Trump to use wartime Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport illegal migrants from ‘enemy nations’: sources

[Hans Blaster]

Except you're missing the point. You claimed the Democratic states, by not criminalizing marijuana, are somehow violating the Supremacy Clause because the federal government has it criminalized.

But they're not. Even if the federal government was enforcing the marijuana ban--which it barely has for quite a while--that doesn't mean state is under any requirement to criminalize it themselves. There's various things that the federal government has made a crime but not all states have. By your logic, if the federal government says "X is a crime" then any state that doesn't also have it in their own laws that "X is a crime" is somehow violating the Supremacy Clause--which is obviously not the case. For example, a law passed in 2020 by the federal government, you have to be 21 years old to buy cigarettes. That does not mean that every state suddenly was required to raise their own age requirements to 21.

As for your analogy of slavery, you're swapping out a constitutional issue with a legal one. The relationship between state law and the constitution is not exactly the same as state law and federal law.

Let's try another example -- minimum wage laws. The federal government sets the minimum wage at $7.25/hour. Some states set it higher. Some states (SC, AL, TN, MS) have *no* state minimum wage. The existence of a federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr does not precluded Florida from having their own minimum wage of $13/hour. An employer in Florida that pays $10/hr is not violating the federal minimum wage law, but *is* violating the Florida law. An employer in Tennessee that pay $6/hr is not violating the non-existent Tennessee minimum wage law, but *is* violating the Federal minimum wage law.

If the US Congress passed a *maximum hourly wage law* of $12/hr, then an employer in Florida that paid $13/hr to be in compliance with the state minimum wage law would be in violation of the Federal *maximum wage law*. Here the Supremacy clause would kick in and the Florida minimum wage law would be voided.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So far it's merely a matter of not ordering airplanes already outside of US airspace over international waters...

DOJ has contradicted itself on when immigration removal is complete, ACLU argues​

The ACLU cited a government filing from earlier this month.

In the AEA case, the government has argued -- among other things -- that it did not violate the court's orders to turn deportation flights around because the removals had "already occurred" once the two planes heading to El Salvador were out of United States airspace.

The ACLU cited a March 10 government filing in a separate case pertaining to the potential transfer of immigration detainees to Guantanamo Bay. In that filing, the DOJ argued that "[to] effectuate a departure or removal, the alien must lawfully enter another country" and that "the removal process is not complete until the individual reaches the final destination."

"Indeed, it would lead to an impossible situation if the government's broad removal and detention powers under the [Immigration and Naturalization Act] were held to instantly terminate as soon as the detainee's flight left U.S airspace. Detainees placed on ICE-operated removal missions must remain subject to [Enforcement and Removal Operations] custody and adhere to ICE transfer and transportation policies until they have arrived at the country of removal, only at which point custody can be relinquished," the March 10 filing stated.

 

[Pommer]

DOJ has contradicted itself on when immigration removal is complete, ACLU argues​

The ACLU cited a government filing from earlier this month.

In the AEA case, the government has argued -- among other things -- that it did not violate the court's orders to turn deportation flights around because the removals had "already occurred" once the two planes heading to El Salvador were out of United States airspace.

The ACLU cited a March 10 government filing in a separate case pertaining to the potential transfer of immigration detainees to Guantanamo Bay. In that filing, the DOJ argued that "[to] effectuate a departure or removal, the alien must lawfully enter another country" and that "the removal process is not complete until the individual reaches the final destination."

"Indeed, it would lead to an impossible situation if the government's broad removal and detention powers under the [Immigration and Naturalization Act] were held to instantly terminate as soon as the detainee's flight left U.S airspace. Detainees placed on ICE-operated removal missions must remain subject to [Enforcement and Removal Operations] custody and adhere to ICE transfer and transportation policies until they have arrived at the country of removal, only at which point custody can be relinquished," the March 10 filing stated.

The Government can argue that both (AEA, oppsie, the judge was “too late”; GItmo, it’s still US soil-ish), are “correct”.
But once flights to other sovereign nations are “in-the-air”, that sovereign nation has “custody”.

“It can be both!” because doublethink is now “policy”.