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

[Landon Caeli]

1798.

The codified version of the statute starts:

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,

even for a not-yet-war or undeclared war, it has to involve an actual foreign nation or government. The cartels are neither.

50 U.S. Code § 21 - Restraint, regulation, and removal

www.law.cornell.edu

That was Harry Truman's proclamation 2655 from 1945. That's not a revision.

..The original Wartime Alien Enemies Act was written almost 50 years earlier, and doesn't use the same restrictive language as Truman's proclamation.

As has been stated, the Act we're talking about has already been used, during a time we weren't at war. Nor are any other such restrictions included in the actual, original text.

Proclamation 2655—Removal of Alien Enemies | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

​

 

[Stellar Vision]

You're both incorrect.

No we are correct. You are incorrect.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

“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.

Oh no, good bye democratic party.

 

[Servus]

No we are correct. You are incorrect.

The other we already told you that you were incorrect in calling it a first amendment issue.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That was Harry Truman's proclamation 2655 from 1945. That's not a revision.

..The original Wartime Alien Enemies Act was written almost 50 years earlier, and doesn't use the same restrictive language as Truman's proclamation.

As has been stated, the Act we're talking about has already been used, during a time we weren't at war. Nor are any other such restrictions included in the actual, original text.

Proclamation 2655—Removal of Alien Enemies | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

​

Did you even read what you linked?

Let's start with the date: July 14, 1945.

What was the state of the US vis a vis "war" on July 14, 1945? (To help you, I'll give you a clue -- two days later, the first atomic bomb was exploded.)

Next, there is this text in Truman's proclamation:

Whereas the Congress by joint resolutions approved by the President on December 8 and 11, 1941, and June 5, 1942, declared the existence of a state of war between the United States and the Governments of Japan, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania;

Then there is the fact that presidential orders are not laws.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Money laundering is a crime that commonly gets overlooked since the powerful people do it, so it's unpredictable how this will play out.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Did you even read what you linked?

Let's start with the date: July 14, 1945.

What was the state of the US vis a vis "war" on July 14, 1945? (To help you, I'll give you a clue -- two days later, the first atomic bomb was exploded.)

Next, there is this text in Truman's proclamation:

Whereas the Congress by joint resolutions approved by the President on December 8 and 11, 1941, and June 5, 1942, declared the existence of a state of war between the United States and the Governments of Japan, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania;

Then there is the fact that presidential orders are not laws.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying... *YOU* posted Harry Trumans 1945 "proclamation" in post #39:

50 U.S. Code § 21 - Restraint, regulation, and removal

www.law.cornell.edu

The text is the same as what I posted - I'm just showing you it's not a codified version of the 1798 Act. It's Truman's very own codified proclamation of his own. During his own time. For his own issue.

Im showing you the link you provided earlier in post 39 is invalid and unrelated to the topic of this thread, which is based on Donald Trump's use of the original Act of 1798, which has nothing to do with Trumans "proclamation".

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Federal judge says, "Nope!"

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-blocks-some-deportations-after-lawsuit-cites-fears-wartime-law-2025-03-15/

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying... *YOU* posted Harry Trumans 1945 "proclamation" in post #39:

50 U.S. Code § 21 - Restraint, regulation, and removal

www.law.cornell.edu

The text is the same as what I posted- I'm just showing you it's not a codified" version of the 1798 Act. It's Truman's very own codified proclamation of his own. During his time. For his own issue.

Im showing you the link you provided earlier in post 39 is invalid and unrelated to the topic of this thread, which is based on Donald Trump's use of the original Act of 1798.

This is the full text from that link:

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, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, 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 President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.
(R.S. § 4067; Apr. 16, 1918, ch. 55, 40 Stat. 531.)

That is, in fact, the codified Act of 1798, and not Truman's 1945 proclamation. Dated 1918 because the statute was updated that year to remove the restriction to males only.

If you see something other than that when you click the link, check your browser, because something is broken.

ETA: I think I see where the confusion comes from. Truman's Proclamation 2655 does include the text of the US Code cited above, but only as a reference ("Whereas section 4067 [...] provides:"):

Truman did not create that section of the US Code. He's saying "These existing sections of US law allow me to do the things that I'm about to declare."

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1945-07-20/pdf/FR-1945-07-20.pdf#page=1

 

[Vambram]

At a hearing Saturday afternoon, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. Circuit granted a temporary restraining order preventing the deportation of the five Venezuelans, who had already been in federal custody for two weeks.

Two planes that may have been en route to deport illegal immigrants were ordered returned by the judge. However, it is unclear as of Saturday night if they have done so.

"Tonight, a DC trial judge supported Tren de Aragua terrorists over the safety of Americans. TdA is represented by the ACLU," U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. "This order disregards well-established authority regarding President Trump’s power, and it puts the public and law enforcement at risk. The Department of Justice is undeterred in its efforts to work with the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, and all of our partners to stop this invasion and Make America Safe Again."

The Trump administration appealed the restraining order, alleging it is improper to delay a presidential act before it is announced, affiliate FOX 32 Chicago reported.

Trump invokes wartime Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to target violent illegal immigrant street gangs

President Donald Trump invoked an 18th century law, used only during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II Saturday to curb illegal immigrant gangs.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Vambram]

An activist Obama DC judge thinks he has the power to order the President to turn around planes deporting vicious Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members? When will the Chief Justice and Justice Barrett end this extremely dangerous judicial sabotage of the presidency?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Courts that, were they do disagree with the Supreme Leader, will promptly be declared activist unelected judges.

A judged indeed blocked the action.
And as predicted, the reactions are not to respect the decission of the court.
source: Bondi Slams ‘DC Trial Judge’ Who Blocked Trump Using Alien Enemies Act

“Tonight, a DC trial judge supported Tren de Aragua terrorists over the safety of Americans,” Bondi said in a statement.

In the comment section, the reactions are less subtle:
"These activist judges need to go."
"They likely do not love the Cartels. They are just worthlessly infected with TDS and only care that they are "resisting" Trump/MAGA. "
"If some crackpot leftist judge makes an idiot call, you can't just ignore it, you have to appeal it to set it straight, "
And so on.

 

[Perpetual Student]

An activist Obama DC judge thinks he has the power to order the President to turn around planes deporting vicious Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members? When will the Chief Justice and Justice Barrett end this extremely dangerous judicial sabotage of the presidency?

A judge ruling something Trump supporters don't like, that is immediately labelled as activist Obama judge.
It was predicted.

 

[Valletta]

A judged indeed blocked the action.
And as predicted, the reactions are not to respect the decission of the court.
source: Bondi Slams ‘DC Trial Judge’ Who Blocked Trump Using Alien Enemies Act

In the comment section, the reactions are less subtle:
"These activist judges need to go."
"They likely do not love the Cartels. They are just worthlessly infected with TDS and only care that they are "resisting" Trump/MAGA. "
"If some crackpot leftist judge makes an idiot call, you can't just ignore it, you have to appeal it to set it straight, "
And so on.

Tren de Aragua specializes in sex trafficking. The Biden administration, by violating our border laws, enabled the trafficking of hundreds of thousands of women and children. The Trump administration is deporting these prison gang members and desperately trying to locate all of those who were trafficked.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Tren de Aragua specializes in sex trafficking. The Biden administration, by violating our border laws, enabled the trafficking of hundreds of thousands of women and children. The Trump administration is deporting these prison gang members and desperately trying to locate all of those who were trafficked.

That might well be. I had never heard of them, but if they are committing crimes, they belong behind bars.
But if you had read my contributions in this thread, it is not about defending the TdA. It is about the predictable reaction of the Trump supports to any adverse legal ruling. Without missing any opportunity, any judicial decision they don't like is labelled as coming from a "leftist activist judge, Obama/Biden-nominated".
Reading the ruling? Wont do that.
Setting up a legal argument? Too difficult. Let us attack and discredit the judge instead.

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

Yes indeed. I hope deporting verified gang members would be a non-partisan issue. Gang members aren't part of a nation's army. They are not relevant to this thread.

www.christianforums.com

Edit @wing2000 made approximately the same argument in a different thread.

Trump’s Mega MAGA. Month transforms America

https://www.axios.com/2025/02/20/trump-maga-month-transforms-america Trump's mega-MAGA month transforms America President Trump's first month in office has exceeded the wildest dreams of his most loyal supporters, and the darkest nightmares of his fiercest detractors. Why it matters: Both...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Landon Caeli]

My mistake @Hans Blaster and @RocksInMyHead. I didn't notice the 1913 date from Hans' link, and the original text supports your argument.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

An activist Obama DC judge

You posted a definition of "judicial activism" in another thread yesterday. Can you clarify what this judge has done to meet that definition?

thinks he has the power to order the President to turn around planes deporting vicious Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members?

The President is not a king and must still follow the law. The role of the judiciary is to determine whether or not someone is following the law - if the judge determines that the law has been violated, then the judge can order the violator to stop. It does not matter who that person is.

When will the Chief Justice and Justice Barrett end this extremely dangerous judicial sabotage of the presidency?

Why them specifically?

 

[Goonie]

You posted a definition of "judicial activism" in another thread yesterday. Can you clarify what this judge has done to meet that definition?

The President is not a king and must still follow the law. The role of the judiciary is to determine whether or not someone is following the law - if the judge determines that the law has been violated, then the judge can order the violator to stop. It does not matter who that person is.

Why them specifically?

Your forgetting Trump has decided to rule as dictator not President, pesky things like the rule of law, checks and balances, the constitution are no longer recognised by him.and his supporters.

 

[Nithavela]

You posted a definition of "judicial activism" in another thread yesterday. Can you clarify what this judge has done to meet that definition?

The President is not a king and must still follow the law. The role of the judiciary is to determine whether or not someone is following the law - if the judge determines that the law has been violated, then the judge can order the violator to stop. It does not matter who that person is.

Why them specifically?

Hasn't the SCOTUS decided that the president does not have to follow the law?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Your forgetting Trump has decided to rule as dictator not President, pesky things like the rule of law, checks and balances, the constitution are no longer recognised by him.and his supporters.

He's going to make the left work overtime, I can tell you that. They better stay on their toes!

...Nothing wrong with zeal, people just aren't used to seeing it from the right.