Should Aliens have constitutional rights?

[zigbee]

Federal judge opens door to Alien Enemies Act targets suing Trump administration
Trump-appointed judge allows targets of Alien Enemies Act to pursue class-action suit

A federal judge has allowed Venezuelans targeted for deportation under the Alien Enemies Act in the Southern District of Texas to proceed with a class-action lawsuit against President Donald Trump's administration.

U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., who was appointed by Trump during his first term, issued a 12-page order on Thursday granting a group of petitioners "class certification."

"The unusual circumstances of this case present a compelling justification to utilize a procedure equivalent to a class action authorized by Rule 23," Rodriguez wrote.


The Trump administration has argued the petitioners have "no basis" to establish a protected legal class "to resolve whether an alien has been properly included in the category of alien enemies–necessarily individual determinations."


The judge considered whether individual "habeas corpus hearings" would be required for every Venezuelan national targeted under the Alien Enemies Act in the Southern District of Texas to determine whether they are members of Tren de Aragua, the Venezuelan gang the State Department designated as a foreign terrorist organization in March. Rodriguez said "requiring individualized habeas corpus proceedings to repeatedly address the common legal issues unduly wastes judicial resources."

Trump issued an executive order on March 14, "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua."

About 100 people have been detained in the Southern District of Texas and "designated as alien enemies under the Proclamation," Rodriguez noted.

"The present matter raises many common questions of law, but also indisputably raises some questions of fact that would require individualized hearings to resolve," Rodriguez wrote on Thursday. "As to the former, Petitioners challenge the lawfulness of the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation.

"They argue, primarily, that the preconditions required to apply the AEA do not exist, that the intended application of the Proclamation and the AEA violate the designated alien enemies’ due process rights under the Constitution, and that the procedures that Respondents seek to follow violate the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Convention Against Torture.


"These issues hold true for any individual that Respondents designate as an alien enemy under the Proclamation and subject to removal under the AEA," the order said. "A favorable result on any of these legal theories as to one individual will prove equally applicable to other Venezuelan aliens designated as alien enemies under the Proclamation. As a result, the Court finds that Petitioners identify at least one contention that is central to the validity of each class member’s claims."

The judge acknowledged that, at the same time, "petitioners cannot deny that whether any particular individual is a member of TdA would require a fact-specific, individualized determination."

"It is true that the Court would have to determine the applicable legal standard, and this analysis would apply to every class member. But the hearings themselves would proceed individually, as the relevant facts for each person differ," he said.

According to Reuters, the Trump administration deported at least 137 Venezuelans from the El Valle Detention Center in Raymondville, Texas, under the Alien Enemies Act on March 15, but relatives of dozens of the men say they are not TdA members.

In a separate 36-page opinion, Rodriguez also said Thursday the Trump administration could not rely on the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals who are TdA member anyway because the gang's presence in the U.S. cannot be classified as an "invasion" or "predatory incursion" under federal law.

"Neither the Court nor the parties question that the Executive Branch can direct the detention and removal of aliens who engage in criminal activity in the United States," Rodriguez, nominated by Trump in 2018, wrote. "The President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.

TDA members at CECOT on the ground sitting in white uniforms and crocs
Seventeen alleged members of Venezuela's Tren de Aragua gang and members of the MS-13 gang were deported to El Salvador by the U.S on March 31. (El Salvador Press Presidency Office/Anadolu via Getty Images)


"The Court concludes that the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful," Rodriguez wrote.

In mid-April, Rodriguez granted a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump administration from removing Venezuelans held at the Raymondville detention center. The judge later broadened his ruling to protect all Venezuelans detained in his judicial district, which includes the cities of Houston, Galveston, Laredo, McAllen, Brownsville, Corpus Christi and Victoria, from deportation.

Rodriguez’s ruling Thursday is significant because it is the first formal permanent injunction against the administration using the AEA and contends the president is misusing the law. The Trump administration claims that TdA is acting at the behest of the Venezuelan government.

"The Proclamation makes no reference to and in no manner suggests that a threat exists of an organized, armed group of individuals entering the United States at the direction of Venezuela to conquer the country or assume control over a portion of the nation," Rodriguez wrote. "Thus, the Proclamation’s language cannot be read as describing conduct that falls within the meaning of ‘invasion’ for purposes of the AEA."

The judge also noted that the provision has only been used during the two World Wars and the War of 1812.

If the administration appeals, it would go first to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That is among the nation’s most conservative appellate courts, and it also has ruled against what it saw as overreach on immigration matters by both the Obama and Biden administrations.



The Supreme Court has already weighed in once on the issue of deportations under the AEA. The justices held that migrants alleged to be gang members must be given "reasonable time" to contest their removal from the country.

[Alabuckeye]

So, did Trump nominate an activist judge?

If they don’t have any rights, can they be shot down in the streets, as some on this board have suggested, with no repercussions?

[zigbee]

So, did Trump nominate an activist judge?

If they don’t have any rights, can they be shot down in the streets, as some on this board have suggested, with no repercussions?

That is a stretch..........murder vs illegals not being able to sue or stay?  I'd like to know other nations in the world that has it's own court system advocating for illegals.

The gov't does have the right to collect illegals to protect citizens, right?   This judge is JUDGING whether or not use of this act is legit.  He is questioning the invasion part.

Did Japan or Germany invade the US?  Have the illegals killed more Americans than the attack on Pearl Harbor?

[Alabuckeye]

So, did Trump nominate an activist judge?

If they don’t have any rights, can they be shot down in the streets, as some on this board have suggested, with no repercussions?

That is a stretch..........murder vs illegals not being able to sue or stay?  I'd like to know other nations in the world that has it's own court system advocating for illegals.

The gov't does have the right to collect illegals to protect citizens, right?   This judge is JUDGING whether or not use of this act is legit.  He is questioning the invasion part.

Did Japan or Germany invade the US?  Have the illegals killed more Americans than the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Staying doesn’t involve constitutional rights. Immigration law governs how they are dismissed from the country.  None of the judges have said that the administration can’t deport those here illegally,  all of the challenges are about the HOW…the process. 

The administration tried to do it without process, by using this law. A guy whom I assume has conservative credentials says no. They have to follow the laws in place about sending people out.

[zigbee]

So, did Trump nominate an activist judge?

If they don’t have any rights, can they be shot down in the streets, as some on this board have suggested, with no repercussions?

That is a stretch..........murder vs illegals not being able to sue or stay?  I'd like to know other nations in the world that has it's own court system advocating for illegals.

The gov't does have the right to collect illegals to protect citizens, right?   This judge is JUDGING whether or not use of this act is legit.  He is questioning the invasion part.

Did Japan or Germany invade the US?  Have the illegals killed more Americans than the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Staying doesn’t involve constitutional rights. Immigration law governs how they are dismissed from the country.  None of the judges have said that the administration can’t deport those here illegally,  all of the challenges are about the HOW…the process. 

The administration tried to do it without process, by using this law. A guy whom I assume has conservative credentials says no. They have to follow the laws in place about sending people out.

There is a law in place called Alien and Enemies Act.  It allows deportation based on an invasion of a group.  Why isn't it allowed based on your last sentence?

[3rdgensooner]

So, did Trump nominate an activist judge?

If they don’t have any rights, can they be shot down in the streets, as some on this board have suggested, with no repercussions?

That is a stretch..........murder vs illegals not being able to sue or stay?  I'd like to know other nations in the world that has it's own court system advocating for illegals.

The gov't does have the right to collect illegals to protect citizens, right?   This judge is JUDGING whether or not use of this act is legit.  He is questioning the invasion part.

Did Japan or Germany invade the US?  Have the illegals killed more Americans than the attack on Pearl Harbor?

How do you determine they are in the country illegally without due process? Who gets to make the determination? 
I don't know about full constitutional rights but there has to be a process and someone should have the right to challenge if they believe they are here legally. Mostly that's going to be easy and obvious. But if there is no process then what is to stop us from being deported? If they sweep us up with a bunch of illegal aliens can you prove you are a citizen on the spot?

[zigbee]

So, did Trump nominate an activist judge?

If they don’t have any rights, can they be shot down in the streets, as some on this board have suggested, with no repercussions?

That is a stretch..........murder vs illegals not being able to sue or stay?  I'd like to know other nations in the world that has it's own court system advocating for illegals.

The gov't does have the right to collect illegals to protect citizens, right?   This judge is JUDGING whether or not use of this act is legit.  He is questioning the invasion part.

Did Japan or Germany invade the US?  Have the illegals killed more Americans than the attack on Pearl Harbor?

How do you determine they are in the country illegally without due process? Who gets to make the determination? 
I don't know about full constitutional rights but there has to be a process and someone should have the right to challenge if they believe they are here legally. Mostly that's going to be easy and obvious. But if there is no process then what is to stop us from being deported? If they sweep us up with a bunch of illegal aliens can you prove you are a citizen on the spot?

You determine it based on identification.   If you are apprehended can you prove you are a citizen?  Who decides if you can be released back into society?

If you are swept up with a group of gang bangers and get jailed the question is what are you doing with them?  Everyone of those caught are interviewed and placed in a compendium of names.   Anytime a person is apprehended you have to present an ID.   If you cannot then finger prints are run to see what you've done and if there is something to hold you.

[Alabuckeye]

So, did Trump nominate an activist judge?

If they don’t have any rights, can they be shot down in the streets, as some on this board have suggested, with no repercussions?

That is a stretch..........murder vs illegals not being able to sue or stay?  I'd like to know other nations in the world that has it's own court system advocating for illegals.

The gov't does have the right to collect illegals to protect citizens, right?   This judge is JUDGING whether or not use of this act is legit.  He is questioning the invasion part.

Did Japan or Germany invade the US?  Have the illegals killed more Americans than the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Staying doesn’t involve constitutional rights. Immigration law governs how they are dismissed from the country.  None of the judges have said that the administration can’t deport those here illegally,  all of the challenges are about the HOW…the process. 

The administration tried to do it without process, by using this law. A guy whom I assume has conservative credentials says no. They have to follow the laws in place about sending people out.

There is a law in place called Alien and Enemies Act.  It allows deportation based on an invasion of a group.  Why isn't it allowed based on your last sentence?

Again, read the judges decision….hes not doing this for political reasons, I would assume….im no legal expert. From the start I’ve expressed a layman’s opinion that proving the AEA was applicable. Judges from all sides of the spectrum have agreed in some manner. And I’m quite sure they have much more basis than I do.

[zigbee]

So, did Trump nominate an activist judge?

If they don’t have any rights, can they be shot down in the streets, as some on this board have suggested, with no repercussions?

That is a stretch..........murder vs illegals not being able to sue or stay?  I'd like to know other nations in the world that has it's own court system advocating for illegals.

The gov't does have the right to collect illegals to protect citizens, right?   This judge is JUDGING whether or not use of this act is legit.  He is questioning the invasion part.

Did Japan or Germany invade the US?  Have the illegals killed more Americans than the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Staying doesn’t involve constitutional rights. Immigration law governs how they are dismissed from the country.  None of the judges have said that the administration can’t deport those here illegally,  all of the challenges are about the HOW…the process. 

The administration tried to do it without process, by using this law. A guy whom I assume has conservative credentials says no. They have to follow the laws in place about sending people out.

There is a law in place called Alien and Enemies Act.  It allows deportation based on an invasion of a group.  Why isn't it allowed based on your last sentence?

Again, read the judges decision….hes not doing this for political reasons, I would assume….im no legal expert. From the start I’ve expressed a layman’s opinion that proving the AEA was applicable. Judges from all sides of the spectrum have agreed in some manner. And I’m quite sure they have much more basis than I do.

IF you are basing all this on what some judges have said I say why do we need appellate courts?  Why even have a Supreme Court which is essentially an appeals courts in application?   The reason is simple: judges are wrong all the time.

The crucible in this is the Alien and Enemies Act.  IF the congress passed this law 225 years ago and it stands today then the executive in executing laws has the right to implement this.  It's not used vs citizens.  The media is trying to frame this about Garcia that he is a Maryland man........and father of citizens.  It's a lie.  He is part of the gang, which is a violent gang that has child sex trafficking, rape, murder and drug dealers.

You can say the admin is sloppy, and somethings are not perfect, BUT......the admin knew the left would do this and dug up this law.  I think it was pretty smart.  Some of these judges do not like it and the Trump appointed judge thinks there is no invasion.  I think he is wrong.

[Alabuckeye]

That is a stretch..........murder vs illegals not being able to sue or stay?  I'd like to know other nations in the world that has it's own court system advocating for illegals.

The gov't does have the right to collect illegals to protect citizens, right?   This judge is JUDGING whether or not use of this act is legit.  He is questioning the invasion part.

Did Japan or Germany invade the US?  Have the illegals killed more Americans than the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Staying doesn’t involve constitutional rights. Immigration law governs how they are dismissed from the country.  None of the judges have said that the administration can’t deport those here illegally,  all of the challenges are about the HOW…the process. 

The administration tried to do it without process, by using this law. A guy whom I assume has conservative credentials says no. They have to follow the laws in place about sending people out.

There is a law in place called Alien and Enemies Act.  It allows deportation based on an invasion of a group.  Why isn't it allowed based on your last sentence?

Again, read the judges decision….hes not doing this for political reasons, I would assume….im no legal expert. From the start I’ve expressed a layman’s opinion that proving the AEA was applicable. Judges from all sides of the spectrum have agreed in some manner. And I’m quite sure they have much more basis than I do.

IF you are basing all this on what some judges have said I say why do we need appellate courts?  Why even have a Supreme Court which is essentially an appeals courts in application?   The reason is simple: judges are wrong all the time.

The crucible in this is the Alien and Enemies Act.  IF the congress passed this law 225 years ago and it stands today then the executive in executing laws has the right to implement this.  It's not used vs citizens.  The media is trying to frame this about Garcia that he is a Maryland man........and father of citizens.  It's a lie.  He is part of the gang, which is a violent gang that has child sex trafficking, rape, murder and drug dealers.

You can say the admin is sloppy, and somethings are not perfect, BUT......the admin knew the left would do this and dug up this law.  I think it was pretty smart.  Some of these judges do not like it and the Trump appointed judge thinks there is no invasion.  I think he is wrong.

They are sloppy. There’s no doubting that. 

I don’t care what the media is spazzing out about. Because it’s always something. 

The AEA was for a time of war. It would seem that district judges disagree that this is a time of war. Maybe appellate judges will see differently. But even SCOTUS in their first ruling bit back on the notion that the administration can’t just ship them off without recourse.

[zigbee]

Staying doesn’t involve constitutional rights. Immigration law governs how they are dismissed from the country.  None of the judges have said that the administration can’t deport those here illegally,  all of the challenges are about the HOW…the process. 

The administration tried to do it without process, by using this law. A guy whom I assume has conservative credentials says no. They have to follow the laws in place about sending people out.

There is a law in place called Alien and Enemies Act.  It allows deportation based on an invasion of a group.  Why isn't it allowed based on your last sentence?

Again, read the judges decision….hes not doing this for political reasons, I would assume….im no legal expert. From the start I’ve expressed a layman’s opinion that proving the AEA was applicable. Judges from all sides of the spectrum have agreed in some manner. And I’m quite sure they have much more basis than I do.

IF you are basing all this on what some judges have said I say why do we need appellate courts?  Why even have a Supreme Court which is essentially an appeals courts in application?   The reason is simple: judges are wrong all the time.

The crucible in this is the Alien and Enemies Act.  IF the congress passed this law 225 years ago and it stands today then the executive in executing laws has the right to implement this.  It's not used vs citizens.  The media is trying to frame this about Garcia that he is a Maryland man........and father of citizens.  It's a lie.  He is part of the gang, which is a violent gang that has child sex trafficking, rape, murder and drug dealers.

You can say the admin is sloppy, and somethings are not perfect, BUT......the admin knew the left would do this and dug up this law.  I think it was pretty smart.  Some of these judges do not like it and the Trump appointed judge thinks there is no invasion.  I think he is wrong.

They are sloppy. There’s no doubting that. 

I don’t care what the media is spazzing out about. Because it’s always something. 

The AEA was for a time of war. It would seem that district judges disagree that this is a time of war. Maybe appellate judges will see differently. But even SCOTUS in their first ruling bit back on the notion that the administration can’t just ship them off without recourse.

The act is war OR invasion.
Under the new administration of Thomas Jefferson, only the Alien Enemies Act, granting the president powers of detention and deportation of foreigners in wartime or in face of a threatened invasion, remained in force.

The SC ruled they can deport with judicial review.  So, the simple answer is apprehend and lock them up.  ALLOW them to request this review which is fine.  While the courts take years just let them rot?  OR Release them back into society? Want to bet a judge will rule that way as well.  This is how bad some of these judges are.  This is from the last time used:

In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled in Ludecke v. Watkins, a case involving a German national who was ordered to be removed in 1946 under the Alien Enemies Act, despite the end of fighting in World War II. In a 5-4 decision, the high court dismissed the German national's challenge, arguing "a state of war" remained and it was a matter of "political judgment" to determine if an individual could be removed under the Alien Enemies Act, which precludes judicial review.

"It is not for us to question a belief by the President that enemy aliens who were justifiably deemed fit subjects for internment during active hostilities do not lose their potency for mischief during the period of confusion and conflict which is characteristic of a state of war even when the guns are silent but the peace of Peace has not come," Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in the opinion.

In a dissent, Justice Hugo Black argued it is "nothing but a fiction" to say the U.S. was currently at war with Germany, and that "the 1798 Act did not grant its extraordinary and dangerous powers to be used during the period of fictional wars."

It's OPINION of the law and that is all it is.  Once you enter the nation illegally you lose any right to sue or ask for bail, etc.  Give them the choice: stay in prison waiting these judges OR we will facilitate your going back to your nation.

[Dzone1]

They should be shot on site, or immediately thrown in jail. Kind of like other countries that don’t put up with criminals.

[3rdgensooner]

So, did Trump nominate an activist judge?

If they don’t have any rights, can they be shot down in the streets, as some on this board have suggested, with no repercussions?

That is a stretch..........murder vs illegals not being able to sue or stay?  I'd like to know other nations in the world that has it's own court system advocating for illegals.

The gov't does have the right to collect illegals to protect citizens, right?   This judge is JUDGING whether or not use of this act is legit.  He is questioning the invasion part.

Did Japan or Germany invade the US?  Have the illegals killed more Americans than the attack on Pearl Harbor?

How do you determine they are in the country illegally without due process? Who gets to make the determination? 
I don't know about full constitutional rights but there has to be a process and someone should have the right to challenge if they believe they are here legally. Mostly that's going to be easy and obvious. But if there is no process then what is to stop us from being deported? If they sweep us up with a bunch of illegal aliens can you prove you are a citizen on the spot?

You determine it based on identification.   If you are apprehended can you prove you are a citizen?  Who decides if you can be released back into society?

If you are swept up with a group of gang bangers and get jailed the question is what are you doing with them?  Everyone of those caught are interviewed and placed in a compendium of names.   Anytime a person is apprehended you have to present an ID.   If you cannot then finger prints are run to see what you've done and if there is something to hold you.

Is it iilegal for me to be in a group of "bangers" or illegal aliens? That argument is specious. It's none of anyone's business what I'm doing if I'm not committing a crime. If there isn't a process then the person has no opportunity to prove they are here legally or a citizen. I'm also not required to carry identification. We don't get stopped will nilly here and have to show our papers like in fascist and communist countries. BTW you never have to present ID in this country unless required for the activity you are engaging in. Like driving or flying. Walking down the street with people I didn't know were illegal aliens? Eff you I don't need to show the cops or ICE jacksquat.

[zigbee]

So, did Trump nominate an activist judge?

If they don’t have any rights, can they be shot down in the streets, as some on this board have suggested, with no repercussions?

That is a stretch..........murder vs illegals not being able to sue or stay?  I'd like to know other nations in the world that has it's own court system advocating for illegals.

The gov't does have the right to collect illegals to protect citizens, right?   This judge is JUDGING whether or not use of this act is legit.  He is questioning the invasion part.

Did Japan or Germany invade the US?  Have the illegals killed more Americans than the attack on Pearl Harbor?

How do you determine they are in the country illegally without due process? Who gets to make the determination? 
I don't know about full constitutional rights but there has to be a process and someone should have the right to challenge if they believe they are here legally. Mostly that's going to be easy and obvious. But if there is no process then what is to stop us from being deported? If they sweep us up with a bunch of illegal aliens can you prove you are a citizen on the spot?

You determine it based on identification.   If you are apprehended can you prove you are a citizen?  Who decides if you can be released back into society?

If you are swept up with a group of gang bangers and get jailed the question is what are you doing with them?  Everyone of those caught are interviewed and placed in a compendium of names.   Anytime a person is apprehended you have to present an ID.   If you cannot then finger prints are run to see what you've done and if there is something to hold you.

Is it iilegal for me to be in a group of "bangers" or illegal aliens? That argument is specious. It's none of anyone's business what I'm doing if I'm not committing a crime. If there isn't a process then the person has no opportunity to prove they are here legally or a citizen. I'm also not required to carry identification. We don't get stopped will nilly here and have to show our papers like in fascist and communist countries. BTW you never have to present ID in this country unless required for the activity you are engaging in. Like driving or flying. Walking down the street with people I didn't know were illegal aliens? Eff you I don't need to show the cops or ICE jacksquat.

It is not illegal to be in a group........but, if in a group of illegals and criminals suspected of a crime?  yes, you have to show an ID.

What you present as some random cop intervention on a street is not the same example of what was going on.   IF you are suspected of something?  You will need to show an ID.

[davebucknut]

So, did Trump nominate an activist judge?

If they don’t have any rights, can they be shot down in the streets, as some on this board have suggested, with no repercussions?

That is a stretch..........murder vs illegals not being able to sue or stay?  I'd like to know other nations in the world that has it's own court system advocating for illegals.

The gov't does have the right to collect illegals to protect citizens, right?   This judge is JUDGING whether or not use of this act is legit.  He is questioning the invasion part.

Did Japan or Germany invade the US?  Have the illegals killed more Americans than the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Staying doesn’t involve constitutional rights. Immigration law governs how they are dismissed from the country.  None of the judges have said that the administration can’t deport those here illegally,  all of the challenges are about the HOW…the process. 

The administration tried to do it without process, by using this law. A guy whom I assume has conservative credentials says no. They have to follow the laws in place about sending people out.

Hey Bammer, your Schtick is old and weak, nobody wants to shoot them in the streets. They do want them removed immediately and we're tired of paying for them.

House and pay for them yourself if you love them so much.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk