The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Trump Administration Makes Damaging Admissions on Alien Enemies Act and Deportations
Trump admits he could return migrant illegally deported to El Salvador. And an intelligence community report concludes the Tren de Aragua drug gang isn't controlled by the Venezuelan government.

In recent days, the Trump Administration has made two damaging admissions that should hurt its already dubious positions in litigation over the Alien Enemies Act and illegal deportations of migrants to imprisonment in El Salvador.
Last week, Trump himself publicly admitted he "could" secure the return of illegally deported Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who is currently imprisoned in El Salvador at the behest of the US government. That should put an end to the ongoing legal debate over how to apply the Supreme Court's ruling that the administration must "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's return. Given that Abrego Garcia is only incarcerated by El Salvador because of an agreement under which the US is paying the Salvadoran government to do so, it was already obvious that Trump could easily secure his return, if he wanted to. But Trump's admission is additional evidence on this point. And, given that the entire arrangement is an unconstitutional violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (deportees are imprisoned without ever having any opportunity to defend themselves in court), there is no legitimate foreign policy interest in maintaining it, and therefore no reason for courts to defer to the executive. And what is true of Abrego Garcia is also true of dozens of others illegally deported to imprisonment in El Salvador. It is blatantly obvious that Trump could easily return them, and the administration has a legal and moral obligation do so.
Trump did later claim he could only return Abrego Garcia if the attorney general says its legal to do so. But there is no doubt that it's legal to return a person whose deportation was itself illegal.
Meanwhile, a declassified US intelligence community memorandum concluded that, contrary to Trump Administration claims, the Tren de Aragua drug gang is not acting under the direction of the Venezuelan government and is not significantly responsible for the flow of Venezuelan migrants to the US. Reason writer Jacob Sullum has a helpful summary of the memo and its significance:
In a March 15 proclamation, President Donald Trump declared that suspected members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua were "alien enemies" subject to immediate deportation. He invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), a rarely used, 227-year-old law that applies when "there is a declared war" between the United States and a "foreign nation or government" or when a "foreign nation or government" has "perpetrated, attempted, or threatened" an "invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States."
To support that dubious interpretation of the AEA, Trump averred that Tren de Aragua (TDA) is "is closely aligned with" the Venezuelan government. He said the gang was "undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States…at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela." A newly revealed memo from the National Intelligence Council (NIC) casts doubt on those assertions….
The declassified April 7 memo, which the Freedom of the Press Foundation obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, says "Maduro regime leadership probably sometimes tolerates TDA's presence in Venezuela, and some government officials may cooperate with TDA for financial gain." But it adds that "the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States."
The U.S. intelligence community, which includes the CIA, the FBI, and the National Security Agency, "bases this judgment on Venezuelan law enforcement actions demonstrating the regime treats TDA as a threat," the memo says, describing "an uneasy mix of cooperation and confrontation" rather than the "top-down directives" that characterize "the regime's ties to other armed groups."
This revelation undercuts Administration claims that TdA's actions are at the behest of the Venezuelan government, and therefore undermines the argument those activities are undertaken by a "foreign nation or government," which is one of the requirements for using the AEA to detain and deport immigrants.
Trump's use of the AEA is illegal for other reasons, as well. Among other things, regardless of who controls TdA, the gang's illegal activities do not qualify as an "invasion" or "predatory incursion" - as multiple federal courts have now ruled. I have defended the view that "invasion" requires a military attack, in detail in previous writings on the meaning of the term in the AEA and the Constitution. But the intelligence community report further weakens the Administration's legal position.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Has the Trump Admin yet disavowed the Bondi memo advising that anyone deemed a tda member can be arrested and deported without any hearing?
Yes, the Trump administration could invade El Salvador, physically seize a citizen of El Salvador, and forcibly move the citizen of El Salvador to the United States.
Just like Obama could (and did) order the assassination of a US Citizen overseas without a trial.
Does that mean the Court can order either of these things?
Why do you keep saying "citizen of El Salvador" as if that's relevant?
Because if the individual in question was a citizen of the United States or a National of the United States, the POTUS would arguably have far more authority to demand their return. The individual in question would be considered to have membership and allegiance to the United States.
But as a citizen of El Salvador, the POTUS demanding that El Salvador hand over that individual (especially if there are no criminal charges against that individual)...there's not a heck of a lot of legal justification for it. If the POTUS can demand a sovereign country hand over one of its citizens to the US...even in the absence of criminal charges...its a bit a slap in the face to the concept of "legality"
No, none of that is correct. This goes back to the whole birthright citizenship thing you people don't grasp: when you are in a foreign country, you are subject to the complete jurisdiction of that country regardless of your citizenship. (With similar exceptions for diplomats and the like.) Trump can get back Garcia or (e.g.) Charlie Kirk if he were there with diplomacy, bribes, threats, or military force. But there's nothing magic about citizenship that changes those options; citizens are not property of their countries.
"No, none of that is correct."
I mean...which isn't correct?
1. A citizen of the US is considered to have membership in the US
2. A citizen of the US is considered to have allegiance to the US
Or 22 USC Ch. 23 of the US code?
"§1732. Release of citizens imprisoned by foreign governments
Whenever it is made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons of such imprisonment; and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, the President shall use such means, not amounting to acts of war and not otherwise prohibited by law, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate the release; and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress."
Because it is relevant.
Normally governments do not normally forcibly deport their citizens at the request of a foreign government.
I mean your whole argument is based on a lie, and doesn't use the word deport right.
But I'm stuck on...forcibly?
I'm... not seeing the lie. Granted, I guess the term would be "exile", like that helps your argument.
Is it that Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador?
Or are you arguing that it's routine for one country to exile one of its citizens to another country just because they ask?
Care to identify the "lie", or are we supposed to guess?
It’s not an arms length relationship between the countries nor with the individual.
The whole thing is bullshit.
For hating Trumps means you sure do dive in to endorse shitty arguments defending them.
So, what you're saying is, you can't actually identify a "lie"?
Extradition would be the closest thing but that would be for the purpose of being held responsible for a crime and could go both ways.
He was fine with the original illegal forcible deportation, of course.
Well, *I'm* fine with Garcia being forcibly deported, too. I just don't like them having skipped the steps necessary to make it legal. But deported? He absolutely should have been deported, and years ago.
1. Once more: that's not what "deport" even means. Garcia is not living voluntarily in El Salvador. What we're talking about is releasing him, not deporting him.
2. Normally governments do not forcibly deport other countries' citizens as the request of a foreign government either. If there's an American vacationing on some resort beach in El Salvador, the U.S. can't just say, "Hey, that's an American; he's ours and want him, so please seize him and send him to us." (Of course… governments do extradite people — their own citizens, and foreigners — at the request of foreign governments. But that requires a legal basis.)
So you don't like a president that does things extrajudicially?
No invasion necessary, which would be idiotic. I've given a path where a president, especially a braggadocio one, could get such a person returned. "We made a mistake. In the interests of international comity, especially with our wealthy giantness the US whom you want to do business with, could you return him? Thanks!"
Such power hath the president! And all the moreso given the other guy was just doing what we said anyway, lie that you won't give him back, so we have plausible deniabity so we can say oh no!
Yes, this could be done rather easily in a way that takes our usual limits on federal law enforcement seriously. But that’s the thing: MAGAns have absolutely no problem with the federal government using forcible law enforcement acts illegally as long as it’s done to an outgroup. It’s Wilhot’s law all the way down.
Probably not.
So it's a good thing they aren't.
At this point I think the court is still only asking the government to say what its done to facilitate his return, which so far seems to be paying the El Salvadoreans to keep him.
A better headline: AntiTrump Loon Howls at the Moon....
Y'know, all this demand for due process and trials for the illegal aliens, plus the Stakhanovite litigation tactics of those supporting the illegals, will lead to one inescapable conclusion - the Left will have jammed the dockets, so we will have to have more judges - many more - to handle all the caseload.
What an opportunity for Trump - and with none of the court-packing chicanery of the early Biden years. This will be a response to a crammed docket.
See? This authoritarian bootlicker demonstrates what I’m talking about. All this demand for due process by our federal government, appalling! And for an outgroup member!
But....I hear the whining starting already. "All Trump has to do is get on the phone and ask for him back!"... (implied threat of invasion and other such consequences to be ignored.)"
So, here's a question for the proletariat. Can the court order someone to "say something"? Can the court actually order you or me or Trump or Biden to make a speech that "says something". Can the court, for example, order you to say the pledge or allegiance? Or can you claim that violates your freedom of speech for the court to order you to say something?
(Then we get into the foreign affairs issues, but that's a topic for another day")
IANAL but it sure seems to me like you're stretching credulity there. Courts lay down orders all the time, most of which involve speech at some point. "Bailiff, bring that prisoner here." And the bailiff has to make a phone call or tell some guard to open a door or fetch a prisoner. That's not a freedom of speech issue. "Mr President, bring Garcia back" similarly probably involves speech or writing, and that doesn't have anything to do with the First Amendment.
Here's where we get into the weeds though.
When the judge says "Bailiff, bring that prisoner here" the baliff could just physically "bring the prisoner" without talking at all. That's within the context. But the analogous situation "Mr. President, bring Garcia back" would involve, potentially, a military invasion to "bring Garcia back".
But...then you have a district court judge ordering a military invasion. And even the most fervent anti-Trumpers think that's not reasonable. What they want is for Trump to pick up the phone and "tell" El Salvador to send the president back. But..the courts can't quite order that. Beyond the foreign policy concerns, there's also the first amendment concerns. So, the court leaves it vague.
So the question came up...can the court order someone to "say something" as opposed to "do something"?
Just as reasonable Bailiffs would understand that an order to bring a prisoner to court does not mean they should kill the people guarding the prisoner, a reasonable administration would know that facilitate does not mean a military invasion.
Does it?
Here's the US code in relation to US citizens.
"Or 22 USC Ch. 23 "§1732. Release of citizens imprisoned by foreign governments
Whenever it is made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons of such imprisonment; and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, the President shall use such means, not amounting to acts of war and not otherwise prohibited by law, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate the release; and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress.""
But the prison system would have custody of that person and here they do not. This is closer to telling the bailiff to go to a foreign country, kidnap a foreign citizen and bring them to you...just a bit different.
To both Armchair and Social Justice is neither:
I am responding to Armchair's Free Speech comment:
Your responses ignore that.
So your comments about physically moving someone are about speech? Not that these things are anywhere the same.
The answer is: sometimes. Not just gratuitously, of course, but as part of a remedy for a tortious or illegal act, sure.
Any examples? Anything particularly relevant to the case at hand?
Trial level courts order people to answer questions all the time. Whether on the stand or in answer to a discovery pleading or whatever. In the context of the litigation; its not a first amendment issue.
In one of the deportation cases (Abrego Garcia's); the court ordered the DOJ to update the Court weekly on steps they are taking or will be taking to facilitate his return from El Salvador. The DOJ has been sending in rather non responsive declarations. But the order itself is compelling the party defendants to 'speak' (in writing). Again not a first amendment concern or at least the DOJ hasn't raised (to my knowledge) an objection that the first amendment forbids their compliance with the court's order because it compels them to speak on matters they would prefer to remain silent about. So instead of ignoring the order; they submit inadequate declarations.
That interview ... all Trump says is "I could" and it's not obvious to me exactly what he means. As Armchair says, there's lots of things he could do. He could pick up the phone and call El Salvador. He could ask for Garcia to be sent to the US.
That "I could" is not nearly the slam dunk Somin thinks it is.
I wish Ilya Somin weren't so fixated on the results he wants. As it is, I simply don't trust him to provide any unbiased insights into any subject near and dear to his heart. This "I could" is just another example of him hearing and seeing what he wants.
Well, you live up to your name. Which part of
"There's a phone on this desk. [pointing] You could pick it up, —
"I could"
"— and take all the power of the presidency, you could call up the president of El Salvador, and say 'Send him back. Right now.'"
"And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that. But he's not."
What about that is unclear?
(That's when he goes on to say that he'd do what his lawyers tell him, and washing his hands of any responsibility.)
"What about that is unclear?"
Who is the gentleman in that statement? The President of El Salvador?
Garcia. Trump said this just before the above exchange:
"This is not an innocent, wonderful gentleman from Maryland."
Technically that also applies to the President of El Salvador.
Cut the shit. We all know what Trump meant.
It's standard Armchair BS.
He thinks he's being clever and making killing points, when all he's doing is spouting transparent idiocy.
"We all know what Trump meant."
There it is again. "Knowing" what Trump meant. It's so easy when you can just "know" what the person you don't like really means.
Technically that also applies to the President of El Salvador.
Careful, such straining might give you a hernia!
It’s tough to swear fealty to a Mad King.
Yes. BEFORE. Not after.
Trump is saying that he could pick up the phone, and make a phone call. That's all. Somin thinks he has a gotcha, but he doesn't.
Notice he said "I could" in response to "You could pick up this phone", not what followed after.
What part of the arrow of time is unclear to you?
Dave is a drooling Jersey Shore hack.
People think injunctions don't bind the President. At least, they don't bind the President when foreign policy is at stake. If that's right, Trump can admit anything and there's nothing the judge can do.
President Trump's admission that he will do what the Attorney General advises him it is legal for him to do means that the Attorney General so advising him is an "available step" to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador. Her refusing to do so can land her in custody for civil contempt of Judge Xinis's April 10 order until she does so.
LOL no. You guys can't let go of your lawfare fantasies. This, Section 3...
How many times does this have to be said? No court can order the president to take any particular discretionary action in foreign affairs.
So Trump admitting he "could" get Garcia back remains of no legal consequence. Everybody already knew he could if he wanted to. That's irrelevant to the legal question about whether a court can order him to do that. The Supreme Court said no, the government was only required to "facilitate" his release.
Trump only admitted that he could ask for Garcia's return.
This isn't foreign affairs. This is one guy.
And a bunch of people on this blog are still leaning on the 'Trump would have to invade' bullshit. And/or denying Trump said this.
You're going a flavor of outcome-oriented ignorance, but it's the same deal
One weird trick to get around due process.
Seems like each has their own particular cognitive pretzel they'll bend to deny due process to an outgroup.
Being a hater can be hard work!
Asking a foreign country to send one of their citizens currently in their country to the US is not a foreign relations matter?
Not in this case. Given the scale and preexisting arrangement.
In what way would our relations with El Salvador be effected by such a request?
This has zero impact; it's not a foreign affairs issue. Now quite trying to find loopholes out of the barest hint of due process.
It is foreign affairs, as SCOTUS talked about the separation of powers for a reason in its decision. Because if it wasn't, the Supreme Court would have been able to upheld the district court order in full. It did not. It changed "effectuate" to "facilitate", active to passive.
The Supreme Court did not change anything to anything. Did you bother to read the opinion?
I'm a bit puzzled as to why the whole "foreign affairs" issue is deemed so important here.*
Yes, El Salvador is a foreign country, but that's about as far as it goes. This does not involve wars, alliances, treaties, trade agreements, territorial or other disputes. It involves none of the usual aspects of foreign policy.
So maybe the concern for POTUS' authority in foreign policy matters isn't really all that important.
*Actually, that's a lie. I'm not puzzled at all. It's just more shit for the Trumpists to throw against the wall.
It's clear now why you think there's no such thing as illegal immigrants. There's no such thing as borders, no such thing as sovereign nations.
OK, Bernard...let's walk this logic through...
Imagine you get your way. The court can order the President to threaten another foreign country into giving up one of their own citizens. Completely legal.
Let's take a different, less controversial case. There's a child custody hearing. Mom is in the US. Dad takes the kid to El Salvador. A court in the US gives custody to the Mom. But the kid is in El Salvador.
Can the court order the POTUS to "talk to" the President of El Salvador and "facilitate" the return of the child? Why or why not? What other measures can the court order?
Ah yes the last refuge of Armchair's hypotheticals - what if the facts were utterly different. would the legal issues then turn out different?
But what you are arguing has no relation to the actual facts. The court isn’t asking the President to threaten another country. Rather, the US is paying another country to imprison a man. So the court is asking the DOJ to tell the country that the US no longer wants them to keep the man in one of their prisons. When the DOJ conveys that message, it may or may not result in the man’s release, but it would satisfy the court order to facilitate his release.
The order isn't to facilitate his release. It's to facilitate his return.
And you haven’t gotten at release or return in any relevant way, because as halbax and I said what you are arguing has no relation to the actual facts.
What you seem to fail to grasp is that if there's going to be a decision like this, which grants a district court the right to dictate the POTUS's foreign policy with a nation, how far does such a decision go? In what other circumstances will it apply?
Is this.
1. Just a one time thing for Garcia?
2. Just a permenant thing, but just for Garcia?
3. Apply to all individuals in El Salvador that the US transported there?
4. Apply to all individuals in the El Salvador that the US put on a plane?
5. Apply to all individuals in any country that the US put on a plane?
6. Apply to all individuals in any country that have a US connection?
These are the questions that really need to be dealt with in advance.
Let's take our child custody case. Imagine that the father takes the child, despite the court order. And the TSA agents accidentally let the child through onto the plane. The US has made a "mistake." Shouldn't that mistake the US made be able to be reversed?
Or is this just going to be a very narrow court order that will just and only apply to this one situation with Garcia ever?
It seems to me it should apply to everyone the Trump administration deported without giving due process. All nine Justices agreed they are required to receive due process.
But by all means let's keep quibbling about facilitate and eventuate and not whether or not the administration is acting illegally.
The only way we are going to find out is for Xinis to order the Trump administration to effectuate Garcia's release by requesting it or negotiating it with El Salvador.
After her first attempt, which SCOTUS said needed to be clarified, she hasn't done that, in fact she said she was not ordering that.
I think its because she knows it is foreign affairs, and she doesn't have that authority.
She has the authority to make the administration act in a lawful manner, in foreign affairs or any other area.
Because the judiciary cannot order the president to do something within his discretionary conduct of foreign affairs. Your definitions of foreign affairs are not normative. If they were, the Supreme Court would not have needed to modify the district court's order.
The Supreme Court did not in fact modify the district court's order, which is why the word "modify" will not be found anywhere in there.
(Yes, yes, it modified the deadline for compliance, since that deadline had already passed at the time it ruled.)
You can tell an Ilya article from its headline. Objectivity doesn't interest Mr. Somin in the least.
You can also tell a Blackman article from its headline. And a Bernstein article. And a Cassell article. Even most Volokh articles. Do you question their objectivity too?
yawn
We seem to have experienced a recent influx of idiots. Wonder where they came from?
Ask your Ma. Ask your Pa.
The original post was idiotic. Somin misread a news story, and posted his usual anti-Trump rant.
A few obvious points.
1. Trump *could* get him back. In a 90 second phone call. Obviously. The entire issue is: Can a court legally order Trump to do this? This is the issue, because Trump is a fucking asshole and a piece of shit. A normal human being would have immediately said, "I think the guy is a bad person. But my administration totally screwed this up. We're going to get him back. IMMEDIATELY. We will give him 100% of his due process rights, and if we can convince a court, then we will deport him again. Because, in America, nothing is more important than equal justice to all." But again...since Trump is a piece of shit, and since so many of you support a piece of shit, that didn't happen. Okay.
2. Why can't a court simply say, "Okay. Until Garcia is back in the country, (a) The US is [1] Enjoined from sending any additional prisoners to El Salvador, or to any other overseas location, [2] Enjoined from paying to El Salvador any additional funds to cover the expenses for housing prisoners under this program."
Voila! Now Trump can sit on his fat ass as long as he wants. Yes, he can deny Garcia his due process rights. But he can't fuck over anyone else who is currently in America (which will, presumably, annoy him at least a tiny bit). And might even motivate him to be less of a fucking monster and be less of an evil amoral asshat.
It bears repeating. MAGAns don’t oppose illegal acts by federal law enforcement as long as the victims of those acts are seen as outgroups. Remember that, here they are telling you what they’re about. It’s like Trump’s joke about the police bumping the arrested guys head on the police car. It’s illegal but it’s great because the victim is a bad guy. It’s how they feel.
Just because Trump could get him back does not mean any court has the authority to order it. Because no court has the power to order it, no court can further sanction or restrict the executive branch to force it to comply.
You guys are only making this complicated because you hate Trump and the policy. I get it, I hate him to, and the way the administration is going about all this. Still no justification to vandalize the law.
Your severe TDS is duly noted.
So your answer is to replace Trump's supposed tyranny in doing things he's not allowed to do with a tyranny of judges ordering things they are not allowed to do?
So you’re fine with the federal government forcibly deporting a person illegally? TDS indeed.
Simple answer, yes, I support the deportation of illegal aliens.
Further, santa does indeed exhibit TDS in this and other comments.
Way too much digital ink has been wasted on this case in the comments. He's deported; good.
So you admit you'll sacrifice rule of law for your preferred policy outcomes.
Quelle surprise.
Ilya seems clueless:
"Trump admits he could return migrant illegally deported to El Salvador."
I don't think he has ever denied that, the question is does the court have authority to order him to? Ilya doesn't attempt to address that point.
Is your argument that because this is foreign affair, the President can act as unlawfully as he wants and no court has the authority to rule on that? Sorry, but if that is your position you are the one that seems clueless.
All of your views on immigration are hateful to the native peoples in this country.
How dare you support colonialism !!! How dare you push your toxic hatred of the native populations. Erasing the long standing heritage is what you are doing.
I'm not seeing how the admission is damaging. He says he's not willing. That's pretty common in cases where the court actually does have the authority to order something done, but this is a case where the court doesn't actually have that authority, because it being done involves the exercise of a core power of a co-equal branch.
I mean, if the judge ordered Congress to pass a law, and Congress instead passed a resolution saying, "Nope, we don't want to!", it would be analogous. Would that resolution be "damaging"? No.
Yes.
This is about the separation of powers, as the Supreme Court ruled.
Words not found in the Supreme Court's decision: "separation of powers." In fact, neither the word "separation" nor the word "powers" is in there! (Though the word "of" is found in there many times.)
Foreign affairs is not a "core power" of the executive. Only the specific powers granted to the executive in the text. What text in the Constitution makes it a core power?
Ilya,just one thing.you can deny the truth of this BUT my question is, IF IF IF this is true do you retract your defense of Garcia ?
BREAKING: Convicted Human Smuggler Who Owned Vehicle in 2022 Traffic Stop Admits to Hiring Kilmar Abrego Garcia for MULTIPLE Human Smuggling Operations
Here's an article from alt-right ABC News. A few highlights:
No, because there is no "defense of Garcia." The defense is of due process and the rule of law. Pointing out that the evidence people have cited against Garcia is crap is not a proclamation that he's a great guy, and finding actual evidence against him would not make what Trump did legal.
Also, what the guy (supposedly) was paid to admit was that he hired Garcia to drive some workers around. Not "human smuggling."
"Meanwhile, a declassified US intelligence community memorandum concluded that, contrary to Trump Administration claims, the Tren de Aragua drug gang is not acting under the direction of the Venezuelan government ..."
Oh, great. Besides the several district judges who want to play President, now we have bloggers wanting to get in on the action. Who's next? The local dry cleaners?
We have elections for a reason. We elect people to represent us, people to make the calls we physically cannot make. You can't run things by a committee of 335 million people. You can't fit all of them into the room to view the intelligence reports and weigh the evidence and call the shot.
There's only one President. One.
And 77 MILLION people elected this one. It wasn't even close.
So shut up already and let the man do what he was elected to do. If you can't stand it that we take turns, then why are you even participating in a representative democracy? If the only voice you're going to listen to is your own, why the charade?
I was in a business for 49 years where people argued every day over how to build things. At every turning point, the ONLY way we made progress was to let competing ideas compete fairly and openly. Only by giving your intellectual opponent his absolutely best shot did you ever have a chance of changing anyone's mind.
Let the Republicans rule right now. Be the opposition, yes, but the LOYAL opposition, the opposition that admits it may not have the only or the best answer.
And how is this memorandum any more to be trusted than that "letter" from 51 intelligence figures, who claimed the Hunter laptop looked like a Russian disinformation op?
The fact is, the US intelligence community are still loyal to the prior administration, it's just another aspect of the Democratic party's capture of the bureaucracy, which is why they want the opinions of the bureaucracy to prevail over the elected President.
Trump spent most of his first term being tied up in knots by a bureaucracy determined to render his election meaningless. They're still trying to play that game.
And those 51 intelligence figures at least had the cajones to sign and openly release their letter. Unless something has changed since last night, this memorandum is literally just words on a page, attributed to no one and anonymously leaked.
JFC, not only are you people terrible human beings, but you are also deeply stupid. This was not a "leak." It is a government publication released pursuant to FOIA.
I know you're not that dumb. (I mean, you're not, right? Um, right?) The FOIA request specifically asked for "the April 2025 National Intelligence Council assessment that found that the Venezuelan government is not directing an invasion of the United States by the prison gang Tren de Aragu.”
Best of luck explaining how not only that specific document's existence but its purported conclusion happened to make it into the FOIA request without having been leaked.
That is not, in fact, a "fact." It is something you pulled entirely out of your ass.
I guess we should thank DaveM for distilling the MAGA argument from "Oh, this is justified because of such-and-such" to "Shut up. Trump's a king and how dare you question him."
One has to weigh the due process rights of illegal aliens in the US against the safety and integrity of the US public; maintaining the social order and political stability and mitigating the economic burdens that full due process rights would impose.
If giving full due process rights to illegal aliens will disrupt the social order, disrupt the legal system, put US citizens at risk and create onerous economic burdens, then the due process rights for illegal aliens may have to be tempered by the realities on the ground.
The safety and security of American citizens must trump the full due process rights of illegal aliens by applying a limited due process.
Does an illegal alien really have due process rights? Should they?
The "No person" clause of the 5th amendment could apply to all 7+ billion people in the world as well.
The reason it hasn't been applied that way is because the 5th amendment has been INTERPRETED to NOT apply to all 7+ billion people, but only to a certain class of people, presumably those persons within the territorial boundaries and under the jurisdiction of the US.
However, the 14th amendment takes up that refrain and clarifies what this class of persons is.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In that context, it is quite reasonable to assume the interpretation that "persons" refers to "citizens of the United States", – because why wouldn't it? – and that this amendment was meant to apply only to US citizens.
So, if that interpretation is good enough for the 14 amendment, then it should be good enough for the 5th amendment, if just to avoid legal incoherence.
The 14th amendment should clarify how the 5th amendment should be interpreted.
A court could go further – because this is all about interpretation – and rule that the 14th amendment concerning birthright citizenship applies only to persons who are LEGALLY in the United States.
Why shouldn't a court rule that way? There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits such an interpretation.
This is an opportunity for a court to finally establish precedence on the matters of both due process and birthright citizenship.
Um, because those are different combinations of letters making up different words with different meanings? If they meant "citizens" they knew how to write "citizens," since they had done so a few clauses earlier in the very same sentence.