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

[rjs330]

Immigration judges have judicial proceedings without juries.

Wait, you mean the trial by jury doeant apply? Are you okay with this?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am as skeptical of this claim as I am of the Trump administration's claim that all of them are part of Tren de Aragua (or other similar gangs).

This brings up a question I hadn't thought of before -- Does the Trump administration consider Maduro to be a legitimately elected president or an election stealing usurper?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Wait, you mean the trial by jury doeant apply? Are you okay with this?

IANAL AFAIK, there's no crime of "being a member of TdA", so it's not a matter of criminal guilt.

If we're talking about a deportation proceeding, those don't have juries. Once again, not a crime, regardless of what you've been told. I'm sure the government could present evidence that so-and-so is a gang member, and the judge could weigh that in the decision to declare the person deportable or not.

[The whole AEA thing is another kettle of fish and does not seem like it will ever legally pass muster, as the law just does not apply to the situation. But if winged simians emerge unexpectedly, some sort of similar non-jury judicial hearing could be used to establish someone as a member of a 'terror gang']

 

[Belk]

You really want to go through the trial and jury process for illegal immigrants?

I'm silly. I think we should abide by our constitution.

 

[Belk]

But they weren't innocent

they were already in violation of immigration law, and some were in violation of other laws

the left wants to paint these people as innocent undocumented cleaning ladies

I even heard a MSM reported call them "migrants"

they aren't migrants: they travel back and forth to Venezuela and Mexico, and are part of an international criminal group.

Wow. Just declare them guilty by fiat huh? Guess losing our constitutional values is going to be easier then I thought. So many are willing to just throw them away.

 

[rjs330]

If we're talking about a deportation proceeding, those don't have juries. Once again, not a crime, regardless of what you've been told.

Yes it is a crime. Refardless of what youve been told. Being here illegally is a criminal offense.

Is It a Crime to Cross the U.S. Border Without Permission or Gain Entry By Fraud?

Illegal entry (or "improper entry") to the US carries criminal penalties (fines and jail or prison time), in addition to civil penalties and immigration consequences

www.alllaw.com

I'm sure the government could present evidence that so-and-so is a gang member, and the judge could weigh that in the decision to declare the person deportable or not.

Im sure they could. But the fact they are a member of a violent criminal gang AND an illegal alien, are certainly combined reasons to deport. And since it's a criminal offense they should have a right to a jury. Correct?

 

[rjs330]

Wow. Just declare them guilty by fiat huh? Guess losing our constitutional values is going to be easier then I thought. So many are willing to just throw them away.

Being a member of a terrorist organization and an illegal is guilt by fiat. It's guilt by action.

 

[BPPLEE]

Wow. Just declare them guilty by fiat huh? Guess losing our constitutional values is going to be easier then I thought. So many are willing to just throw them away.

Was it legal to let these people into the country?

 

[Arcangl86]

Being a member of a terrorist organization and an illegal is guilt by fiat. It's guilt by action.

But we don't know either of those things are true for these people, because there was no due process to determine them.

 

[Pommer]

Wait, you mean the trial by jury doeant apply? Are you okay with this?

It’s administrative law, not criminal Law.

 

[Belk]

Being a member of a terrorist organization and an illegal is guilt by fiat. It's guilt by action.

Oh, is that how it works? Just declare a group a terrorist organization then declare people are part of that group. How is that not guilt by fiat?

 

[Belk]

Was it legal to let these people into the country?

Begging the question. Who are you claiming "let them in"? How was that accomplished?

 

[rjs330]

It’s administrative law, not criminal Law.

Nope, see post 106. It's criminal to be here illegally.

 

[rjs330]

Oh, is that how it works? Just declare a group a terrorist organization then declare people are part of that group. How is that not guilt by fiat?

Yes a group can be declared a terrorist organization. It's been done for many years now. Of course the organization can fight the designation in court if they wish. And if you are a part of that organization you are indeed under that umbrella. Just like if you are a member of Aryan Nations you are a white supremacist or a member of tge American Nazi party you are an American Nazi.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes it is a crime. Refardless of what youve been told. Being here illegally is a criminal offense.

Article doesn't say being here. Article says crossing the border. They just deported some couple who have been here 35 years.

Im sure they could. But the fact they are a member of a violent criminal gang AND an illegal alien, are certainly combined reasons to deport. And since it's a criminal offense they should have a right to a jury. Correct?

IANAL. The US does immigration stuff with immigration courts, and no juries are involved. I don't have a problem with that. I fully support the bipartisan plan that would have hired more immigration judges to help chew through the backlog of cases. Legally.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Turns out it was overeager staffer who invoked the act.

Trump says he didn’t sign proclamation invoking Alien Enemies Act​

President Donald Trump on Friday downplayed his involvement in invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan migrants, saying for the first time that he hadn’t signed the proclamation, even as he stood by his administration’s move.

“I don’t know when it was signed, because I didn’t sign it,” Trump told reporters before leaving the White House on Friday evening.

The president made his comments when asked to respond to Judge James Boasberg’s concerns in court on Friday that the proclamation was “signed in the dark” of night and that migrants were hurried onto planes.

“Other people handled it"

[Or maybe not.]

Hours after the president made his comments on Friday, the White House claimed that Trump was not talking about whether he signed the document last week.

“President Trump was obviously referring to the original Alien Enemies Act that was signed back in 1798,” a White House statement said. [Given the question was about Boasberg's concerns, this really cannot be what Trump was referring to, unless he was confused.]

“The recent Executive Order was personally signed by President Trump invoking the Alien Enemies Act that designated Tren de Aragua as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in order to apprehend and deport these heinous criminals.”

 

[essentialsaltes]

'Troublesome, problematic and concerning': Judge explores ramifications of deportations​

The judge who temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s deportation of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act accused government lawyers of being “intemperate and disrespectful” in court documents and said he would continue to investigate whether the removals defied his order.

“What’s concerning to me is why was this proclamation essentially signed in the dark on Friday or Friday night or early Saturday morning and then people were rushed onto planes,” Boasberg said. “It seems to me the only reason to do that is if you know it’s a problem and you want to get them out of the country.”

The bigger question that went unresolved during the hearing was whether Venezuelans will get a chance to deny they are members of the crime gang Tren de Aragua, perhaps in a hearing.

Boasberg also said he was troubled by the possibility that a president could name any group an enemy and then deport its members without review.

 

[Merrill]

'Troublesome, problematic and concerning': Judge explores ramifications of deportations​

The judge who temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s deportation of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act accused government lawyers of being “intemperate and disrespectful” in court documents and said he would continue to investigate whether the removals defied his order.

“What’s concerning to me is why was this proclamation essentially signed in the dark on Friday or Friday night or early Saturday morning and then people were rushed onto planes,” Boasberg said. “It seems to me the only reason to do that is if you know it’s a problem and you want to get them out of the country.”

The bigger question that went unresolved during the hearing was whether Venezuelans will get a chance to deny they are members of the crime gang Tren de Aragua, perhaps in a hearing.

Boasberg also said he was troubled by the possibility that a president could name any group an enemy and then deport its members without review.

After looking at all the relevant documents and history, I suspect this whole issue will go to the Supreme Court

and the court will find

1. President Trump can invoke this act, and that it does not require a formal declaration of war to exist (which it clearly doesn't)
2. Nevertheless, the individuals set to be deported are still entitled to "due process" under a 2005 SCOTUS ruling

the only way #2 goes the way of Trump's administration is if the 2005 decision (a contentious 5-4) is overturned, which is possible, but unlikely

so the president will then have to resort to other methods to get rid of organized criminal aliens and terrorists. He will likely go back to congress and ask "how do you want to proceed, because as it stands right now, international terrorist groups can infiltrate the country and then hide behind lawyers and overwhelmed court systems, while the public is put at risk"?

 

[Goonie]

After looking at all the relevant documents and history, I suspect this whole issue will go to the Supreme Court

and the court will find

1. President Trump can invoke this act, and that it does not require a formal declaration of war to exist (which it clearly doesn't)
2. Nevertheless, the individuals set to be deported are still entitled to "due process" under a 2005 SCOTUS ruling

the only way #2 goes the way of Trump's administration is if the 2005 decision (a contentious 5-4) is overturned, which is possible, but unlikely

so the president will then have to resort to other methods to get rid of organized criminal aliens and terrorists. He will likely go back to congress and ask "how do you want to proceed, because as it stands right now, international terrorist groups can infiltrate the country and then hide behind lawyers and overwhelmed court systems, while the public is put at risk"?

The stand out feature of this is what actual evidence is there of those deported to El Salvador being gang members?? The trump administration has not released the names and not one was given due process.


A real Madrid tattoo is hardly evidence.

 

[rjs330]

Article doesn't say being here. Article says crossing the border. They just deported some couple who have been here 35 years.

How did they get here? If they crossed the border then they are here illegally and broke the law.

Article doesn't say being here. Article says crossing the border. They just deported some couple who have been here 35 years.

IANAL. The US does immigration stuff with immigration courts, and no juries are involved. I don't have a problem with that. I fully support the bipartisan plan that would have hired more immigration judges to help chew through the backlog of cases. Legally.

So you are okay with some Constitutional rights being violated under certain circumstances? Last I knew the right to a jury trial was in the constitution.