We’re Finally Seeing the “Evidence” Against the Migrants Deported by Trump. It’s Unbelievable.

[Rumpole]

Save the freaking epistles for the preacher

I'll do as I freaking please and there isn't a goddamn thing you can do about it.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you want to send someone to rot in an El Salvador prison for 'silly things'? Are you out of your fucking mind?

“Seems pretty cut and dry,” you declares, as if jurisprudence is a game of charades and not a matter of law, context, and due process.

Let’s dissect this fine specimen of lazy thinking. The assertion is that making gang signs and having a tattoo is “proof”--not evidence, mind you, but proof--of gang membership. That’s the legal standard now? You saw a gesture and a tattoo, so we can skip the investigation and go straight to branding a person as a criminal enterprise? That’s not law--that’s the intellectual equivalent of trial by ducking stool.

Here’s a novel idea: maybe someone flashed a sign because they grew up in a neighborhood where that’s culture, not allegiance. Maybe the tattoo is a relic of youth, regret, or even just bad judgment--not a signed affidavit of criminal conspiracy. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against guilt by association. Dawson v. Delaware (1992) comes to mind, where the Court ruled that mere membership in a group cannot be used to prove bad character unless it's directly relevant to the crime.

But of course, nuance is inconvenient when you’re in a hurry to climb atop your soapbox and hand out verdicts like candy. And that final moral flourish--“you shouldn’t be doing silly things like getting the gang tat”--is rich. Thank you, Judge Judy of Reddit. Tell that to the 16-year-old who got it under duress, or the 25-year-old trying to leave that life behind. The world is messier than your tidy, finger-wagging proclamations.

So no, it isn’t “cut and dry.” It’s lazy, presumptive, and oblivious to the burden of proof. If our justice system were run by people who think like this, we’d all be one hoodie and a hand gesture away from solitary.

One professional soccer player was caught because he had a soccer ball with a crown tattoo. It was similar to a gang tattoo. That was all the evidence they had, and he didn't have a chance to contest the decision in court.

Deported soccer player wrongly accused of gang membership over tattoo, lawyer says

Jerce Reyes Barrios' attorney said his tattoo was designed to look like the logo of his favorite soccer team, not a gang symbol.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Independent thinker]

Thank you for acknowledging that you are not an independent thinker. Wonderful.

I love it when your side claims I can't possibly me an independent thinker unless I think the same as you do.

 

[Meathead]

It gets old, the attacks from the right who accuse we Democrats of 'hating America' because we back Boasberg. 'You support terrorists', they keep shouting. The reply is 'no, we support due process'. Without it, we lose our republic, so it is out of LOVE for America that we back the judge, for all he is interested is that those souls get a fair hearing, so that the innocent aren't sent to some prison where their hope of freedom will be lost, probably in a hellish place for a long long time. Consider this story, which emboldens our case for 'due process'.

So it has happened that the Trump administration, that erstwhile bastion of misrule, embarked on a ruthless campaign to uproot hundreds of Venezuelan migrants scattered across this vast land. They did so with the stealth of a jackal, executing deportations without notice or the dignity of due process. These unfortunate souls were dispatched to the unforgiving confines of a prison in El Salvador--a fate as ironic as it is tragic. Now, the curtain is finally lifting on the evidence marshaled against these exiles, and it is nothing short of preposterous.

Take, for instance, the case of Jerce Reyes Barrios, a professional soccer player--yes, a player who fled the suffocating grip of dictator Nicolás Maduro in search of freedom, only to find himself ensnared by the very apparatus designed to protect him. Barrios had settled in the United States, eagerly awaiting an asylum hearing when ICE agents descended upon him like vultures. The accusation? That he was a member of the Tren de Aragua gang, a claim rooted not in hard evidence but in the flimsy fabric of xenophobic hysteria.

What, pray tell, constituted the evidence against Barrios? Two items, both laughable in their absurdity. First, a tattoo on his arm--an innocuous crown perched atop a soccer ball, allegedly emblematic of gang affiliation. The truth, as his attorney Linette Tobin clarifies, is that this tattoo is a tribute to the Real Madrid soccer team, a fact as lost on the powers that be as a whisper in a tempest. Secondly, there exists a photograph in which Barrios is gesturing with both hands--a gesture misconstrued by the ever-suspicious agents as a sign of gang allegiance. Yet, in the world of American Sign Language, this very gesture signifies “I love you,” or is often embraced as a symbol of rock 'n' roll.

Such grotesque misinterpretations seem to be a recurrent theme among those caught in this legislative nightmare. Consider another migrant, referred to as E.V., whose tattoos depict anime, flowers, and animals, yet were grotesquely rebranded as indicators of gang ties. According to his attorney, the crown adorning his skin is not a badge of criminality but a heartfelt homage to his late grandmother.

The Kafkaesque nature of this ordeal escalates as we delve into the tales of others similarly victimized. One, known as J.A.B.V., bore tattoos of a rose, a clock, and his son’s name--all benign symbols that ICE agents twisted into evidence of criminal affiliation. Despite having lived without a criminal record, he was nevertheless shipped away on the flimsiest of charges. L.G. endured a similar fate, his tattoos--one a rosary, another his partner’s name--branded as marks of gang loyalty. The absurdity reaches new heights with Anyelo Jose Sarabia, who was accused based on a tattoo of a Bible verse and a rose adorned with petals of money.

One cannot help but feel a twinge of irony: many of these individuals sought refuge from Tren de Aragua, only to be demonized as members of that very gang. A particularly poignant case involves an unnamed migrant who had applied for asylum, fleeing from the very harm he now faces, yet was unceremoniously deported while living in a New York homeless shelter with his family.

The administration seems to operate under a perverse presumption that any Venezuelan migrant bearing tattoos must be, by default, a member of Tren de Aragua, guilty until proven innocent--a condition that becomes impossible in the absence of due process. Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, under the ludicrous belief it permits the expulsion of noncitizens without judicial oversight, exposes a shocking disdain for constitutional principles. The Department of Justice, ever the willing accomplice, hastens to bypass the courts, claiming that Trump’s decisions exist in a realm beyond judicial scrutiny.

This is not the first time such absurdity has reared its head. During Trump’s initial tenure, ICE made a habit of accusing noncitizens of gang membership based on little more than inked skin. A federal judge once accused ICE agents of perjury regarding the tattoos of a DACA recipient, ultimately liberating him from unlawful detention. The lesson learned, it seems, is that when afforded the privilege of due process, these victims can challenge the flimsy fabrications that the government spins around them. In response, the authorities have concocted new legal theories, intent on preventing judicial review of their actions.

The question remains: did ICE specifically target these men based on their tattoos, or were they rounded up first, with excuses fabricated later? These details warrant scrutiny, and soon the victims’ lawyers will be entitled to interrogate the architects of this dystopian scheme. What is essential now is that judges have the opportunity to sift through the so-called evidence, allowing the scales of justice to balance before this grotesque theater evolves into a full-scale assault on the constitutional rights of all immigrants.

As we observe this unfolding drama, one cannot help but wonder where the limits of absurdity lie in this creeping authoritarianism. In the grand tapestry of American governance, this chapter stands as a cautionary tale of a nation grappling with its conscience amid a cacophony of injustice. The time has come to demand accountability, lest we descend further into a quagmire of Trumpian madness and, yes, I'll say it, it needs to be said, it needs to be shouted on rooftops across America, TYRANNY.

I've been shouting a simple message since I joined this forum short while ago, it's called 'due process'. Some said the 'gang members' got DP, but, alas, I wouldn't trust ICE nor Trump to uphold 'due process', when Trump as literally defecated all over it, for some time, now.

As the delegates finalized the U.S. Constitution, Franklin, who was 81 years old at the time, exited the hall. According to historical accounts, a woman--often identified as Elizabeth Willing Powel, a well-known Philadelphia socialite and wife of Samuel Powel--approached Franklin and asked:

"Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?"

Franklin responded: "A republic, if you can keep it."

IF WE CAN KEEP IT.

I'd like to know who on this forum understands that, without upholding the core principle of due process, we won't 'keep it', it will be lost, we will become a republic of the banana variety? Please stand up a

Oh, I suppose I could holler 'I told you so', as, it seems, my chicken little predictions are coming to pass, and, are neither chicken, nor little. So......

What will keep our republic--our democracy--from falling apart? Pray for the following:

1. A balance of power among co-equal branches of government.
   We've lost Congress--too many members have donned kneepads for Trump--leaving us to rely almost entirely on the judiciary to hold the line.
2. A vigorous, independent press.
   The free press is not the enemy of the people--it’s the watchdog that keeps power in check and truth in circulation. It's the one institution that stands between tyranny and you, the citizen, it's the first amendment, and it's the first for a reason, where the second is important, but nothing protects us from tyranny more than a vigorous & free press. Note that I didn't say 'honest' or 'unbiased' because of the three, 'honest, 'bias', and 'vigorous' only the latter is not subject (as much) to interpretation.
3. A military that honors its oath.
   When they swear to defend the Constitution, it’s not just words. It’s a commitment to the rule of law, not to any one man or party.
4. A judiciary that defends the Constitution and the law.
   Judges who stand firm, even under pressure from a hostile executive branch, are the last bulwark of democracy. They must be willing to sacrifice popularity, power, or position in defense of constitutional principle.
5. We, the people.
   A republic doesn’t sustain itself. It lives or dies by the engagement, courage, and conscience of its citizens. If we stay silent while democracy is dismantled, we become accomplices. But if we vote, speak out, protest, organize, and refuse to surrender truth to propaganda--we become the immune system of the republic. No constitution, no court, no press can save democracy if the people don’t care to.

We’re Finally Seeing the “Evidence” Against the Migrants Deported by Trump. It’s Unbelievable.

We’re Finally Seeing the “Evidence” Against the Migrants Deported by Trump. It’s Unbelievable.

The Trump admin said a soccer player had a gang tattoo. It’s a tattoo of Real Madrid’s logo.

slate.com

After the Trump administration rounded up hundreds of Venezuelan migrants around the country—without notice or court hearings—and sent them off to a prison in El Salvador, we’re finally getting details on who was deported and why. And the more we learn, the more obvious it becomes why the government is so eager to expel these individuals without any semblance of due process. It claims that these men are terrorists by virtue of their alleged membership in the Tren de Aragua gang—but evidence of this affiliation is weak to the point of nonexistence.

Consider Jerce Reyes Barrios, one victim of the deportations: a professional soccer player who had fled Venezuela after protesting against dictator Nicolás Maduro and was living peacefully in the U.S. until the government snatched him up and deported him to El Salvador. Linette Tobin, Barrios’ attorney, submitted a declaration in federal court that detailed the disturbing reasons why her client was targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. After entering the U.S. last year, Barrios was scheduled to have an asylum hearing in April. But on Saturday, he was arrested and held at a San Diego detention facility after ICE agents accused him of being a member of Tren de Aragua, the Venezuelan gang that President Donald Trump has been fixated on to fulfill his mass-deportation plan.

Thanks Biden:
A high-ranking member of the violent Venezuelan street gang Tren de Aragua is behind bars for the alleged murders of two women in Illinois earlier this year.

Ricardo Gonzales, 32, was arrested in Cobb County, Georgia last week in a joint operation led by the U.S. Marshals Service Southeast Regional Fugitive Task Force, the Chicago Police Department and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), according to the Department of Justice.

"This defendant’s crimes against American women are horrific, and he is exactly the type of Alien Enemy the Trump administration is fighting to remove from this country in order to make America safe again," Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.

High-ranking Tren de Aragua gangster murdered two American women, captured across country: feds

ICE officials arrested Tren de Aragua member Ricardo Gonzales for alleged kidnapping and murder after he was found hiding out in Georgia last week.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Rumpole]

So Biden/Harris order that 1.5 aliens can move here without any hearing because they live in bad places. Trump says they have to go back.

I'm having trouble seeing Trump as the bad guy, here.

First, your muddled claim: “Biden/Harris order that 1.5 aliens can move here without any hearing because they live in bad places.” 1.5 what--million? Do you mean individuals? Families? Or is that just a number you heard on cable news and decided not to verify before repeating like gospel? There is no order, no policy, no executive memo that declares, "If your neighborhood is rough, come on in--no hearing needed." What you're vaguely referencing is likely the use of humanitarian parole, asylum claims, or DACA-like discretion--none of which bypass legal proceedings. Every asylum seeker is entitled to a hearing under U.S. law (see: 8 U.S.C. § 1229a) unless explicitly waived or fast-tracked under specific conditions.

Second, “Trump says they have to go back.” Yes, Trump also said we should end birthright citizenship, that judges should decide immigration cases in "one day," and that immigrants were "poisoning the blood of our country." If you can’t “see Trump as the bad guy,” it’s not because the facts are unclear--it’s because you’re squinting hard enough to turn moral clarity into a blur. Telling desperate people to return to gang-controlled favelas or countries in civil collapse isn’t "tough love." It’s cruelty posing as policy.

And your framing--Trump as the adult in the room simply insisting on order, and Biden as the open-borders Santa Claus--ignores the actual data. Biden has deported or expelled millions under Title 42 and has taken criticism from the left for continuing harsh Trump-era policies. Meanwhile, Trump’s “solution” was family separation, kids in cages, and knowingly lying about asylum seekers being mostly criminals--none of which held up under scrutiny, much less in court.

So if you’re “having trouble seeing Trump as the bad guy,” it might be time to clean your rhetorical glasses. Because the view you’re presenting isn’t based on facts or law. It’s based on a cartoon--where one guy says “go back” and that’s somehow virtue, while the other tries to follow immigration law and gets painted as lawless. Real life is more complicated than that. But complication doesn’t make someone “the bad guy”--it makes them accountable. Something Trump has never been and his defenders refuse to be.

 

[BackAgain]

Struth again--playing constitutional scholar with a deck of flashcards and a bumper sticker understanding of due process. Let’s walk through this slowly, since nuance seems to keep slipping through your grip like a wet bar of soap.

“We have due process,” you say, as though just invoking the phrase is a magic spell that makes any state action righteous. But due process isn’t a decorative flourish--it’s the bedrock requirement that government action be fair, transparent, and grounded in evidence, not assumption, stereotype, or executive fiat. You can’t just slap “we have due process” on a boot and use it to kick people across a border.

You then pivot to, “The act allowing the deportation of aliens we are at war with is perfectly constitutional.” Really? You’re dusting off the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 as your golden idol? The same act used to intern Japanese-Americans in World War II? That relic? Yes, it's still on the books, but deploying it in modern domestic gang cases is like using a cannon to swat a mosquito--and completely misrepresents the actual state of war powers and immigration law.

And finally, this gem: “If the gang wants to challenge being on the terrorist list, they can challenge it.” As if gangs are monolithic entities with a legal team on retainer. As if being labeled a "terrorist" organization doesn’t have enormous consequences that are often applied unilaterally, without trial, and with sweeping collateral damage to anyone remotely associated. That's not due process--that's guilt by proximity.

Let’s be clear: the Constitution doesn’t say “close enough.” You don’t get to trample people’s rights and then shrug, “They can sort it out later in court,” while they sit in a detention cell or get dumped in a country they haven’t seen since childhood.

Your argument isn’t constitutional. It’s authoritarian cosplay--spray-painted with just enough legalese to convince yourself you’re standing on principle when really you’re just standing on someone else’s neck.

Tell us more about due process as you see it?

I once read that “due process” is that process to which one is due. In a criminal case, broadly speaking, “hearsay” is not allowed. But, in a small claims (civil) case, as in certain less formal tribunals, hearsay is admissible. You can’t complain about a denial of due process by the introduction of “hearsay” if your case is in small claims court. One gets the process to which one is due.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

In that respect that El Salvador in prison is far more humane than ours. Obviously, they are keeping those prisoners under control. I doubt they’re going to be running drugs in the prison pimping each other out or murdering guards.

Actually, muslims do very much the same things. Prisons in the US are filled with imams proselytizing killing Jews and infidels.

 

[jc456]

The issue is due process, the reason for Boasberg's court order.

they had due process, a warrant was issued and they were taken out on it. psst, a judge gives out warrants.

 

[Rumpole]

Thanks Biden:
A high-ranking member of the violent Venezuelan street gang Tren de Aragua is behind bars for the alleged murders of two women in Illinois earlier this year.

Ricardo Gonzales, 32, was arrested in Cobb County, Georgia last week in a joint operation led by the U.S. Marshals Service Southeast Regional Fugitive Task Force, the Chicago Police Department and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), according to the Department of Justice.

"This defendant’s crimes against American women are horrific, and he is exactly the type of Alien Enemy the Trump administration is fighting to remove from this country in order to make America safe again," Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.

High-ranking Tren de Aragua gangster murdered two American women, captured across country: feds

ICE officials arrested Tren de Aragua member Ricardo Gonzales for alleged kidnapping and murder after he was found hiding out in Georgia last week.

www.yahoo.com

So, Meathead's coming in hot with a Yahoo link and a quote from Pam Bondi, as though you’ve cracked the geopolitical code. One violent criminal gets arrested--thanks to cooperation among federal and local law enforcement under the current administration--and somehow that’s your proof that Trump’s alien enemy rhetoric is the guiding light of justice? Let’s unpack this slow enough for even the Fox chyron crowd to follow.

Yes, Ricardo Gonzales, a suspected member of Tren de Aragua, was arrested. Good. That’s what law enforcement is supposed to do--find dangerous criminals and remove them from society regardless of their nationality. That’s not proof of an immigration crisis. That’s proof the system is working when properly funded and allowed to function without political interference.

But you--like your source, Ms. Bondi--don’t seem interested in the rule of law. You want to turn this into a political weapon. One criminal becomes your poster child to justify sweeping, dehumanizing policies against thousands, even millions, of people who did nothing more than flee violence or poverty and seek a legal asylum hearing. That’s not justice. That’s propaganda.

And calling this man an "Alien Enemy"? That’s not a legal designation--that’s wartime rhetoric from the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which Trump and his enablers are trying to resurrect not because it applies, but because it sounds tough to the talk radio set. We’re not at war with Venezuela, Meathead. There's no legal basis to use the Alien Enemies Act on asylum seekers or immigrants from countries we're not in a declared war with. It's like using a musket to enforce internet law--impressive in bluster, useless in practice.

So let’s be clear: this man’s arrest is not a vindication of Trump’s immigration policies--it’s an example of interagency coordination under current law, the kind Trump frequently undermined by attacking local law enforcement and hollowing out legal asylum systems.

You don’t get to cherry-pick one monster and use him to smear a million desperate souls. That’s not policy. That’s prejudice wrapped in tabloid drama. And quoting Pam Bondi doesn’t make it legal--it just makes it louder

 

[Meathead]

We’re not at war with Venezuela, Meathead. There's no legal basis to use the Alien Enemies Act on asylum seekers or immigrants from countries we're not in a declared war with. It's like using a musket to enforce internet law--impressive in bluster, useless in practice.

So let’s be clear: this man’s arrest is not a vindication of Trump’s immigration policies--it’s an example of interagency coordination under current law, the kind Trump frequently undermined by attacking local law enforcement and hollowing out legal asylum systems.

You don’t get to cherry-pick one monster and use him to smear a million desperate souls. That’s not policy. That’s prejudice wrapped in tabloid drama. And quoting Pam Bondi doesn’t make it legal--it just makes it louder

Bullshit:

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, whenever he may deem it necessary (for the public safety, to order to be removed out of the territory thereof, any alien who mayor shall be in prison in pursuance of this act; and to cause to be arrested and sent out of the United States such of those aliens as shall have been ordered to depart therefrom and shall not have obtained a license as aforesaid, in all cases where, in the opinion of the President, the public safety requires a speedy removal. And if any alien so removed or sent out of the United States by the President shall voluntarily return thereto, unless by permission of the President of the United States, such alien on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned so long as, in the opinion of the President, the public safety may require.

Alien and Sedition Acts (1798)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: An Act Concerning Aliens, July 6, 1798; Fifth Congress; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives. View the Alien Act in the National Archives Catalog View the Sedition Act in the National...

www.archives.gov

 

[TimFitz]

I love it when your side claims I can't possibly me an independent thinker unless I think the same as you do.

No, it’s because you parrot everything you see on Fox and X.

 

[Rumpole]

Thanks for taking the time to research the topic. I suspect, to the extent there is liability, some members of the regime are going have their asses sued for what they did. You might enjoy reading this article examining the insidious nature of what they're doing.

Trump’s deportations: there’s a power to the power grabs

The White House strategy demands we defend alleged criminals and those with unpopular views.

www.vox.com

thx, I'll check it out.

 

[Independent thinker]

No, it’s because you parrot everything you see on Fox and X.

Well, I don't watch Fox, don't even have cable tv, and I hate social media. Don't even have an account on X.

 

[struth]

So you want to send someone to rot in an El Salvador prison for 'silly things'? Are you out of your fucking mind?

“Seems pretty cut and dry,” you declares, as if jurisprudence is a game of charades and not a matter of law, context, and due process.

Let’s dissect this fine specimen of lazy thinking. The assertion is that making gang signs and having a tattoo is “proof”--not evidence, mind you, but proof--of gang membership. That’s the legal standard now? You saw a gesture and a tattoo, so we can skip the investigation and go straight to branding a person as a criminal enterprise? That’s not law--that’s the intellectual equivalent of trial by ducking stool.

Here’s a novel idea: maybe someone flashed a sign because they grew up in a neighborhood where that’s culture, not allegiance. Maybe the tattoo is a relic of youth, regret, or even just bad judgment--not a signed affidavit of criminal conspiracy. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against guilt by association. Dawson v. Delaware (1992) comes to mind, where the Court ruled that mere membership in a group cannot be used to prove bad character unless it's directly relevant to the crime.

But of course, nuance is inconvenient when you’re in a hurry to climb atop your soapbox and hand out verdicts like candy. And that final moral flourish--“you shouldn’t be doing silly things like getting the gang tat”--is rich. Thank you, Judge Judy of Reddit. Tell that to the 16-year-old who got it under duress, or the 25-year-old trying to leave that life behind. The world is messier than your tidy, finger-wagging proclamations.

So no, it isn’t “cut and dry.” It’s lazy, presumptive, and oblivious to the burden of proof. If our justice system were run by people who think like this, we’d all be one hoodie and a hand gesture away from solitary.

Being in a deadly gang isn’t silly. With that said if El Salvador wants to imprison them that on them

 

[Rumpole]

Bullshit:

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, whenever he may deem it necessary (for the public safety, to order to be removed out of the territory thereof, any alien who mayor shall be in prison in pursuance of this act; and to cause to be arrested and sent out of the United States such of those aliens as shall have been ordered to depart therefrom and shall not have obtained a license as aforesaid, in all cases where, in the opinion of the President, the public safety requires a speedy removal. And if any alien so removed or sent out of the United States by the President shall voluntarily return thereto, unless by permission of the President of the United States, such alien on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned so long as, in the opinion of the President, the public safety may require.

Alien and Sedition Acts (1798)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: An Act Concerning Aliens, July 6, 1798; Fifth Congress; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives. View the Alien Act in the National Archives Catalog View the Sedition Act in the National...

www.archives.gov

NEWSFLASH: War can only be declared by Congress.

So now you’re waving around the Alien Act of 1798 like it’s the Ark of the Covenant, convinced it will melt the faces of all dissenters with its sheer vintage authority. Fascinating. You’ve discovered a 226-year-old statute written by men in powdered wigs to target French sympathizers during a period of undeclared naval conflict, and you want to apply it to a Venezuelan gang member in Illinois in 2024. That’s not legal reasoning--that’s historical cosplay.

Let’s get something straight: the Alien Enemies Act, passed as part of the Alien and Sedition Acts, was wartime legislation designed for a specific purpose--removal of nationals from enemy countries during declared wars. And yes, one part of it still exists in the U.S. Code today (50 U.S.C. § 21)--but its use is limited to times of declared war or presidentially-recognized armed conflict with a specific foreign nation or government. We are not at war with Venezuela, nor has there been any such designation. Unless you’ve uncovered a secret war declaration in a cereal box, your invocation of this statute is legally inert.

The language you quoted--Section 2, allowing the President to remove aliens for “public safety”--only applies in the context of war, and it does not grant blanket authority to deport asylum seekers, nor does it override constitutional due process. You’re quoting old parchment like it’s a Get Out of the 14th Amendment Free card. It isn’t.

You know who tried using “public safety” justifications for internment based on nationality? The U.S. government during WWII. And in Korematsu v. United States (1944), the Supreme Court shamefully upheld it--but that decision has since been explicitly disavowed by the Court. When Chief Justice Roberts ruled in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), he wrote: “Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided.”

So no, Meathead, you don’t get to dust off 18th-century wartime statutes and wield them like a hammer against 21st-century asylum seekers. This isn’t a vintage firearms auction--it’s the law. And the law doesn’t bend to your nostalgia for authoritarian shortcuts.

Try reading the Constitution sometime. Not just the parts that rhyme with your favorite Fox chyron, but the whole thing. Especially the bits about due process, equal protection, and not using 1798 panic laws as cover for your 2024 prejudices.

 

[Rumpole]

Being in a deadly gang isn’t silly. With that said if El Salvador wants to imprison them that on them

To cure the 'if' bit, that is the reason for due process.

 

[Meathead]

NEWSFLASH: War can only be declared by Congress.

So now you’re waving around the Alien Act of 1798 like it’s the Ark of the Covenant, convinced it will melt the faces of all dissenters with its sheer vintage authority. Fascinating. You’ve discovered a 226-year-old statute written by men in powdered wigs to target French sympathizers during a period of undeclared naval conflict, and you want to apply it to a Venezuelan gang member in Illinois in 2024. That’s not legal reasoning--that’s historical cosplay.

Let’s get something straight: the Alien Enemies Act, passed as part of the Alien and Sedition Acts, was wartime legislation designed for a specific purpose--removal of nationals from enemy countries during declared wars. And yes, one part of it still exists in the U.S. Code today (50 U.S.C. § 21)--but its use is limited to times of declared war or presidentially-recognized armed conflict with a specific foreign nation or government. We are not at war with Venezuela, nor has there been any such designation. Unless you’ve uncovered a secret war declaration in a cereal box, your invocation of this statute is legally inert.

The language you quoted--Section 2, allowing the President to remove aliens for “public safety”--only applies in the context of war, and it does not grant blanket authority to deport asylum seekers, nor does it override constitutional due process. You’re quoting old parchment like it’s a Get Out of the 14th Amendment Free card. It isn’t.

You know who tried using “public safety” justifications for internment based on nationality? The U.S. government during WWII. And in Korematsu v. United States (1944), the Supreme Court shamefully upheld it--but that decision has since been explicitly disavowed by the Court. When Chief Justice Roberts ruled in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), he wrote: “Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided.”

So no, Meathead, you don’t get to dust off 18th-century wartime statutes and wield them like a hammer against 21st-century asylum seekers. This isn’t a vintage firearms auction--it’s the law. And the law doesn’t bend to your nostalgia for authoritarian shortcuts.

Try reading the Constitution sometime. Not just the parts that rhyme with your favorite Fox chyron, but the whole thing. Especially the bits about due process, equal protection, and not using 1798 panic laws as cover for your 2024 prejudices.

I get that the language is archaic, so do you need me to highlight the pertinent passages for you?

 

[Rumpole]

they had due process, a warrant was issued and they were taken out on it. psst, a judge gives out warrants.

I think it was 2 that were, but most weren't. Sorry, doesn't change the OP.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Thank you for acknowledging that you are not an independent thinker. Wonderful.

Personal attack with nothing on OP.

 

[BluesLegend]

That is no evidence of any widespread crime at all.

And it has nothing to do with Trump's stunt.

Are you retarded? Hundreds of thousands of Americans have been killed by the illegals drug trafficking. Countless Americans have been RAPED, MURDERED, ROBBED, ASSAULTED, MANGLED BY DRUNK ILLEGALS WITH NO LICENSE AND NO INSURANCE and on and on. Other countries emptied their prisons into the U.S.

Now piss off back to your troll cave.