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

[essentialsaltes]

All the more reason to go with the Alien Enemies Act and send them home right away.

Now we're back to "it violates the Constitution"

 

[Landon Caeli]

Who on the USA left has said that? Or are you attempting to be disingenuous?

Just observing the policies that the left promote... They're a one-way ticket down.

 

[Servus]

Now we're back to "it violates the Constitution"

That's debatable. And it's a twofold concern. Both what's constitutional and what's fair. Fair as in what's in their best interest. I think them going home right away as opposed to being incarcerated here for a lengthy period is in their best interest. I wonder if they have any say so in the matter. If they could be given the choice to be put through lengthy due process while incarcerated or wave that in favor of an expedient departure.

 

[Merrill]

I am having no "tantrum" and I will kindly ask you to cease such characterizatoins.

When the due process rights of any accused of crimes are denied due process we all are injured.

I said no such things. I was correcting the false characterization of those mayors and governors as "importing" anyone from outside the country.

It would seem that you do not understand that word or are not reading what I wrote carefully. I would suggest that you read what I write more carefully before responding.

OK, you can believe what you want

the average person will perceive those who defend lawlessness in one area and condemn it in another, as being inconsistent or hypocritical

here in IL, we have abolished cash bail, sending criminals back into the streets, and Chicago is a sanctuary city, which is defying federal immigration law and ICE efforts. We also have some very problematic hate-crime laws which punish political speech (unconstitutional)

but liberals here will scream bloody murder over the "sure process" rights of an international criminal gang being violated

this is why the Democrats got wiped out in the November elections, and their approval ratings are at a record low

 

[essentialsaltes]

And it's a twofold concern. Both what's constitutional and what's fair.

No, judges don't discard the constitution. Laws can be stupid or unfair or cruel, but if they are constitutional, a judge's course is clear. We can't have judges legislating from the bench, now can we? (But the legislators should get on to that.)

 

[Servus]

No, judges don't discard the constitution. Laws can be stupid or unfair or cruel, but if they are constitutional, a judge's course is clear. We can't have judges legislating from the bench, now can we? (But the legislators should get on to that.)

As I recall the SCOTUS ruling regarding presidential immunity was heavily criticized (I don't mean by you in particular) as unconstitutional or a threat to the constitution, shallow reasoning, lack of historical support, a distortion of legal precedent etc. The adamant support of judicial decisions, doesn't seem to apply to all judicial decisions. And I expect that to be the case again if the SCOTUS rules Trump invoking the Alien Enemies Act falls within constitutional provision. In the meantime people will languish in jail here rather than going home.

 

[essentialsaltes]

As I recall the SCOTUS ruling regarding presidential immunity was heavily criticized

You know what else is constitutional? Free speech and the freedom to criticize SCOTUS decisions.

You know what is not constitutional? The executive branch ignoring court orders and court decisions.

 

[Servus]

You know what else is constitutional? Free speech and the freedom to criticize SCOTUS decisions.

You know what is not constitutional? The executive branch ignoring court orders and court decisions.

You mean that last minute order given too late for the planes to do a 180 and come back? I wonder if Judge Boasberg calculated whether or not they had enough fuel for that, or if it even crossed his mind. I see now that he's complaining that the Justice Department didn't comply with his order. Looks like it's going to be quite a showdown.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You mean that last minute order

The order is still in effect and Czar Homan says he will abide by it. It does remain to be seen what will happen to those on the first two planes, and yes Boasberg is asking questions about whether and how and to whom his order was disseminated.

 

[Hans Blaster]

OK, you can believe what you want

It's not about belief.

the average person will perceive those who defend lawlessness in one area and condemn it in another, as being inconsistent or hypocritical'

This is one of the deficiencies in our culture today. We have an extreme deficit of understanding how legal rights work. They apply to people you don't like and those charged with crimes.

here in IL, we have abolished cash bail, sending criminals back into the streets, and Chicago is a sanctuary city, which is defying federal immigration law and ICE efforts. We also have some very problematic hate-crime laws which punish political speech (unconstitutional)

None of which is relevant to your earlier claim that states like Illinois or cities like Chicago are bringing people across the border. They are not.

but liberals here will scream bloody murder over the "sure process" rights of an international criminal gang being violated

See my above statements. I will defend the rights of the accused, even yours.

this is why the Democrats got wiped out in the November elections, and their approval ratings are at a record low

The level of your disconnect from fact-based reality is laid out in this statement. The Nov 2024 election was close at all levels and in some sectors they *increased* their representation. (Start with the US House of Representatives.)

 

[Servus]

The order is still in effect and Czar Homan says he will abide by it. It does remain to be seen what will happen to those on the first two planes, and yes Boasberg is asking questions about whether and how and to whom his order was disseminated.

Since Homan is abiding your statement of "You know what is not constitutional? The executive branch ignoring court orders and court decisions" doesn't apply. And Boasberg might find himself the the position of having to answer questions as well.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Since Homan is abiding your statement of "You know what is not constitutional? The executive branch ignoring court orders and court decisions" doesn't apply.

I didn't assert that it was in this case. Just setting boundaries.

 

[stevil]

Just observing the policies that the left promote... They're a one-way ticket down.

Right, so just generalising and misrepresenting the left.

I'd always say, that if you want to understand the other side, then ask questions, rather than just make stuff up.

 

[Pommer]

As I recall the SCOTUS ruling regarding presidential immunity was heavily criticized (I don't mean by you in particular) as unconstitutional or a threat to the constitution, shallow reasoning, lack of historical support, a distortion of legal precedent etc. The adamant support of judicial decisions, doesn't seem to apply to all judicial decisions. And I expect that to be the case again if the SCOTUS rules Trump invoking the Alien Enemies Act falls within constitutional provision. In the meantime people will languish in jail here rather than going home.

The President doesn’t deport people all by his lonesome self.
Other people are required, these same “other people” do not enjoy immunity for their actions and are required to abide by a judge’s orders.

 

[stevil]

The President doesn’t deport people all by his lonesome self.
Other people are required, these same “other people” do not enjoy immunity for their actions and are required to abide by a judge’s orders.

Unless the President pardons them.

In which case it comes down to the voting public.
If they are OK with deporting people on the president's say so, and foregoing due process, then they are giving the government massive power and they are giving law and due process the raspberry.

If they are not OK with a tyrant and rogue government taking the law into it's own hands then they should let their local government representation know of their dissatisfaction, and also vote against that representation and vote against that government at every chance, perhaps even participate in peaceful protests.

Remember, whatever you let government get away with now, is setting a precedent for the next opposing government too.

 

[Servus]

The President doesn’t deport people all by his lonesome self.
Other people are required, these same “other people” do not enjoy immunity for their actions and are required to abide by a judge’s orders.

Yes, the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense and the Secretary of State etc (vs one lower court judge) do support the President in this matter.

 

[stevil]

It's funny to me how far right wing media pundits were complaining about lack of due process for the Jan 6 invaders of the capital, but instead of pointing out the lack of due process here, they are complaining about the judge ruling against these deportations without due process.

Lying about him as an Obama appointee, when he was a Bush appointee.
They are trying to paint this as a political thing, when it is about law.

 

[Servus]

Unless the President pardons them.

In which case it comes down to the voting public.
If they are OK with deporting people on the president's say so, and foregoing due process, then they are giving the government massive power and they are giving law and due process the raspberry.

If they are not OK with a tyrant and rogue government taking the law into it's own hands then they should let their local government representation know of their dissatisfaction, and also vote against that representation and vote against that government at every chance, perhaps even participate in peaceful protests.

Remember, whatever you let government get away with now, is setting a precedent for the next opposing government too.

So far it's merely a matter of not ordering airplanes already outside of US airspace over international waters, to turn around and fly back after Boasberg's last minute too late request. It wasn't a matter of them running through a blockade, it was a matter of Boasberg chasing after them with a blockade saying "hey come back here" after they were long gone. Trying to close the barn door after the horses got away.

 

[Pommer]

Yes, the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense and the Secretary of State etc (vs one lower court judge) do support the President in this matter.

And how do the President’s orders comport with the Constitution of the United States?
(This is the “controlling” factor.)

 

[Pommer]

So far it's merely a matter of not ordering airplanes already outside of US airspace over international waters, to turn around and fly back after Boasberg's last minute too late request. It wasn't a matter of them running through a blockade, it was a matter of Boasberg chasing after them with a blockade saying "hey come back here" after they were long gone. Trying to close the barn door after the horses got away.

Here's the timeline of events, (ignore it if you wish, but don’t expect that any subsequent arguments of yours to be taken seriously,