In announcing his “Operation Aurora,” former President Donald Trump has suggested that he may use the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 to crackdown on “every illegal migrant criminal network operating on American soil.” The plan to begin mass deportations is certainly popular with the public, according to polling. However, without a declaration of war, he will likely have to look to alternative statutory vehicles for a peacetime operation. There are novel arguments that could be made in federal court, but they run against the presumed meaning of critical terms under the law. The odds do not favor the government in the likely challenges.
This is not the first time that the Trump campaign has invoked the AEA. Last year, the campaign cited the law as giving it the power to “remove all known or suspected gang Members, drug dealers, or Cartel Members from the U.S.”
The AEA has only been used three times and each time we were in a declared war: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. It is a law that became infamous in its use to put Japanese, German, and Italian civilians in internment camps during World War II.
In DeLacey v. United States in 1918, the Ninth Circuit wrote that:
The first reported case arising under the [AEA] is [by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in] Lockington’s Case [in 1814] … Lockington … had refused to comply with the executive order of February 23, 1813, requiring alien enemies who were within 40 miles of tidewater to retire to such places beyond that distance from tidewater as should be designated by the marshals. He was arrested, and on petition for habeas corpus attempted to test the legality of his imprisonment. Chief Justice Tilghman said of the [AEA]:
“It is a provision for the public safety, which may require that the alien should not be removed, but kept in the country under proper restraints. … It is never to be forgotten that the main object of the law is to provide for the safety of the country from enemies who are suffered to remain within it. In order to effect this safety, it might be necessary to act on sudden emergencies. … The President, being best acquainted with the danger to be apprehended, is best able to judge of the emergency which might render such measures necessary. Accordingly, we find that the powers vested in him are expressed in the most comprehensive terms.”
The law’s sweeping language makes it ripe for abuse. Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Brackenridge in Lockington’s Case (1814) observed that under the AEA “the President would seem to be constituted, as to this description of persons, with the power of a Roman dictator or consul, in extraordinary cases, when the Republic was in danger, that it sustain no damage: ne quid detrimenti respublica capiat.”
However, the AEA’s only limiting language is found in the triggering language for those powers:
“Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event…”
In Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948), Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote a supportive decision of the presidential authority under the AEA on when the powers expired, but not when the powers begin:
“And so we reach the claim that, while the President had summary power under the Act, it did not survive cessation of actual hostilities. This claim in effect nullifies the power to deport alien enemies, for such deportations are hardly practicable during the pendency of what is colloquially known as the shooting war. Nor does law lag behind common sense. War does not cease with a cease-fire order, and power to be exercised by the President such as that conferred by the Act of 1798 is a process which begins when war is declared but is not exhausted when the shooting stops.” (emphasis added).
This broad granting of authority under the AEA is obviously a great attraction for presidents who have rarely hesitated to use the maximal levels of their powers. However, the threshold requirement of a declared war has proven the limiting element and it is telling that the law has been used only three times by presidents.
It can be used for limits that fall short of deportation or internment. For example, President Woodrow Wilson barred alien enemies during World War I from possessing firearms and explosives, coming within a half a mile of a military facility or munitions factory, residing in certain areas, possessing certain communications equipment, and publishing certain types of materials.
Trump can argue that governments such as Venezuela are using the open border to flood the nation with migrants, including those released from their prisons. That does offer a possible avenue under the claim that a formal declaration, but it would also require a broad reading of the term “invasion” or “incursion.” The problem is that the clear thrust of the law was a conventional war. The question is whether federal courts are willing to adopt a very broad interpretation of such terms despite the presumed legislative intent behind the law at the time of its passage.
The greatest hope for a new Trump Administration would be to argue that the use of the law is a “political question” and thus inappropriate for judicial review. That is often a powerful argument that leads to deference of the courts to the political branches.
Yet, even Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court’s opinion recognizing the doctrine, reserved the possible use of judicial review to address “an obvious mistake” or “manifestly unauthorized exercise of power.” Courts have declined to use that reservation but there are strong arguments that this is a matter of statutory interpretation and not a matter left to the political discretion of the legislative or executive branches.
Politicians often speak of national emergencies as “wars” but there remains a difference between the colloquial and the legal. A war on illegal immigration is not the same as a war on the Axis powers. The former can be declared in a campaign while the latter requires a declaration of Congress.
None of this means that a president would not have the authority for mass deportations or that Congress could not pass additional such authority. The massive influx of millions of undocumented persons is now a national crisis with growing national security, economic, and social costs for the nation. The numbers are certainly analogous to an “invasion” for cities and states grappling with the wave of migrants. However, the AEA in my view is a poor vehicle for such a program.
Accordingly, I remain skeptical that such a massive program would survive judicial review. Any effort to do so would face an emergency demand for a preliminary injunction. As a threshold legal question, it could move fairly quickly through the courts and we could have an answer to a question that has lingered for over two centuries.
Is this still law? Chapter 3, Sections 21–24 of Title 50 of the United States Code. “Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.”
J Johnson
aloram10@gmail.com
Kamala is in trouble all over the map. Trump is winning. So say the most reliable internal polling experts from both campaigns:
https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1844950169864814942
Jonathan: There is another part of Judge Chutkan’s decision yesterday to unseal the redacted Appendix to Jack Smith’s 165-page filing you failed to mention in your column yesterday.
The Appendix contains all the supporting evidence that supports Smith’s filing–the transcripts of Grand Jury testimony, witness statements, FBI interviews, etc. What you don’t mention is that earlier DJT’s attorneys, Todd Blanche and John Lauro, had asked Judge Chutkan not to release the Appendix. In less than half a page Blanche and Lauro argued:
“There should be no further disclosures at this time of the so-called ‘evidence’ that the special counsel’s Office has unlawfully cherry-picked and mischaracterized–during voting in the 2024 Presidential election–in connection with the improper Presidential immunity filing that has no basis in criminal procedure or judicial precedent”.
We need to unpack this statement by DJT’s attorneys. Normally, such a claim would be supported by citations to criminal procedure and case precedent. Surprisingly, they don’t cite ONE case supporting their claim or any in the criminal procedure statutes that the Appendix should not be unsealed.
Lauro and Blanche cite one “authority” in their filing with Judge Chutkan. What was it? It was CNN’s senior legal analyst Elie Honig who opined that Jack Smith’s filing was a “cheap shot”, Smith engaged in an “unprecedented, norm-breaking practice” and was “prejudicial” to DJT’s legal defense. Honig’s op-ed was the SAME “authority” you cite in your column.
You should know that an op ed by a “senior legal analyst” for CNN is neither persuasive authority nor something cognizable by a court. That’s why Judge Chutkan said in her order that DJT’s lawyers identified “no specific substantive objections to particular proposed redactions” and their “blanket objections to further unsealing are without merit”–and that concerns about the consequence for the 2024 election are “not cognizable legal prejudice”.
What is remarkable is that neither DJT’s lawyers not you can offer anything in the law or case precedent that would bar Judge Chutkan’s from releasing the 165-page filing or the redacted Appendix. And that’s why any DJT appeal of Chutkan’s order will certainly fail!
Dennis,
you are clueless.
Long before Smith’s brief most everyone here was aware that it is a crime to make public Grand Jury testimony.
The purpose of a Grand Jury is to get an indictment. It is to assure that the power to drag someone into court and force them to spend vast amounts of money defending themselves is NOT solely in thr hands of a prosecutor.
Grand Juries are a check on prosecutors – but they HEAVILY favor prosecutors.
The defense does not get to present evidence in a GJ.
Witnesses are not cross examined,
The rules of evidence addmissibility are radically relaxed and there is no one to appeal to if they are violated and no one to make the appeal.
The standard of proof a GJ must reach is really low – more likely than not.
For these and many many other reasons Grand Juries are secret. Their “evidence’ is never to see the light of day.
When a prosecutor takes and indictment and starts a criminal trial – he almost starts over. he Can not use testimony from the GJ.
There are only a few unbelievably rare exceptions.
Most of us KNOW that Mueller had to remove from his report ALL Grand Jury materials.
Again it is a CRIME to make Grand Jury materials public.
It is a crime – whether the defense objects of not.
It is not a violation of procdures, it is a CRIME.
Yet, Smith and Chutkan have done exactly that – made GJ material public.
Next, while a prosecutor MUST provide the defense with all exculpatory materials prior to a trial,
And to a large extent he must provide all evidence against the defendant to the defendant prior to the trial – an often violated rule.
The Prosecutor DOES NOT for the most part present EVIDENCE in the pre-trial process – either to the court or the public – except in response to defense challenges to the evidence – and even then the Prosecutor provides the evidence to he judge not the public, and no GJ material is allowed.
Most of the pretrial process – and ALL of the pretrial process initiated by the prosecutor is about the Law and about the procedures for the trial.
You seem to have this weird idea that prosecutors
FIRST make their case PUBLICLY to a Grand Jury.
Second make their case PUBLICLY to the Judge.
And Finally make their case Publicly to the jury.
That is NOT how criminal trials work
You are making absurd claims regarding What Chutkan and Smith can do.
Criminal defendats get ONE Public trial in front of a Petit Jury.
Prosecutors are actually ethically and legally barred from not just making GJ material PUBLIC,
But from trying their case in public, before the actual trial.
It is a form of Jury tampering. it is not merely illegal – it is a crime.
If as you claim Chutkan is unsealing evidence before a Trial – then She and Smith are both complicit in one or more crimes.
Jury Tampering and releasing GJ material.
Your very argument that the released information supports Jack Smith is the PROOF that the rules of procedure are being violated.
Your very argument that GJ material is released is the PROOF of a crime.
You have claimed to be a lawyer.
Then you KNOW this.
You cited Blanche and Lauro – their argument is OBVIOUSLY correct and did not go far enough.
We do not need to unpack it.
The evidence in a criminal trial gets presented to the public ONCE – at the actual trial, infront of the jury, and subject to cross examination.
GJ material is NOT allowed – not even at Trial. Prosecutors are free to bluster that they will prove their case in court prior to trial.
But they are NOT allowed to start making their actual case with evidence out in public – not before a jury is empanneled, and not after,
And definitely not with GJ material.
YOU should KNOW all this.
Myriads of cases have been dismissed for violating these procedures.
Judges have been removed.
Attorney’s have been disbarred.
In the case of release of GJ material – people have gone to jail.
Jonathan: There is another part of Judge Chutkan’s decision yesterday to unseal the redacted Appendix to Jack Smith’s 165-page filing you failed to mention in your column yesterday.
Jonathan, you must know your false friend Dennis – who took particular care to excoriate and insult you yesterday – wants you to join him in his schizoid world, where people like Dennis deny that his fascist friends Chutkan and Smith aren’t primarily adding to all the reasons for an appellate court to throw out their hot mess of a Russian show trial – just like SCOTUS threw out Smith’s last prosecution and conviction of the opponent endangering a Democrat being reelected to the White House. Dennis wants you to mainline his belief and claims this is just the normal course of American justice.
Alternately… Dennis knows this Smith persecution (like the previous one, the last time he was in an American court in 2016) will result in Smith once again getting kicked out of court on his ass. Yet another judicial spanking that a normal lawyer who cared about their reputation would find humiliating, if not career ending.
But Dennis isn’t actually schizoid (much) – he knows full well this is his party’s USSR style lawfare with the specific intention of breaking every rule despite doing so ensures being thrown out on appeal. Dennis is all for this and defends it because it is lawfare to affect an election to try and get Harris elected.
While your post is full of schiff from end to end.
And the conduct of Smith and Chutkan is actually criminal.
You have a far more serious problem.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS.
You Smith Democrats, Chutkan are all the little boy who cried wolf.
No one is listening.
Smith and Chutkan are Trying to rig the election
And no one cares.
Idiots like you are saying “See, See – here is the evidence” while using GJ materials that are not admissible in court. That are spin, that have not been cross examined.
That put simply ARE NOT EVIDENCE.
Many people know that.
But even more people DONT CARE. You LOST all the Trump cases long ago.
One of the reasons that you LOST is that it has been self evident that – you are not conducting criminal trials – you are conducting SHOW trials.
That the “jury” you re trying to convice is the public, not the petit jury in court.
Please explain what Purpose Jack Smith’s dump of GJ material that will never get into court serves – except to influence the public, and to influence the election ? The only other possible purpose is to influence the petit jury even before they are empaneled.
You say Blanche has not cited anything.
That is often a problem when those on the left violate core legal principles that no one has ever violated before.
At this point Trump’s attorney’s are mostly going through the motions – making sure that in the unlikely event of a Harris victory and the near imposibility of this ever going to trial that they have still dotted their eyes, and crossed their T’s so that they can win on appeal later.
But the FACT is that – Smith is having no impact on the election – or if he is, it is helping Trump.
people are either not reading this nonsense – most people.
Or they are reading it and saying – “there is no There there”
Or they are waiting to hear from legal analysts they Trust who are saying “there is no There There”.
Your ranting and raving about this criminally illegal dump of “alleged evidence” – yet you have provided NOTHING damning in it all.
Frankly Smith’s whole case is being shredded by Massey making public ACTUAL evidence from the IG, from DOD hearings and testimony,
and most importantly from the Thompson/Chenney J6 committee.
The evidence that was gathered and then destroyed is DAMING – to You, to Smith to the left, to Democrats.
Unfortunately no one is paying much attention to that either – though more so than this Smith Chutkan nonsense.
“What if they gave a war and no one came ?”
That is where you are today, Dennis.
You, Chutkan, Smith, the left, democrats.
I have provided the arguments above that what is being done is illegal – even criminal.
But just as no one cares about What Smith is doing, they do not care what I am saying either.
People have worked out what they beleive about all this – and it no longer effects voters.
Which is nearly your OVERT point.
You are ranting that Chutkan and Smith can do this. But WHY are they doing this ?
They are Not allowed to do this to effect Jurors.
They are Not allowed to do this to effect the election.
Why is Smith dumping lots of GJ material publicly and why is Chutkan allowing it ?
To impact the election – you know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
Which is a major part of why it is not working.
Your busy arguing over whether it is legal – which you KNOW it is not.
But you have undermined your own purpose.
People are arguing over the process.
No one is paying any attention to YOUR alleged evidence.
Your violating the law and criminal procedure to accomplish nothing.
Worse still you are reinforcing in the electorate the FACT that you are abusing power to rig an election.
you do not seem to understand – this did not help you. It hurt you. It made you look more like the fraud and liars that you are.
Blanche and Lauro only care about this to the extent that it HELPS them in an appeal.
They WANT Smith and Chutkan to break as many laws and rules as possible.
Even Trump likely is not upset about this.
you have offered no smoking gun,
but you have proved once again that you, the left democrats will stoop at nothing to win an election.
you do not even understand when your own tactics are backfiring.
This was illegal, and people know it.
This was election interferance, an people know it.
There is no There there, and people know it.
This is a desparate hail mary pass by a team that is losing by double digits with less than 2 minutes left in the game, and people know it.
John Say,
Another epic take down of Dennis!! Well done!
I never expected the fairy tales we read as a kid – the little boy who cried wolf or the emporers new cloths to be so relevant in national politics.
While Smith/Chutkans tactics are most certainly illegal, As Durham said – prosecutors make their case in court before a jury.
They are also not working.
If Smith had ANYTHING in those 165 pages is ALREADY would be all over the news.
Most everyone here already KNOWS most of what is in those 165 pages – Smith ranting at a GJ – Bad Trump, Bad Trump,
And the GJ responding, yes, Yes, give me more.
We are 4 years away from 2020. If there was damning evidence regarding Trump – it would have leaked to the public by now.
The left does not understand that their own lawfare cases have left the public saying “That is all you got ?”
Trump called payments to a lawyer legal expenses 34 times and you want to send him to prison ?
Some nuts old left wing nut biddy who has called every single male she has ever been arround a rapist and yet Never mentioned Trump while naming something like 40 others, until just before the 2020 election NOW remembers 25 years after the fact that she MIGHT have has some dalliance with Trump, and that even she is not sure if it was consensual. That we are to take seriously ?
We have evidence TODAY that the house impeachment managers FORGED many of he texts they attributed to Trump on J6.
Either he did not write them, or they were written Years before or they have been altered or edited to mean something he did not say.
This is somehow Less serious that saying a check to a lawyer was a legal expense 34 times ?
What was the check supposed to say ? “Reimbursement for Hush Money payment to Porn Star to rig the election” ?
Democrats should learn another aphorism.
“If you strike the King, you must Kill the King”
Or
From Neitche and others – “What does not kill you makes you stronger”
Over and over the left has been throwing their best shots at Trump.
Failing to understand that – if they FAIL to take him down – all they are doing is making him stronger.
Biden had to do only two things starting in 2021 to win easily in 2024.
Ignore Trump completely.
Coast to success after inheriting a presidency where doing nothing would bring success everywhere.
He did exactly the opposite of both of those.
Trump’s approval post J6 was down in the low 30’s. it would have recovered a bit with time.
But completely ignore him and at best the recovery is small.
There are things I disagree with Trump about.
But I think Scott Adams is absolutely correct.
No one understands politics in the way that Trump does.
Obama and Clinton are purportedly among our best politicians.
Without taking anything from their political skills.
They are not in Trump’s league.
I counted Trump out when he pissed on McCain in 2016.
Everytime I think he has made a mistake – it turns to gold.
Rather than talk about the process dennis and speculate about the evidence.
Why not tell us what in Jack Smith’s 165 pages of criminally made public GJ material is actually damning ?
What you are NOT writing is “See, Here page 148, Para 3, 2nd sentence incontrolverable proof Trump threatend to murder Raffensbergers kids if he did not rig the election – and its available on tape”
Your demanding that each of us go through 165 pages of criminally made public one sided un cross examined GJ evidence, in the hopes that things YOU are not able to point to will change peoples minds.
Not Happening.
You are beating the schiff out of a dead horse.
While you’re schooling candidate Trump on the law, how about a piece explaining why he could find himself arrested under the Logan Act during the transition.
Can’t give up on the selective persecution, eh?
That’s not what I’m thinking. I’m thinking that the U.S. has to speak with one voice to foreign nations. If not so disciplined, our adversaries will take advantage of any chaos and fracturing within the U.S. nat-sec posture.
That’s why we have the Logan Act. If Trump wins, his choices during the transition are only 2: desist from interfering in foreign policy until after sworn in, OR, coordinate with the outgoing admin to speak with one unified voice. The latter just won’t happen, because Trump cannot be trusted to keep his word. So, he only has choice 1.
Up until this point, Trump has spoken publicly as either not understanding the Logan Act, or putting himself above that law. We cannot afford to have 2 Presidents at the same time conducting competing foreign policies.
Pbinca, though you don’t recognize the First Amendment, you should know that any American is free to speak, including Trump.
“The latter just won’t happen, because Trump cannot be trusted to keep his word.”
Did Trump follow through with his campaign promises? For the most part, he filled them or tried to.
Did Biden (the centrist)? No.
Did Obama? No.
Who had significant lies pertaining to official duties
Obama lied
Biden lied.
I have yet to hear Trump’s most significant lies concerning his Presidency. Even you keep pointing to your past statements, you can point out the lies and defend them. At least you have refused to do so up to now.
So, who is the liar? Obama and Biden, but you also lie when making political statements. All rules of law and lies are governed by Pbinca standards, which deny Trump and supporters freedom of speech and the rule of law.
John Kerry meets with Iran, Obama meets with British PM, Ted Kennedy conspires with USSR against Reagan and yet not a peep about the Logan Act???? Pbinca, you are hypocrite and a dumb one.
And don’t forget Henry Kissinger telling the North Vietnamese in Paris not to agree to anything until after Nixon won in 1972. Definitely, election interference foreign policy.
All of these self-appointed “negotiators” should have been indicted under the Logan Act.
While you’re schooling candidate Trump on the law, how about a piece explaining why he could find himself arrested under the Logan Act during the transition.
pbinca goes back to his police state fascist roots – wants and hopes somebody can find a way to jail Trump under the Logan Act.
Which would remind a normal American that Biden (while plotting with Obama and the FBI on what plan b could be used to take out Trump after they failed to rig the 2016) suggested using the Logan Act that has never been used since being passed in law to take out incoming National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn. Instead, Peter Strzok and his FBI version of Kamala Harris had to indict by perjuring themselves about what Flynn said in court – as they lied to get FISA warrants in the months previously.
pbinca DOESN’T want to know why John Kerry wasn’t arrested and indicted under the Logan Act (or FARA) for spending the four years of the Trump presidency as an agent of Iran’s Mad Mullah’s advising them of how they could avoid and minimize Trump sanctions that were crippling their efforts to get nuclear weapons and fund terrorism. pbinca pretends he doesn’t know the Global Warming Goblin and Czar did that for four years.
pbinca ALSO doesn’t want to know why Obama wasn’t arrested under the Logan Act for his negotiations with Iran’s Mad Mullahs both during his 2008 campaign and his transition.
And this is why pbinca is just another example of a two standards of justice Cheap Fake Police State Fascist American.
pbinca, you are junk. And your attempts to portray yourself as an open minded commentator wanting equal treatment under the law fails miserably. Rachael Maddow apparently has a blog similar to this – you might feel far more at home and find more acceptance over there.
Our foreign adversaries would LOVE to have Trump interfere in US foreign policy during the transition. They love to see us tie ourselves in knots…in this case, unable to decide who is in charge of foreign policy during those 2.5 months. Ideal time to strike at us and our allies.
I think Trump will do a better job with foreign policy than Harris….AFTER he is sworn in. Trying to commandeer foreign policy before that invites total chaos, and huge setbacks on the global stage.
Trump will stay within the law despite the fact that the Democrats do not.
Trump is neither a lawyer nor a legislative novice/amateur. And I doubt he is the one researching or going through the books to even learn of, -let alone find justification for use of-, the AEA. Therefore, I am left with the prospect that someone else advised him about the AEA and how he could (or could not) use it.
THAT is the person who needs to be queried.
lin, that is an excellent question: who brought this Act to Trump’s attention?
Given that it the name of the act includes the words “alien enemies”, I imagine it was easy to sell to Trump’s marketing senses. And most of politics these days is more about marketing than drilling down to substance and issues.
If using this act is outrageous/ridiculous, it is no more so than Harris marketing herself as a change, a person who brags of being “the last one in the room” on all decisions, but having nothing to do with the four years of disasters, wars, and death.
Overall I like the idea as many Americans do. Especially illegal ones committing crime.
How to do it is the question. As others have mentioned, we already have immigration laws on the books that could be used.
I predict that the illegal immigrant problem will hand Trump Presidential election victory. But he needs cool advisors surrounding him, of the Stephen Miller variety.
With the illegals, the cost of food, gas, and housing and the international conflagrations ready to explode; if harris wins there should be a serious examination of those vote counts.
UF – it is all campaign politics.
There are 10-15M illegal immigrants in the US right now – probably more counting Bush, Obama and even a few under Trump.
Mass Deportations are NOT going to happen. They are logistically impossible, they are politically impossible, and they are likely legally impossible.
Trump has already committed to vigorously hunting down the criminals among these illegal immigrants.
Without massive increases in funding from congress that are not happening, he is not even likely to be able to do that large scale.
Turley’s legal analysis is interesting, but in the event Trump invokes the AEA as president – he will still face an impossible uphill battle deporting these people.
To be clear – I am not arguing what I beleive – just pragmatic reality.
This is not going to happen.
it is not even wishful thinking.
It is just election rhetoric.
It is Remotely possible that Trump will try to invoke the AEA – there will be a legal battle that he will lose.
Or he will win, and there will be no money in the budget to do anything beyond find and deport criminals.
But there is a huge political benefit for Trump.
While this will never happen, it highlights once again the failure of the Biden/Harris administration on immigration.
If Trump can not do mass depotations – it is the Lefts fault for letting 10-15M people in.
The first job of our government is to protect its citizens. They have failed miserably at this task and in some cases (thank you George Soros) there are insane people who have been elected who, by their actions, demonstrate the opposite. It appears their goal is to create havoc and chaos. We have become the dumping ground for other countries to send their hardened criminals. So, the first place is to start there. Anyone with a criminal record or anyone who commits a crime who is not a legal citizen of this country should be rounded up and sent back home and never let in this nation. Yet, there are cities where they will not do that. They fail to cooperate with the feds and so, they, for some bizarre reason want to coddle criminals.
If I were a citizen of Mexico or some other country and saw an opportunity to work in the United States and give my children a future, I would be the first one trying to get here. The going wage in Mexico for non-skilled workers is 4 dollars per day. This is a different type of immigrant and for such individuals, there should be (and is) a way that they can be integrated into our nation. I have lived most of my life in the U.S. in border states. I see these people every day and some of them are amazing, hardworking, skilled people who only want better. Good on them. Some are part of my family. To become a citizen in this nation, doing it the right way, requires learning our language (while retaining one’s native tongue), taking civics courses and proving that you will bring value.
A number years ago, I listened to a talk given by the demographers for Texas. Texas, if you look at the true statistics is now less than 32% non-hispanic white. The stereotype of J.R. in Dallas is a thing of the past. Yes, there is still that aspect of the state but it is no longer the prevailing “Texan” stereotype. There are more Hispanics than any other ethnicity. Their point was that it is important to look at who is the younger generation and to do everything possible to assure that they are successful and gainfully employed because these will be the people paying taxes, entering politics, etc. I no longer live in Texas and am in much poorer state.
I am the only person in my office that is of direct European descent. The vast majority of the people I see each day are not of direct European descent and at least twice or more per day, I see non-English speakers. I love being immersed in such a diverse culture and it makes my heart glad when I see their success. I hope they have fabulous success!
If you listen to the hard-core radicals on the Left, they will smear this nation, its tenants, and its laws, yet, it is the genius of this nation that has attracted so many talented people from around the world (unfortunately, there is abuse). It is the genius of our legal structure that allowed injustices to be amended. Yes, some of them were too long in coming, but it is the very principles of our nation that have allowed this to occur. We are a young nation and we must preserve the ability of people to be self-determined and independent from the tyranny of large government and unjust regulations.
In closing, what is happening on our border is an invasion, it is wrong, it is dangerous. It must be stopped. The criminals that slipped through the border must be expelled from this nation never to return. The insanity must stop and it can be stemmed by the President of the United States. However, we must also look to realistic and intelligent means of attracting immigrants to this nation who will contribute, are willing to integrate into our culture, and become law abiding citizens. Those who push “compassion” are correct in one aspect of their statement. The current surge is not for charity. It is a carefully designed plans to change the demographic and create a new class of people who are beholden to the government and thus vote to keep the goodies flowing.
Partial truth taken as whole truth is untruth.
E.M.
That was a great comment! Thank you.
In the third sentence from the end, “tenants” is the wrong word. I suspect you meant “tenets.” I hope this is helpful. Thank you for an excellent post.
Thank you. You are correct. I wish we could edit our posts for typos.
E.M.
For those of us who have a degree of common sense and critical thinking, we all knew what you meant. We also know sometimes some long time commenters are using mobile devices and auto correct or fat fingering happens. We try our best but we are human. Sometimes my head gets ahead of my fingers and I will miss a word or character on the keyboard. It happens.
I agree. Excellent presentation and mirrors my own experience. I like immigration for the best and brightest and those who bring value from ANYWHERE but not uncontrolled invasions.
Immigration is on the whole a positive good for the country.
Even the 10-15M that Biden/Harris dumped on us will ultimately prove to be an asset.
But like many things – there are pluses and minuses.
What Biden and Harris did with all its flaws will still be NET positive over the long run.
But it will be bad for blue collar workers, and it is bad in the short run.
Further it was done lawlessly.
the immigration of the best and the brightest from arround the world serves us well.
It also undermines the claim this is an evil racist country.
Nearly a billion people would immigrate to the US if they could
People LEAVE $hithole countries, they Come to the best places.
More people want to come to the US than anywhere.
Europe is having massive immigration problems – yet their immigrant population is tiny compared to the US.
Only other Anglosphere countries have immigrant populations that approach that of the US,
and even the rest of the anglosphere is less than half as diverse as the US.
But even immigrants from $hithole countries ultimately are an asset to the US.
While Julian Simons “The Ultimate Resource II” is not about immigration, it is more about demographics, economics and population.
The conclusions are still MORE PEOPLE IS BETTER.
“The ultimate resource”, the only resource that actually has meaningful limits is the human mind.
More is better.
More smart minds is better.
But more minds from anywhere is better.
E.M. This is a different type of immigrant and for such individuals, there should be (and is) a way that they can be integrated into our nation.
That is probably true for many. But clearly we cannot say “come on in!” for every single one who is an “amazing, hard working skilled people”. The world has billions of people that meet that definition that would immigrate to the USA if that were the criteria. As for “skilled” the vast majority coming here aren’t arriving as tradesman, technicians
Immigration is for the primary benefit of the HOST nation – not the would be immigrant.
If immigration is for the benefit of the USA, and we can only accept and integrate n number of people each year, WHY would we favor immigrants from Mexico, Guatamala, El Salvador, etc rather than English speaking immigrants from Canada, England, etc who would arrive with not only a common language but also the benefits of a similar (possibly better) K-12 schooling and coming from countries with similar political systems and social values?
One of the greatest lies being perpetuated along with the “undocumented migrants” lie is the lie that we need ‘immigration reform’.
Reform what? Reform to ensure the termination of ever having immigration based on meritocracy with America First, rather than immigration based on what it does for the future of a political party?
Immigration for businesses wanting an endless stream of uneducated and low skilled workers they can pay a pittance, until the worker has enough skills/money to move on to a better job? Or stay there indefinitely at pittance wages because they’re not capable of doing better?
Legal immigration requires proving you can be self supporting – not dependent on taxpayers funding government benefits and entitlements. Or underwriting corporate socialism and “charity groups”.
While this law may not be perfect, what will happen if Trump is elected and begins to act (using legislation or executive orders) towards moving the illegals out is that many of them will self deport, rather than remain and be removed. That’s because if they are removed, they will also be statute barred from returning for at least five years. I think a good portion of the problem will resolve itself.
Many years ago a Sheriffs’ organization said we were spending USD1B to stop 1% of the drugs at the border. The cost of remediation is not linear – the cost of the last 1% would be astronomical. Standard economic theory includes the concept of diminishing returns.
To remove illegals from this country we need to apply effective levels of spending on all avenues at once and not blow the budget on a single moonshit approach.
Build the physical barrier where it is feasible. Along with technical surveillance methods coverage will be increased and the manpower requirements will be reduced.
Halt all public spending and public assistance to illegal aliens. That includes school.
Severe and accellerating penalties for people and businesses that hire illegals.
Legislation that raises the crime of entering the country illegally to the felony level if any crime is committed while here illegally and mandate immediate deportation.
Complete biometric ID of illegals captured here in order to enforce reentry ban.
Lifetime bans on reentry if caught here illegally.
Proper interpretation of the 14th – citizen parent or naturalization not birthright.
English the official government language. Learn it or hire an interpreter. Unburden the schools from what has been.
No firearms, bank accounts, credit cards, utility accounts etc… for illegals.
No university access for illegals.
No property ownership.
Some of these are inexpensive measures
Complaints that the legal immigration pathway is complicated and difficult?
Tough shit! Work on reform. Convince your fellow citizens.
excellent
Very little of this will happen even if Trump is elected.
Much of what you beleive is needed would severely infringe on the rights of actual citizens.
We are NOT going to mass deport illegals. At best we will finish the wall slow dramatically the entry of new illegals, and deport most of the violent criminals.
I cannot predict what Trump will do, but you are thinking small, while others are thinking big. It can end up somewhere in the middle. The most important are the criminal class and those involved with criminality. Eisenhower deported well over a million.
Most that remain should not obtain citizenship.
“That’s because if they are removed, they will also be statute barred from returning for at least five years” You talk as if these professional thugs really care about legal restraints on their actions? Really?
Most of these people are no “professional thugs”.
Trump benefits from the fact that even if a small portion of the 10-15M that have entered in the past 4 years are criminals – that is LOTS of criminals and LOTS of crime.
Most of these people are decent people – much like our ancestors.
The problem is that there are almost a billion other equally decent people who would like to come to the US and would if they could.
These are not bad people, they are just lucky enough to be able to get in through the southern border rather than accross the pacific ocean.
“many of them will self deport”
Wally Moran, I agree, and many will deport with ideas already raised on the blog I won’t repeat. I would also add that tax-free status should be removed from organizations that significantly and knowingly contribute to illegal migration, past or present.
WM – I highly doubt these people will “self deport”.
That presumes that if they leave voluntarily or undetected that they stand a snowballs chance of getting in legally.
They do not. The US accepts 1M legal immigrants per year. That is less than 1/3 of those who have come illegally in the past 4 years.
Most of those legal immigrants are coming from Asia – from China, india, the Philipines.
They are not coming in significant numbers from Europe, From the mideast, from Africa, from Cenral and south america – LEGALLY.
They have better odds if they stay and keep their noses clean.
anyone who beleives there will be mass deportations if Trump is elected is smoking whacky weed.
The resoruces to not exist to do mass deportations and frankly just the legal costs would be enormous.
Trump has promises to start with the terrorists and criminals.
What we will see is a quick End to the mess at the border, and a long slog to deport criminals.
That is the most that can be accomplished.
“or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government,“
So a war is not required in the language but the main point will be “is this an invasion?”.
Seems to me it is but by whom. Mexico? Could be because they have the power to stop it yet have facilitated the movement of millions to the US border. Maybe also facilitated by illegal acts of US government officials ( insurrection or treason???) especially if their is no law allowing this “invasion”. Courts are spotty here but the momentum at present in the courts is that this is illegal crossing of the border.
Maybe have to act first and fight it out in court or change the law if Republicans control both house and senate. Then the question will be, Do you preserve the filibuster or not in order to pass the law?
I would also include each NGO that is facilitating and enabling this invasion.
The NGOs making millions is the hidden force behind this treason.
every illegal migrant criminal network operating on American soil.
That network is massive. After watching James O’Keefe’s Line In The Sand undercover documentary on this “industry,” the outflow of taxpayer money is making a lot of people other than the illegal migrants very wealthy.
Deporting or imprisoning criminal gangs like Tren de Aragua will be nothing, compared with dealing with the network of “enemies” inside the gates of the Executive branch.
If you mass deport every illegal allien, food prices would skyrocket, crops would rot on the vine or in the tree or on the ground.
Good luck with that.
That’s not the intent. The intent is to deport those involved in organized crime. To most people that would be called the “low hanging fruit” solution of this illegal invasion of America.
Moreover, when Trump slowed immigration the last time, we didn’t experience a lack of labor, we experienced a decrease of unemployment among citizens who worked those jobs but for higher wages causing the median wages to increase in unprecedented fashion with marginal increases in prices of those goods and services.
So you’re saying we need a second class citizen to do the work first class citizens won’t do? How do you think the crops got picked before 20+ million illegals arrived here?
Aninny doesn’t think about things like that. In fact he doesn’t think much at all. He watches MSNBC and parrot silly little talking points spoken by liberal idiots who know nothing about anything.
It might be worth this “National enema” if it cleared out the nation of illegals once and for all. Our bigger issue, tough, is not the illegals per se, but the leviathan army of progressives within our governmental bureaucracies that enrich themselves and lobbyists with this ideology. First we remove them and then go after the fruits of their labor
That is an ignorant statement. Deporting illegal immigrants doesn’t mean foreign workers can’t legally be brought in. We can also increase immigration to benefit the US based on what is good for America.
If you mass deport every illegal allien, food prices would skyrocket, crops would rot on the vine or in the tree or on the ground.
Oh look! That old lie that dates back to before the Democrats became today’s Soviet Democrats! Back to right after Ted Kennedy lied that changing immigration law to allow mass legal immigration from Mexico wouldn’t change America’s demographics! “You MUST allow us to import Illegal Alien Guest Democrat Voters, because only Illegal Aliens harvest your food and who else will pick your lettuce!”
Must allow Illegal Aliens to illegally enter the country and then live a life of crime while here. Didn’t take long for an Anonymous Soviet Democrat Useful Idiot to parrot that worn out lie. And the cost of allowing the criminal invasion is just paltry, apparently!
Fraudulently obtaining taxpayer funded benefit and entitlement programs, taxpayer funded K12 and college education, health care, unpaid taxes ( billions of which are sent out of the USA to enrich their home countries while they’re off their country’s social support systems at the same time), etc. No cost to that at all!
Any shortfall in farm later couldn’t be addressed by both making welfare recipients able to work HAVE to work when work is available. Americans are ALREADY doing that work, so welfare kings and queens can probably figure it out if cut off from their government soup kitchen in a brown envelope if they don’t work – as we used to do.
Also impossible to go back to allowing foreign laborers into America legally on temporary work permits during harvest seasons, with their earnings taxed and then returning home after harvest.
Good luck with that lie in the face of what the Department Of Labor Statistics says about what percentage of farm workers are illegals.
The Soviet Democrats need to start sending us better quality Anonymous parrots, liars, and party apparatchiks. Convince Americans why they need to agree with Democrats importing Illegal Aliens in pursuit of permanently being in power in Washington DC.
With a Red Congress, let them declare war against alien illegal invaders and be done with it. We are at war – against an invading rag tag force invading our nation and it is time that we frame it in just such terms.
“[Trump] may use the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 to crackdown on ‘every illegal migrant criminal network operating on American soil.’”
I don’t understand why he needs to invoke AEA. If the goal, as he states, is to deport noncitizens convicted of crimes, he doesn’t need AEA. Immigration law has long permitted such deportations.
But first we must disinfect the bureaucratic swamp that will sabotage all such efforts – by slow walking and disinformation etc. We need to clean house first.
They entered the nation illegally, have placed a burden on American citizens socially, have caused and will continue to cause the deaths of American citizens, are recreating criminal cartels within American cities and now we’re going play this game “which law is appropriate to remove them”?
How about for the good of the nation and the American citizen? At what point do we begin to consider the good and welfare of the American people? The illegal’s can return when they’ve submitted the appropriate application, been vetted and are no longer illegal.
“. . . play this game “which law is appropriate to remove them”?”
That “game” is called a government of laws (and not of men). It’s the *principle* used to guide government actions. What you’re suggesting is the Left’s MO: The ends justifies the means.
“Get the immigrants” is as repulsive as “get Trump.”
There’s a problem with that analysis. What’s a war anymore? In the Constitution there’s a provision for Congress declaring wars. It has been, in effect, written out of the Constitution b/c we go to war all the time now for whatever reason without a declaration. Obama went to war with Libya b/c Europe asked him to. And wars aren’t what they used to be either. We are no longer going to likely send troops to fight in some other country, or at least not the same way or very often. We will shoot missiles, use cyberwarfare, economic levers and so forth. Acts of terrorism have and will be used against us on our own land. Is that less of a war than any other aggressive act that kills American people? It justified us killing Osama, assassinating the bad guys and even invading Afghanistan and Iraq. It is not unfair to call what Biden invited over the border an invasion, even if a president is the catalyst. Is that war? Well, they use our tax dollars to house and feed these immigrants, even give them luxuries. Some immigrants do criminally injure and kill citizens, take property, and so forth and some are in gangs. Is it just a domestic issue when the people are not citizens (but their kids will be)? Where does war end and policy begin? It’s like asking when autocracy begins. We can’t say for sure. A court does. If a court can determine that not discriminating based on sex includes same sex, even though it was never intended to be, or that baseball is exempted form anti-Trust legislation, or that there is a right to an abortion in the Constitution, they can declare anything. All that said, I’m not sure about when a president would have such a power as Trump claims. It can be a slippery slope. At some point though, we have to remind ourselves that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. We do need to solve the problem. Can it be that only illegal acts (like coming uninvited to America) are protected and solving the problems never are?
Great points and i agree alot with you. If he does get elected he has to tread carefully for the sake of the future of MAGA party
I have a hope – perhaps naive – that Trump, if elected, will have used these 4 years to recognize the scope and size of his (and our) enemies, and will be prepared to tread (and stomp) very carefully indeed.
Better to rewrite the policies regarding asylum and limit the requirement for deportation hearings for those who lack appropriate documentation. Would need the House and Senate to agree, which greatly reduces the possibility of any real action on this issue
Well….did not we fight a war or two with Mexico and a bunch of banana wars in Central America…..the shooting down there has ended but there is still shooting going on right here at home due to the “invasion” of our Country in the form of Millions of illegal aliens who violated US Law by their nefarious means.
Face it folks….we have a problem that demands resolution.
Trump may be picking the wrong law but as the Justices have noted….commonsense applies to such decisions.
Booting the Illegals out and requiring them to use legal means to re-enter seems a fair compromise to me.
The Democrats won’t like it…but then since when is that news?
All they want is to legalize every Illegal possible with the hope of making them democrat voters and flooding every District in the nation with them.
Such is their zeal for gaining and retaining control in perpetuity.
That is why they wish to accept Puerto Rico and Washington DC into States.
Of course we see the Garland DOJ sue a State for removing Non-Citizens from voting rolls….which shows no commonsense or legal basis at all.
Desperate measures for desperate times. Trump cares nothing about the legality of the process, he would do anything to win the election to stay out of jail. Kudos to Professor Turley for a straightforward legal analysis.
Wait, what? So in this case the Courts would be a good thing?
Courts in general are a good thing, when bias creeps in that’s a problem. So is putting one man above the law and also accepting the premise if Trump wins it’s okay to order the AG to dismiss the charges, again putting one man above the law. I think that Turley analyzed Trump’s plan without bias which surprised me.
Sooo TDS is what you’re saying
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, secure the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY.”
– American Forefathers
It is incorrect to say that the Biden Administration has used every possible law to do what it wants – even in violation of the law? For Trump to use the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 is only in the spirit of the New America. That is, to ignore laws you don’t like, and use laws incorrectly for what you do like. Perhaps, we need a “What Goes Around Comes Around” Act of 2025.
Best way is to have them self-deport when faced with real borders and real enforcement of our laws on those illegally here, coupled with a denial of all social assistance.
Most effective deterrence is to be able to detect and deport new arrivals within the first week.
Need proof of legal status to obtain any housing, motels, etc, just like in Europe. Need proof of legal status
to enroll kid in school, just like in Europe.
If you want to see effective policy over illegal immigration, just study Switzerland. Don’t have to invent a solution.
If you want to see effective policy over illegal immigration, just study Switzerland. Don’t have to invent a solution.
What BONEHEAD would offer that as an example of their solution? For one thing, just the border Texas has with Mexico is far longer than the entire Switzerland border. The US/Mexico border is nearly twice the entire border Switzerland shares with neighboring countries.
Second, none of the neighboring countries with Switzerland are even remotely similar to Mexico. All are similar to Switzerland in education, economics, etc – and none are run by drug cartels like Mexico is.
Switzerland has “effective policy over illegal immigration” (called Illegal Aliens by people who know what an immigrant looks and acts like) because there is no enormous economic and social differences to make the people of neighboring countries want to legally or illegally move into Switzerland. Or into the other countries those neighbors of Switzerland share borders with.
It makes you wonder if pbinca has actually ever been to Switzerland.