amercer said:

---

Who are we at war with? The lawn care guys?

---

The enemy within. Leftists and the warmongering globalists.

amercer said:

---

Who are we at war with? The lawn care guys?

---

Cartels and illegal drugs entering the US. Keep up....

John Fisher Pessimist said:

---

Can't wait for some nobody judge to dictate national policy and block this

---

He can use the act to deport some of those judges…………

flown-the-coop said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

Congress enacted this law so on what basis do you contend Trump is not allowed to use the law?

---

I don't know…the plain language of the law maybe?

---

The plain language of the law says "any POTUS named Donald J. Trump is not allowed to use this law"?

---

The plain language of the law stipulates conditions for its invocation that do not currently exist.

TAMUallen said:

---

amercer said:

---

Who are we at war with? The lawn care guys?

---

How cute. How about illegals who rape and murder

---

Don't forget all the Canadian fentanyl smugglers.

Quote:

---

The plain language of the law stipulates conditions for its invocation that do not currently exist.

---

What I am having a problem with as well.

There can be a declaration of a clear and present danger but that isn't the specific claim here...yet.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Under the act, the president publicly declares that "all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government' may be detained, relocated, or removed from the Unites States as alien enemies." After the proclamation, the act specifies "it shall be the duty of the several courts of the United States, and of each state, having criminal jurisdiction" to apprehend aliens for court appearances.

---

So which is the hostile nation or government here?

---

I would argue the Mexican cartel nation. They have infiltrated the Mexican government, and have all the qualifications of a nation, whether or not they are a country or a government.

I only see this as working if you can define a nation so specifically. Calling Mexico an imminent threat won't work. Calling the cartels an imminent threat is hard to argue against. The only argument is that POTUS isn't allowed to define the cartels as a nation.

In this context, with a delineation between government OR nation, wouldn't a nation just be a area, land mass or general locale, so to speak?

Does the act aim to protect us from a predatory incursion from a group of people from a nation, even though no invasion or hostilities have been officially declared by their government?

I would consider large, organized, forceful takeovers of public spaces and governmental facilities, with threats of violence to American citizens, a predatory incursion.

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

Invoke it to do what, to whom?

---

I assume the cartels at the southern border, but given CNN it could be aliens from area 51.

DamnGood86 said:

---

In this context, with a delineation between government OR nation, wouldn't a nation just be a area, land mass or general locale, so to speak?

Does the act aim to protect us from a predatory incursion from a group of people from a nation, even though no invasion or hostilities have been officially declared by their government?

I would consider large, organized, forceful takeovers of public spaces and governmental facilities, with threats of violence to American citizens, a predatory incursion.

---

But one that was encouraged, funded and aided by our own government under Biden.

Im thinking all these protesters are tresspassing and should be treated like jan 6, tresspassers.

He can start with all these pro Hamas idiots in our country. I am well pleased to see them shipped straight to the airport and outta here:

pagerman @ work said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

Congress enacted this law so on what basis do you contend Trump is not allowed to use the law?

---

I don't know…the plain language of the law maybe?

---

The plain language of the law says "any POTUS named Donald J. Trump is not allowed to use this law"?

---

The plain language of the law stipulates conditions for its invocation that do not currently exist.

---

Great! What conditions are not being met?

"Per CNN"

48 hour rule- engaged.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The plain language of the law stipulates conditions for its invocation that do not currently exist.

---

What I am having a problem with as well.

There can be a declaration of a clear and present danger but that isn't the specific claim here...yet.

---

Cartels, state sponsored gangs, state sponsored terrorist, foreign intelligence operatives of our enemies (China)… those don't represent a clear and present danger?

Think there were a couple of moms at Trumps speech that would support such declaration.

I am confident Trumps team has this well laid out. The court battles thus far have shown substantial preparation of legal challenges by the left.

I don't think they take this step without the next 5 steps planned out.

Edited to add: I think any implementation of this would not be for "mass deportations" as CNN suggests but very targeted such as actual known terrorists, actual gang leaders, actual cartel leaders, actual Chinese spies.

Quote:

---

Edited to add: I think any implementation of this would not be for "mass deportations" as CNN suggests but very targeted such as actual known terrorists, actual gang leaders, actual cartel leaders, actual Chinese spies.

---

If that specific, okay. Need better communication from the admin about this.

Savior (capital S) = Jesus
savior (small s) = dictionary definition #1 posted earlier.

We have the "War on Drugs" & the "War on Terror"; that may loosely satisfy the 'war' requirement of the Act, but even that is flimsy at best.

BUT, if you consider that Hamas is a designated terrorist organization & the ruling authority of the Palestinian government, &/or that the Cartels are designated as a terrorist organization that controls Mexico since it's a Narco Nation, this Act may apply BECAUSE we went to 'war' against Al Queda, the Taliban, & Iraq under the justification provided by the "War on Terror" without Congress actually declaring a state of war against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, & all the other countries where we conducted major military operations, as well as clandestine activities (Uzbekistan, the Philippines, etc).

Regardless, the historical precedent of this Act's usage all followed a Congressional declaration of war against another Nation, so IMO no matter how much mental gymnastics are needed to justify its usage, Trump's attempt to invoke this Act won't be permitted absent Congress' declaration.

trump did mention it in his inaugural address. But obviously the details remain to be seen. Considering he appears to be attempting to follow-through with his campaign promises, I'd be somewhat surprised if he didn't invoke it especially considering it made the inaugural address

https://www.whitehouse.gov/remarks/2025/01/the-inaugural-address/

"Under the orders I sign today, we will also be designating the cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. (Applause.)

And by invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, I will direct our government to use the full and immense power of federal and state law enforcement to eliminate the presence of all foreign gangs and criminal networks bringing devastating crime to U.S. soil, including our cities and inner cities. (Applause.)"

flown-the-coop said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

Congress enacted this law so on what basis do you contend Trump is not allowed to use the law?

---

I don't know…the plain language of the law maybe?

---

The plain language of the law says "any POTUS named Donald J. Trump is not allowed to use this law"?

---

The plain language of the law stipulates conditions for its invocation that do not currently exist.

---

Great! What conditions are not being met?

---

The text:

Quote:

---

That 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, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, 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, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies.

---

We are not in a declared war with anyone, and no foreign nation or government has perpetrated, attempted or threatened an invasion or predatory incursion.

Rapier108 said:

---

damiond said:

---

rathAG05 said:

---

It was always going to take an aggressive domestic policy to resolve the hostile takeover of our country that the Biden admin allowed. Trump is the man for the moment.

---

well said

ends justify means

he is our savior

---

There is only one savior and it isn't Trump. It is disgusting you're comparing him to Jesus.

---

You've been on here how long, and don't realize that's a troll account?

All it does is post passive aggressive praise, through various articles that they think may be detrimental to conservatives and/or Republicans.

Ag in Tiger Country said:

---

We have the "War on Drugs" & the "War on Terror"; that may loosely satisfy the 'war' requirement of the Act, but even that is flimsy at best.

BUT, if you consider that Hamas is a designated terrorist organization & the ruling authority of the Palestinian government, &/or that the Cartels are designated as a terrorist organization that controls Mexico since it's a Narco Nation, this Act may apply BECAUSE we went to 'war' against Al Queda, the Taliban, & Iraq under the justification provided by the "War on Terror" without Congress actually declaring a state of war against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, & all the other countries where we conducted major military operations, as well as clandestine activities (Uzbekistan, the Philippines, etc).

Regardless, the historical precedent of this Act's usage all followed a Congressional declaration of war against another Nation, so IMO no matter how much mental gymnastics are needed to justify its usage, Trump's attempt to invoke this Act won't be permitted absent Congress' declaration.

---

yep - As with most things from congress, congress has unfortunately delegated practically its entire job to the executive branch, including the war issue. And I'm not a fan of us going to 'war' without congressional approval. If war is necessary - and sending young men and women to potentially die -, then there will (or should) be enough support in congress to support it.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Edited to add: I think any implementation of this would not be for "mass deportations" as CNN suggests but very targeted such as actual known terrorists, actual gang leaders, actual cartel leaders, actual Chinese spies.

---

If that specific, okay. Need better communication from the admin about this.

---

I think the communication strategy is disjointed on purpose. Why lay out all your cards when no matter what the Dems and their judicial cabal are going to block it.

Makes them show their cards before Trump teams shows theirs. It's not ideal from a general public knowledge for interested folks such as ourselves, but they are committed to action and that action bringing popular support, versus big announcements and no follow through.

As always, appreciate your insight Hawg.

flown-the-coop said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Edited to add: I think any implementation of this would not be for "mass deportations" as CNN suggests but very targeted such as actual known terrorists, actual gang leaders, actual cartel leaders, actual Chinese spies.

---

If that specific, okay. Need better communication from the admin about this.

---

I think the communication strategy is disjointed on purpose. Why lay out all your cards when no matter what the Dems and their judicial cabal are going to block it.

Makes them show their cards before Trump teams shows theirs. It's not ideal from a general public knowledge for interested folks such as ourselves, but they are committed to action and that action bringing popular support, versus big announcements and no follow through.

As always, appreciate your insight Hawg.

---

If he is going to invoke it, then he must make a public proclamation justifying his doing so per the act itself.

pagerman @ work said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

Congress enacted this law so on what basis do you contend Trump is not allowed to use the law?

---

I don't know…the plain language of the law maybe?

---

The plain language of the law says "any POTUS named Donald J. Trump is not allowed to use this law"?

---

The plain language of the law stipulates conditions for its invocation that do not currently exist.

---

Great! What conditions are not being met?

---

The text:

Quote:

---

That 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, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, 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, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies.

---

We are not in a declared war with anyone, and no foreign nation or government has perpetrated, attempted or threatened an invasion or predatory incursion.

---

To be clear, the latter part of your statement is subject to interpretation.

See other discussion above on how terrorist groups and gangs that exist in a manner that borders, government and nation status does not make sense to apply.

Particularly with Mexico, Venezuela and China they are absolutely being supported by their governments to invade and threaten the US.

If you cannot see that, then I would suggest spending more time truly understanding what happened with the open border policies and how many top level criminals and terror organizers are operating on our soil.

In what world should we allow that? To me, it would be Trump defying his oath of office to do nothing.

The group think and absolute metal gymnastics people on this site will use to justify the actions of Trump should be studied for years to come. It is cult like in its operation and dangerous in its implementation of the government. This quote will always ring true and I truly hope it doesn't reach you the way you wish it does on those you hate.

" First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

pagerman @ work said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Edited to add: I think any implementation of this would not be for "mass deportations" as CNN suggests but very targeted such as actual known terrorists, actual gang leaders, actual cartel leaders, actual Chinese spies.

---

If that specific, okay. Need better communication from the admin about this.

---

I think the communication strategy is disjointed on purpose. Why lay out all your cards when no matter what the Dems and their judicial cabal are going to block it.

Makes them show their cards before Trump teams shows theirs. It's not ideal from a general public knowledge for interested folks such as ourselves, but they are committed to action and that action bringing popular support, versus big announcements and no follow through.

As always, appreciate your insight Hawg.

---

If he is going to invoke it, then he must make a public proclamation justifying his doing so per the act itself.

---

Can you cite the public proclamation requirement?

I mean, Trumps inauguration speech proclaimed he would be using the act to deport illegals who represent a threat to our Nation.

What specifically more does he need to do? I imagine when he announces the involvement of the act that would be a public proclamation as well, no?

As a college educated, straight white male, I have never felt so oppressed. Thank God Trumps is protecting me.

Rapier108 said:

---

damiond said:

---

rathAG05 said:

---

It was always going to take an aggressive domestic policy to resolve the hostile takeover of our country that the Biden admin allowed. Trump is the man for the moment.

---

well said

ends justify means

he is our savior

---

There is only one savior and it isn't Trump. It is disgusting you're comparing him to Jesus.

---

There's a "Religion" board if you want to go have that argument...please stop spamming this thread with religion...

flown-the-coop said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Edited to add: I think any implementation of this would not be for "mass deportations" as CNN suggests but very targeted such as actual known terrorists, actual gang leaders, actual cartel leaders, actual Chinese spies.

---

If that specific, okay. Need better communication from the admin about this.

---

I think the communication strategy is disjointed on purpose. Why lay out all your cards when no matter what the Dems and their judicial cabal are going to block it.

Makes them show their cards before Trump teams shows theirs. It's not ideal from a general public knowledge for interested folks such as ourselves, but they are committed to action and that action bringing popular support, versus big announcements and no follow through.

As always, appreciate your insight Hawg.

---

If he is going to invoke it, then he must make a public proclamation justifying his doing so per the act itself.

---

Can you cite the public proclamation requirement?

I mean, Trumps inauguration speech proclaimed he would be using the act to deport illegals who represent a threat to our Nation.

What specifically more does he need to do? I imagine when he announces the involvement of the act that would be a public proclamation as well, no?

---

"the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, 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, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies"

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts#enemies

KillerAg21 said:

---

The group think and absolute metal gymnastics people on this site will use to justify the actions of Trump should be studied for years to come. It is cult like in its operation and dangerous in its implementation of the government. This quote will always ring true and I truly hope it doesn't reach you the way you wish it does on those you hate.

" First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

---

The quote is not remotely related to what is happening here. These are terrorists, spies, criminals intending or committing harm to United States citizens.

Well, maybe you quote does ring true. Because at first the libs came for our bibles and religion. Then they came for our right to bear arms. Then they came for our right to free speech via media and social media censorship, then they came for our bodies and the bodies of our children with vaccine mandates and transitioning our children without parental consent or involvement.

But guess what, 78 million spoke up and elected a leader to speak and act on our behalf's.

Ask yourself why the "cult of Trump" supposedly "hates" those being marked for deportation. It's not based on skin color, religion, sexual orientation… any hate Trump supporters have is hate based on people planning and doing ACTUAL harm to our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

Tea Party said:

---

will25u said:

---

Look, I am probably one of the biggest Trump cheerleaders here. But just reading the actual Alien Enemies Act with just a normal persons reading comprehension, it states very clearly the the US must have a declared war on a foreign nation or government. The US is not at war with anyone currently.

So that is why *I* think it will not go anywhere. But I am not a slimy lawyer, so what do I know.

Quote:

---

That 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

---

---

I'm not agreeing that Trump invoking this has merit, but skipping the "or..." in the above seems like a pretty big omition in your reasoning....

---

Yep. Palestine has a "government"…….they even have folks in the UN as well as embassies…….

GOOD

flown-the-coop said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

Congress enacted this law so on what basis do you contend Trump is not allowed to use the law?

---

I don't know…the plain language of the law maybe?

---

The plain language of the law says "any POTUS named Donald J. Trump is not allowed to use this law"?

---

The plain language of the law stipulates conditions for its invocation that do not currently exist.

---

Great! What conditions are not being met?

---

The text:

Quote:

---

That 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, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, 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, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies.

---

We are not in a declared war with anyone, and no foreign nation or government has perpetrated, attempted or threatened an invasion or predatory incursion.

---

To be clear, the latter part of your statement is subject to interpretation.

See other discussion above on how terrorist groups and gangs that exist in a manner that borders, government and nation status does not make sense to apply.

Particularly with Mexico, Venezuela and China they are absolutely being supported by their governments to invade and threaten the US.

If you cannot see that, then I would suggest spending more time truly understanding what happened with the open border policies and how many top level criminals and terror organizers are operating on our soil.

In what world should we allow that? To me, it would be Trump defying his oath of office to do nothing.

---

I can see how you would desperately like to believe that (as would Trump [pbuh]), but simply declaring something a nation does not mean it is in fact one.

I'm old enough to remember when conservatives believed in the letter of the law so that government authority was minimized rather than the expansive reading of the law so as to allow as much power and authority to government as it wished at any given moment.

flown-the-coop said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Edited to add: I think any implementation of this would not be for "mass deportations" as CNN suggests but very targeted such as actual known terrorists, actual gang leaders, actual cartel leaders, actual Chinese spies.

---

If that specific, okay. Need better communication from the admin about this.

---

I think the communication strategy is disjointed on purpose. Why lay out all your cards when no matter what the Dems and their judicial cabal are going to block it.

Makes them show their cards before Trump teams shows theirs. It's not ideal from a general public knowledge for interested folks such as ourselves, but they are committed to action and that action bringing popular support, versus big announcements and no follow through.

As always, appreciate your insight Hawg.

---

If he is going to invoke it, then he must make a public proclamation justifying his doing so per the act itself.

---

Can you cite the public proclamation requirement?

I mean, Trumps inauguration speech proclaimed he would be using the act to deport illegals who represent a threat to our Nation.

What specifically more does he need to do? I imagine when he announces the involvement of the act that would be a public proclamation as well, no?

---

The law itself:

Quote:

---

That 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, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, 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, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies.

---

The point is that Trump cannot invoke the act and not justify his actions in doing so, thus "not show his cards".