limits, age limits, cognitive tests, and vetoes of “culture war bills.” These messages are easy to sell, but they avoid Iowa’s most entrenched problems.
Republican nominee Zach Lahn has taken a different approach, centering measurable goals on the issues that actually shape daily life in the state: the nation’s fastest-rising cancer rates, water quality tied to agricultural runoff and nitrates, the loss of roughly 10,000 family farms over two decades, and the steady outmigration of young Iowans. His proposals include funding the voter-approved IWILL program, offering refundable tax credits so farmers can adopt saturated buffers and regenerative practices without losing money, expanding water monitoring, pursuing antitrust action against major ag input companies, and creating an income-tax exemption for high-school graduates who stay or return, with the money directed toward a first-home down payment. He has also called for banning hedge funds from single-family homes, ending incentives for out-of-state corporations, restricting benefits for illegal immigrants, and abolishing Flock surveillance cameras. These are specific mechanisms, not slogans.
The contrast has sharpened as Lahn has directly exposed the funding and environmental record behind Sand’s campaign. Sand’s wife, Christine Lauridsen Sand, is CEO of The Lauridsen Group (LGI), a privately held Iowa holding company. Members of the Lauridsen family have contributed a combined $13.1 million to Sand’s campaigns since 2018—the largest amount from any single family source in recent Iowa history. One LGI subsidiary, Boyer Valley, markets high-nitrogen organic fertilizer products derived from poultry byproducts, including feather meal and blood meal. Another, Essentia Protein Solutions, has a documented history of Iowa Department of Natural Resources violations involving wastewater discharges, elevated ammonia, E. coli, lagoon overflows, and impacts on streams such as the West Fork Camp Creek. Lahn’s ads and debate exchanges have highlighted the donations alongside these records and asked what influence the funding carries on water-quality policy. Sand has pushed back, stating that the family business does not sell chemical nitrate fertilizer and that certain pollution claims were cleared, but the public record of contributions, DNR citations, and product marketing has forced him into repeated defensive explanations. The exposure has undercut Sand’s image as an independent reformer focused on clean water and has left him scrambling to reframe the story while Lahn continues pressing the issue on the trail and in debates.
Public polling currently shows Sand ahead, though some recent surveys have tightened (Emerson’s early-October numbers put it at a 4-point margin). That lead should be viewed with heavy skepticism. Iowa has long ranked among the hardest states in the country to poll accurately, a point analysts at FiveThirtyEight and others have made for years due to its rural electorate, high share of independents and non-party voters, low response rates, and the difficulty of reaching certain Republican-leaning demographics. The pattern of error has been consistent across recent cycles: polls systematically underestimated Donald Trump’s support in Iowa in 2016, 2020, and especially 2024, when the highly regarded Des Moines Register/Selzer poll had Kamala Harris ahead by 3 points only for Trump to win the state by roughly 13—a 16-point miss. Similar underestimation of Republican strength has appeared in past Iowa governor and statewide races. Non-response bias among rural and working-class voters who distrust media and polling operations has repeatedly produced results that look more favorable to Democrats until Election Day. If that same dynamic is repeating now, Sand’s current lead is inflated, and Lahn’s focus on water quality, cancer rates, family farms, and keeping young Iowans in the state is connecting with the voters who have been hardest for pollsters to reach.
President Trump’s Rally Blitz Will Maintain Control in D.C.
Zach Lahn & Chris Jones: Outsiders With Credentials That Can Finally Fix Iowa’s Water
Rob Sand Scrambles as Handlers ‘LGI Chemical Co.’ Are Exposed
Iowa’s Great Awakening has the Old Guard Crumbling
President Trump Secures Iowa Largest Steel Plant in U.S. History
Iowa’s Great Awakening has the Old Guard Crumbling
Zach Lahn & Chris Jones: Outsiders With Credentials That Can Finally Fix Iowa’s Water
Rob Sand Scrambles as Handlers ‘LGI Chemical Co.’ Are Exposed
