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

[essentialsaltes]

'Nazis got better treatment,' Appeals judge says of Trump administration's Alien Enemies Act deportations​

An appeals court is hearing arguments over the use of the Alien Enemies Act.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard arguments Monday afternoon over the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act last week to deport more than 200 alleged members of a Venezuelan gang to El Salvador with no due process.

"There were plane loads of people. There were no procedures in place to notify people," Judge Patricia Millett said. "Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act."

"There's no regulations, and nothing was adopted by the agency officials that were administering this. They people weren't given notice. They weren't told where they were going. They were given those people on those planes on that Saturday and had no opportunity to file habeas or any type of action to challenge the removal under the AEA," Judge Millet said. "What's factually wrong about what I said?"

"Well, Your Honor, we certainly dispute the Nazi analogy," Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign said

Love-15

OK, chaff machine, do your job.

 

[BPPLEE]

If that's what you want then great for you.

If you want a Republican president with unilateral power unimpeded by Congress and the Judiciary, then you will be happy, perhaps even giddy over what Trump and His think tank team and His enablers are doing right now. Perhaps their end goal is to get rid of the pesky elections too, and maybe that is also want you want. I feel many of the MAGA's want this too.
I don't think the American experiment of the three co-equal branches is what those people want. They think it impedes Trump and His agenda.
I don't think they value ethics and law, certainly don't want law limiting Trump carrying out His agenda.

I think MAGA want USA to be like China, Russia and North Korea. A country where the Premier rules, can get things done quickly, can force religious ideals onto the populous, distances themselves from international alliances and uses their economic and military might to compete for resources and territory. One where they don't have to worry about 4 year terms and can simply lead forever, carrying out their agenda how the Premier best sees fit.

It would be great if the MAGA's are just honest and upfront and tell us straight up that this is what they want.

I'm glad this is nothing more than what you think

 

[stevil]

I'm glad this is nothing more than what you think

You have no concerns with the President removing the IGs and JAGs, deporting people without due process and ignoring court orders to stop doing that?
It's all good by you?

You OK with Congress calling the whole rest of the year just 1 calander day so as to avoid their job of being a check and balance on the executive for calling a national emergency? It's all good with you?

As long as it is a Republican president doing it?

 

[BPPLEE]

You have no concerns with the President removing the IGs and JAGs, deporting people without due process and ignoring court orders to stop doing that?
It's all good by you?

You OK with Congress calling the whole rest of the year just 1 calander day so as to avoid their job of being a check and balance on the executive for calling a national emergency? It's all good with you?

As long as it is a Republican president doing it?

I believe the Venezuelan gang members will be brought back and then the correct procedures followed and they will be deported again.
Even following the old statute they used I would think that they would have to prove that the people deported are members of the designated gang.
I'm not sure what you're going on about as far as congress

 

[stevil]

I believe the Venezuelan gang members will be brought back and then the correct procedures followed and they will be deported again.
Even following the old statute they used I would think that they would have to prove that the people deported are members of the designated gang.
I'm not sure what you're going on about as far as congress

When there is a national emergency called by the executive, Congress can confirm that there is an still an emergency or they can vote to end the emergency, This is a check and balance on the power of the executive. The Dems have called for a vote and so Congress by law have 15 days to hold the vote. The Republicans don't want to put their names against either confirming or voting against the national emergency so they have decided to redefine a calandar day as being for the whole rest of the year. One single day!

Basically they are abdicating their responsibility to the executive branch, a/k/a/ a puppet congress.

 

[lismore]

The president identified the group as a terrorist organization by EO even though they do not meet the definition of terrorist organization.

Obviously they met his definition of a terrorist organization. Kind Regards to you.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I believe the Venezuelan gang members will be brought back

What's the timeline on that?

 

[Merrill]

California Senate Bill 54 (2017) ​

a 2017 California state law that prevents state and local law enforcement agencies from using their resources on behalf of federal immigration enforcement agencies.

This is a law.



If that were so, why didn't/doesn't Trump's DOJ start doing something about these so-called violations of the law?

Last time, Trump tried to use an EO to punish sanctuary cities, but one of those pesky federal judges said it was unconstitutional.


No, but fortunately, they are not doing any such thing. Criminals get arrested. And SB54...

allows for cooperation between local, state and federal law enforcement in cases of violent illegal immigrants

and that California law is likely unconstitutional, as it violates the Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. There have been lawsuits launched against it, including this one:


Huntington Beach sues state of California over sanctuary law

I don't know why a greater effort was made against these laws up till now, but I think the gloves are now off

states cannot simply decide they are going to ignore the US Constitution

 

[essentialsaltes]

and that California law is likely unconstitutional, as it violates the Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. There have been lawsuits launched against it, including this one

And by the Trump Administration, which argued the Supremacy Clause and lost.

The Justice Department argued this provision violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law. [Judge] Mendez disagreed [and dismissed the case against SB54]

 

[Merrill]

And by the Trump Administration, which argued the Supremacy Clause and lost.

The Justice Department argued this provision violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law. [Judge] Mendez disagreed [and dismissed the case against SB54]

which was obviously a bad decision

should South Carolina enact segregation again, and ignore the 14th Amendment, along with the Supremacy Clause? All they need to do is find some partisan district judge to back them up on this?

States are already flouting federal narcotics laws ...

and if this is the way it is going to be, we can expect presidents to start stretching the limits of executive power, or even doing unconstitutional things, in order to stop the anarchy and lawlessness yes?

 

[Pommer]

and that California law is likely unconstitutional, as it violates the Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. There have been lawsuits launched against it, including this one:


Huntington Beach sues state of California over sanctuary law

I don't know why a greater effort was made against these laws up till now, but I think the gloves are now off

states cannot simply decide they are going to ignore the US Constitution

Joe Biden got SCOTUS to rule that immigration was under the purview of the Federal Government, and states could only do minimal “border stuff”.

For the Federal Governmnet to turn around and say to States, “you must use your own revenues to help the federal government enforce immigration laws” would violate states’ rights.

 

[Pommer]

which was obviously a bad decision

should South Carolina enact segregation again, and ignore the 14th Amendment, along with the Supremacy Clause? All they need to do is find some partisan district judge to back them up on this?

States are already flouting federal narcotics laws ...

and if this is the way it is going to be, we can expect presidents to start stretching the limits of executive power, or even doing unconstitutional things, in order to stop the anarchy and lawlessness yes?

Wow, wrong.
The “several States” are all sovereign.

 

[essentialsaltes]

which was obviously a bad decision

SCOTUS disagreed. And that's that.

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to California’s “Sanctuary State” Law Leaving the Law Intact​

On Monday, June 15, 2020, the U. S. Supreme Court declined to grant review of the Trump Administration’s challenge to California’s so-called “Sanctuary State” law (“SB 54”). By not granting review of United States v. California, et al., the U.S. Supreme Court left intact SB 54, a 2017 California law which, in part, restricts state and local law enforcement agencies (including school police and security departments) from using resources to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest people for immigration enforcement purposes, subject to certain exceptions.

 

[Hans Blaster]

which was obviously a bad decision

Your two years of posts have not given us any reasons to trust your training as a legal analysis.

should South Carolina enact segregation again, and ignore the 14th Amendment, along with the Supremacy Clause? All they need to do is find some partisan district judge to back them up on this?

The 14th amendment is *aimed* directly at states. (Have any judges agreed to the Trump admin's interpretation of birth-right citizenship which is also in the 14th Am?)

States are already flouting federal narcotics laws ...

We're talking about cannabis here, right? Do the federal narcotics laws tell states to not license businesses that sell it? To maintain possession laws? I doubt it. That whole thing started with small numbers of police forces/prosecutors deciding to to make arrests and prosecutions for possession under state, county, and municipal drug laws.

and if this is the way it is going to be, we can expect presidents to start stretching the limits of executive power, or even doing unconstitutional things, in order to stop the anarchy and lawlessness yes?

The stretching of the limits of executive power is exactly what this is about and you have the causation backward.

 

[Merrill]

Your two years of posts have not given us any reasons to trust your training as a legal analysis.

The 14th amendment is *aimed* directly at states. (Have any judges agreed to the Trump admin's interpretation of birth-right citizenship which is also in the 14th Am?)


We're talking about cannabis here, right? Do the federal narcotics laws tell states to not license businesses that sell it? To maintain possession laws? I doubt it. That whole thing started with small numbers of police forces/prosecutors deciding to to make arrests and prosecutions for possession under state, county, and municipal drug laws.

The stretching of the limits of executive power is exactly what this is about and you have the causation backward.

"Your two years of posts have not given us any reasons to trust your training as a legal analysis."

oh really? And you are the guy who insisted that Trump would be taken off the ballot in the 14th Amendment case last year--and I correctly said the case would not result in anything like that.

Effort to keep Donald Trump off ballot backfires

Minnesota's top court backed the former president in an effort to bar him from the 2024 primary ballot.

www.newsweek.com

sure looks like my track record is a lot better than yours

 

[Arcangl86]

and that California law is likely unconstitutional, as it violates the Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. There have been lawsuits launched against it, including this one:

It doesn't violate the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause is a conflict of laws clause, which states that if state and federal law conflicts then the federal law controls. There is no federal law requiring states to help enforce immigration law, and if there were one, it would be invalidated for violating the 10th amendment.

Huntington Beach sues state of California over sanctuary law

I don't know why a greater effort was made against these laws up till now, but I think the gloves are now off

Because they are quite clearly unconstitutional under the anti-commendeering doctrine and even this SCOTUS is unlikely to overturn that doctrine.

states cannot simply decide they are going to ignore the US Constitution

No state is ignoring the US Constitution.

which was obviously a bad decision

Based on the law or on the fact that you disagreed with it?

should South Carolina enact segregation again, and ignore the 14th Amendment, along with the Supremacy Clause? All they need to do is find some partisan district judge to back them up on this?

Bad example since the 14th Amendment directly regulates the actions of states. That's not the case with the INA.

States are already flouting federal narcotics laws ...

Really? How? Weed is still illegal in all 50 states. Now it's true that it's not illegal as a matter of state law in many states, but that's where your beloved supremacy comes in. While it has become policy to not enforce the law against recreational marijuna (medical is actually protected by legislation), there is nothing saying that the feds can't come in and arrest anybody selling or buying recreational marijuana even in a state that allows for it. It would be different if the states claimed that the federal law didn't apply and tried to prevent the federal government from enforcing them, but that's not the case. Interestingly enough, several states have done just that with certain firearm laws. Are you opposed to that as well?

and if this is the way it is going to be, we can expect presidents to start stretching the limits of executive power, or even doing unconstitutional things, in order to stop the anarchy and lawlessness yes?

Are you suggesting that the solution to anarchy and lawlessness (which btw you have not demonstrated existing) is more anarchy and lawlessness?

 

[Hans Blaster]

"Your two years of posts have not given us any reasons to trust your training as a legal analysis."

oh really? And you are the guy who insisted that Trump would be taken off the ballot in the 14th Amendment case last year--and I correctly said the case would not result in anything like that.

Effort to keep Donald Trump off ballot backfires

Minnesota's top court backed the former president in an effort to bar him from the 2024 primary ballot.

www.newsweek.com

I didn't write that. I do not now or ever have written for Newsweek.

sure looks like my track record is a lot better than yours

 

[Merrill]

It doesn't violate the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause is a conflict of laws clause, which states that if state and federal law conflicts then the federal law controls. There is no federal law requiring states to help enforce immigration law, and if there were one, it would be invalidated for violating the 10th amendment.

Because they are quite clearly unconstitutional under the anti-commendeering doctrine and even this SCOTUS is unlikely to overturn that doctrine.

No state is ignoring the US Constitution.


Based on the law or on the fact that you disagreed with it?

Bad example since the 14th Amendment directly regulates the actions of states. That's not the case with the INA.

Really? How? Weed is still illegal in all 50 states. Now it's true that it's not illegal as a matter of state law in many states, but that's where your beloved supremacy comes in. While it has become policy to not enforce the law against recreational marijuna (medical is actually protected by legislation), there is nothing saying that the feds can't come in and arrest anybody selling or buying recreational marijuana even in a state that allows for it. It would be different if the states claimed that the federal law didn't apply and tried to prevent the federal government from enforcing them, but that's not the case. Interestingly enough, several states have done just that with certain firearm laws. Are you opposed to that as well?

Are you suggesting that the solution to anarchy and lawlessness (which btw you have not demonstrated existing) is more anarchy and lawlessness?

so let me ask you this:

the CA law is basically designed to prevent local and state enforcement of federal law. It doesn't directly contradict federal law (like Arizona vs. the US 2012), but skirts it.

it is basically a jurisdictional battle

likewise, states have refused to enforce federal narcotics laws, and have legalized weed on the state level

but should states be able to pass laws that say "we will not longer prosecute murder" or "we won't arrest people for rape anymore"? Or maybe the state can pass a law that says it won't stand in the way of local authorities shutting down newspapers and arresting people for political speech.

pretty sure you would say "such laws would not be permissible"

why?

because they violate fundamental sections of the US Constitution ...and there is this thing called the Supremacy Clause

finding loopholes and clever schemes to allow for lawlessness at the state level is wrong, both ethically and (ultimately) legally. We have borders and immigration law for a reason, just as we have narcotics laws.

If the Democrats want to continue supporting lawlessness, they will continue losing elections, and all of this will be corrected.

 

[Arcangl86]

so let me ask you this:

the CA law is basically designed to prevent local and state enforcement of federal law. It doesn't directly contradict federal law (like Arizona vs. the US 2012), but skirts it.

it is basically a jurisdictional battle

likewise, states have refused to enforce federal narcotics laws, and have legalized weed on the state level

Correct on both cases.

but should states be able to pass laws that say "we will not longer prosecute murder" or "we won't arrest people for rape anymore"?

Sure. That's kinda the whole point of states having plenary police power. They get to decide what is and what isn't a crime in their jurisdiction. Now I think this would be a horrible idea on a policy level, but perfectly legal.

Or maybe the state can pass a law that says it won't stand in the way of local authorities shutting down newspapers and arresting people for political speech.

Once again the 14th Amendment comes into the picture since it incorporates the Bill of Rights into state law in all states. But here's the big difference. Local authorities, what ever form that might take e.g: town, city, county, etc., are not sovereign. They exist as a creation of state law and thus every exercise of power they make is an exercise of state power. As such they are bound by the same limitations as the state government, and conversely are required to do what the state tells them. That's why there are so many preemption laws. The several states on the other hand are independently sovereign and don't derive their authority from the federal government.

pretty sure you would say "such laws would not be permissible"

For the second one yes, and I explained why.

why?
because they violate fundamental sections of the US Constitution

Nothing in the US Constitution requires states laws to be identical to federal ones, (for instance regarding narcotics), nor in assisting the federal government in enforcing law that they have enacted.

...and there is this thing called the Supremacy Clause

Sure, which you seem to have a misunderstanding of. The SUpremacy Clause doesn't mean that the states are forced to do what the federal government wants. It simply means that when state and federal law, including the constitution, conflict the federal law is the one that takes effect.

finding loopholes and clever schemes to allow for lawlessness at the state level is wrong, both ethically and (ultimately) legally.

What lawlessness? Having different laws and priorities then you would prefer is not the same thing as lawlessness. In fact, regarding sanctuary policies, the largest reason they exist is to promote law and order. They want people to be able to go to local law enforcement to report crimes without being deterred from doing so by fear of being handed over to ICE.

We have borders and immigration law for a reason,

Sure. And the states have laws around state participation and enforcement of those for their own reasons.

just as we have narcotics laws.

And states are allowed to execute their own judgment over what their own controlled substance laws look like as long as they aren't preventing the enforcement of federal law.

If the Democrats want to continue supporting lawlessness,

Everything the democrats support is strictly within the law, even if it doesn't match your own personal policy preferences. Also, is there a reason you didn't respond to my question about the states that have laws purporting to forbid the enforcement of certain firearm laws by anybody, including the federal government?

they will continue losing elections,

Considering the Republicans nominated a felon who was then elected, I'm not sure there is any connection between law and order and electoral success.

and all of this will be corrected.

How, within the bounds of the Constitution, would it be corrected?

 

[Hans Blaster]

so let me ask you this:

the CA law is basically designed to prevent local and state enforcement of federal law. It doesn't directly contradict federal law (like Arizona vs. the US 2012), but skirts it.

it is basically a jurisdictional battle

likewise, states have refused to enforce federal narcotics laws, and have legalized weed on the state level

States don't enforce *ANY* federal laws. That's what the DOJ and federal courts are for.

but should states be able to pass laws that say "we will not longer prosecute murder" or "we won't arrest people for rape anymore"?

They can, most have little to no motivation to do so.

Or maybe the state can pass a law that says it won't stand in the way of local authorities shutting down newspapers and arresting people for political speech.

That would be a serious civil rights violation and in violation of ... the 14th amendment.

pretty sure you would say "such laws would not be permissible"

Didn't quite go how you thought did it?

why?

Can you figure it out?

because they violate fundamental sections of the US Constitution

The newspaper one would violate Amd. XIV, Sec. 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

(Oh look what else is in there!)

...and there is this thing called the Supremacy Clause

which works like this:

FED. LAW: Pot is illegal to possess.
Arizona: Not here!
FBI/DOJ to AZ pot dealer: You're under arrest.

It does not end,
DOJ to Mesa PD: Arrest those pot dealers.

The Supremacy Clause means that a state can't pass a law that would void a federal law, etc. In this case (INA), no state can prevent the deportation of any non-citizen resident if the INA specifies a reason for deportation (overstay visa, committing a heinous crime, etc.)

finding loopholes and clever schemes to allow for lawlessness at the state level is wrong, both ethically and (ultimately) legally. We have borders and immigration law for a reason, just as we have narcotics laws.

If the Democrats want to continue supporting lawlessness, they will continue losing elections, and all of this will be corrected.