It was not the vast majority of Americans. It was the majority of voters. And it wasn’t vast.
Your conclusion is not what I have found after studying President Trump’s March 15, 2025 PROCLAMATION and then studied An act respecting Alien Enemies which gives the Executive branch of government extraordinary power over designated aliens and making them ". . . liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed . . . " under a President’s warrant. This designated group is different than those who have a complaint against them as mentioned in the Act and are entitled to be convened before a ". . . court, judge or justice. . . and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint, and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the territory of the United States . . . "
There are two classes of aliens designated in the Act with reference to deportation.
I don’t see anything about “two classes of aliens” within the act.
Your link has the same words as mine. (Mine is in html which is easier to read and use.)
Either way your link also reads:
But I don’t think that is what is at issue here.
What seems to be at issue here is that some liberal judge does not like the way Donald Trump is using the law and so is imagining “Well yeah that’s what the law says, but that is not what they meant. What they meant is . . . anytime I can imagine they meant something else my imagination is more important than the written law.”
2 Likes
That’s what Boasberg has mused aloud, but not what he wrote in his decision.
And several people read the two sections and think there’s a loophole- the word “complaint”.
They think as long as the President just apprehends and removes those designated as Alien Enemies, they haven’t lodged any complaint that a court can hear.
They think there are two types of deportations- those under the Alien Enemies Act, and those regular deportations where the federal government lodges an actual complaint.
There’s no way to read the Act in this manner.
Also, they forget these sentences:
Provided, shall be allowed that aliens resident within the United States, who shall become liable for their depart as enemies, in the manner aforesaid, and who shall not be chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against the public safety, shall be allowed, for the recovery, disposal, and removal of their goods and effects, and for their departure, the full time which is, or shall be stipulated by any treaty, where any shall have been between the United States, and the hostile nation or government, of which they shall be natives, citizens, denizens or subjects: and where no such treaty shall have existed, the President of the United States may ascertain and declare such reason-able time as may be consistent with the public safety, and according to the dictates of humanity and national hospitality
We have deportation agreements with Venezuela, and so therefore the President cannot make up his own timetable…nor does the Act give him the power to deport these folks to a prison in El Salvador, where none of these immigrants are from, and especially not without due process.
It’d be one thing if they were just kicking them back to their home countries…but they are sending them to a prison. Nothing in the Act allows for this.
2 Likes
See section 3
- And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the
marshal of the district in which any alien enemy shall be apprehended,
who by the President of the United States, or by order of any court,
judge or justice, as aforesaid, shall be required to depart, and to be re- moved, as aforesaid, to provide therefor, and to execute such order, by
himself or his deputy, or other discreet person or persons to be employed
by him, by causing a removal of such alien out of the territory of the
United States; and for such removal the marshal shall have the warrant
of the President of the United States, or of the court, judge or justice
ordering the same, as the case may be.
“. . . and for such removal the marshal shall have the warrant of the President of the United States, or of the court, judge or justice ordering the same, as the case may be.”
No one is forgetting them.
On Jan 20 Donald Trump gave the order, told them to pack their things and leave (just like your quoted passage said.)
Here we are March 26. Is that not enough time for them to pack their things and put their affairs in order?
2 Likes
Unfortanetly your priority is making sure illegals serve time differently than we do for the same crime, and you subsidize them to do it.
He did not declare anyone Alien Enemies on January 20…specifically not the 240 people he sent to El Salvador.
And we do not yet know that all 240 of them were illegal aliens.
I want to know what Boasberg thought the law meant when he issued fisas on doctored evidence.
1 Like
Any member of TDA was declared a terrorist last month. You want a decree for every person now? Can we do that before they enter the country too? Why are we so easy on people who initially lie to get asylum status? Send them home!
1 Like
LOL when he presided over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Trump loved him because he ruled that documents that were classified regarding the Trump/Russia “collusion” cases should be unclassified.
Trump and his supporters lauded those decisions.
Going there was not the flex you expected it to be.
Well the law requires that they be given a hearing.
Logically one of the following happened
- They were given a hearing, just like the law says. The law was followed. IOW we do know. Your media sources are feeding you anti-Trump half-truths and calling it “news.”
or - They were not given hearings, the law has been ignored, but the judge the media and everyone else missed this really big really glaring really obvious thing.
2 Likes
You mean Boasberg that guy who gave warrants to Strzok on doctored emails to spy on an incoming president without checking the veracity of the evidence before handing out warrants, that guy? Dude lied to the courts and was rewarded millions. Why liberal justice! This wasn’t the flex you hoped for. Why can’t Boasberg just take what Bondi said is true at face value like he did Strzok? Maybe just maybe it’s because everything is through a political lens’s with him. The Bush judge ruled with the ■■■■■■■ because the DOJ could not prove or disprove everyone got a hearing. You won on technicalities. Not that actual rapist and murderers finally got the treatment they deserve.
They want their own hearings is what this is about! Why cuz they have the power to send felons free.
What hearings were they given and when?
As far as I know, it’s the latter.
Homan even admitted as such in his interview when he did the “what due process was Laken Riley given?” flex.
What due process did Laken Riley’s family get? The guy was deported multiple times for violent crimes.
Or and it could just be that…you know…those who claim not to be members of the gang and appear to have stories to back that up are not, in fact, members of the gang.
If the Trump Administration knows they are lying and has the evidence they are part of the gang, they should have no problem offering up the evidence of this…indeed they should be chomping at the bit to do so.
As the appeals court did say any evidence the Trump Administration did have should be given deference.
Repeat felons got their hearings, the people in question could not be proven or disproven that hearings were given which is what swung the one justice . Evidence matters very little to you guys, coming from the party of manufacturing evidence to get warrants.
Let me repeat this SLOOOWLY for you, since you seemed to miss this the first time. What I’m about to say is backed by by Homan himself.
None…of…the…240…people…sent…to…El…Salvador…has…a…criminal…record.
Therefore…they…are…not…repeat…felons…who…have…had…multiple….hearings.
Homan…admitted…this…himself…on TV…last…Sunday.
There…did you get it this time?
