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

[essentialsaltes]

'Nazis got better treatment,' Appeals judge says of Trump administration's Alien Enemies Act deportations​

An appeals court is hearing arguments over the use of the Alien Enemies Act.

Appeals court rejects Trump bid to overturn Alien Enemies Act deportation block​

"The true mark of this great Nation under law is that we adhere to legal requirements even when it is hard, even when important national interests are at stake, and even when the claimant may be unpopular," [Judge Millet] wrote. "For if the government can choose to abandon fair and equal process for some people, it can do the same for everyone."

"The district court entered the TROs [temporary restraining orders] for a quintessentially valid purpose: to protect its remedial authority long enough to consider the parties' arguments," Judge Henderson wrote in a concurring opinion.

Judge Justin Walker -- a Trump appointee -- dissented from the majority because he said the noncitizens should have filed their case in Texas

 

[BPPLEE]

Appeals court rejects Trump bid to overturn Alien Enemies Act deportation block​

"The true mark of this great Nation under law is that we adhere to legal requirements even when it is hard, even when important national interests are at stake, and even when the claimant may be unpopular," [Judge Millet] wrote. "For if the government can choose to abandon fair and equal process for some people, it can do the same for everyone."

"The district court entered the TROs [temporary restraining orders] for a quintessentially valid purpose: to protect its remedial authority long enough to consider the parties' arguments," Judge Henderson wrote in a concurring opinion.

Judge Justin Walker -- a Trump appointee -- dissented from the majority because he said the noncitizens should have filed their case in Texas

Instead of judge shopping. He has a valid point

 

[essentialsaltes]

Instead of judge shopping. He has a valid point

Judge Millet pushed back on Walker's claim that the men should have used habeas corpus to challenge their deportations in a Texas court, writing that such an approach is a "phantasm" of due process because the Trump administration would have removed the men before they could even file a claim.

 

[Merrill]

Correct on both cases.

Sure. That's kinda the whole point of states having plenary police power. They get to decide what is and what isn't a crime in their jurisdiction. Now I think this would be a horrible idea on a policy level, but perfectly legal.

Once again the 14th Amendment comes into the picture since it incorporates the Bill of Rights into state law in all states. But here's the big difference. Local authorities, what ever form that might take e.g: town, city, county, etc., are not sovereign. They exist as a creation of state law and thus every exercise of power they make is an exercise of state power. As such they are bound by the same limitations as the state government, and conversely are required to do what the state tells them. That's why there are so many preemption laws. The several states on the other hand are independently sovereign and don't derive their authority from the federal government.

For the second one yes, and I explained why.

Nothing in the US Constitution requires states laws to be identical to federal ones, (for instance regarding narcotics), nor in assisting the federal government in enforcing law that they have enacted.

Sure, which you seem to have a misunderstanding of. The SUpremacy Clause doesn't mean that the states are forced to do what the federal government wants. It simply means that when state and federal law, including the constitution, conflict the federal law is the one that takes effect.

What lawlessness? Having different laws and priorities then you would prefer is not the same thing as lawlessness. In fact, regarding sanctuary policies, the largest reason they exist is to promote law and order. They want people to be able to go to local law enforcement to report crimes without being deterred from doing so by fear of being handed over to ICE.

Sure. And the states have laws around state participation and enforcement of those for their own reasons.

And states are allowed to execute their own judgment over what their own controlled substance laws look like as long as they aren't preventing the enforcement of federal law.

Everything the democrats support is strictly within the law, even if it doesn't match your own personal policy preferences. Also, is there a reason you didn't respond to my question about the states that have laws purporting to forbid the enforcement of certain firearm laws by anybody, including the federal government?

Considering the Republicans nominated a felon who was then elected, I'm not sure there is any connection between law and order and electoral success.

How, within the bounds of the Constitution, would it be corrected?

"Nothing in the US Constitution requires states laws to be identical to federal ones"

I never said that. The Bill of Rights will prohibit states from passing certain laws against its citizens, and the Supremacy Clause ensures that federal, constitutional law, will take precedence over state or local (I never said it was otherwise)

"What lawlessness?"

is this a rhetorical question? The very act of being in this country illegally is unlawful. And in addition to this, violent gangs from south of the border are committing crimes in CA and elsewhere.

"Everything the democrats support is strictly within the law" --not federal law. "Under federal law, cannabis is still classified as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substance Act." (ABA) --so Democratic governors are going against federal law here.

Likewise, Biden refused to enforce key provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/3470059-can-biden-get-away-with-not-enforcing-the-immigration-law/

 

[JSRG]

"Everything the democrats support is strictly within the law" --not federal law. "Under federal law, cannabis is still classified as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substance Act." (ABA) --so Democratic governors are going against federal law here.

In what way? By not having it criminalized in the state? No state is required to criminalize something in state law just because the federal government has done so.

The federal government might as well decriminalize it anyway, given it seems to have little interest in prosecuting people for anything related to marijuana. The FDA last year apparently started the process of changing its classification away from a Schedule I substance--not sure if that's changed under Trump.

 

[Yarddog]

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.

I haven't heard the left say that they were innocent. I heard them say that deserved Due process to ensure their rights were upheld.

 

[Merrill]

In what way? By not having it criminalized in the state? No state is required to criminalize something in state law just because the federal government has done so.

The federal government might as well decriminalize it anyway, given it seems to have little interest in prosecuting people for anything related to marijuana. The FDA last year apparently started the process of changing its classification away from a Schedule I substance--not sure if that's changed under Trump.

the Supremacy Clause dictates that a federal law cannot be countered by a state

South Carolina can't go reinstitute slavery, or say "we will decriminalize slavery and no longer enforce efforts to stop human bondage"

 

[RocksInMyHead]

the Supremacy Clause dictates that a federal law cannot be countered by a state

No, it dictates that if federal and state law conflict, federal law lakes precedent. In other words, if something is illegal under federal law, but legal under state law, you can't use "But it's legal in my state!" as a defense when the Feds arrest you. States are not responsible for the enforcement of federal laws, so a state law saying that state agencies won't help with the enforcement of federal laws does nothing other than formalize that relationship.

If, for example, California passed a law stating that it did not recognize the existence of a border between itself and Mexico, that would be invalid under the Supremacy Clause, because the federal government holds jurisdiction over the border, and federal laws govern its existence and enforcement.

South Carolina can't go reinstitute slavery, or say "we will decriminalize slavery and no longer enforce efforts to stop human bondage"

You're right, they can't - because doing so would violate the constitutional rights of people in South Carolina, something that the states are required to uphold. However, the federal government does not have a constitutional right to aid from state law enforcement agencies, so I fail to see the relevance to this discussion.

 

[Merrill]

No, it dictates that if federal and state law conflict, federal law lakes precedent. In other words, if something is illegal under federal law, but legal under state law, you can't use "But it's legal in my state!" as a defense when the Feds arrest you. States are not responsible for the enforcement of federal laws, so a state law saying that state agencies won't help with the enforcement of federal laws does nothing other than formalize that relationship.

If, for example, California passed a law stating that it did not recognize the existence of a border between itself and Mexico, that would be invalid under the Supremacy Clause, because the federal government holds jurisdiction over the border, and federal laws govern its existence and enforcement.

You're right, they can't - because doing so would violate the constitutional rights of people in South Carolina, something that the states are required to uphold. However, the federal government does not have a constitutional right to aid from state law enforcement agencies, so I fail to see the relevance to this discussion.

"No, it dictates that if federal and state law conflict, federal law lakes precedent. In other words, if something is illegal under federal law, but legal under state law, you can't use "But it's legal in my state!" as a defense when the Feds arrest you"

that is pretty much what I said: federal law takes precedence over state law. Not sure why you think I said something different

 

[RocksInMyHead]

"No, it dictates that if federal and state law conflict, federal law lakes precedent. In other words, if something is illegal under federal law, but legal under state law, you can't use "But it's legal in my state!" as a defense when the Feds arrest you"

that is pretty much what I said: federal law takes precedence over state law. Not sure why you think I said something different

Based on your posts, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "precedence". Because while you said the same thing as I did, you clearly did not mean the same thing. Federal law taking precedence does not mean that states must enforce federal laws. This is backed up by the Supreme Court.

If, for example, marijuana is legal in your state, there is nothing unconstitutional about local police allowing you to go free and not reporting that information to the feds if they catch you with a legal amount on your person. Local police are not responsible for enforcing federal drug laws - that's the FBI and DEA's job. However, if the DEA rolls up on you and arrests you for possession, you're going to jail because the federal law - as enforced by federal agencies - takes precedent over the state law.

Likewise, if there are no applicable local laws governing illegal immigrants, then local police can't arrest you for being an illegal immigrant. And they have no obligation to report your immigration status to the feds, because that's not their job. But if ICE collects you, they can do that even though there are no relevant local laws, because federal law takes precedence.

 

[BPPLEE]

Based on your posts, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "precedence". Because while you said the same thing as I did, you clearly did not mean the same thing. Federal law taking precedence does not mean that states must enforce federal laws. This is backed up by the Supreme Court.

If, for example, marijuana is legal in your state, there is nothing unconstitutional about local police allowing you to go free and not reporting that information to the feds if they catch you with a legal amount on your person. Local police are not responsible for enforcing federal drug laws - that's the FBI and DEA's job. However, if the DEA rolls up on you and arrests you for possession, you're going to jail because the federal law - as enforced by federal agencies - takes precedent over the state law.

Likewise, if there are no applicable local laws governing illegal immigrants, then local police can't arrest you for being an illegal immigrant. And they have no obligation to report your immigration status to the feds, because that's not their job. But if ICE collects you, they can do that even though there are no relevant local laws, because federal law takes precedence.

Not to take away from your point but I was a Sergeant on a 5 county drug task force and turned many of my cases over to ATF and DEA. They will not take a marijuana case.
A lot of dealers who had been busted started dealing nothing but marijuana and avoided getting caught with a gun so they wouldn't get federal time

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Not to take away from your point but I was a Sergeant on a 5 county drug task force and turned many of my cases over to ATF and DEA. They will not take a marijuana case.

Well, sure, but that's because they have discretion on what they prosecute. You could change that to cocaine, heroin, or any other drug and the point remains the same (there are just fewer examples of places where those drugs are not illegal).

 

[Pommer]

the Supremacy Clause dictates that a federal law cannot be countered by a state

South Carolina can't go reinstitute slavery, or say "we will decriminalize slavery and no longer enforce efforts to stop human bondage"

Chain gangs.

 

[wing2000]

The sheer arrogance....notice how he refuses to list any specific ways Denmark "has not done a good job"....

The vice-president says Denmark "has not done a good job" for the people of Greenland and the US needs to step in.

Vance scolds Denmark during Greenland trip as Trump says US must have island- updates

The vice-president says Russia and China have increased footprints in the area and the world cannot "bury our heads in the sand".

www.bbc.com

 

[Hans Blaster]

the Supremacy Clause dictates that a federal law cannot be countered by a state

South Carolina can't go reinstitute slavery, or say "we will decriminalize slavery and no longer enforce efforts to stop human bondage"

and when they got funny ideas we burned their Capitol, but that's not what this is about.

 

[Merrill]

Based on your posts, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "precedence". Because while you said the same thing as I did, you clearly did not mean the same thing. Federal law taking precedence does not mean that states must enforce federal laws. This is backed up by the Supreme Court.

If, for example, marijuana is legal in your state, there is nothing unconstitutional about local police allowing you to go free and not reporting that information to the feds if they catch you with a legal amount on your person. Local police are not responsible for enforcing federal drug laws - that's the FBI and DEA's job. However, if the DEA rolls up on you and arrests you for possession, you're going to jail because the federal law - as enforced by federal agencies - takes precedent over the state law.

Likewise, if there are no applicable local laws governing illegal immigrants, then local police can't arrest you for being an illegal immigrant. And they have no obligation to report your immigration status to the feds, because that's not their job. But if ICE collects you, they can do that even though there are no relevant local laws, because federal law takes precedence.

this is from legalknowledgebase (I am not a lawyer)

"Can a State overrule federal law

The simple answer, in most cases, is “yes” – federal law generally supersedes conflicting state law. ... Therefore, while state laws may generally be more restrictive than their federal counterparts, they cannot be less restrictive – i.e., states cannot circumvent federal requirements with their own."

that is what I meant, in a nutshell. I know exactly what precedence means

as I said above, sites are using a legal loophole by refusing to assist or enforce federal immigration law. But the federal government can put pressure on the states in a variety of ways, and it should

States' Refusal Of Federal Law: Constitutional Quandary | LawShun

The refusal of states to comply with federal law is a complex constitutional issue. Explore the legal and political implications of this quandary and the potential consequences.

lawshun.com

 

[RocksInMyHead]

as I said above, sites are using a legal loophole by refusing to assist or enforce federal immigration law.

You could argue that it's a legal loophole with regards to drug laws, but the federal government, per the Constitution, is the only entity with jurisdiction over immigration. This isn't about laws that are "less restrictive" - states legally cannot have laws that cover immigration.

 

[BPPLEE]

You could argue that it's a legal loophole with regards to drug laws, but the federal government, per the Constitution, is the only entity with jurisdiction over immigration. This isn't about laws that are "less restrictive" - states legally cannot have laws that cover immigration.

While immigration law is primarily a federal responsibility, states can enact laws that address immigration-related issues, but these state laws must not contradict or undermine federal immigration law.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

While immigration law is primarily a federal responsibility, states can enact laws that address immigration-related issues, but these state laws must not contradict or undermine federal immigration law.

And the courts have found that "we're not going to help you enforce federal laws" does not constitute contradicting or undermining federal immigration law. So I'm not sure why we're still arguing about it.

 

[JSRG]

the Supremacy Clause dictates that a federal law cannot be countered by a state

South Carolina can't go reinstitute slavery, or say "we will decriminalize slavery and no longer enforce efforts to stop human bondage"

Except you're missing the point. You claimed the Democratic states, by not criminalizing marijuana, are somehow violating the Supremacy Clause because the federal government has it criminalized.

But they're not. Even if the federal government was enforcing the marijuana ban--which it barely has for quite a while--that doesn't mean state is under any requirement to criminalize it themselves. There's various things that the federal government has made a crime but not all states have. By your logic, if the federal government says "X is a crime" then any state that doesn't also have it in their own laws that "X is a crime" is somehow violating the Supremacy Clause--which is obviously not the case. For example, a law passed in 2020 by the federal government, you have to be 21 years old to buy cigarettes. That does not mean that every state suddenly was required to raise their own age requirements to 21.

As for your analogy of slavery, you're swapping out a constitutional issue with a legal one. The relationship between state law and the constitution is not exactly the same as state law and federal law.