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

JSRG said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ozso said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

essentialsaltes said:

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.

Click to expand...

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”.

Valletta said:

“I will invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798,” Trump said at his rally, “to target and dismantle every criminal network operating on American soil.”

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

The president had campaigned on invoking the centuries-old law to remove illegal migrants from “enemy nations” if they are deemed a threat to the US — a move that would bypass any…

nypost.com

Every tool is needed to save our country.

Click to expand...

The FBI has moved from prioritizing FOREIGN threats as the biggest threat
to America, to prioritizing groups within America, as the bigggest threat
to American security.

I understand if the president wants some sort of legal foundation to expel
alien criminals. BUT, I see no effort by the president to rope in home-grown
nutbars, who operate in America. And, this includes those who flaunt the rule of
law, and seek to mpose their religion, and worldviews, on all Americans.

Stephen3141 said:

The FBI has moved from prioritizing FOREIGN threats as the biggest threat
to America, to prioritizing groups within America, as the bigggest threat
to American security.

I understand if the president wants some sort of legal foundation to expel
alien criminals. BUT, I see no effort by the president to rope in home-grown
nutbars, who operate in America. And, this includes those who flaunt the rule of
law, and seek to mpose their religion, and worldviews, on all Americans.

Click to expand...

He just arrested a bunch of MS13 gang members on US soil

He has also come down hard on antisemitic groups (which I disagree with some of this) in the US on all sides of the political spectrum

what efforts do you want him to make in regards to "home-grown nutbars?" --bugging phones, arresting people in mosques, arresting kids for making edgy posts on 4chan? Do we really want to go Patriot Act on steroids?

don't give him any ideas

Merrill said:

He just arrested a bunch of MS13 gang members on US soil

He has also come down hard on antisemitic groups (which I disagree with some of this) in the US on all sides of the political spectrum

what efforts do you want him to make in regards to "home-grown nutbars?" --bugging phones, arresting people in mosques, arresting kids for making edgy posts on 4chan? Do we really want to go Patriot Act on steroids?

don't give him any ideas

Click to expand...

Why not?


If you aren't a criminal you have nothing to hide!

Stephen3141 said:

The FBI has moved from prioritizing FOREIGN threats as the biggest threat
to America, to prioritizing groups within America, as the bigggest threat
to American security.

I understand if the president wants some sort of legal foundation to expel
alien criminals. BUT, I see no effort by the president to rope in home-grown
nutbars, who operate in America. And, this includes those who flaunt the rule of
law, and seek to mpose their religion, and worldviews, on all Americans.

Click to expand...

Of course not. They elected him and he's on their side. Of course in the end he'll sell them out, but that's another story.

BCP1928... who is the "he" you are talking about???

Stephen3141 said:

BCP1928... who is the "he" you are talking about???

Click to expand...

I assumed Stephen was talking about Trump and his religious supporters. His description was apt, although I wouldn't necessarily characterize them as "nutbars" myself.

essentialsaltes said:

Appeals court rejects Trump bid to overturn Alien Enemies Act deportation block​

Click to expand...

SCOTUS accepts Trump bid to overturn AEA deportation block, BUT requires 'real' due process for all of them. In the future. In Texas.

This is not a final decision of the case and the validity of the use of the AEA in this manner, but (as I understand it) a ruling on the block.

The ruling did not touch the couple hundred that were on their way when the original order came down.

US Supreme Court lets Trump pursue deportations under 1798 law, with limits​

The court, in an unsigned 5-4 ruling [ACB joined 'the liberals'] powered by conservative justices, granted the administration's request to lift Washington-based U.S. Judge James Boasberg's March 15 order that had temporarily blocked the summary deportations under Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act while litigation in the case continues.

Despite siding with the administration, the court's majority placed limits on how deportations may occur, emphasizing that judicial review is required.

In Monday's decision, the court said that to challenge the legitimacy of their detention under the Alien Enemies Act detainees must pursue so-called habeas corpus claims in the federal judicial district where a detainee is located. That means that the proper venue for this litigation was in Texas, [i.e. the 5th Circuit] not the District of Columbia, the court said.

"This ruling means we will need to start the court process over again in a different venue, but the critical point is that the Supreme Court said individuals must be given due process to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act," [ACLU lawyer] Gelernt said. "That is a huge victory."