GREGG JARRETT: The law supports Trump's deportation of violent gang members, despite judge's errant

[libertybele]

GREGG JARRETT: The law supports Trump's deportation of violent gang members, despite judge's errant ruling

Many in the media would have you believe that President Donald Trump has commandeered an obscure law to wrongly deport violent members of a terrorist gang known as Tren de Aragua (TdA).

In truth, the law is neither obscure nor being wrongfully deployed.

The Alien Enemies Act (AEA) was passed by Congress and signed into law in 1798. It is well-established, has never been repealed, and has been reviewed by courts numerous times. Four different presidents have invoked it, three of them Democrats in the 20th century. Moreover, the act is not limited to wartime authority as some claim.  Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman used the act well after both world wars had ended.

The AEA permits a president to order the arrest and removal without a court hearing of "alien enemies" whenever there is a declared war or any "predatory incursion" perpetrated, attempted or threatened against the United States. A predatory incursion is broadly defined as entry into the U.S. for purposes that are contrary to the nation’s interests or laws. The language gives a president broad latitude in his core duty to protect the safety and security of the citizenry.

In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Truman’s use of the AEA and ruled that the law itself was constitutional (Ludecke v. Watkins, 33 US 160). Importantly, the high court stated that a president’s decision under the Act "precludes judicial review of the removal order." In other words, a judge cannot second-guess the president. The court explained, "The very nature of the President’s power to order the removal of all enemy aliens rejects the notion that courts may pass judgment upon the exercise of his discretion."

The Supreme Court’s ruling embraced what is called the "political question doctrine." That is, the federal courts may not intervene in presidential decision-making that is inherently political in nature, such as the conduct of foreign affairs and national security. By analogy, we do not permit judges to halt drone strikes or shut down intelligence operations..............

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-law-supports-trumps-deportation-violent-gang-members-despite-judges-errant-ruling

[Kamaji]

None of the predicate actions by a foreign government have taken place and, accordingly, the law is inapplicable.  The judge is correct and Trump is wrong.

[Smokin Joe]

Illegal aliens...
...dedicated purpose to break our laws...
...know to be violent, and declared a 'terrorist' organization.


Would we have to declare war against 'Palestine' or ISIS or other non (state) government terrorist/criminal (because those walk hand-in-hand: terrorists are criminals) actors not tied to a State to evict members of their organizations under this act?

...even though they have committed violent acts against Americans?

For those conspiring together, one commits the Felony, all can be charged. The getaway driver is guilty of homicide if one of the robbers shoots someone.

If we can apply that guilt of association to common criminals then we should be able to apply it to terrorists.

The question of being able to summarily deport all members (as co-conspirators) of a terrorist organization as Alien Enemies should not depend on a declared war on a sponsoring State, because sometimes there is no clear tie to a particular State or government, only an international terrorist organization.

[Canuck Conservative]

WH & Border Patrol troll with new video short - "Closing Time" ...

https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1901658649522503816

[libertybele]

A precedent has been set, and I think it is quite clear:

In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Truman’s use of the AEA and ruled that the law itself was constitutional (Ludecke v. Watkins, 33 US 160). Importantly, the high court stated that a president’s decision under the Act "precludes judicial review of the removal order." In other words, a judge cannot second-guess the president. The court explained, "The very nature of the President’s power to order the removal of all enemy aliens rejects the notion that courts may pass judgment upon the exercise of his discretion."

[Kamaji]

A precedent has been set, and I think it is quite clear:

In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Truman’s use of the AEA and ruled that the law itself was constitutional (Ludecke v. Watkins, 33 US 160). Importantly, the high court stated that a president’s decision under the Act "precludes judicial review of the removal order." In other words, a judge cannot second-guess the president. The court explained, "The very nature of the President’s power to order the removal of all enemy aliens rejects the notion that courts may pass judgment upon the exercise of his discretion."

A court cannot second-guess the president, but only if the factual predicates exist which authorize the president to act.  A court is duty-bound to countermand a president who attempts to act under the law when the factual predicates do not exist.

[Smokin Joe]

A court cannot second-guess the president, but only if the factual predicates exist which authorize the president to act.  A court is duty-bound to countermand a president who attempts to act under the law when the factual predicates do not exist.

In what way are illegal aliens who are part of a terrorist group NOT "enemy aliens"?

George W. Bush declared war on terror, and I haven't seen signs of any surrender or peace accord.

[Kamaji]

In what way are illegal aliens who are part of a terrorist group NOT "enemy aliens"?

George W. Bush declared war on terror, and I haven't seen signs of any surrender or peace accord.

There is no state action - no foreign government has declared war on the U.S. or has undertaken any of the other predicate factual requirements. 

Read the g*d-damned statute and apply it as written - and in accordance with the canons of construction - and stop trying to twist it into something unrecognizable to do your dirty work.

[Smokin Joe]

There is no state action - no foreign government has declared war on the U.S. or has undertaken any of the other predicate factual requirements. 

Read the g*d-damned statute and apply it as written - and in accordance with the canons of construction - and stop trying to twist it into something unrecognizable to do your dirty work.

So you are saying as long as they don't "identify" with a legal and recognized government with its own patch of land the POTUS, who controls immigration policy, has no authority to remove terrorists from our country?

ISIS has no "State", nor do any of its variants. Hizb'allah has no "State". Hamas has no "State", even though they have been running Gaza. Boko Haram, Abu Sayeff, etc. are all 'non state' actors.

I guess we'll just have to go back to 'wet work' to eliminate foreign illegal alien terrorists from our country if we can't deport them, despite them being enemies of the United States.

[Canuck Conservative]

There is no state action - no foreign government has declared war on the U.S. or has undertaken any of the other predicate factual requirements

@Kamaji

Didn't Eisenhower use this law in the 1950s to remove Puerto Rican and Mexican aliens?

Mexico and Puerto Rico weren't at war with the US at the time, yet the removals were apparently legal ...

[Right_in_Virginia]

So you are saying as long as they don't "identify" with a legal and recognized government with its own patch of land the POTUS, who controls immigration policy, has no authority to remove terrorists from our country?

ISIS has no "State", nor do any of its variants. Hizb'allah has no "State". Hamas has no "State", even though they have been running Gaza. Boko Haram, Abu Sayeff, etc. are all 'non state' actors.

You took the words right off my keyboard.

[Right_in_Virginia]

A precedent has been set, and I think it is quite clear:

In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Truman’s use of the AEA and ruled that the law itself was constitutional (Ludecke v. Watkins, 33 US 160). Importantly, the high court stated that a president’s decision under the Act "precludes judicial review of the removal order." In other words, a judge cannot second-guess the president. The court explained, "The very nature of the President’s power to order the removal of all enemy aliens rejects the notion that courts may pass judgment upon the exercise of his discretion."

A court cannot second-guess the president, but only if the factual predicates exist which authorize the president to act.  A court is duty-bound to countermand a president who attempts to act under the law when the factual predicates do not exist.

Where's the "but" in @libertybele 's post above quoting the SC's decision @Kamaji ?

[Bigun]

It is abundantly clear to me that there are Schools of Law around these days that are grossly ripping their students off!

[Kamaji]

@Kamaji

Didn't Eisenhower use this law in the 1950s to remove Puerto Rican and Mexican aliens?

Mexico and Puerto Rico weren't at war with the US at the time, yet the removals were apparently legal ...

Not as far as I can find.  If you have a link, please post it. 


My understanding is that the AEA has been invoked only three times, each time during war, and when it was used in 1951 by Truman, that was based on the prior declaration of war from WWII.

It has never been used the way Trump wants to use it. 

[libertybele]

Prior declaration of war?

The act is not limited to wartime authority as some claim.

[Kamaji]

Prior declaration of war?

The act is not limited to wartime authority as some claim.

The law requires intentional conduct on the part of a foreign government.  That predicate fact does not exist, therefore, the law cannot legally be invoked.  Trump is simply wrong. 

[libertybele]

This is about the security of our country and removing ALL enemies foreign and domestic! IF someone or a group of people from another country enters our country ILLEGALLY and murders, rapes, burglarizes, terrorizes, isnt' an invasion or predatory incursion then I don't know what is .....

The Act states ....any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened" against the US all "subjects of the hostile nation or government" could be "apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies".......

[libertybele]

Those that are being removed ARE alien enemies.  They ARE a threat to the security of the United States. 

As Commander in Chief,  Trump needs to announce and make it clear that ANYONE entering our country ILLEGALLY will be declared an enemy of the United States and considered as a declaration  of war against the United States.