Judge Miller is confused. The Nazi cases she has in mind were not concerning illegal (or any) aliens, they were about illegal citizens. These were cases of Nazis who had entered the U.S. with the appearance of legality and then obtained citizenship, but fraudulently denied their past activities as Nazis. The due process given then was not so much about deportation but about stripping them of their U.S. citizenship.
And while there was arguably greater legal process for them than for the deported Tren de Aragua gang members, the degree of legal process afforded both groups is predicated solely on the text of the Presidential proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act.
While many are uncomfortable with the seemingly arbitrary nature of the powers given the President by the Act, they all spring from one fundamental reality: the non-citizen's entry into this country and ability to remain in this country is entirely at the sufferance of the United States, which is to say at the sufferance of the United States government.
There is not a libertarian basis for arguing otherwise, because Article I Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly lists crafting a uniform law of immigration and naturalization among the enumerated Congressional powers.
For better or worse, Congress gets to enact laws in this area, and Congress gets to pass laws such as the Alien Enemies Act.
Yes. But she claims Nazis were given hearings. Those 11,000 Germans were, to my knowledge, not given hearings. So it must be some other people. I submit it refers to postwar immigrants.
There were deportations under the Alien Enemies Act up until 1951, when Congress decreed that the predicates for the Act no longer existed.
However, the cries for “due process” necessarily presume that the authority of the government to remove non-citizens from the territories of the United States is circumscribed in some fashion, that the government may not, at its discretion, order a non-citizen to leave the United States or to order the non-citizens forcible removal.
Beginning with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, and the enumeration of a uniform law of immigration and naturalization among the powers of the Congress, that presumption simply does not withstand close scrutiny.
Perversely, this is also a huge missed opportunity by the Democrats.
Hakeem Jeffries should have pushed a resolution in the House, and Chuck Schumer the same in the Senate, the moment Trump issued his proclamation.
They should have tried to get floor votes in the Congress over whether the predicates existed for the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act.
That would be the sort of pushback that might make the GOP Caucus in the House and the Senate pause. It would have been the way for the Democrats to frame the debate over deportations in a manner more to their liking.
The Democrats are so habituated to legal nihilism that they are unable to provide policy pushback on any substantive level. They just assume the courts will carry their water for them.
At the risk of stating the obvious, of course they are holding Trump to a different standard, they do that with everything he does. Logic, law, facts, and historical (and legal) precedent mean nothing to the MSM when it comes to Trump. If a story can be spun in a negative way, that’s what is done.
The MSM might not like what the Act says, and Democrats certainly do not like how President Trump is employing its powers but in both cases if they want to articulate an effective opposition to the use of the Alien Enemies Act they need to start with what the law says.
Argue the law is unconstitutional.
Argue the predicates for invoking the law have not been met.
There are policy objections to be raised over Trump's use of the act. Alan Dershowitz is of that opinion, that this is just ot a necessary step for Trump to take.
Intstead they are arguing that Trump must be confined to a standard of conduct that no President invoking the Alien Enemies Act has ever been expected to achieve.
Thank you for this tour de force Peter.
Judge Miller is confused. The Nazi cases she has in mind were not concerning illegal (or any) aliens, they were about illegal citizens. These were cases of Nazis who had entered the U.S. with the appearance of legality and then obtained citizenship, but fraudulently denied their past activities as Nazis. The due process given then was not so much about deportation but about stripping them of their U.S. citizenship.
What Judge Millett is referencing is the detention of some 11,000 ethnic Germans and their families during WW2.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160226041449/http://www.traces.org/germaninternees.html
And while there was arguably greater legal process for them than for the deported Tren de Aragua gang members, the degree of legal process afforded both groups is predicated solely on the text of the Presidential proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act.
While many are uncomfortable with the seemingly arbitrary nature of the powers given the President by the Act, they all spring from one fundamental reality: the non-citizen's entry into this country and ability to remain in this country is entirely at the sufferance of the United States, which is to say at the sufferance of the United States government.
There is not a libertarian basis for arguing otherwise, because Article I Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly lists crafting a uniform law of immigration and naturalization among the enumerated Congressional powers.
For better or worse, Congress gets to enact laws in this area, and Congress gets to pass laws such as the Alien Enemies Act.
Yes. But she claims Nazis were given hearings. Those 11,000 Germans were, to my knowledge, not given hearings. So it must be some other people. I submit it refers to postwar immigrants.
There were deportations under the Alien Enemies Act up until 1951, when Congress decreed that the predicates for the Act no longer existed.
However, the cries for “due process” necessarily presume that the authority of the government to remove non-citizens from the territories of the United States is circumscribed in some fashion, that the government may not, at its discretion, order a non-citizen to leave the United States or to order the non-citizens forcible removal.
Beginning with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, and the enumeration of a uniform law of immigration and naturalization among the powers of the Congress, that presumption simply does not withstand close scrutiny.
Brilliant research and reasoning, Peter. You’ve shown clearly that Congress can override in this matter, NOT the courts!
Perversely, this is also a huge missed opportunity by the Democrats.
Hakeem Jeffries should have pushed a resolution in the House, and Chuck Schumer the same in the Senate, the moment Trump issued his proclamation.
They should have tried to get floor votes in the Congress over whether the predicates existed for the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act.
That would be the sort of pushback that might make the GOP Caucus in the House and the Senate pause. It would have been the way for the Democrats to frame the debate over deportations in a manner more to their liking.
The Democrats are so habituated to legal nihilism that they are unable to provide policy pushback on any substantive level. They just assume the courts will carry their water for them.
Thanx Amigo
As Judge Haller said (and the MSM would respond, should they read this): “That is a lucid, intelligent and well thought out objection. Overruled.”
At the risk of stating the obvious, of course they are holding Trump to a different standard, they do that with everything he does. Logic, law, facts, and historical (and legal) precedent mean nothing to the MSM when it comes to Trump. If a story can be spun in a negative way, that’s what is done.
If the corporate media was honest and had journalistic integrity I'd have no material for All Facts Matter! :D
That’s the truth!
The MSM might not like what the Act says, and Democrats certainly do not like how President Trump is employing its powers but in both cases if they want to articulate an effective opposition to the use of the Alien Enemies Act they need to start with what the law says.
Argue the law is unconstitutional.
Argue the predicates for invoking the law have not been met.
There are policy objections to be raised over Trump's use of the act. Alan Dershowitz is of that opinion, that this is just ot a necessary step for Trump to take.
Intstead they are arguing that Trump must be confined to a standard of conduct that no President invoking the Alien Enemies Act has ever been expected to achieve.