The Alien Enemies Act Doesn't Say What Trump Claims It Says
Father of the Constitution James Madison made a distinction between alien enemies and alien friends.

President Donald Trump claims that the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 grants him the power to deport certain Venezuelan-born aliens without due process, based on the mere allegation of membership in a criminal street gang.
But the text of the Alien Enemies Act does not allow the president to do anything of the sort. "Whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government," the act states, the president may direct the "removal" of "all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized."
The crimes of the alleged members of the street gang Tren de Aragua do not meet this legal standard. There is no "declared war" between the United States and Venezuela, and there is no "invasion or predatory incursion" of the U.S. by "any foreign nation or government." The gang is not a foreign state, and the gang's alleged crimes, heinous as they may be, do not qualify as acts of war by a foreign state. Trump's frequent talk about a rhetorical "invasion" of the U.S. by undocumented immigrants utterly fails to satisfy the law's requirements.
The fatal defects of Trump's position are further illuminated when you compare his stance with James Madison's "Report of 1800," which critiqued the Alien and Sedition Acts. (The Alien Enemies Act was one of the three laws that comprised the Alien and Sedition Acts.)
As Madison explained, there are two categories of "offences for which aliens within the jurisdiction" of the United States "are punishable." The first category involves "offences committed by the nation of which they make a part, and in whose offences they are involved." In this case, "the offending nation can no otherwise be punished than by war." In other words, the aliens are citizens of an offending nation that has committed an act of war against the United States. The aliens who fall within this category are "alien enemies."
The second category involves offenses committed by aliens "themselves alone, without any charge against the nation to which they belong." In this case, "the offence being committed by the individual, not by his nation, and against the municipal law, not against the law of nations; the individual only, and not the nation is punishable; and the punishment must be conducted according to the municipal law, not according to the law of nations." The aliens who fall within this second category are "alien friends."
Notice that "alien friends" may certainly be punished by the normal U.S. legal system for whatever crimes they commit while on U.S. soil. They may be deprived of their life, their liberty, and their property. But—and this is a big but—they may only be deprived of life, liberty, or property after they have received due process of law, which is what the Constitution guarantees to all persons, not just to all citizens.
Madison's definition of "alien friends" plainly applies to any noncitizen alleged to be a member of Tren de Aragua. That person's alleged criminal activity was "committed by the individual, not by his nation, and against the municipal law, not against the law of nations." Any such alleged gang member is therefore entitled to receive due process of law before he is punished, including when the proper punishment for him is deportation.
It should perhaps go without saying, but I will say it anyway for the sake of clarity: In any contest between Madison's view of presidential power and Trump's view of presidential power, the Madisonian view undoubtedly deserves to prevail.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Don't Use the Alien Enemies Act on Alien Friends."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"The Alien Enemies Act Doesn't Say What Trump Claims It Says"
That's the problem with Rule of Law, they are always interpreted by Men. The deal is, written laws are supposed to be informative and clear, yet lawyers write them so that no one else can understand them, then laugh and bray when ordinary men do try to understand them, and we're right back to Rule of King's Men.
What we need to do is ban lawyers from writing laws, interpreting laws, and judging laws.
It's also rich bringing in the Alien and Sedition Acts, since John Adams used them to jail newspaper editors and publishers just seven years after the First Amendment was ratified, guaranteeing freedom of the press. Another win for Rule of Law.
What bothers me the most about all this is the lawyers acting so high and mighty, as if only they have the wisdom and insight to understand laws, to interpret them for us peasants. Notice that language —
* Why mention both "nation" and "government" unless they are different? Beats me what that difference could be, or what it could have been in 1798, but it's there — twice.
* Why mention "declared war", "invasion", and "predatory incursion" unless all three are different? And what the hell is a "predatory incursion" — what did that mean in 1798, and how is it different from an invasion?
* "perpetrated, attempted, or threatened" at least seems clear. The lawyers finally used three clearly different words with clear established meanings.
Damon Root's a pretty smart cookie. But to write all this as if he's the only one qualified to understand and interpret this law is nothing but the usual lawyerly arrogance that only they are qualified to interpret Laws.
What this really comes down to is Rule of Lawyers vs Rule of Men, and I for one am sick and tired of it. Individual lawyers do good only because lawyers as a class have taken control of government and think that makes them indispensable to society.
Fuck lawyers.
One solution to the "nation" and "government" conundrum is that "nation" refers to a mob of out-of-control citizens of a country act without the country's government's permission or knowledge. It's a stretch. It would seem to require a lot of said citizens, not just one or two, not a family with five kids crossing the border.
Something like Tren de Aragua, perhaps. Hmmm.
Oh no, that's the kind of quibbly interpretation only a different lawyer could dream up. No real, professional, honorable, right-thinking lawyer would ever misinterpret the Alien Enemies law so horribly.
Does make you wonder, though. Why include both "nation" and "government"? They must be different. How could they possible differ?
Nation means a large body of people with common descent, culture, language and such inhabiting a country or area. For example “Indian nations”.
Rogue gangs a nation do not make.
Nice try though.
Sez who? Who is your authority on this? What makes Indian tribes a nation, no matter how small, but not dozens or hundreds of gang members?
Remember Ishi, last of the Yahi? Was he a nation? When did his tribe dwindle so much that they were no longer a nation?
What makes Indian tribes a nation, no matter how small, but not dozens or hundreds of gang members?
I never said "no matter how small". You're being a Jesse and arguing against things I never said.
If we want to have an honest conversation, not you being a Jesse and me telling you to fuck off, I would say the difference is babies. Maybe I'm wrong, but last time I checked gangs are a bunch of violent men, not a bunch of families.
Remember Ishi, last of the Yahi?
Nope.
Look at the transphobe here, thinks men don’t have babies.
Gang members are well known for collecting women, and babies are a natural result. I doubt all gang members have families, and whether they marry or not, I do not know. But they do collect women and have children.
I've never heard of multi-generational gangs. Though again I could be wrong. Violent men collecting women and having babies through rape doesn't sound like a nation to me. Just a bunch of criminals who would be better off dead.
You are wrong. It often goes through familial lines.
I find it hard to believe you’ve never seen The Godfather.
Oh come on. We're talking about Venezuelan gangs, not the fucking mafia. Context matters.
There’s not much difference at the foot soldier level, dip.
The fact remains that the mafia is a multigenerational gang. The only significant difference between them and a common street gang is that the mafia is probably more organized.
A problem I’d be willing to bet TdA doesn’t have.
The only significant difference between them and a common street gang is that the mafia is probably more organized.
And born into it.
Sarc is doubling down on his ignorance. What a surprise. Retarded drunk bitch that he is.
You dontnhave intelligent or honest conversations buddy. See how you immediately screamed xenophobe below.
Poor sarc.
Actually, one might consider that Mexico - as a failed state (due to a weak government) is no longer really Mexico. I mean sure the borders are still on the map and we all pay lip service as if it's still a real nation - but I'll bet if you ever got into a cartel boss' office he'd have a big map on the wall that delineates Sinaloa from Jalisco from Michoacan from whatever's left of the Zetas.
That's not "nations?" Regardless of what the Mexican "government" still pretends is Mexico?
Heck, I'll bet it would even break them all down into the sub-factions all fighting over their respective plaza.
Nation without a government. Government without a nation. Founding fathers. Revolutionary war. Hmmm. What could they possibly have meant?
You got me. This was 1798, 9 years after the Constitution was ratified, 15 years after the peace treaty, 22 years after the Declaration of Independence. What could you possibly mean?
Playing dumb comes naturally to you. You'll find good company here.
Always such intelligent arguments scottie. Going to run away again?
I imagine that having a decent life looks a lot like "running away" from folks in your kind of hell.
By decent you mean watching Maddow while cashing your welfare checks?
What a weird comment because you posted later that day in the thread.
Sorry scottie. You're just a generic leftist loser who can't make an intelligent argument, always waiting for what narrative to spout.
Democrats created hell, not us.
You’re soulless, unclean, retarded trash. Have you considered self harm? Try it, and see what all the fuss is about.
"Playing dumb comes naturally to you. You'll find good company here."
Only since you showed up, asswipe.
The Sacred Words are meant only for Chiefs, and sons of Chiefs.
What bothers me the most about all this is the lawyers acting so high and mighty, as if only they have the wisdom and insight to understand laws, to interpret them for us peasants.
I love how you then illustrate this.
* Why mention both "nation" and "government" unless they are different? Beats me what that difference could be
A "nation" is group of people who share common culture, language, and history.
Now, I suspect you're stuck on the notion of countries. But bear in mind that before the colonists came and bettered the natives, the natives were distinct and identifiable as things like the Sioux Nation or the Iroquois Nation or the Apache Nation. Group of people, common culture/language/history.
We then fixed them and established the American Nation.
A "government" is distinct from a nation because it's basically a form of management FOR the nation. The government is not the nation itself - regardless of whether it's chieftain or president - it just establishes rule of law and exercises authority to enforce it.
Totally different things. What the line you're confused about is saying is: "whether it's a war between a foreign society itself, or just the person calling the shots..." Meaning we're not going to split hairs.
We're not going to distinguish the Venezuelan government formally declaring war from hordes of Venezuelan garbage people flooding our borders declaring a de facto war.
* Why mention "declared war", "invasion", and "predatory incursion" unless all three are different?
They are all different.
I stand outside your house declaring my intent to enter against your will, and then act upon it. Declared War.
I storm your front door unexpectedly with an intent to enter against your will. Invasion.
I sneak in through your side window with an intent to enter against your will. Predatory incursion.
* "perpetrated, attempted, or threatened" at least seems clear. The lawyers finally used three clearly different words with clear established meanings.
Perpetrated = did.
Attempted = tried.
Threatened = said they'd try.
Three very different things, but at least you seem to have a grasp on that one.
Damon Root's a pretty smart cookie.
No he's actually kinda retarded. In the sense that I don't think he's ever left the echo chamber after being NPC programmed in academia and media.
But to write all this as if he's the only one qualified to understand and interpret this law is nothing but the usual lawyerly arrogance that only they are qualified to interpret Laws.
But you literally just illustrated that you don't have any idea what any of this stuff means.
Like, I wouldn't be surprised if you think that "the right to bear arms" had something to do with ursine appendages. And if you think that's insulting then I genuinely apologize, it's just that you blue-types are just so retarded all the time.
What this really comes down to is Rule of Lawyers vs Rule of Men
There's an odd bit of dehumanization to that statement, isn't there. Like the peasant who fears the scientist, and thus declares him some sort of demon. It's not that the scientist is a wizard (or a demon) - he just knows stuff that the peasant doesn't, and the peasant is jealous and resentful when his ignorance is self-realized.
Hope you're not feeling jealous and resentful in my presence, now that I've explained things that apparently confuse you but are plainly obvious to me, SGT.
Fuck lawyers.
Language.
And make sure you refuse one at your next criminal trial. (And be sure to refuse to invoke the use of one if you're ever civilly wronged.)
Why mention "declared war", "invasion", and "predatory incursion" unless all three are different? And what the hell is a "predatory incursion" — what did that mean in 1798, and how is it different from an invasion?
A 'predatory incursion' was specifically used in a letter by Thomas Pickering (the Secretary of State) to Alexander Hamilton (soon to be (July 19 1798) Inspector General of the US Army). The letter was written a few weeks (June 9 1798) before the Alien Enemies Act was passed (July 6, 1798). So yes we know EXACTLY what was understood to be a 'predatory incursion' by those who were personally charged with executing that law when it was passed.
Small, predatory incursions of the French, tho’ they might occasion great destruction of property, would not be dangerous, and the militia might be sufficient to repel them; but what we have to guard against is an invasion by a powerful army of veterans: and I do not know any body of militia adequate to stop their progress; and a fatal pannic might be the consequence.
So specifically - a war would be part of a Congressional declared action. An 'invasion' would require the President to call out the Army and to order the state militias into federal service. A predatory incursion is something that the state militia - ORGANIZED - would be able to handle. But from the wording, the incursion would be conducted by the actual enemy (France in that case) not by some asshole orange guy parsing photoshopped tattoos of some supposed 'gang'.
These are all very different legally. In particular a predatory incursion itself is handled at the state level not the federal level. The federal level responsibilities under AEA would require a state level action of significance to have already happened before the federal reaction (of rounding up enemies) would be authorized.
Damon Root's a pretty smart cookie.
No he's not. Not even a little bit. Even an exceedingly shallow and cursory glance at anything above about a 6th grade History textbook would show that the question is clearly unresolved from at least 20 different directions and angles.
20 min. of Googling or prompting an AI to argue with itself using historical facts would be more informative than Root's motivated stupidity.
Jesus, your second paragraph is exactly what Trump is saying. Venezuela is sending members of the gangs into the US to create havoc. Trump is exactly right to deport them. Besides, they are illegal aliens and should be deported anyways.
That's a different quibbly lawyerly kerfuffle. I have seen lawyers argue that due process is whatever the law says; if a law says no hearing, you can be deported without a hearing, which is what you want for someone caught 10 feet inside the border. Here the argument is that due process means a hearing with a court, lawyer, translator, the whole ball of wax. Of course it's lawyers on both sides with competing interpretations, so the answer is that no one knows what due process actually means until the Supreme Court weighs in, and their interpretation will only last until the next case overturns it.
No worries there. Roberts is very much against making any decision.
And, de facto and de rigueur, officers will continue to ship aliens wherever they need them to or think they can go in much the same way they ship someone with an outstanding warrant in one state arrested in another for holding.
A big missing part of your "wisdom and insight" rant is that one can be an absolutely perfect lawyer, drafting perfectly understood legislation commanding people to defy gravity without even the existential means of achieving such.
Venezuela is sending members of the gangs into the US to create havoc.
Sure, and because this has to do with national security, I [the federal government] don't have to do anything to prove that to anyone. Courts, Congress, the public, just have to accept that what we say is true and not get in our way.
And when Trump starts deporting US citizens?
Would that be worse than the Obama drone strikes on us citizens?
The way he and his defenders are interpreting the law, all he has to do is declare people to be enemies of the state, and that's that. Who do his defenders consider to be the most dangerous enemies of the state? Anyone who doesn't support Trump, especially Democrats. Problem is that there's too many of them to deport to torture prisons. He may need a different solution. Maybe a final solution.
And to think twice in this thread you've demanded honest arguments.
Nobody is defining it that way dumdum.
I don’t see how yall think that will actually work.
Not on US soil. However I doubt anyone thought he'd disappear people without any due process and pay foreigners to house them in torture prisons. Who knows where else he could send people, and what could happen to them.
You have any actual evidence for this, or are you just talking out of your ass as usual?
You have any actual evidence for this, or are you just talking out of your ass as usual?
Where has anyone in the Trump administration disputed reports that "illegals" have been arrested or otherwise detained without significant notice or access to courts to challenge their detention? Where have they disputed that some of those detained were then sent to other countries? Where have they disputed that some were sent to El Salvador's CECOT prison (Terrorism Confinement Center is what the name in Spanish roughly translates to)? Where have they disputed that the government of El Salvador under President Bukele has been accused of innumerable human rights violations, particularly at CECOT?
CECOT definitely houses some of the worst criminals and gang members that country has seen, including murderers, kidnappers, rapists, and those guilty of virtually any other horrible crime you can imagine. But why should we simply take Bukele and Trump's word that all of those people deported to that prison were that bad and dangerous? Why shouldn't we think that the denial of due process means that there are men being kept along with those kinds of violent criminals that aren't guilty of any violent crime themselves?
Since when is it an American tradition to throw hundreds of men into a hellhole prison only on the say-so of federal agents?
Jason, how many times do you have to be given links to expedited removal, congressionally passed law, before you stop asking retarded questions like above?
They think that if they lie enough it will become reality.
Deportation is executed via long standing federal law. Same as with. Aiden or Obama.
Now fuck off Jason.
Disappear? Lol.
Abra cadabra!
Then you'll know you're dreaming and will wake up soon. Relax.
You've already lied about him doing so. So now you're admitting you lied?
It is always amusing watching leftists argue based on their imagination to make an argument.
He already is.
Obama killed an American citizen with a drone strike. That makes it ok as far as Trump defenders are concerned.
Make what okay? Made up shit maddow is telling you?
Please show us your citation charlie? Last time you retards tried the parent chose to take their kids with them retard.
And when Trump starts deporting US citizens?
Duh, they can't do that to US citizens, because we have a right to due process.
They already did, without due process.
Well, they must not have been real citizens then! Don't you understand how logic works?!?
When retards choose to lead retards. Amusing.
It is amazing watching you retards still not understand what due process actually means.
Enlighten us.
We have. Dozens of times now Tony. You've literally been given lengthy explanations and links backing them up.
No more. You’re just too stupid and dishonest to bother with.
It would be awesome if Trump deported Marxist slime like you.
To Antarctica. Bye bye.
According to the AEA, topic of discussion, it is determination of the executive dumdum.
Besides, they are illegal aliens and should be deported anyways.
So why not just do that without making questionable use of a law that addresses countries we are at war with?
Stilllllllll beating this D E A D horse?
The Senate already confirmed the usage so...........
You're probably not going to get much sympathy from anyone but psychopaths for your foreign gang members are entitled to the USA.
People are not objecting to the removal of foreign criminals. That’s the what.
People are objecting to the way the Constitution is being deliberately misinterpreted. That’s the how.
It’s very common for stupid and dishonest people to see someone disagree with the how and conclude that they oppose the what.
I’ll add that to the growing list of things you Trump defenders have in common with the leftists you hate.
How is the constitution being misinterpreted? I've never seen you cite it nor the actual law.
Just because you dont the know the definition of what words mean, doesn't mean everyone else is as dumb as you are.
He just hates Trump and loves open borders.
It’s very common for stupid and dishonest people to see someone they hate deport violent foreign criminals and then pontificate about extermination camps as a logical next step.
That’s the who, not the what.
Lol. Idiot.
I bet your mom is the only person who ever told you you were smart.
Poor sarc. Projecting again
Actually I think it is a bad idea to deport foreign criminals. It is a Get Out of Jail Free card! They rarely ever serve any time for their crimes in their home countries. There should be consequences for criminal behavior, but Trump, a 34x convicted felon himself, doesn't agree.
Lol. This has to be a parody.
The Senate has no roll here.
LOL
Where is the senate rolling?
Senate passed aea dumdum.
Tony. You really are a special kind of stupid.
You mean, like a jelly roll, miss Phd? What role does that play in this discussion?
Lol. You’re right. You are an idiot. Not retarded.
So any interpretation to defend murderers and rapists it it Damon? You don't care about the law, you care about your hatred of Trump and the destruction of Western civilization by any means necessary.
They care far more for how this law is interpreted while agreeing with the incorrect interpretation of disrupting Congress scotus struck down. Pretty wild.
You’ve got that backwards. You xenophobes will defend lies if it achieves your goals.
Thanks for the argument maddow
Trump is the destruction of the US as a free country. And you are cheering him on.
Trump is just following the Democrat play book, blah blah blah.
Cite?
Which book is that? Which plays? Can you cite page numbers?
The destruction of the US as a free country began in 1913 and was completed in 1963.
Ridiculous.
I would include the Nixon Shock in 1971 but I don't want to make Charliehall sad.
I do.
Thanks Maddow.
No, Trump is saving our constitutional republic from totalitarian Marxist filth like you.
We had to destroy the village to save it!
Old Vietnam War meme applies to Trump, substituting "Constitution" for "village".
You wipe your ass with the constitution like most leftists. Doubt you've ever read it.
No, unlike you democrat filth, Trump follows the constitution. At least relative to any democrat.
You do understand that YOU are the problem, right?
You democrats are the only ones burning cities down.
None of this matters.
Trump is playing shove the elephant through the mouse hole.
He has taken internet armchair lawyer to its logical end. Decide what you want to do, then find an excuse to do it.
What’s amazing to me is not the deportations. It’s the willful disregard for the difference between deportation and life imprisonment.
What concerns me is that the unwashed masses are now the swing voters. They are no longer split between the parties. Hopefully they will start fighting among themselves.
But don’t expect Mexicans to get upset about imprisoned Venezuelans.
What life imprisonment? Just making shit up now?
What’s amazing to me is not the deportations. It’s the willful disregard for the difference between deportation and life imprisonment.
Remind me which deportee has been imprisoned for life by the US.
If Canada deports a gang member wanted for murder and rape in the U.S. due to illegal entry, and the U.S. subsequently arrests and jails them, does that mean Canada is the one who put them in jail?
I have a Columbian-American friend whose Venezuelan cousins are now living legally in Mexico City. Mexico has a long history of granting asylum (they welcomed Trotsky!) and is a much much friendlier country than the US. Almost everyone there speaks Spanish and the Venezuelans should have been encouraged to apply for asylum there.
Mexico now has a problem with illegal immigrants from the US.
Sounds rough for them.
Shouldn't have been sending illegal caravans up to the USA all of those times...
I know. Mexico is paradise. Aside from the cartels disappearing thousands of people and the mass graves. Oddly it seems like a lot of Mexicans want to come here. Go figure. I actually looked seriously at emigrating to Mexico decades ago. Turns out it's not easy. You can't buy property and you'll never be a citizen. Sure they're cool with well heeled Nazis but Americans not so much.
This has to be a sarc sock.
Justice sarc Charlie makes up personal anecdotes to make an argument instead of trying to educate himself before making an argument.
Has ‘Charlie’ posted anything where he is obviously drunk? That would be a dead giveaway.
What concerns me is that the unwashed masses are now the swing voters.
I believe the terms in fashion among your transcendentally-enlightened, pure-as-the-driven-snow socio-political circles is "deplorables" or "bitter clingers".
Do you know who really liked to deport people?
In summary, the claim that immigration authorities deported more than 3 million people during the Obama administration (2009-2017) is accurate based on "formal removal" figures reported by the DHS. When including "returns," however, the total exceeds 5 million. Over the eight-year period of the Obama administration, the percentage of removals carried out without a hearing before an immigration judge ranged from approximately 58% to 84%, averaging roughly 74%.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-us-deported-more-130000074.html
Shhh, shhh, shhh, don't confuse the libertines and progtards with facts. Now you know Sarc will be along once he sobers up somewhat to say "well, if Democrats did it first, then it must be OK."
"once he sobers up"
If only.
Hey now, I qualified it with "somewhat". He's got to be sober enough to drunk post, otherwise, he's passed out just hitting the keyboard with his face typing gibberish.
Come to think of it, that might be an improvement.
He decided to go with cries of xenophobia and usual leftist misreading of the constitution.
You only get a hearing if you ask for one. Obama prioritized deporting illegal immigrants who had committed serious crimes. Most preferred to get deported to serving prison time in the US; it was a Get Out Of Jail Free card. They rarely served any time back in their home countries, and often were able to sneak back into the US illegally again.
Sounds like a shitty system.
Did he use the AEA to do it? If not, I'm not sure how this is relevant (though it is amusing to see how people respond differently to more or less the same policy from Obama and Trump).
I love how reason keeps ignoring the fact countries are not allowing repatriation. So here is the actual law.
(E) Additional removal countries
If an alien is not removed to a country under the previous subparagraphs of this paragraph, the Attorney General shall remove the alien to any of the following countries:
(i) The country from which the alien was admitted to the United States.
(ii) The country in which is located the foreign port from which the alien left for the United States or for a foreign territory contiguous to the United States.
(iii) A country in which the alien resided before the alien entered the country from which the alien entered the United States.
(iv) The country in which the alien was born.
(v) The country that had sovereignty over the alien's birthplace when the alien was born.
(vi) The country in which the alien's birthplace is located when the alien is ordered removed.
(vii) If impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible to remove the alien to each country described in a previous clause of this subparagraph, another country whose government will accept the alien into that country.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1231%20edition:prelim)
Nowhere in this law does itnstate what other countries are to do. If the countries they are removed to believe then to be gang members, it is up to their laws.
And if the US is paying the other country to imprison the deportees? Also there are other laws which do limit where the US can send people such as The Convention Against Torture, which the US has ratified.
Do you have more than conjecture and tears? I thought you supported foreign aid. Now can you prove they are paid to imprison or are they imprisoning them based on them being violent gang members?
Tony can’t do any of that. He won’t even respond. He just lies, make unsupported, laughable accusations, and then disappears.
Typical democrats.
Any honest person can see that Trump is wrong. Which is why his defenders will defend him to the end.
Any intelligent person would say how he is wrong. You can't because reality doesn't matter to you.
And you're not honest. Lol. You're just retarded.
"Any honest person can see that Trump is wrong."
Sarc isn't being honest.
Either that or neither Trump nor the MAGA trolls who defend him on this can read English.
Explain for sarc buddy. Difficulty. Properly use the terms you try to use.
I'm starting to suspect that "charliehall" is Sarc, samefagging his posts.
>"The Alien Enemies Act Doesn't Say What Trump Claims It Says
The courts seem to disagree with you Root. The courts seem to disagree.
MAGAs don't care what they law or Constitution says, or how it has been interpreted over the centuries. All they care about is what Trump says it says. To them Trump's word is law.
What do you get when you cross a penis with a potato? Dictator. They want Trump to stick his dick in a potato.
Ideas™ !
How are you not a democrat?
It's funny watching legal 'analysts' crying about 'the plain text's when they should know that there's precedent that colors how that text is interpreted.
They want it to be one way, but it's the other way.
So much for both Originalism and Textism. The law means whatever King Donald wants it to mean.
there is no "invasion or predatory incursion" of the U.S. by "any foreign nation or government."
Hostile foreign powers have been funneling "immigrants" into the US by the millions. Are you an idiot, Damon, or just a liar?
No they haven't. People are leaving those countries on their own.
Any such alleged gang member is therefore entitled to receive due process of law before he is punished, including when the proper punishment for him is deportation.
Deportation is not a punishment for a criminal offense. There is no requirement that an alien commit a criminal offense before his permission to remain in our country can be withdrawn. No alien is entitled to remain in our country—their continuing welcome here is condition, and the conditions can be changed. Whether an alien has committed and crime and whether they are allowed to remain in our country is two separate matters.
Wrong, but continue your support for Fascism. Due Process doesn't just apply to criminal trials and if you had ever read the 5th and 14th Amendment you would know that.
You should have explained that to Obama
In summary, the claim that immigration authorities deported more than 3 million people during the Obama administration (2009-2017) is accurate based on "formal removal" figures reported by the DHS. When including "returns," however, the total exceeds 5 million. Over the eight-year period of the Obama administration, the percentage of removals carried out without a hearing before an immigration judge ranged from approximately 58% to 84%, averaging roughly 74%.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-us-deported-more-130000074.html
So Obama was a fascist? Charliehall hardest hit.
It is worth it to click on the link and to read the actual text of the law:
"whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government"
That restricts when the Act can be triggered. Those conditions do not exist today.
And Section 2 is even more worth reading:
"it shall be the duty of the several courts of the United States, and of each state, having criminal jurisdiction, and of the several judges and justices of the courts of the United States, and they shall be, and are hereby respectively, authorized upon complaint, against any alien or alien enemies, as aforesaid, who shall be resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President of the United States shall and may establish in the premises, to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened before such court, judge or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint. and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties of their good behaviour, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations which shall and may be established as aforesaid, and may imprison, or otherwise secure such alien or aliens, until the order which shall and may be made, as aforesaid, shall be performed."
A suspected alien enemy facing deportation gets a hearing before an actual judge. The folks in 1798 actually believed the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause means what it says. Unlike Trump.
A suspected alien enemy facing deportation gets a hearing before an actual judge.
Not always. See above.
That's got to be one of the longest and most grammatically convoluted sentences I've ever read. If you saw an exception in there that charliehall and I missed, you'll need to point it out.
Over the eight-year period of the Obama administration, the percentage of removals carried out without a hearing before an immigration judge ranged from approximately 58% to 84%, averaging roughly 74%.
We have a system of immigration judges that are subject only to the article 2 executive. Article 3 judges have no jurisdiction and never have.
...it shall be the duty of the several courts of the United States, and of each state, having criminal jurisdiction, and of the several judges and justices of the courts of the United States, and they shall be, and are hereby respectively, authorized upon complaint...
Looks like an authorization of jurisdiction to me. What am I missing?
We have a system of immigration judges that are subject only to the article 2 executive.
Wait, according to this administration and some legal scholars on the right, Congress can't, by law, make heads of an agency somewhat insulated from being removed by the President, but there are judges that are only accountable to the President? Wtf happened to "separation of powers" there?
Trump defenders only support the constitution when it’s convenient. Otherwise they will say it’s ok because Democrats did it first.
Not shocked sarc was too retarded to see how Jason fucked up.
Deportation does not require a criminal complaint. The immigration court was established by Congress and is administered by the executive per that legislation. Article 3 judges do not have jurisdiction. As others have noted above Obama legally deported millions and somehow article 3 judges weren't issuing injunctions.
Poor Jason thinks this is a criminal issue based on his comments. It isn't a criminal court system retard. Just like administrative courts can issue fines without a trial. How do you retards tie your shoes in the morning?
We have centuries of jurisprudence on this. The laws even state it is largely the discretion of article 2. But you morons keep repeating arguments seemingly based in ignorance.
Criminal jurisdiction.
Immigration courts are not criminal courts.
Alien friends don't seek to rob, steal, kidnap, rape, kill, molest, enslave, drug peddle, sabotage, terrorize, or otherwise trespass on American soil.
If that's what you consider an act of "friendship," then I'm glad I'm we're not friends. And maybe you should get outta here, because we're done suffering your unwanted presence. And if State Actors with impure motives keep getting in the way of that, maybe some of us will take matters into our own hands to facilitate your... removal.
Might just want to turn around and leave now, while you can. There's an app for that.
As I said above, nobody is opposed to removing criminal aliens. That’s the what. What people have a problem with is that Trump is deliberately misinterpreting the Constitution and the law to do it, while setting dangerous precedent that will no doubt be used by the next Democratic administration. That’s the how.
Opposition to the how doesn’t equal opposition to the what.
If he respected the law and the Constitution, we wouldn’t have an issue.
As I said above, nobody is opposed to removing criminal aliens.
Funny, I recall a lot of recent backlash against removing Killmore Alfredo Tequila.
What people have a problem with is that Trump is deliberately misinterpreting the Constitution and the law to do it, while setting dangerous precedent that will no doubt be used by the next Democratic administration.
Actually, you'll be surprised to find out how many people DON'T have a problem with that. Because they're sick of things like "due process" and "equal protection" - virtues they'd otherwise die for - being weaponized against them in the name of keeping gangbangers, child rapists, sex traffickers, thieves, killers, drug peddlers, small-time criminals, and people eating housepets in America. There is no reason whatsoever to support any of them being here. When you quibble about the "rights," while showing a callous disregard for the rights of victimized Americans - you illustrate your disingenuiness.
I'm not saying I support the abdication of due process or the Constitution, mind you. I've been long-warning of the rape of the judicial system for partisan (and often racially partisan) ends for as long as I can remember. Matthew 7:26.
This is particularly hilarious:
while setting dangerous precedent that will no doubt be used by the next Democratic administration.
Yea, because that dangerous precedent wasn't set BY the Democrat Administrations. Especially in the days of the revolving door of criminal justice by any dark-skinned arsonist, looter, or vandal who invoked the name of Saint Fentanyl.
Donnie T FAFO is simply playing by your own rules. I don't support that, I view it as a race to the bottom, but you can't say you weren't asking for it.
They actually dont have qm issue with it because unlike sarc they aren't all retards and understand what due process actually means.
Yes I know you'd like to make every police officer Judge Dredd.
Actually, it seems like YOU want to make every cop into Judge Dredd. In fact, you're the one in support of a practice that is essentially begging every day Americans to take justice into their own hands - since Democrats are openly neutering the ability of Justice to DO justice to people who DESERVE justice.
Observe: Altruist totalitarians are really big on lynch mobs, pogroms, holomodors and death camps.
No, actually, everything I've said is to course-correct people like YOU from encouraging that particular future.
I'm not encouraging lynch mobs, you are. I'm trying to tell you how to prevent them. And you seem hellbent on ignoring it.
Trump is going easy on them. I would have had the democrats either put away or put down if it were up to me.
Marxists have no right to exist.
Yeah, mass murder usually works out well.
Enter illegally and you have committed a crime. "Over the eight-year period of the Obama administration, the percentage of removals carried out without a hearing before an immigration judge ranged from approximately 58% to 84%, averaging roughly 74%."
Due process. Biden allowed millions to cross who were given a court date. Did the Judge grant asylum or refugee status? Less than 80% are. When they are not these folks have had their Due Process provided and now must leave the US. There is no additional due process given.
If someone was allowed to stay and then committed a crime which they were convicted in the US, beyond entering illegally, they can be immediately deported without another hearing.
Why do people keep crying due process rights for those who have been given them and then refused to leave when the due process concluded they are not allowed to remain?
Fix
Have to say whether you agree or not with them, commenters here actually post a better argument than Damon Root . This lazy cut and paste shit is really getting old.
What about alien frenemies? Or alien friends with benefits?
“Or alien friends with benefits?”
That depends on where they fall on the crazy/hot matrix.
>by any foreign nation or government
According to Root's literalist interpretation, this would require that the entire nation or government -- 100% of its people or members -- invades the United States. This is obviously stupid; the founders must have meant the military or some group originating in the nation or government.
Also according to Root's literalist interpretation, the U.S. had no basis to pursue Pancho Villa, because Villa wasn't a nation or government.
Also according to Root's literalist interpretation, since the Act provides no test for what a nation or government is and what its representatives would look like, all an invader would have to do is say "nope, those aren't our troops or shells or missiles, so no retaliation allowed."
Also, 'reason' conveniently overlooks the fact that the term "alien friends" is an informal label that doesn't appear in "An Act Concerning Aliens." Only 'reason' would define an alien friend as someone who commits crimes while in the United States.
archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts
Except there aren't any troops, shells or missiles. The AEA was intended to apply to foreign nationals from countries we are at war with (with or without a formal declaration of war from the US). I suppose you could make the argument that some such state exists with Venezuela, but I think it's a bit of a stretch. Certainly debatable, even if you grant that Venezuela is deliberately allowing or encouraging criminals to come to the US, whether the law applies to such a situation.
Pancho Villa isn't relevant here, nor is whether we can retaliate against an actual attack with troops, shells or missiles. They didn't try to remove all Mexicans after Pancho's incursion happened. You seem to be confusing this question with a different one regarding when military retaliation is allowed or not. The AEA doesn't address that one way or another.
This is another place where congress could and probably should act to clarify things and assert their proper powers, but won't.
Going off only the quotes provided by the author, his interpretation of Madison is wrong. Madison wasn't arguing that "Alien Friends" must be provided the same process owed to citizens in a criminal trial before they are deported. He was simply pointing out that individuals acting independently of their nation of origin are acting alone, they are not in themselves a casus belli. He didn't mean at all that they can be deported only by a criminal trial by jury.
And can I add that the country isn't going to just sit back and allow a denial of service attack where 10 million people were encouraged to cross the border, knowing it would overwhelm the ability to process them legally. The Democrats are already feeling the political effects, and there will be others.
The Dems are feeling the political effects of Obama, Biden-Reagan and Shrillary spitting on jailed potheads like Ross. Four million votes against them "spoiling" 13 states elected Donald Jesus Trump when all polls and betting odds predicted the opposite. Dems were Beatles-burning George Wallace kluxers back in 1968, remember? Only now are they dimly noticing communism doesn't pay either. God's Own Prohibitionists learned nothing except how to infiltrate and disrupt the LP.
I and many court clerks recall many young simpletons answering "why did you come to America?"
"Eet was becos presidente Baidem eenbyted me to come here." This was basically what teevee vidiots, not Biden, were telling people at the time.
There is no "declared war" between the United States and Venezuela, ...
Um... there was no "declared war" between the United States and Vietnam, remember? Back in 1972, when there was a libertarian platform, it said "While we recognize the existence of totalitarian governments, we do not recognize them as legitimate governments." So the USSR and CHICOMS were more like street gangs...