pagerman @ work said:

---

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.

---

Seems like we fought Al Qaeda, ISIS, ISIL, Hamas, Taliban and none of them are nations.

The act also refers to only males. Is Trump prohibited by the act from deporting female terrorists? Seems like libs would love this.

Laws are subject to interpretation. Sort of how our legal system works.

it will be interesting how this plays out. The suspicion is that they are going for some 'war on terror' angle and that is why they think labeling TDA and cartels as terror groups will work.

Per the act, there has to be a declared war. The only arguably 'declared war' is the so-called 'war on terror' from the AUMF from 2001. "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organiza- tions, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

couple obviously slanted articles point out a few things. The AUMF has been extended incredibly. https://www.crisisgroup.org/united-states/005-overkill-reforming-legal-basis-us-war-terror

and a president's invocation of this act and the political questions doctrine has kept the judiciary out of the president's decision-making in this regard. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/alien-enemies-act-explained

"And World War II ended in 1945, but the Truman administration used the law for internment and deportations until 1951. In its 1948 Ludecke v. Watkins opinion, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court upheld the Truman administration's extended reliance on the Alien Enemies Act, reasoning that it was not the judiciary's place to second-guess the president on a matter as "political" as when a war terminates and wartime authorities expired.


Trump is exercising the (extensive and more and more) authority which has been given to the executive over the years. the AUMF discusses a link to 9/11 - that will be a stretch (maybe? - simply show a link between the heroin production in Afghanistan and cartels in Mexico), but trump is giving it a shot.

This goes to Flown as well.

I suspect that when he issues the Executive Order it will then be a public proclamation. If not, he can go on TV and address the nation. Hell, he could probably just put it in a newspaper.

That is the LEAST trivial part of this. That is the easy part.

The part that will get this tripped up is whether he can get by the declared war, and nation status issues.

Still think this is a no-go from the get-go.

Quote:

---

The act also refers to only males. Is Trump prohibited by the act from deporting female terrorists? Seems like libs would love this.

---

Only if Trump can travel back in time to 1917! The law was updated then!

It no longer applies to just males!

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 think the "or" part states otherwise?

It will be interesting is to see how this board reacts when administration officials get struck down by the courts on some of their new rules, regulations, and interpretations after Chevron was thrown out by the Supreme Court (something most of us on F16 totally agreed with). It took a lot of power from the executive branch and gave it back to Congress saying they need to make clear laws regather than deferring to interpretations by the executive branch.

Chevron getting thrown out will help the Administration get rid lot of a lot of horrible regs in places like the EPA but it may hurt them in other areas like immigration where the law isn't as clear that they have specific authority granted by laws that have been passed.

Quote:

---

Chevron getting thrown out will help the Administration get rid lot of a lot of horrible regs in places like the EPA but it may hurt them in other areas like immigration where the law isn't as clear that they have specific authority granted by laws that have been passed.

---

You seem to be forgetting all of those SCOTUS cases during the Obama administration stating that immigration is up to the President only and not the states?

in addition to that, there is no agency interpretation of a statute at play here. third, he's also misstating what Loper Bright held. It is the courts that no longer have to defer to what an agency's interpretation is of a statute. Congress can still defer to the executive branch all they want.

Kansas Kid said:

---

It will be interesting is to see how this board reacts when administration officials get struck down by the courts on some of their new rules, regulations, and interpretations after Chevron was thrown out by the Supreme Court (something most of us on F16 totally agreed with). It took a lot of power from the executive branch and gave it back to Congress saying they need to make clear laws regather than deferring to interpretations by the executive branch.

Chevron getting thrown out will help the Administration get rid lot of a lot of horrible regs in places like the EPA but it may hurt them in other areas like immigration where the law isn't as clear that they have specific authority granted by laws that have been passed.

---

Most of the authority of the executive to enforce immigration laws has nothing to do with Chevron fwiw...

So that shouldn't really affect that...

TAMUallen said:

---

amercer said:

---

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

---

How cute. How about illegals who rape and murder

---

Why does he need to invoke this act to do what ICE already has the legal authority to do? The only thing I could see this being used for is potentially rooting out Chinese spies or other such infiltrators who have legal residency.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

The act also refers to only males. Is Trump prohibited by the act from deporting female terrorists? Seems like libs would love this.

---

Only if Trump can travel back in time to 1917! The law was updated then!

It no longer applies to just males!

---

What is a male anyways? I am actually surprised it was updated then more surprised it has been amended under Biden to refer to the 78 different genders.

Stmichael said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

amercer said:

---

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

---

How cute. How about illegals who rape and murder

---

Why does he need to invoke this act to do what ICE already has the legal authority to do? The only thing I could see this being used for is potentially rooting out Chinese spies or other such infiltrators who have legal residency.

---

For the past decade China has been our biggest threat. That nothing like this has been done to China before is beyond me.

The sooner we get companies back from China to our soil the faster we can really start pounding them.

Stmichael said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

amercer said:

---

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

---

How cute. How about illegals who rape and murder

---

Why does he need to invoke this act to do what ICE already has the legal authority to do?

---

he doesn't.

As expected, blocked by a federal judge.

James E. Boasberg, Obama appointed Chief Justice of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

All you'll hear from the MSM is how racist this is and that it's the same as the Japanese internment camps.

Rapier108 said:

---

As expected, blocked by a federal judge.

James E. Boasberg, Obama appointed Chief Justice of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

---

How did Boasberg block something Trump hasn't done yet?

Not that facts matter to Boasberg.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/15/trump-deportation-lawsuit-00232121

And look at that, though I do not work for the lawyers of the five Venezuelan thugs who need some fentanyl to cope with their struggles, common sense told you what the rationale would be.

Yet some of our foremost legal experts said he couldn't because we are not at war and TDA and the cartels are not a foreign government or nation.

Our constitution, and the interpretation thereof, requires not only good moral character but also a smidge of common ****ing sense.

Quote:

---

Attorneys for the five Venezuelans say they expect Trump to justify the decision by declaring Tren de Aragua, a criminal organization overseas, to be akin to a foreign government subject to the 18th century law.

---

He typed saviour not Saviour.

I'm confused. I thought these gang members were being deported because of crimes committed by them?

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 say he is prepping for similar violence from ANTIFA and such. I clearly remember innocent people being surrounded in cars, obnoxious groups interrupting lunch and dinner, taking over square blocks in Seattle, killing a veteran in Denver.

……and since these groups are supported by the Democratic Party…..maybe it is the government?

Public proclamation. Venezuela/maduro regime

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/invocation-of-the-alien-enemies-act-regarding-the-invasion-of-the-united-states-by-tren-de-aragua/

"1. I find and declare that TdA is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States. TdA is undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States both directly and at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela"

TAMUallen said:

---

amercer said:

---

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

---

How cute. How about illegals who rape and murder

---

Yes, the millions of them......

How is it not the same? Fear mongering used by the government to suspend human rights and due process to push a poorly thought out political agenda. WWII, Vietnam, the Cold War, and the War on Terror come to mind.

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.

---

You might want to rethink the second part. According to HHS/ICE a little over 11k people on the terrorist watch list enter the country under Biden. They presented no papers and were not properly vetting and they were pushing them through so fast biometrics and facial recognition didn't tag them until they were already released and relocated. They were pumping and dumping them at record highs and Tom Holman has the list but finding them is a different story.


We have by the legal definition been invaded. Just one documented example is when 8 individuals from Tajikistan were arrested on immigration charges in the United States following the discovery of potential ties to terrorism. These eight suspected terrorists were able to fool CBP and freely enter the United States without any issue. In fact, at least one of these individuals used the disgraceful CBP One app to enter the country. They are more than likely times ten more than they know about.

One thing occurred to me, since we have the "War on Drugs" & ".. on Terror" that were ordained by Congressional Resolutions albeit not a war declaration, what if those criminal aliens apprehended are deemed 'enemy combatants' of these Wars?

Presumably a "combatant" would include as a definition the giving of aid, comfort, & support to &/or furthering the interests of the enemy. Such an application could then apply to handing out terrorist propaganda &/or facilitating drugs, guns, & human smuggling that included the smuggling of known terrorists as a pretext to satisfy that designation.

Applying that definition could changes things in a big way irrespective of the Act at issue, & if deemed applicable, would open up GITMO for some new residents.

The law requires:

Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government,

The proclamation states:

I find and declare that TdA is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States. TdA is undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States both directly and at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela

Key exchange from yesterdays hearing:

Chief Judge Boasberg: Yours is a justiciability issue, not a balancing of the issues. I rule that the plaintiffs have satisfied the TRO factors - and it seems the AEA does not provide a basis for the President's Proclamation, because these are non-state actors

— Inner City Press (@innercitypress) March 15, 2025

To me, there should be deference to the president in determining who (or what) is a state actor when it's a war power being exercised.

Quote:

---

I haven't done the research, so I'm not sure, but I don't think it is as black and white as you claim.

---

And it is this question that gives the courts a lot of wiggle room which is why I am a little unsure how this plays out. While I agree the sitting President has the authority here, I do not trust the courts will give Trump that latitude.

Because, Trump.

Trump is not going to claim the cartels or TdA is a "nation".

The "nation" here is Venezuela. The question is what does "any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened…" by that nation mean.

There's lots of wiggle room there, and courts should defer to President in determining what that means. As aggiehawg says, they won't.

But I bet the higher courts do.

Motion for stay pending appeal here:

JUST IN: DOJ files stay motion w/DC Circuit on 2nd Boasberg order, the class-wide TRO against removals under the Trump Alien Enemies Act order. Unusual that it's under names of all senior DOJ officials https://t.co/ugtudakeRX Earlier: https://t.co/i42LtWN74L pic.twitter.com/jICMVLm296

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) March 16, 2025

If you are going to bring legal smack to F16, bring your A game as well as a healthy dose of humility. Speaking from experience.

I read Trumps press release invoking the Act a little different, that the cartel has effectively taken control of the Venezuelan government, and the war is on the cartel and not the non-infultrated part of Venezuelan government in general, but splitting hairs.

Agree that district courts won't agree with Trump. Share your hope that SCOTUS will give Trump leeway. Won't bet on it, though.

I almost think that this particular issue is a bit of a trap, though. The judge is trying to keep Trump from deporting criminals because he might invoke the act in the future? It almost looks like bait.

saw this

BREAKING: El Salvador President Nayib Bukele responds to Judge James Boasberg who ruled that deportation flights to El Salvador must return back to the US.

“Too late.” pic.twitter.com/zy0uOZOD0w

— Ian Jaeger (@IanJaeger29) March 16, 2025