Article

2025-04-08 -Land of the Free

Massive win for Trump as Supreme Court rules he CAN deport illegal migrants

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Skidmark 2025-04-08 00:00|| || Front Page|| [10346 views ] Top

#1 2025 is looking good so far!

Posted by Oregon Dave 2025-04-08 00:11|| 2025-04-08 00:11|| Front Page Top

#2 5 men voted the right way.

4 women didn't.

Reach your own conclusions.

Posted by Crusader 2025-04-08 00:19|| 2025-04-08 00:19|| Front Page Top

#3 A closer reading is that the court punted, saying the DC court lacked jurisdiction and the plaintiffs should have filed in Texas where they were detained.

I suspect the court is starting to get nervous about its integrity getting bashed with all the TROs which have no basis in Article III nor federal statutes but rather a power it granted itself.

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was upheld by SCOTUS in Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948) which recognized the Alien Enemy Act precludes judicial review of a removal order.

Given that the gangs are on the official State Department list of Terrorist Organizations, their incursion is no different that that of the Apache or Poncho Villa from Mexico, aka acts of war.

Posted by Procopius2k 2025-04-08 06:51|| 2025-04-08 06:51|| Front Page Top

#4 "The Alien Enemies Act granted the government additional powers to regulate non-citizens that would take effect in times of war.Under this law, the president could authorize the arrest, relocation, or deportation of any male over the age of 14 who hailed from a foreign enemy country. It also provided some legal protections for those subject to the law."

I see quite a few problems here. The United States is not at war with Venezuela. If it were it could technically deport ALL (male) Venezuelan citizens including those who reside in the U.S. legally. The United States would still have to establish that those people are indeed Venezuelan citizens who fall under this act.

The argument now is that Tren de Aragua is sort of a terrorist force sponsored by Venezuela "invading" the U.S., and this would trigger the Alien Enemies Act.

Does this equal war with Venezuela hence justifying the deportation of ALL Venezuelan citizens (inclusing those residing in the U.S. legally, with a Green Card)?

Or does it only concern (presumed) members of TdA? If so, wouldn't the government need to establish that those to be deported are IN FACT members of TdA, as it would have to establish that Venezuelan nationals are indeed Venezuelan nationals?

Because if it is not required to do that, it could deport ANYONE it wanted without any due process, including ANY foreigner of ANY nation who lives in the U.S. legally. And if "errors" occurred, the government would just say: Oops, not my bad?

Do you really want this?

Posted by European Conservative 2025-04-08 09:41|| 2025-04-08 09:41|| Front Page Top

#5 The official site classification for terrorist organizatoins. Scroll, to find Legal Criteria for Designation under Section 219 of the INA as amended -

1. It must be a foreign organization.
2. The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)),or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)), or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
3. The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.

Legal Ramifications of Designation

1. It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide “material support or resources” to a designated FTO. (The term “material support or resources” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1) as ” any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(2) provides that for these purposes “the term ‘training’ means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(3) further provides that for these purposes the term ‘expert advice or assistance’ means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.’’
2. Representatives and members of a designated FTO, if they are aliens, are inadmissible to and, in certain circumstances, removable from the United States (see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182 (a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)-(V), 1227 (a)(1)(A)).
3. Any U.S. financial institution that becomes aware that it has possession of or control over funds in which a designated FTO or its agent has an interest must retain possession of or control over the funds and report the funds to the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Posted by Procopius2k 2025-04-08 10:28|| 2025-04-08 10:28|| Front Page Top

#6 I get that. So let's establish that TdA is in fact a foreign terrorist organization.

What consequences does this have for Venezuelans residing in the U.S. legally?

Posted by European Conservative 2025-04-08 10:42|| 2025-04-08 10:42|| Front Page Top

#7 ^ Don't commit crimes, terror attacks, or spoil your welcome. Otherwise, GTFO

Posted by Frank G 2025-04-08 10:50|| 2025-04-08 10:50|| Front Page Top

#8 That goes without saying. But the Alien Enemies Act was actually designed for people who weren't guilty of anything, just that they had the citizenship of a country at war with the U.S.

Posted by European Conservative 2025-04-08 11:23|| 2025-04-08 11:23|| Front Page Top

#9 This conversation cannot continue until all involved understand that those are not skin decorations like some 90's girlie getting a tramp stamp, but actual uniforms complete with unit, location, rank, accomplishments, and citations.

Posted by swksvolFF 2025-04-08 12:00|| 2025-04-08 12:00|| Front Page Top

#10 It seems to me that Activist Judges also constitute a threat to the constitution, deportation seems about right for them as well...

Posted by 746 2025-04-08 12:08|| 2025-04-08 12:08|| Front Page Top

#11 It seems to me that Activist Judges also constitute a threat to the constitution, deportation seems about right for them as well...

Posted by 746 2025-04-08 12:08|| 2025-04-08 12:08|| Front Page Top

#12 Any sovereign nation can kick anyone out that isn't a citizen. If I was a jerk in Germany, I would fully expect to be hurled out of that country. Same applies to the US.

Posted by DarthVader 2025-04-08 12:30|| 2025-04-08 12:30|| Front Page Top

#13 Actually it can. But not without with the right of the defendant to have his day in court.

Posted by European Conservative 2025-04-08 12:40|| 2025-04-08 12:40|| Front Page Top

#14 EC depends on the country if they want to grant visitors that right. Again, they are sovereign so it is up to them.

Posted by DarthVader 2025-04-08 12:59|| 2025-04-08 12:59|| Front Page Top

#15 EC, liberal policies killing Western Europe. Americans don't want to die. Bully for them!

Posted by Grom the Affective 2025-04-08 13:08|| 2025-04-08 13:08|| Front Page Top

#16 The United States is not at war with Venezuela.

Depends on how you define war. You might be excused from thinking that a formal declaration by Congress is required. But our congress critters don't have the guts to declare war anymore. The last time they did it was in 1941 and we have fought a lot of wars since then.

IIRC, they called the Korean War a "police action". Ask any veteran of that war what they think it was.

Lyndon Johnson never got a formal declaration of war against North Vietnam. Instead, he got Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. He used that fig leaf to wage a full scale war in Vietnam.

In 1990 President George Bush invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to go to war against Iraq. That's how presidents do it these days.

Further, many wars these days are asymmetrical in nature. Often, non-state actors will commit acts of terrorism against the civilized world as the Houthis are doing in Yemen. You think we should allow Houthis to remain in our country?

We have the Chinese conspiring with Mexican drug cartels to smuggle fentanyl into our country causing upwards of 100,000 overdose deaths a year. You can call it crime if you want. Of course the Chinese and Mexican governments won't admit complicity but I'd call it war.

Then you have chickenshit dictators like Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela who could never win on a conventional battlefield against the United States so they send gangsters into our country to wreak havoc with illegal narcotics and other criminal activity.

When Biden was president and Texas governor Abbot was resisting the influx of illegal aliens across the Rio Grande River, one news report included pictures of a gang waving a Venezuelan flag on the Mexican side of the river and just waiting for a chance to cross it. I'm no lawyer but it looked like war to me.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2025-04-08 13:08|| 2025-04-08 13:08|| Front Page Top

#17 A person with a green card is not a visitor. This person has rights. If you want to kick this person out, it should be with due process.

Posted by European Conservative 2025-04-08 13:09|| 2025-04-08 13:09|| Front Page Top

#18 Yeah, and we don't have the time or money to give millions of illegal aliens their day in court. We just don't. And when a problem gets too big for the judicial system, it seems reasonable to treat it as a war.

Just because they're not invading our country with assault rifles, tanks and war planes doesn't mean it's not an invasion.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2025-04-08 13:24|| 2025-04-08 13:24|| Front Page Top

#19 If you have a Green Card and you behave yourself you'll probably be OK. But we have people here with visas who were stirring up trouble on college campuses, violating our laws and the rights of our citizens. We don't have to tolerate that. We can revoke the visas and send those people home. It is a privilege for people to come here with Green Cards or visas, not a right.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2025-04-08 13:34|| 2025-04-08 13:34|| Front Page Top

#20 Your Rights as a Permanent Resident

As a permanent resident (Green Card holder), you have the right to:

Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable under immigration law

Work in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing. (Please note that some jobs will be limited to U.S. citizens for security reasons)

Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions.

I agree that GETTING a green card is a privilege, not a right. KEEPING it is a different manner. Since I'm protected by all laws of the United States, my state of residence and local jurisdictions, the United States is required to make its case to prove that I violated "any immigration law". And I have the right to my day in court.

Would you agree with that?

Posted by European Conservative 2025-04-08 13:52|| 2025-04-08 13:52|| Front Page Top

#21 If you clicked on site classification in #5 it is the State Department official list of Terrorist Organizations. If you read that, it shows Tren de Aragua and the Cartels are there for all to see. No different than ISIS. They have no judicial appeal per the Alien Enemies Act. Period.

Posted by Procopius2k 2025-04-08 14:10|| 2025-04-08 14:10|| Front Page Top

#22 The Tren de Aragua soldiers did not suddenly go bad after they arrived here legally and got a permanent residency green card. Rather, they lied on their application about their affiliation. It’s my understanding that once that significant falsehood has been determined by the immigration authorities, the approval is invalidated, making them resident in the country illegally and subject to expulsion. That’s very different than being arrested for driving drunk once here, or even for murder or rape after permanent residency has been approved, which do indeed merit a proper trial and conviction.

Posted by trailing wife 2025-04-08 14:29|| 2025-04-08 14:29|| Front Page Top

#23 Boasberg isn’t giving up

US judge won't immediately toss Trump deportations case despite Supreme Court action

Posted by Beavis 2025-04-08 14:47|| 2025-04-08 14:47|| Front Page Top

#24 No, that's not what the Act says. It says this (emphasis mine):

"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."

Now it's quite a stretch to define the existence of TdA as an "invasion by any foreign nation or government", but if - for the sake of the argument - we accept this as a fact, then not only members of TdA are removable without judiciary review, ALL citizens (or "natives") of Venezuela are removable without judiciary review, even legal residents who've never broken any law. And they could be deported to a Salvadorian prison in the middle of the night.

And if you declare Mexican drug cartels as terrorist groups perpetrating an invasion, the Act would apply to all Mexican citizens.

And let's say it did, would the government be entitled to deport ALLEGED Venezuelan or Mexican citizens, or would it at least have to prove that you actually are a citizen of Venezuela or Mexico?

But if the Act only applied to members of TdA or a Mexican drug cartel, would it also apply to ALLEGED members of said groups? Without giving the person to be deported the right to contest this allegation at court?

If you say such a right doesn't exist, then no right exists. For nobody. The government decides that you are what it thinks you are, and off you go to a prison in a foreign land.

Posted by European Conservative 2025-04-08 14:58|| 2025-04-08 14:58|| Front Page Top

#25 @tw
"Rather, they lied on their application about their affiliation. It’s my understanding that once that significant falsehood has been determined by the immigration authorities, the approval is invalidated, making them resident in the country illegally and subject to expulsion."

Are you saying that the immigration authorities may just "determine" that without the individual having the right to challenge this determination legally?

Posted by European Conservative 2025-04-08 15:02|| 2025-04-08 15:02|| Front Page Top

#26 EC, I admire your commitment to truth and the rule of law. That said, exigent circumstances can exist that require swift executive action, prior to scheduled and often slow judicial process. Ex post facto proceedings may then remedy a wrong that lacked specific malice, and maintain the overall rule of law. Surely you can conceded the illegal immigration threat to American economic well-being and sovereignty is a dire one that requires broad, sweeping action that will have, sadly, individual mistakes requiring remediation afterwards? Perhaps this is just such a case?

Posted by NoMoreBS 2025-04-08 15:15|| 2025-04-08 15:15|| Front Page Top

#27 And what is a government?

Posted by swksvolFF 2025-04-08 15:33|| 2025-04-08 15:33|| Front Page Top

#28 Are you saying that the immigration authorities may just "determine" that without the individual having the right to challenge this determination legally?

Certainly they might challenge, European Conservative. They may just have to do it from outside the country — bureaucracy versus police. It is no trivial thing to lie on a visa application. Or even just to be suspected of telling less than the complete truth. I once wanted to bring our Czech Haustochter with us on a vacation to America, a matter of some two or three weeks. When I went to the embassy in Frankfurt a.M. to get her a tourist visa, the clerk mistakenly concluded that Hana meant to run off illegally after arrival, and not only refused to issue the thing but put a note in her file that kept her out of America until she married an American citizen whom she’d met at a professional conference in Canada some years later.

Posted by trailing wife 2025-04-08 15:44|| 2025-04-08 15:44|| Front Page Top

#29 @tw
With all respect, but this is a different matter, right or wrong. You have no "right" to enter the U.S., but once you have been granted the right to enter and stay, you must be able to defend that right. And I quoted the info given by U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services who say exactly this.

So if the U.S. government at some point thinks you may have lied to them, it should be possible to challenge this in a U.S. court, not at some point later outside the country, when all the damage has already been done.

Which also answers the thoughtful question of NoMoreBS. I think a state adhering to the rule of law cannot allow legal shortcuts claiming some "emergency". Even the worst offender is entitled to the rule of law. Because if he isn't, nobody is.

And in the case of that Salvadorian "erroneosly" deported into that megaprison, the government even seems to say: Oops, nothing we can do about it.

We certainly agree that murder or rape are grave problems. That doesn't mean we should just convict anyone we suspect of having committed murder or rape and, well, if some people turn out to be innocent, we can correct this later (maybe). No, we insist on "beyond any reasonable doubt", not on "he probably, likely did it".

Immigration law may have standards which are somewhat less strict, but deporting someone into a Salvadorian prison (which btw is a lot different from just sending someone back to his home country) without giving him the possibility to legally challenge this decision is a very dangerous slippery slope.

Posted by European Conservative 2025-04-08 16:13|| 2025-04-08 16:13|| Front Page Top

#30 Illian Gonzales was hoping the Supreme Court said the President could not deport illegal aliens…. Oh wait he was not illegal

Posted by Airandee 2025-04-08 16:59|| 2025-04-08 16:59|| Front Page Top

#31 EC, I think you are putting too much emphasis on the Green Card situation...just like our own main stream media. They go on and on about one guy who might have been deported mistakenly but they don't have much to say about Laken Riley and she's not the only victim of Joe Biden's border policies. Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is the people getting deported are here illegally which means they don't have Green Cards. Those guys with the shaved heads and full body tattoos are not here to do honest work.

Mistakes might be made but how about, if for the sake of national security, we err on the side of safety?

For one thing, like I said, we have untold millions of people in this country right now who don't belong here. Most of them are probably decent people but we just don't know and it is not practical to process them all through the judicial system. Just imagine the outcry if we incarcerated all those millions of people while they wait for their day in court. When problem is too big for the judicial system, whether you admit it or not, it's war.

Further, you argue that the invasions are not being perpetrated by foreign governments. Maybe we can't prove that Claudia Sheinbaum and Nicholas Maduro are deliberately sending these people into our country. But we don't know for certain that they're not. Here again, it's gotten to the point that we must act as if they are and if we're wrong we err on the side of safety. The safety of our own citizens is more important than the safety of illegal aliens. Our sovereignty is more important.

You remember seeing reports of all those caravans? Thousands of people moving in groups through Mexico on their way to our country. Somebody organized those caravans and paid lots of money so those people could eat and sleep while in transit. Maybe the governments of Mexico and Venezuela didn't pay for it. Hell, it might have been George Soros. I even heard reports that some of the money comes from the UN. It doesn't matter. Again, I'm no lawyer. But as far as I'm concerned, that's an act of war and we have a right to fight back.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2025-04-08 18:10|| 2025-04-08 18:10|| Front Page Top

#32 Abu Uluque, it's getting late here but I will pick up on what you said in a new thread (maybe tomorrow). Good night.

Posted by European Conservative 2025-04-08 18:37|| 2025-04-08 18:37|| Front Page Top

#33 I think it is a pretty easy case to make that TdA is a government, which puts itself if not above then certainly apart from the government of Venezuela, making its members citizens of TdA, something different than citizens of Venezuela, and being designated a terrorist organization by the USA, the USA is at war with TdA therefore Tda citizens can be sent off.

I mean, to call all Mexicans cartel members is a bit much, a bit cringe. Not all Syrians are ISIS members, right? But ISIS is a bit different than the government of Syria, its own rules and laws and taxes and behavioral understanding and law enforcement, so forth.

Posted by swksvolFF 2025-04-08 18:57|| 2025-04-08 18:57|| Front Page Top

#34 EC, we're dealing with entities that operate was independent bodies in actions that amount to war, pirates, criminal cartels, international criminal organizations, terrorist groups. We'd ship out a member of ISIS or Al-Qaeda in the same manner. Just don't get your organization formally identified as such.

Posted by Procopius2k 2025-04-08 19:51|| 2025-04-08 19:51|| Front Page Top

#35

Having read over the posted article and the comments.
I see a lot of respectful discussion back and forth.

Too bad the Left & the Liberals have not matured to this level. Otherwise, the USA would be 100x's stronger.

Posted by NN2N1 2025-04-08 19:54|| 2025-04-08 19:54|| Front Page Top

#36 Indeed.

Look back at Egypt not too long ago; Obama sent some 'NGOs' to 'influence' their elections, and Egypt said "Go Home Or Else", and those 'NGOs' went home to the USA. This would be the "Or Else", or as the kids say, "Find Out".

And, I quest, is if Russia is an officially declared terrorist organization, disturber of the peace if you will, of the EU?

Posted by swksvolFF 2025-04-08 20:52|| 2025-04-08 20:52|| Front Page Top

#37 Trump to Spend $45B Expanding Facilities for Illegal Migrant Detention

That's a helluva lotta money to have to pay to incarcerate these people so they can have their day in court. I assume it's for run-of-the-mill illegal aliens and not the violent gangsters. So it seems they will not be deported without a trial. That's a heavy burden for any country to bear, especially one that's already $36 trillion in debt.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2025-04-08 20:58|| 2025-04-08 20:58|| Front Page Top

23:56 trailing wife
23:52 Fairbanks
23:07 Cured Romantic
23:05 Anomalous Sources
22:44 SteveS
22:39 DooDahMan
22:37 DooDahMan
22:27 SteveS
22:16 Skidmark
22:14 Skidmark
22:12 Glolutch Tingle1702
22:11 Skidmark
22:10 Skidmark
21:43 Pancho Poodle8452
21:01 AlmostAnonymous5839
20:58 Abu Uluque
20:56 swksvolFF
20:52 swksvolFF
19:54 NN2N1
19:52 Super Hose
19:52 Procopius2k
19:51 Procopius2k
19:51 Super Hose
19:50 Lord Garth