Deporting Foreign Terrorists

Current Events
63

Do you mean the hearing Boasberg just canceled because the Supreme Court ruled against him? He has no jurisdiction to do any of this.

"U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has canceled a Tuesday afternoon hearing on the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged migrant gang members without due process, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday evening that the administration could resume carrying out such deportations.

Boasberg had scheduled the hearing to consider whether to convert the temporary restraining order he issued blocking those deportations last month into a longer-lasting preliminary injunction, as he mulled whether to hold the administration in contempt for failing to provide information about the deportation of over 200 alleged Venezuelan gang members last month."

This info was in my post above. The deportations will continue.

1 Like
64

lol. :rofl:

@Benny didn’t get the memo. I hope he gets the notification for the next screaming therapy group session.

image
image900×450 44.6 KB

1 Like
65

In an unsigned opinion Monday night, the court’s conservative majority didn’t rule on the question of the use Enemy Aliens Act pertaining to the recent deportation. But it gave the Trump administration all it needed to continue with the deportations, ** => with one caveat. It said that from here on in, the alleged gang members need to be given notice of deportation, and the opportunity to contest the deportation.<= **

Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched. Trump got away with it once – only. That case is still under review.

66

Quick update on this topic that ties directly into what we’ve been discussing:
According to a recent AP article, Trump has stated that if re-elected, he plans to deport people he labels as “communists and Marxists,” including Venezuelans, using the Alien Enemies Act—a rarely invoked law from 1798.
:link: Trump eyes mass deportations under Alien Enemies Act

This definitely raises the stakes. The legal, moral, and biblical implications of using a wartime-era law for mass deportation are huge.

What do you think—national security, overreach, or both?

67

Trump’s team cracked open the legal time capsule and yanked out the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—a law so old it predates canned food—and tried to slap it on Venezuelan migrants in Texas. Let’s be real: this isn’t national security. It’s political theater dressed up like a wartime emergency. And the script? Somewhere between “Orwellian” and “Old Testament exile without the prophet or the promise.”

Let’s break this down.

  1. The Law They Resurrected from the Tomb

The Alien Enemies Act was written to handle actual wartime enemies—think redcoats, not refugees. Using it to mass-deport migrants suspected (not convicted) of gang ties is like using Leviticus to justify a noise complaint. It’s a law meant for formal war with foreign nations. There’s no declared war. There’s no invading army. There’s just an administration trying to sidestep standard immigration law with a 227-year-old legal loophole.

  1. The “Process” – or the Bureaucratic Blitzkrieg

Migrants were arrested, labeled enemy aliens, and given 12 hours to respond—in English. That’s not due process. That’s a kangaroo court with a stopwatch. Imagine showing up at your house with a scroll from 1798 and saying, “Pack up, you’re a national threat.” And you better respond by midnight. In Latin.

  1. The Spin

Yes, Tren de Aragua is a real gang. Yes, criminal infiltration is a legitimate concern. But guess what? We already have laws for that. We don’t need to cosplay as 18th-century generals. If someone’s a danger, prosecute and deport them by the book. But this isn’t about justice—it’s about expedience dressed in patriotism.

Now—let’s talk theology. Because somebody’s gotta.

“Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt” (Exodus 22:21). God didn’t say, “unless they might be in a gang.” He didn’t say, “unless they came from a failed state.” He said, “Don’t oppress them.” Period. And Jesus? “Whatever you did for the least of these… you did for me” (Matt. 25:40). You rush-deport the wrong guy? You just deported Christ.

But wait—should a secular government follow Scripture?

Nope. Caesar doesn’t read the Bible before breakfast. He reads polling numbers and legal memos. So we shouldn’t expect Washington to obey Scripture. But here’s the twist: Christians better still judge Caesar by it. Because “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). That’s a blanket truth. Applies to God-fearing Israel, applies to godless empires.

The Church’s job is not to make the government act saved—it’s to make sure we don’t act complicit. If Babylon is stomping the sojourner and the Church is clapping? God help us. Because we’re supposed to be the conscience, not the cheer squad.

Final Word:

Trump’s instincts on border security are legit. There’s real evil crossing our border—cartels, traffickers, killers. But invoking a centuries-old wartime law to blitz-deport people without due process? That’s not tough on crime. That’s soft on justice.

So if we’re going to defend national sovereignty, fine. Do it boldly, do it wisely—but do it righteously. And if you’re quoting Scripture when it’s politically convenient, don’t be surprised when the rest of the Bible kicks down the door and says, “You missed a spot.”

68

Trump has the constitutional duty to enforce our immigration laws. If you entered our country illegally, it is his responsibility to deport you. Other presidents have done it and no one tried to stop them.

69

It’s Trumps responsibility to enforce our immigration laws. That means deporting illegals. Other presidents did it.

70

Trump has acted ILLEGALLY. He did not deport people under the immigration laws but under an arcane 18th century act.

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 allows the president to detain or deport non-citizens from enemy nations during times of war or when there is a perceived threat of invasion. It was part of a set of laws known as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which aimed to restrict immigration and limit speech critical of the government.

We are not at war and there is no perceived threat of invasion. Trump deported people illegally, i.e., without a trial. The courts decided that he acted illegally and that the use of the 1798 law was inappropriate.

No other president has acted in any way similar to Trump’s bogus behavior.

71

It doesn’t matter how he deports them. It is his responsibility to enforce the immigration laws. The presidents before him did so with no interference from judges.

72

Here we go again with the race card…It is not about race it’s about thousands of criminals that are in the USA illegally. I really don’t care where someone is from if someone is here illegally they need to be sent back home. Go try to relocate to most any other country illegally and see what happens.
I live in New Mexico (which borders Mexico). I have seen NONE (repeat NONE) of the “criminals” that Trump talks about. There are no Latinos roaming the streets committing crimes. Maybe you only see what you want to see

1 Like
73

Oh Bob. Bob, Bob, Bob.

Yes—enforcing immigration law is absolutely part of the president’s job. No one’s arguing that. But here’s where your train of thought jumps the tracks and plows straight into a legal landfill:

There’s a difference between enforcing the law and inventing one.

Trump didn’t just deport illegals here. He tried to slap a wartime law from 1798 onto Venezuelan migrants using the Alien Enemies Act, designed for when we’re at war with another nation. Except—spoiler alert—we’re not. Unless you think “suspicion of gang ties” = “invasion,” in which case you’ve got more legal imagination than constitutional grounding.

Other presidents deported illegals, sure—but they did it under existing immigration laws, not some legal necromancy pulled from the Federalist Papers era.

And let’s get one thing straight: Deporting gang members? Yes. Deporting people without charges, without due process, and under a law that requires a literal war declaration?* That’s not law enforcement. That’s skipping the law to look “tough.”

So if Trump wants to enforce the law, great.

But if he wants to bend it beyond recognition,

don’t pretend that’s the same thing.

We’re not mad at the goal, Bob. We’re mad at the method.

Because even Caesar doesn’t get to shred justice just to score political points.

Want to enforce immigration law? Fantastic.

Just do it by the actual law.

Not by dragging the Constitution behind your campaign bus.

74

Alright Benny and Bob—grab a chair, crack open a concordance, and let’s set this theological and constitutional bonfire ablaze.

To Benny:

You’re mostly on point—except you pulled up just short of the real dropkick. Yes, Trump used the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a moldy relic older than Beethoven’s piano, to deport migrants—not convicted criminals, mind you, but suspected gang members—from Venezuela. The law was meant for actual war with actual nations. Not “we feel uncomfortable” levels of anxiety. There was no declaration of war, no invasion, and certainly no legal precedent for this kind of usage.

The courts didn’t just disagree with Trump—they straight-up said his use of the law violated due process and exceeded his authority. That’s not political opposition. That’s a constitutional reality check with a gavel.

And yes, the Alien and Sedition Acts were infamous for trying to muzzle dissent and criminalize immigration. Most of them got repealed or buried for a reason. The Alien Enemies Act is the last zombie still crawling—and Trump tried to give it a machine gun.

Now Bob. Oh Bob.

“It doesn’t matter how he deports them”? Really? So if the president uses a 227-year-old wartime statute, skips due process, and labels asylum seekers as “enemies” without a trial, we’re just supposed to cheer because at least he’s doing something?

That’s not law enforcement. That’s law circumvention.

Yes, it’s the president’s job to enforce immigration laws. But those laws exist in a legal framework, not a political vacuum. You can’t chuck the Constitution out the window just because you’re in a hurry to look tough on crime.

Presidents before Trump enforced immigration laws under Title 8, INA, and other legitimate statutes—not an 18th-century panic button meant for shooting wars. And if you think judges “interfering” is the problem, then congratulations—you’ve just tossed out the entire purpose of judicial review. Maybe read Marbury v. Madison before the next bumper sticker slogan.

Final word?

Trump’s goal—secure borders—is valid. But the method matters.

You don’t torch the courthouse to catch a thief.

You don’t shred due process to save face.

And you don’t call it justice when it’s just vengeance in legal drag.

If you’re gonna wave the flag, at least read the laws printed on it.

75

Alright, BrotherDavid—strap in, because this one’s coming in like a whirlwind out of Ezekiel’s playbook with a side of border realism.

First off—thank you for confirming that you personally haven’t seen marauding criminals. That’s valuable. But respectfully? You don’t get to override federal-level data with personal anecdotes. That’s like saying, “I’ve never seen cancer, so it must not be real.” Just because El Paso isn’t Gotham City doesn’t mean there isn’t cartel-driven chaos happening at other points along the border.

Now as for the race card? Let’s be clear:

This is not about race.

And dragging that accusation into a conversation is spiritual laziness dressed up like virtue. This is about lawlessness, not Latinos.

If I sneak into France, I’m not a white refugee—I’m an illegal alien.

Nationality doesn’t sanctify criminality.

Trump didn’t say every migrant is a criminal. But when law enforcement busts gang-affiliated Venezuelans tied to Tren de Aragua—a cartel that traffics drugs, humans, and violence—you don’t get to shrug and say, “I haven’t seen it, so it’s fake.” That’s not discernment. That’s denial.

And your argument—“Other countries deport illegals!”—is spot on.

Try overstaying your visa in Japan. Or entering China undocumented.

You’ll be lucky if you get deported before interrogated.

But when the U.S. wants to enforce its own border? Suddenly, we’re called cruel.

BrotherDavid, I hear your heart for fairness. But let’s not confuse compassion with compromise.

Yes, love the stranger. Scripture commands it.

But God also commanded borders, order, and justice—not open gates and blind eyes.

So no, it’s not about race.

It’s about righteous law, real consequences, and refusing to trade the truth for talking points.

If the Church can’t tell the difference between justice and emotionalism, we’ve already lost the plot.

76

It would help if you stated facts. Trump deported people ILLEGALLY, i.e., without a hearing or a trial. He used an arcane law, which a judge ruled was illegal.

77

I also live in New Mexico and agree with your post 100%. I also haven’t seen these hordes of illegal immigrants. It is just propaganda to frughten people.

Who actually commits violent crimes in the US? CITIZENS!

78

Interesting timing—this just dropped:
A newly declassified U.S. intelligence memo contradicts Trump’s claim that Venezuela is “emptying their prisons” and sending violent criminals like Tren de Aragua into the U.S.
:link: Declassified memo undercuts Trump claim

While border security is serious business, we’ve got to separate hard facts from political fear-mongering. If we want a just and effective policy, it has to start with truth.

Curious—does this change how you view the Alien Enemies Act being used for mass deportation? Or do you still think it’s justified regardless?

79

Ooohhh… and there are 2 of them:
:backhand_index_pointing_right: https://apnews.com/article/trump-alien-enemies-act-judge-ruling-f1988c63140c95f8228b42368caed96b

80

Not everyone can just walk into the country. We have laws preventing that. It’s the president’s job to deport those that break this law.

As for due process, do you expect the president to hold trials for 20 million illegal immigrants?

81

How can you have a trial for 20 million illegal immigrants? Where does the constitution require this to happen?

1 Like
82

Yes, Bob, we have immigration laws. That’s the whole point—we want them enforced. Not bypassed. And the president’s job isn’t just to deport people—it’s to do it lawfully. That includes respecting the Constitution, which doesn’t say “due process unless it’s inconvenient,” or “equal protection unless there’s too many people to process.”

You’re asking: Do we really expect due process for 20 million people?
Let me flip that: Do you expect us to shred due process for 20 million just because it’s hard work?

You wouldn’t tolerate that logic from a judge, a cop, or a teacher. “There’s too many shoplifters—we’ll just skip the trials.” Nope. That’s not how justice works.
Scale doesn’t erase standards.

And let’s not pretend this is about logistical overload. Trump wasn’t trying to deport all illegal immigrants here—he was targeting a handful of Venezuelans and labeling them “enemy aliens” under a wartime law from 1798, without even bothering to prove they’d committed a crime. That’s not enforcement. That’s executive cosplay.

So yes, Bob, we expect the president to enforce the law.
But we also expect him not to torch it in the name of speed.
Because if the Constitution can be set aside when it’s “too hard to follow,” then guess what?

We’ve already lost the Republic.