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.
“Accordingly, I remain skeptical that such a massive program would survive judicial review”
Judicial review be damned. The SC says the President can do anything he wants as long as it is official. The Presidents interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act is all that matters. He can interpret to mean kill all the Republicans if he wants and the SC says he is fine to do it.
What a stupid thing to say.
Well our country has been invaded and to those who deny it could be attached words such as psychopath or some such. How are we going to get rid of invaders if we don’t define what they are, and how are we to restore our constitutional republic? Or shall we just allow our country to be destroyed. The Founders were brilliant men far superior in intellect and education to any Harvard or MIT professor I ever had conversations with. The Founders were of superior intelligence probably because they were so well read, and they were well rounded, men of honor, were extremely educated in the classics, Roman law, and biblical wisdom. The downfall of the republic has been carefully planned and there are those who rage against Trump because he is trying to save it. What are they doing beside reacting in the deranged way that the haters do.
So Mr. Turley — how would you solve the invasion of thousands? Just what would you do if you wanted to restore law and order?
“ The SC says the President can do anything he wants as long as it is official.” So a president doesn’t have to follow the law? If you agree with that then a democratic president could have you arrested for jaywalking or speeding. No?
The SC says the President can do anything he wants as long as it is official. He can interpret to mean kill all the Republicans if he wants and the SC says he is fine to do it.
Ah! The current favorite Democrat lie! Is that you, Whoopy Goldberg or one of your fellow Commie Zombies from “The View”?
What legal authority did Ike use n 1948 to carry out “Operation Wetback?”
I used to enjoy reading this blog although it made me angry at times. Now it just makes me tired. Always the same fence sitting Mikey from the Life cereal commercial who can’t take a stand and just hates everything. The comments moderator swoops down on critical comments and abolishes them all while we’re being told how free speech is the indispensable right.
Irrelevant and immaterial.
Overruled.
All illegal aliens and their illegal alien-by-extension-descendants are subject to deportation for violation of existing contemporary immigration laws or for defrauding so-called “asylum” laws.
Immigration law on January 1, 1863, was the Naturalization Act of 1802, which was in full force and effect.
Entire countries cannot legitimately apply for “asylum.”
One or one hundred applicants for “asylum” may have a valid claim of persecution.
One thousand or twenty or eighty million do not.
The goal of “asylum” laws is American “population replacement” constituting “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
* The Alien Act cited is archaic.
Eerily it’s reminiscent of 1900s and earlier and the use of words and phrases from long ago has been concerning. Long guns, whole cloth, wrong doings, and others are from ages past.
The destruction of the USA was marked at Twin Towers, 2001 shortly after Y2K when computers couldn’t tell 1900 from 2000. The year is 00 by computer reference. Now the Alien Enemy Act? It’s eery. There’s several time periods in collision. A tear in God’s curtain.
For newcomers at this site, skip anonymous posts. Old airborne dog, old man from Kansas, John Say, and others are OK. Skip any George, gigi, posts as they are CNN rehash.
As to the resettlement of North America by migration from latin america and worldwide due to availability of travel in addition to the approximate 20 million government bureaucrats the people pay to push paper and who build nothing nor create anything the USA is lost.
A Gate is an entry passage. Any door, port, etc is a gate. Airports even use the gate for arrivals and departures. Gates are lawful entries into nations, homes, etc. Any other entry is a wide gate. Wide gates are illegal entries as coming through a window into your home is a wide gate and an illegal entry. Wide gates lead to destruction. So is it written in God’s word.
Employ immigration law as written. There is no flaw in it.
Immigration law on January 1, 1863, was the Naturalization Act of 1802, which was in full force and effect.
There was no flaw in it.
It was written and legislated by the American Founders and Framers.
As was the case with Dobbs, retroactive law enforcement and corrective action must be implemented.
Immigration law on January 1, 1863, was the Naturalization Act of 1802, which was in full force and effect. There was no flaw in it.
Curious George, The Confederate Monkey, is going full retard again. George demands that there were no changes made to any of those acts from the moment they became law. No superceding amendments, no more encompassing legislation. And certainly SCOTUS that he despises so much could not have possibly made any rulings concerning his favorite legislation.
In Curious George world, it is still 1802 (or 1863) and nothing has changed in law since then.
Curious George never explains why the Confederate insurrection that he is still pimping for never obeyed those acts concerning their slaves that he now claims is the only rule of the nation that matters.
* Gates have lawful entry with passports and visas including background checks. The most dangerous part of migration is the lack of background checks. 13, ooo murderers have been released and various other violent or mentally ill people nearing 450, 000 people are within the borders. Everyone should be using extreme caution. The days of safety and non violence are over.
God’s warning went unheeded.
Adapt.
* The migrants were lured by an ill will saying “surge”. He and they are indifferent to the fate of the lured. The wide gate leads to destruction.
A timely return to law is indicated.
* It’s written- they shall go from place to place saying let me in. We have no lamp oil. Give us some of yours. These are the unprepared for ill times. Those who danced and played while the ants saved for hard times.
It’s all there. The laws have been disregarded and suffering comes.
The grasshopper played his fiddle…
The law indicates the wide and narrow gates. The ports do require passports and visas. Without those no asylum is possible. Suddenly no one can read?
Sigh..
Wow, Turley made a legal analysis that made sense. A rare occasion. It’s interesting when Republicans want to do something extremely prejudiced, and they want laws interpreted as broadly as possible. I’m sure SCOTUS would be eager to tackle the issue for Trump. It is, after all, a perfect opportunity for the court’s textualists and originalists to exercise their preferred interpretative philosophies.
Turley correctly mentioned that we “declare” war on pretty much anything we don’t like. War on poverty, War on drugs, War on Opiates, War on drunk driving, etc., etc., etc.; I thought Trump was preferable because he is the only president who would not declare war on anything. I” ‘m sure Trump would be happy to declare war on illegal immigrants because it does not require the use of weapons of mass destruction or expensive troop deployments to foreign nations. Texas tried to use the term “invasion” to justify erecting barriers on the border, although the term “invasion” is specific to armed invasion.
The courts will have to get involved, and Turley is correct that it will be complicated to justify using the law Trump wants to use. Ironically, Republicans had an opportunity to fix the problem. Republicans were within grasp of getting legislation passed that would reform the immigration system and get everything they wanted until Trump told them no. Because it would have undermined his winning strategy of using immigration as a reason to get elected. Republicans need immigrants, especially farmers and businesses who can’t find workers because of the nature of the economy. That’s why Springfield, Ohio, gladly took in Haitian immigrants. They helped the town’s economic decline, and now they are being used as scapegoats by Trump and his sycophants.
George – Your nuts.
I have no problem with Turley analysing the constitutionality and legality of using the AEA to deport illegal immigrants.
While I think it is a reach to do so – it is a Small reach. But Turley is free to look at the issue.
But my guess is that either Trump will NOT use the AEA – because accomplishing the deportation of millions is a political nightmare and a practical impossibility.
But he MIGHT try – if he honestly belevied the courts would kill the attempt -that would make him look like he was trying to deport millions of nameless faceless illegals without having the political and peactical problems that come with it.
I think it is likely the courts would rule against him – but not certain.
Regardless if Trump does try, and as Turley predicts the courts say no – Trump will rant and rave, and he will do what the court says.
As he did repeatedly when he was president.
“But my guess is that either Trump will NOT use the AEA – because accomplishing the deportation of millions is a political nightmare and a practical impossibility.”
I agree that the AEA will not be used. Many reasonable alternatives and methods of accomplishing the task can be found.
Eisenhower had 1.3 million illegals deported. I don’t think we can deport all the illegals, especially those living and working here for many years. I like immigrants from the South of our border and want them to immigrate legally. However, illegally crossing the border and settlement is undesirable for the nation. I agree with others that all benefits should be removed. That should cause many to go home accomplishing much of the task.
George – people are not stupid.
The problem was substantially fixed under Trump. It is Self evident that no new law was needed – all that was needed was for Democrats to follow the ACTUAL law.
Trump did not torpedo a fix, Republicans did not kill a fix.
Most everyone knows the only fix needed is follow existing law.
Republicans need immigrants ?
How exactly did you get fruits and vegetables while Trump was building the wall ?
I have absolutely zero doubt that the economy – business will find a way of putting nearly every illegal immigrant to work,
I have little doubt that the NET effects of illegal immigration will be positive.
But NET is not all. Real people – almost entirely working class people have lost jobs, or faced a lower standard of living because of illegal immigrants.
No Springfield did not gladly take in Hatian immigrants.
The people of springfiled are pretty pissed – taxes are increasing, schools are failing, public infrastructure is failing.
I had a tenant in my largest apartment try to illegally sublet to 10 borders.
Mostly I do not care what my tenants do as long as:
They pay the rent.
They do not cause trouble with neighbors.,
They do not cause trouble with other tenants,
They do not damage my building consequentially.
But a building with 4 bathrooms and 8 people living there already does not work well when you increase that by 10.
All kinds of things fail. Other tenantes get pissed. There is not enough hot water,
Toilets get clogged, the stairwell is crowded, the porch is crowded.
Springfiled can eventially adapt to 60K people instead of 40K – but not overnight.
No the people of springfild are NOT happy,
That is an absurdly stupid remark.
As an American I feel insulted and assaulted at the same time. First the insult cast around about my character by the charlatans of the left, and assaulted that they would discount the worth and tranquility of the United States in support of illegal immigration. I also have to mention their continued assault on the Constitution, Laws, Morals and general decorum.
The Democratic left must be removed for any leadership; they have become blinded by the false idols.
God help us All!!!
Professor Turley has a legal point but given the criminal structure of the current federal government do laws mean much anymore?
Seems like these invaders can be effectively removed just as they were brought in, without much attention to actual law, just results.
The ‘Democrats’ have almost destroyed the rule of law in this country.
But it isd Trump who promises to make a travesty of law with mass deportation, an illegal and immoral idea.
Not even. “any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated,” covers it well! That does mean that Trump will need to enforce the LAWS ON THE BOOKS as well as pushing for a repeal of “Birthright citizenship” Go Trump!
Dobbs was retroactive corrective action and accurate implementation of statutory and fundamental law.
Illegal invasion is an illegal and immoral idea.
Fake “Asylum,” fake mass “persecution,” is a massive fraud and an illegal and immoral idea.
Illegal alien fake “asylum” seekers are sinners who covet, bear false witness, and steal the success of America and who must remain in their own countries.
Why is mass deportation illegal and immoral ?
Most americans would be happy if all the illegals who entered in the past 4 years just decided to return.
There would be nothing immoral about that.
Asking people who are tresspassing on your home to leave is perfectly legal.
I accept that MOSTLY these people are little better or worse than ordinary americans.
I personally think that if they behave, keep their noses clean, are productive, they should be allowed to stay.
But they have no legal or moral right to stay.
We are not going to deport these people enmasse – because that would be hard on us emotionally and politically.
But it is not a moral issue.
Americans are a generous and charitable people. But there is no RIGHT to our generosity or Charity.
Do not confuse the fact that mass deportations are not likely and would be strongly opposed – sometimes by the same people who want to build a wall, with false conclusions regarding morality.
The courts will decide the law – if they are asked. I do not think the will be asked.
If they are I think it is likely – but not certain they will rule against Trump – and he will live with that.
But they could decide the other way.
Frankly the president has the power to mass deport these people already according to the constitution.
The only reason for any discussion of the AEA is that it would allow doing so much faster than current law allows.
So much for your moral argumnt. So much for your legal argument.
I agree with Turley regarding how I hope the courts SHOULD review the AEA.
Many people feel differently. As president Trump MAY decide to go with the legal opinion of those who feel differently – andwe will get to find out what the courts decide.
I know it is hard – especially for those of you on the left, but just because I think someone or someting is wrong,
Does not mean those arguing for it are immoral or evil. In fact it does not even mean they are wrong – just that I disagree.
All disagreements are not supposed to make mortal enemies of us.
But it isd Trump who promises to make a travesty of law with mass deportation, an illegal and immoral idea.
I appreciate a Soviet Democrat willing to use an actual Username rather than post as “Anonymous” while defending his party’s mass importation of Illegal Aliens.
Now how about defending the pronouncement you made in defense of your political party and Obama/Biden who did exactly that: invite and then throw open the borders to Illegal Aliens.
1. Why in your world is it a “travesty of law” to enforce long existing immigration law and deport criminal Illegal Aliens as that existing law specifies be done with them?
2. Why in your world is it NOT a “travesty in law” for two Democrat presidents in succession to REFUSE to enforce existing laws of this country as their Oath Of Office requires them to do?
3. What is “illegal” about enforcing existing laws of this country?
4. What is “legal” about Democrat presidents being accomplices both before and after the fact of Illegal Aliens coming into this country, including the tens of thousands who are convicted criminals, released to run free and commit more violent crimes?
5. And why is it moral for your party’s presidents to REFUSE to enforce existing laws passed by both parties, to invite would be Illegal Aliens to come to this country while knowing that most of the girls and women will be raped and sexually abused before they can get here to be admitted as a future asset of the party?
6. Why is it moral for your party’s presidents to burden taxpayers with the financial, social, and criminal costs of your Guest Democrat Voter Illegal Aliens?
These seem to be fair questions to you after you’ve taken the time to make a pronouncement on behalf of your party and Border Czar Harris who ensured all this happened under Biden.
So you’re condemning Democrats for ignoring the rule of law, but suggesting we ignore the rule of law to remove the illegals? The two wrongs make a right theory?
Make America Right Again (MARA)!
It’s funny talking about the government following any laws now. They do not, obviously in thousands of cases, in war, in public information, in silencing all opposition.
We really do not care what the retarded criminal dungstablishment pretends to decide with their BS lies in any court.
Your suicide pact is less than worthless and inherently dangerous.
Ask the courts why the illegally appointed jack smith isn’t in prison with garland, and in the mean time since that will take you DECADES to query, it’s OPERATION YOU HAVE TO GO BACK.
We like the new Ike.
Shakdi, you make some god points.
“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.”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
Alternatively, President Trump may replicate the actions of Lincoln.
Lincoln rejected and violated the laws and imposed his ideology and dictatorship.
Lincoln illicitly and unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus, which is an Article 1 power of Congress, after Lincoln denied secession, which is not prohibited by the Constitution.
Lincoln crippled and concluded the intended, licit, and constitutional course of America for all of history while commencing the incremental imposition of the principles of Karl Marx.
America has been unconstitutionally communist since 1860.
_________________________________________________________________
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”
“I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, 1861
_______________________________________
“Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the Government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it?”
– President Abraham Lincoln, 1861
______________________________________
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, 1861
_______________________________________
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, NPR, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “…general (all, the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY the Value of money, Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.
The Necessary and Proper Clause is nothing more than a perfunctory redundancy for the purposes of clarification—a reinforcement of that which was previously codified—and may not be wielded to amend and impose separate acts that do not represent but alter the letter and spirit of the Founders and Framers.
“We are not going back” to 1860.
Einstein, the point is that America has ignored and not adhered to the Constitution since Lincoln imposed his dictatorship and executed his “Reign of Terror.”
Lincoln illegally rejected the Constitution and must have been impeached and convicted.
Lincoln must have received the severest of penalties for his treason against America and its Constitution.
Oh, yeah!
He did, huh?
Einstein, the point is that America has ignored and not adhered to the Constitution since Lincoln imposed his dictatorship and executed his “Reign of Terror.”
Curious George, you old Confederate Kluxxer monkey, you can cosplay as being an intellectual genius every day. Which of course, you do.
That doesn’t mean normal Americans are going to agree with your version of the Confederate Kluxxer Constitution. And books written by European aristrocrats concerning what should be done with slaves born in America – laws that the slave owning Confederates of that time refused to comply with as you demand they be complied with now. No matter how many European aristocrats who were never among the Founding Founders you use as your excuse.
You aren’t even close to being the first Confederate racist that celebrated a Confederate insurrectionist murdering Lincoln.
America must go “Back to the Future” of 1789 and the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
“We are not going back” to 1789 as constitutional amendments 11 to 27 are important and supported as well. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27
The “Reconstruction Amendments” are as unconstitutional as Lincoln’s denial of secession, commencement of war, imposition of martial law, issuance of a “proclamation,” suspension of habeas corpus et al.
Once unconstitutional, always unconstitutional.
You are simply wrong, but feel free to bring a lawsuit challenging all those things. My view is “we are not going back”.
Roe v. Wade was always unconstitutional, which was finally proven in Dobbs.
The Supreme Court of 1869 corruptly and high-criminally “decided” that secession was constitutional when it is not prohibited – the court preposterously and erroneously decided that secession is not prohibited, therefore, secession is prohibited.
Please cite the Constitution for a prohibition of secession.
Secession is and was fully constitutional, and everything Lincoln did after his unconstitutional denial of secession was similarly unconstitutional.
Lincoln must have been impeached and convicted, and all of his acts must similarly be struck down and overturned retroactively, as was Roe.
America must go “Back to the Future” of 1789, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the original intent of the Founders and Framers.
“Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.” And Yet, govt is ALWAYS pushing for More CONTROL and LESS FREEDOM! especially the democraps!
The problem is real, and the unconstitutional Threat To Our Democracy (trademark) ignoring of existing immigration law started in 2008 with Obama/Biden. Eight years before Trump defeated Clinton, the FBI, and the Democrat/Media Commy Complex in 2016.
While Obama/Biden and the Soviet Democrats began it by illegally importing Illegal Alien Guest Democrat Voters by the millions, why is Trump choosing to declare using this act that most Americans haven’t heard of until he brought it up, as opposed to well known immigration laws?
Are the references to this act another example of Trump using thoughtless language? Or is this an assumption on Trump and his campaign’s part that the words “Alien Enemies” will garner more support than lose him support by it having it turned back on him by the Democrat/Media Commy Complex?
It’s not like Marc Elias of 2016 ‘Russia Dossier’ and 2020’s ‘how about changing your voting laws by the back door’ fame isn’t eager with hundreds of other Democrat party lawyers to have more avenues to use to handcuff another Trump presidency with months and years in court.
We ALREADY have existing immigration law that provides avenues for deporting Illegal Aliens, passed into law by both parties. There is nothing in that existing immigration law that provides protection to Illegal Aliens and shields them from deportation, whether they’re from Venezuela or anywhere else.
Am I missing some legal reason that Trump (and hopefully all Republicans) doesn’t stick with vowing to strictly enforce existing immigration law? Along with identifying and booting out every bureaucrat who eagerly enabled sabotaging the processes for detaining and removing/deporting Illegal Aliens?
Third line, first word of the law “or”, does the author not know the meaning of “or”.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, there are literally dozens of emergency powers available to the President upon the simple declaration of national emergency. For example 50 USC Sections 1701-1701 has been used at least 55 times since 1978. Additionally, under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), the president can suspend the entry of any aliens or impose restrictions he deems appropriate if he finds their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.
These powers are part of a broader set of emergency authorities that the president can invoke, which include over 130 special statutory powers activated by declaring a national emergency.
I should have said 50 USC Sections 1701-1707.
Oh no. Another example of “Trump wants to do something completely illegal and his book licking fascist supporters like it.” We know, MAGAs are shit eaters. Can this blog sometimes have a different topic?
And a wonderful day to you too, Sammy. As to your complaint about this blog, I would note that you don’t have to come here if you don’t like the topics, there are literally millions of blogs easily accessible on the internet covering every imaginable topic, or you could exercise a little industry and start your own blog covering only the stories that interest you.
Regards,
MAGA Hank
If Trump wins and we start deporting illegals you will see the networks start with the sob stories as they find one guy being deported who has a wife with a serious illness, a child with no legs, a mother with no head all while he is working two jobs helping Americans. It will be “kids in cages” all over again complete with a crying AOC.
What I would do if I were president would be first deport any illegal that commits any crime, any SECONDARY crime, including a DUI etc etc.
After that I would start to cut off the NGOs that are fueling this national disaster.
Then I would go after companies that hire illegals.
After all of the above is achieved I would then go after the remaining illegals that have been here less that 5 years, the BIDEN years.
Next act would be for us to go after the countries that are sending their worst here, see Venezuela. Finally I would go after Mexico and their new woke presidente’.
Trump has 4 years, maybe two with a Republican senate and hopefully House, and we could undo some of the Biden damage.
“ What I would do if I were president would be first deport any illegal that commits any crime, any SECONDARY crime, including a DUI etc etc.”
Really? Because that is exactly what former president Obama did.
George – that is a lie and I hope you are willing to admit it.
First, neither “Obama” nor any federal agency convicts for the majority of secondary crimes such as DUI. Its the states (to be specific its the municipalities within the states). Therefore, the municipalities must report the individuals. THEN there must be an ICE detainer requested. Already 2 steps which rarely happen in blue cities (where the majority of crime occurs).
Obama introduced DACA and other loopholes which limited or completely prevented the ability of ICE to deport people for secondary crimes. a decade later those policies are still winding their way through the courts.
Finally, a person cannot be deported if the receiving country denies them entry. E.g. Venezuela actively paying to ship its criminals and gang members to the US can simply refuse to take them back, or many middle eastern countries sending those who seek to do harm (both to the sending country and to the new host country). They’re just here and there’s not a damn thing that can be done. They get released because we cannot lock people up indefinitely.
Try occasionally to be intellectually honest. Your trolling would be more effective if the 2 braincells bouncing around your head weren’t fighting for third place.
Well Jonathan, as flawed as the Alien Enemies Act might be, at least President Trump HAS a plan. Which is a lot more than Berkeley Girl and Knucklehead have……
If Trump follows in the footsteps of his predecessor, he can move ahead with his plans regardless of what the law says, then let the courts decide after the fact.
Interestingly, the ship that gave rise to Lockington’s Case was named The Aurora. You can confirm this by clicking on the link provided by the professor, or the one below.
Hmmm?
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/203/
Personally, I’m in favor of packing all illegals into a C 130 with parachutes attached to zip lines and fly over central America with the door open – playing Elvis’s “Return to Sender”.
We have to end this idea that we are all human and equal. Earth’s population is close to 8 odd billion, 5 billion of them in poverty. Obviously, they won’t all fit in the US. For some ding bat reason, once you hop the fence you get a slice of the American pie – and mine gets a little smaller.
Our leaders are letting us be colonized in a craven quest for power. Maybe they should be deported.
“Maybe they should be deported.” I do hope that you are referring to democrats rather than just the illegals.
Curious question… Does the Congress need to declare war on a sovereign country or can it declare war on specific drug cartels et.al. and other quasi-sovereign entities?
It might depend upon whether or not they have the time for that in between vacations.
Interesting question. The phrase “any foreign nation or government” suggests the AEA views nations and governments as distinct concepts. If I were in court arguing on behalf of Trump’s Operation Aurora, I would assert that the term government was intended by Congress to be applied broadly to include the governing structure of cartels.