Contents
- The Judiciary vs. The Executive
- The Alien Enemies Act
- A Modern-Day Invasion
- The Battle for Sovereignty
- Resources
It’s not every day that an 18th-century law makes its way back into the spotlight, but here we are.
The Trump administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify deportations of illegal immigrants (particularly gang-affiliated ones) has ignited another legal and political firestorm.
On one side, the executive branch argues that it has the authority to repel an invasion. On the other, the judiciary (with the usual chorus of left-leaning commentators), insists on stepping in to block these actions, simultaneously aligning themselves with terrorist gangsters.
The ACLU couldn’t be found when real citizens parading misdemeanors were amplified to violent insurrection. But when it comes to the most dangerous, gang-affiliated, terroristic illegal aliens — the ACLU was made for this.
This debate has many important ramifications for the balance of power in the U.S. government, and how we think about immigration enforcement in a world where traditional warfare is a relic, but national security threats remain very real.
The Judiciary vs. The Executive
One of the recurring themes in American politics is the judiciary’s tendency to overstep its boundaries.
This case is no exception.
A federal judge attempted to halt deportation flights of illegal immigrants with known criminal ties.
The Trump administration, citing the Alien Enemies Act, essentially told the court, “Thanks for your input, but we’ll be proceeding as planned.”
This, predictably, led to a legal scramble, with the Justice Department trying to bypass the lower court’s ruling by appealing to a higher court.
As Stephen Miller put it during his CNN debate, “Under the Constitution, who makes that determination? A district court judge elected by no one or the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy?”
Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests executive power in the president, and historically, issues of national security and immigration enforcement have fallen squarely under executive authority.
The judiciary’s role is not to micromanage operational security or second-guess every national security decision.
Legal scholar Andy McCarthy, writing in National Review, noted that while the administration may have some legal hurdles to clear, the fact remains that the Alien Enemies Act has been used in the past, notably during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.
So, why is it suddenly controversial now?
Could it be that the same people who cheered on executive overreach under the previous administration are now experiencing a convenient case of constitutional amnesia?
The Alien Enemies Act
One of the main arguments against the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act is that it’s too old.
This is a hilariously weak line of reasoning.
Border Czar Tom Homan quipped, “An old law? Not as old as the Constitution—we still pay attention to that, don’t we?”
“An old law? Not as old as the Constitution—we still pay attention to that, don’t we?”
Indeed, laws don’t expire simply because they were written before the invention of the internet.
The Alien Enemies Act gives the president broad authority to detain and remove individuals deemed a national security threat during times of conflict.
While we aren’t in a declared war with Venezuela, there is documented evidence that the Venezuelan government has been deliberately funneling criminals and gang members into the U.S.
This isn’t your typical case of economic migrants seeking a better life. It’s a strategic effort to export crime and instability.
If that doesn’t constitute an act of hostility, what does?
A Modern-Day Invasion
Some critics balk at the term “invasion” when discussing illegal immigration, but let’s break this down.
If thousands of unvetted individuals (including members of designated foreign terrorist organizations) are crossing into the U.S. with the implicit (or explicit) backing of a foreign government, what should we call it? A field trip?
The sheer scale of illegal immigration today is unprecedented.
It’s no longer a matter of a few people slipping across the border in search of work. It’s an organized, industrial-scale operation, often coordinated by cartels and, in some cases, hostile foreign governments (are they the same?).
White House Spokesman Caroline Leavitt put it bluntly: “There were nearly 200 gang-affiliated individuals deported this weekend. Countless lives will be saved because of this action.”
The administration’s position is simple: if you’re in the country illegally, especially as part of a criminal network, you can expect to be removed.
Yet, the Left continues to frame any immigration enforcement as cruelty, even when it directly targets violent criminals.
One particularly ridiculous example came from a French Member of Parliament who suggested that the U.S. should dismantle and return the Statue of Liberty due to its immigration policies. (Because, you know, France has such an excellent track record of handling its own migrant issues.)
“It’s only because of the United States of America that the French are not speaking German right now.”
Caroline Leavitt notes, “It’s only because of the United States of America that the French are not speaking German right now. So they should be very grateful.”
The Battle for Sovereignty
At its core, this debate isn’t just about immigration or an obscure law from 1798.
It’s about sovereignty.
Who controls the nation’s borders? Who decides who gets to stay and who must leave? And who ultimately has the final say on matters of national security? The elected president or an unelected judge?
The Left’s selective outrage over executive authority is telling.
When Biden pushed through unilateral student loan forgiveness (despite lacking congressional approval), they applauded. When Trump uses a law that has been on the books for over two centuries to remove foreign criminals, they scream about authoritarianism. The inconsistency is staggering.
Ultimately, this fight is about more than immigration policy. It’s about whether the United States retains its ability to defend its own borders and uphold the rule of law.
“Another flight. Every day. You’re not going to stop us.”
As for the Trump administration, it seems clear that they aren’t backing down.
Or, as Tom Homan so eloquently put it: “Another flight. Every day. You’re not going to stop us.”