Post New

Our much vaunted separation of powers seems to mean little now. We have a 'unitary executive', a dictator. And he's a vengeful idiot.

Trump Invokes 1798 Alien Enemies Act to Deport Migrants, Citing 'Invasion'

What Happened: Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act for the first time since World War II, granting himself sweeping wartime powers to deport noncitizens—without due process—by labeling Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang as an "invading force." A federal judge immediately blocked the deportations for two weeks.

Why It Matters: Trump is stretching a 200-year-old wartime law to justify mass deportations in peacetime, setting a dangerous precedent for bypassing immigration courts and constitutional protections. His regime is arguing that unauthorized immigration constitutes an “invasion,” a legal rationale that will be expanded to target broader groups.

Source: Associated Press

Trump Invokes 1798 Alien Enemies Act to Deport Migrants, Citing 'Invasion'

This is going to wind its way to SCOTUS. We have to see if he continues to defy the lower court and use the AEA to continue to deport. More importantly we have to see if the Supreme Court will reinterpret the law to allow the President to continue to deport this way. If they do allow it, then you will see a massive number of expedited removals, that bypass the due process Albaby outlined for us.

"Expedited removal is a procedure that allows U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials to rapidly deport noncitizens who are undocumented or who have committed misrepresentation or fraud."

Albaby outlined that if they step across the border and claim asylum they get due process, which, IIRC, consists of CBP giving a short interview and deciding if the asylum claim is valid, with an eye toward allowing them to stay (20% have expedited removal), then keeping them and reviewing it with an official at six weeks (1/3 don't pass), then a hearing in 2 years (1/3 don't pass). We did catch and release at six weeks for those who passed, because we could not house them.

We are signatories to the Geneva Conventions, but there are exceptions. I read that it is fine to ship asylum seekers to safe third countries - but what third country wants these refugees? So are we going to perpetually pay fees for them to be taken? Just how is that going to work? No one cares about Tren de Aragua, let them rot in El Salvador prisons, but we do care about due process. We are denying entry to skilled Doctors we gave H1B visas to and shipping them out. Trump not having the money to do proper processing means he flouts the law. MAGA hates elites anyway, unless they're racist elites it seems.

So we're now looking at the USSC which Mitch stacked with Conservatives - who knows? I don't. I'm still tracking down what the Geneva Convention says about asylees and expedited removal. But MAGA looks at the Geneva Convention as something the Euros say and we don't have to pay attention to it - completely ignoring how it benefits our military. Right now it looks like they'll be touting Tren de Aragua while grabbing anyone and shipping them out - and we have to hope court rulings uphold the law and hope Trump just doesn't defy rulings he doesn't like - if that happens we are in real trouble.

ges: ...granting himself sweeping wartime powers to deport noncitizens—without due process...

So we have a convicted felon who believes he should be the last word on our laws and their enforcement -- which kinda' sorta' sounds unconstitutional -- and despite Judge Boasberg agreeing with the ACLU that the terms of the Alien Enemies Act apply only to “enemy nations” and temporarily blocking deportations under it, the Trump White House defied the judge's order and declined to turn the planes around and return the men.

And then after last night claiming they had not "defied" the judge, this morning ICE Administrator Homan said: "We're not stopping. I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks. We're coming."

And that kinda' sorta' sounds like contempt.

No doubt this is the case that the Trump White House wants in front to the Supreme Court, rolling the dice to make himself King or dictator, or whichever title you prefer. He clearly looking for the high court to give him the power to arrest, detain, and deport all migrants over the age of 14 without due process, as well as the power to determine who is a gang member without due process.

BTW, we have no evidence that the men deported were gang members, and now they have vanished into a gulag outside the reach of the American justice system.

Of course we'll all argue that the Trump White House would never be so emboldened to disappear journalists or critics or trans individuals or gays or... on second thought, we're entered unchartered territory and all bets are off.

And even if the Supreme Court turns aside King Donald and rules against him, would this not be the perfect situation for him to defy the high court? And then what? Will republicans in Congress have the courage to bring articles of impeachment or will the grand experiment end?

My money is not on congressional republicans.

And then after last night claiming they had not "defied" the judge, this morning ICE Administrator Homan said: "We're not stopping. I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks. We're coming."

Ya! take that dems!

And then after last night claiming they had not "defied" the judge, this morning ICE Administrator Homan said: "We're not stopping. I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks. We're coming."

Ya! take that dems!

Nothing says you believe in law and order like not believing in law and order.

Nothing says you believe in law and order like not believing in law and order.

Sorry, I fall in line with Americans who want the rapist, murderers, drug runners,
human traffickers, Tren de Aragua gangsters, etc Biden invited into our Country and
are living off American taxpayers monies..

“Sorry, I fall in line with Americans who want the rapist, murderers, drug runners,
human traffickers, Tren de Aragua gangsters, etc Biden invited into our Country and
are living off American taxpayers monies..”

Oh, and to finish my thought…I want these low life's Biden invited into America outta here!

Amazing the left here sides with the judge who wants to keep the illegal trash in our country
to continue with their disgusting ways hurting American citizens.

Amazing the left here sides with the judge who wants to keep the illegal trash in our country
to continue with their disgusting ways hurting American citizens.

It's not siding with "illegal trash." It's siding with the rule of law.

Generally speaking, people who are accused of being illegal trash get to have an opportunity in court to try to argue that they're not. Some might be, of course - and if they are found to be so through whatever processes they are due, then they deserve whatever outcomes are appropriate. But the left is generally against the State using military power to bypass judicial due process in a non-military criminal context.

LurkerMom: “Sorry, I fall in line with Americans who want the rapist... Oh, and to finish my thought... I want these low life's Biden invited into America outta here!

You voted for a rapist.

And you support King Donald welcoming Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan into the U.S. despite their facing rape and human trafficking charges.

Three of King Donald's Cabinet selections have faced allegations of sexual misconduct: Matt Gaetz, Pete Hegseth and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

King Donald was Jeffrey Epstein's BFF for years.


LurkerMom: Amazing the left here sides with the judge who wants to keep the illegal trash in our country to continue with their disgusting ways hurting American citizens.

No, we side with the Constitution and the law. You, though, side with King Donald who believes that courts have no authority to review or restrict him from deporting immigrants. That theory, if accepted, would mark the end of constitutional democracy.

As always, you're on the wrong side of the fight.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrew-tate-tristan-t...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/thre...

Generally speaking, people who are accused of being illegal trash get to have an opportunity in court to try to argue that they're not.

Technically, no. Say somebody is in the country illegally and they're arrested for say, DUI. The LEO can run the ID of the person and figure out they're not a citizen, call ICE, and then that person is deported.

At issue here seems to be "Where can ICE drop these people off?" with the choices being "at some airport in their country of origin" or "in a special jail in El Salvador".

“Wherever law ends, tyranny begins"

— John Locke

Technically, no. Say somebody is in the country illegally and they're arrested for say, DUI. The LEO can run the ID of the person and figure out they're not a citizen, call ICE, and then that person is deported.

They have a chance to argue that they're actually a citizen. They have a chance to argue that if they're not a citizen, they're here legally. They get a chance to have someone other than just the ICE review whether they are subject to being deported, because those things are handled by the justice system. Criminal, civil, or administrative immigration courts - the federal government can't just disappear you.

LM would have been an enthusiastic fascist in 1933.

believes that courts have no authority to review or restrict him from deporting immigrants. - CO

==================

FIFY,

believes that courts have no authority to review or restrict him from deporting illegal immigrants.

They have a chance to argue that they're actually a citizen.

Even that depends. If they pick up some guy who is already flagged for deportation because they know he's not a citizen, they don't need to show anything to a judge.

Even that depends. If they pick up some guy who is already flagged for deportation because they know he's not a citizen, they don't need to show anything to a judge.

This is not about whether a judicial review is required - it's about whether it is available when invoked.

If they pick up a guy that they believe is flagged for deportation - even someone who their claim is subject to a removal order - that person still has a right to request judicial review of his potential deportation. The government could be making a mistake: they might have the wrong person, and the individual isn't subject to a removal order. The removal order might have been revoked or suspended, and there's a mistake in believing it's still in effect. The removal order might have been superseded by another action - there's a lot of DACA recipients who were subject to removal orders as an entire family when they came over as children, but those orders are suspended by DACA. Etc.

The problem here is much worse than if the Administration did not on its own go into court - because as you point out there are situations where the the government is no longer required to go through a judicial process. The problem is that the individuals had sought judicial review, and the judge was considering the case and had allegedly told the government not to remove them from the country while that was ongoing; and the Administration is making noises that even then their actions are not subject to review. That they can just disappear someone from the country and that person is utterly beyond the reach of the courts - even to argue mistaken identity, even to argue that they are in fact here legally, even to argue that some other provision of law prevents their deportation. And that's just a terrifying degree of immunity from the rule of law for the government to claim that they have.

And that's just a terrifying degree of immunity from the rule of law for the government to claim that they have.

I don't put any stock in this kind of thing anymore. The media/democrats have been crying Wolf over it too much.

You voted for a rapist

Yada,Yada,Yada....
Snip
“On Tuesday, May 12, 2023, the Manhattan jury of nine men and three women found the former president liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll and awarded Carroll $5 million in damages.

However, the lawsuit's conclusion appears to have led some to believe that Trump has been convicted of rape and used that understanding to attack him on social media.”

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-was-donald-tru...

Then on the other hand I don’t see you complaining about Biden sniffing on women and little girls
and can’t keep his hands off them....nor have I seen you complain disgusting Biden showering with
his then at the time young daughter, why is that?

https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2023/08/01/ashle...

And how about Tara Reade, who said she was sexually assaulted by President Joe Biden.
Biden had his corrupt FBI go after her to shut her up and she finally fled to Russia
where she was safe from their harassment.

No, we side with the Constitution and the law. You, though, side with King Donald who believes that courts have no authority to review or restrict him from deporting immigrants. That theory, if accepted, would mark the end of constitutional democracy.

Spare me your baloney. It’s what President Trump ran on and why he won the election.
Decent Americans want this scum outta here and Trump has not broken any laws doing so.

I don't put any stock in this kind of thing anymore. The media/democrats have been crying Wolf over it too much.

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical about whether we yet know the exact circumstances and timing of the judicial orders, the events, and the factual history of the individuals that have been deported. But anyone who is arguing that the actions of the Administration are not or should not be subject to judicial review is completely wrong. The Administration has to follow the law, and the courts are open to individuals who want to argue to a judge that the Administration is not following the law.

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical about whether we yet know the exact circumstances and timing of the judicial orders, the events, and the factual history of the individuals that have been deported. But anyone who is arguing that the actions of the Administration are not or should not be subject to judicial review is completely wrong.

Is anyone? No one is pushing back on separation of powers. What people are pushing back on is why all of a sudden is it a problem to deport criminals? This is such an odd (and self-defeating) hill for the democrats to die on is that the people being talked about are a) here illegally b) involved in some various serious crimes such that c) when we catch them doing b) and they're in the illegal group...they're gone. There shouldn't be any debate about that.

The Columbia kid is a far better place for the d's to make a stand than the TdA people recently sent packing.

What people are pushing back on is why all of a sudden is it a problem to deport criminals?

It's not.

It is a problem to deport people who are accused of being criminals (but that we don't know whether they are or not) without giving them an opportunity to contest whether they are criminals or whether they are subject to deportation.

It is a problem to argue that the Administration has the sole and unreviewable authority to declare that someone is a criminal and can be deported, even if that person has not been convicted of a crime or gone through the process for having an order of deportation issued.

That's not claiming it's a problem to deport criminals. It's claiming that it's a problem to deport people on the accusation that they're deportable criminals without the government being obligated to show that this is actually the case, if challenged. Or the government being required to comply with a court order that the people shouldn't be deported until the government makes that showing.

Albaby

Just one data point in the immigration story:

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/2025/03/...

Bradley Bartell and Camila Muñoz had a familiar small-town love story, before they collided with immigration politics.

They met through mutual friends, had a first date at the local steakhouse, married after two years and were saving to buy a house and have kids. Muñoz was already caring for Bartell's now 12-year-old son as her own.

But last month, on their way home to Wisconsin after honeymooning in Puerto Rico, an immigration agent pulled Muñoz aside in the airport.

"Are you an American citizen?" asked the agent. She answered no, she wasn't. She's from Peru. But she and her husband had taken the legal steps so that one day she might get U.S. citizenship.

She's now in custody.

"The Administration has to follow the law, and the courts are open to individuals who want to argue to a judge that the Administration is not following the law."

The administration doesn't have to follow the law if they have a whole party of spinless cowards who are too scared to hold the administration accountable backing him up.

"Generally speaking, people who are accused of being illegal trash get to have an opportunity in court to try to argue that they're not." - Albaby

"Technically, no. Say somebody is in the country illegally and they're arrested for say, DUI. The LEO can run the ID of the person and figure out they're not a citizen, call ICE, and then that person is deported." - Dumbass, Fascist Dope

Dope says this, then I bet in the next couple of days he will say he wants rule of law. Dope wouldn't know the rule of law if it smacked him in the face.

Here is a hint Dope, the executive branch making people disappear without judicial review isn't rule of law. It is what authoritarian Fascists do and support.

Now I know that you (or Mike, or LM) are going to whine about being called dumbass fascists, but it is because people are starting to get pissed off that you are destroying a great country with your ignorance and fascist actions.

Now I know that you (or Mike, or LM) are going to whine about being called dumbass fascists, but it is because people are starting to get pissed off that you are destroying a great country with your ignorance and fascist actions. - UMM

----------------

No, What most people want is a peaceful society free of imported criminals, terrorist sympathizers, and activists. Progressives want to keep them here for as log as possible regardless of the cost or collateral damage.

bighairymike: No, What most people want is a peaceful society free of imported criminals, terrorist sympathizers, and activists. Progressives want to keep them here for as log [sic] as possible regardless of the cost or collateral damage.

All you seem to post lately is complete bullshit. Roughly half of all illegal immigrants come to the U.S. legally on various non-immigrant visas (NIV) — typically tourist visas (B1/B2) — and overstay them. The majority of those who appear at the southern border are here to seek asylum and not criminals, terrorist sympathizers, and activists.

Progressives do not want to keep "criminals, terrorist sympathizers, and activists" here "for as log [sic] as possible regardless of the cost or collateral damage." That is complete nonsense. We do object to disappearing individuals without due process -- as should all Americans -- and other abuses such as deporting a 37-year-old Hmong American who has lived in the United States since she was four-months old to Laos, a country she has never visited.

There was a time when it was possible to have a rational conversation with you but those days have gone. You go ahead and enjoy yelling at the clouds.

bighairymike: No, What most people want is a peaceful society free of imported criminals, terrorist sympathizers, and activists. Progressives want to keep them here for as log [sic] as possible regardless of the cost or collateral damage.


Mike, I thought you, unlike the other righties on this board, would have the sense to understand what Trump is doing to this country. But no. Apparently partisanship (cultishness?) has blinded you as well.

You post bullshit lies and ignore the obvious and deliberate destruction of our democracy. Either that or you welcome the looming autocracy. That is sad and sick.

No, What most people want is a peaceful society free of imported criminals, terrorist sympathizers, and activists. Progressives want to keep them here for as log as possible regardless of the cost or collateral damage.

This. The left denied there was an open border, denied that criminal gangs were terrorizing people, claimed there was nothing that could be done to stop the flow of illegals and if all of that wasn't bad enough, are now opposed to deporting all the crooks, thieves, human traffickers, terrorists and murderers.

Ordinarily you'd have to ask what kind of psychopathology would lead someone to support that kind of stuff, but it's obvious given whom you're replying to. Taking to that sort is just dUmm.

All you [BHM] seem to post lately is complete bullshit.

BS, Hatred, Misinformation?

No, What most people want is a peaceful society free of imported criminals, terrorist sympathizers, and activists. Progressives want to keep them here for as log as possible regardless of the cost or collateral damage.

Activists? You do realize that our Founding Fathers, as well as Abraham Lincoln, were activists, don’t you?

And I would greatly appreciate some examples of progressives who want to keep imported criminals and terrorist sympathizers in this country.

Why? Because I think your statement is utter nonsense.

Activists? You do realize that our Founding Fathers, as well as Abraham Lincoln, were activists, don’t you?

Sure. And they'd look at the commies and whackjobs that make up the democrat party and be recoiled.

And I would greatly appreciate some examples of progressives

LOL. The ACLU and 90% of your party. Along with all the folks who denied that criminal gangs were taking over apartment complexes. And the sanctuary city goobers. And...

There was a time when it was possible to have a rational conversation with you but those days have gone. You go ahead and enjoy yelling at the clouds. - CO

-----------------

I miss that too but your side has kept up the anti common sense rhetoric and disregard for the legitimate concerns of normies that my patience has worn thin. There seems to me little point of attempting rational discussion.

Trump hears the anguish felt by main street, a message you guys cannot perceive.

ignore the obvious and deliberate destruction of our democracy. - ges

-----------------

Right there is what I was getting at in my reply to CO. A little bit of this is tolerable but a steady diet of it is irksome.

All you [BHM] seem to post lately is complete bullshit.

BS, Hatred, Misinformation? = G01

================

Cute but not useful.

In your view of public discourse, the only post that is not bullshit or hate speech is a post that agrees with you. Like is too short to engage with each of you. The last election should inform you how out of step with main street you guys are.

No, What most people want is a peaceful society free of imported criminals, terrorist sympathizers, and activists.

What most people want are good lives, very low crime, no terrorism, affordable housing and health care, and a decent retirement. The GOP primary reason for existence is to fuel division to give tax cuts to the rich. Trump gave a bog tax cut for the rich, and he's going to do it again. The cost of the government is being forced downward onto the middle and lower classes., while the upper class gets more money by tax cuts and carving themselves out tax breaks and other benefits. Trump will be bi different. He didn't run on tax cuts and breaks for the rich, but those will definitely happen. Social security, medicare, medicaid, SNAP, welfare definitely help those that are struggling and there is some fraud waste and abuse, but so far not enough fraud and abuse to merit the cuts that are being talked about.

So draining the swamp has morphed into cut half the government for tax cuts for the rich. And since the logistics of shipping out 11 million people are daunting they want to do away with rights and try stochastic terrorism on those assigned the role of protecting our rights. But the only thing that's virtually guaranteed is tax cuts for the rich - and oh yes -graft by Trump et al.

Trump is in the process of delivering up Ukraine to Putin. Who knows what he has gotten, and what he will get - not sure we know how to plumb the depths of the bitcoin universe.

...the federal government can't just disappear you.

Under the Felon, that may not be true much longer.

Sure it can. When the US is an oblast region of mother Russia.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.