History affirms Trump’s right to use the Alien Enemies Act against gangs



President Donald Trump on Friday issued a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. Predictably, this move drew the ire of anti-borders activists, who classified it as an attempt to circumvent due process protections for illegal aliens. Critics claimed that the legislation can be used only in times of war, but do they have a legal leg to stand on? For several significant reasons, they do not.

The Alien Enemies Act was first passed in 1798 as one of four pieces of legislation collectively — and erroneously — referred to as the “Alien and Sedition Acts.” These laws were implemented in response to the undeclared Quasi-War with France — bolstering the federal government’s power to react to national security threats.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that noncitizens have no constitutional right to stay in the US unlawfully.

Contrary to popular open-border narratives, these laws were not originally universally reviled. Many Americans saw them as necessary measures to ensure the safety and sovereignty of their newly established nation. Out of the four laws, however, only the Alien Enemies Act survived; the others either expired or were replaced before the Supreme Court established judicial review in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison.

Where does that leave the Trump administration today? Historically, the Alien Enemies Act has been used during wartime or in response to an invasion, such as the War of 1812 and World Wars I and II. The law itself was written broadly, however. It states that when the United States is at war with a foreign nation — or when an “invasion or predatory incursion” occurs — the president has the authority to detain and remove citizens of the hostile country.

The key question now is whether the law applies to foreign nationals like Tren de Aragua and other non-military individuals who have entered the country illegally. That hinges on the definition of “invade” or "predatory incursion.” Interestingly, neither term is defined explicitly in U.S. law, nor has the Supreme Court clarified it.

However, history offers some clues. Colonial-era legal documents allowed British subjects to defend themselves against foreign threats described as "destruction, invasion, detriment, or annoyance.” In Federalist 41, James Madison referred to the need to protect against "pirates and barbarians," suggesting that non-state actors engaged in criminal activities could qualify as invaders. Similarly, in Federalist 43, Madison warned of threats from hostile nations and the “ambitious or vindictive enterprises of [a state’s] more powerful neighbors.”

Based on these historical interpretations, two conclusions emerge. First, an invasion doesn’t have to come from a foreign government’s military. Second, as the Texas Public Policy Foundation notes, criminal organizations like cartel-linked gangs could be classified as engaging in an invasion or predatory incursion if their activities undermine U.S. sovereignty. That’s exactly what Tren de Aragua is doing.

Trump justified his decision by pointing out that Tren de Aragua is a designated foreign terrorist organization with thousands of members who have illegally entered the U.S. According to his statement, the gang is engaging in "irregular warfare and hostile actions" aimed at harming Americans, destabilizing communities, and furthering the Maduro regime’s influence.

The U.S. Constitution gives the government broad powers to respond to evolving global threats, and the Supreme Court has historically limited its review of immigration-related decisions. Additionally, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that noncitizens have no constitutional right to stay in the U.S. unlawfully.

In Kleindienst v. Mandel, the court ruled that unadmitted, nonresident foreigners have no right to entry or continued presence in the country. Similarly, Mathews v. Diaz upheld congressional authority to make laws for noncitizens that would never apply to U.S. citizens.

Given such precedent, it is hard to argue that the president lacks the authority to remove gang members who threaten American security just because Venezuela hasn’t formally declared war. But never underestimate the extent to which those manifesting “Trump derangement syndrome” will interfere with legitimate attempts to protect U.S. citizens from the likes of Tren de Aragua.

Trump just empowered states to fight back against illegal immigration



Donald Trump has wasted no time making his mark in his return to the White House.

In less than a week, the president has signed dozens of new executive orders and repealed nearly 80 orders and memorandums from the Biden era.

If the federal government declares an invasion has occurred, then states have the right and arguably the duty to respond accordingly.

One of the most notable orders, titled “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion,” introduced immediate changes to immigration law.

The order suspends temporarily a contentious policy that allows immigrants to enter the United States by claiming asylum.

Additionally, it directs federal agents to block entry for immigrants who fail to provide sufficient medical information or reliable criminal and background records.

Perhaps the most important change, however, is one that has received little attention from the media — the classification of the ongoing border crisis as an “invasion.”

Many of Trump’s critics have classified the “invasion” rhetoric as xenophobic or racist, but in doing so, they have completely missed an important policy justification for using the term. By calling what’s occurring at the southern border an “invasion,” Trump has effectively given states the right to take drastic action against illegal immigration.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Constitution prioritizes federal authority over state authority in immigration matters.

The court has determined that Article II grants the president the power to regulate many aspects of foreign affairs, including issues connected to immigration.

Article I empowers Congress to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” governing the process of becoming a citizen.

The Constitution provides little mention of states’ rights regarding immigration, a lack often interpreted as justification for federal control of the issue.

However, in Article I, Section 10, the Constitution declares, “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

In other words, although states cannot determine citizenship or set a foreign affairs agenda that’s out of step with the president, they can defend themselves from an invasion.

During the Biden administration, officials reported more than 8 million illegal border “encounters,” a figure that captures the number of people caught by officials while trying to illegally enter the United States. Importantly, data on “encounters” do not reflect the potentially millions of other immigrants who have come to America illegally over the same period but weren’t caught.

Some states have argued that this wave of illegal immigration constitutes an “invasion” and that because the Constitution allows states to combat an invasion, state officials should have the right to take action.

For example, in 2023, Texas lawmakers claimed the state had been invaded and then passed Senate Bill 4, which, among other things, gave Texas police the power to arrest illegal immigrants.

The law has been tied up in court since it was passed, largely because of courts’ reluctance to give states power over immigration and because claims of an “invasion” depend on the Constitution’s meaning of the term, which has been in dispute for years among legal scholars.

Now that the Trump administration has officially declared that the recent immigration crisis is an “invasion,” there should be no doubt that states have the legal authority to defend themselves. This would be a significant enhancement of states’ rights, assuming the designation and subsequent actions on the part of states survive legal challenges.

Regardless of your position on immigration, we should all be able to agree that states ought to have the power to defend themselves in the event of an invasion. And if the federal government declares an invasion has occurred, then states have the right and arguably the duty to respond accordingly.

If you disagree, then who, exactly, should have the right to decide when an “invasion” has occurred?

Although opponents of the new order won’t want to hear it, elections do, indeed, have consequences.

10 bold moves red states can make to end the illegal immigration surge



Do we not already have enough criminals in this country? When will we finally reach the point where we say “no more” to repeat offenders, including drunk drivers, sex offenders, drug traffickers, and gangbangers from other countries? The time has come for states — especially those led by Republicans — to take a firm and unified stand. Holding a special session right before the election, as early voting begins, offers the perfect opportunity to bring this issue to the forefront.

We could fill pages daily with stories about repeat violent criminal aliens committing horrific rapes, murders, and DUI homicides, taking the lives of Americans in their prime through entirely avoidable crimes. We are also beginning to see the effects of bringing in millions of migrants, particularly in small towns like Springfield, Ohio, Charleroi, Pennsylvania, and Sylacauga, Alabama. Time and again, we hear this is a federal issue and that states lack the power to combat or deter this invasion. Not so. It’s time for Republican governors and legislatures to step up and address this issue once and for all.

States must stand firm and refuse to recognize any amnesty Joe Biden and Kamala Harris attempt to grant in the final months of their administration.

With the November election approaching, every Republican governor should convene a special legislative session aimed at deterring illegal aliens from entering red states. Here are 10 strategies:

Declare an invasion: The session should start by passing a resolution that acknowledges the state is facing an invasion and invokes powers under the Constitution’s compact clause. Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 allows states to engage in defensive actions if “actually invaded” or facing “imminent danger” that requires immediate response. After four years of inaction from the federal government, states can’t wait any longer. Criminal aliens, transnational gangs, fentanyl trafficking, human trafficking, and the strain on public services pose an undeniable danger. While states don’t need to wage war, they can use their authority over internal order, policing, and public health to restrict, deter, and, when possible, encourage illegal aliens to deport themselves voluntarily.

Declare a public health emergency: Large numbers of illegal aliens are arriving from countries with diseases not common in the United States, including Haiti, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We all remember the extent to which states exercised police powers over public health during the pandemic, shutting down churches, businesses, and even restricting breathing to prevent disease spread. States even imposed travel bans on residents of other states. If they could do that, they can certainly apply similar restrictions to foreign invaders who are gathering en masse under chaotic conditions and creating a public health threat. We’ve already seen outbreaks in migrant shelters. What happened to the public health concerns that overrode natural rights in 2020?

Incarcerate or expel criminal aliens: Stories of illegal aliens with records of drunk driving, drug and weapons charges, and robbery committing additional serious crimes appear daily across every state. GOP governors should adopt a clear policy: The first crime an illegal alien commits in a state should be his last.

In a letter to a GOP congressman, ICE revealed that its non-detained docket includes 7.6 million aliens, among them individuals with 662,566 total criminal convictions or charges. This group includes aliens convicted of more than 13,000 homicides, 15,811 sexual assaults (plus 9,461 convicted of other sex offenses), 851 kidnappings, nearly 3,400 weapon offenses, over 2,000 robberies, 56,533 dangerous drug convictions, 14,301 burglaries, and 62,231 assaults.

Many of the most serious offenders are currently in state or local prisons, but others remain free on the streets. This is especially true for "low-level" offenders, such as roughly 130,000 traffic offenders, 70,000 drug offenders, 31,000 charged or convicted of larceny, 17,000 weapons offenders, and 17,500 burglars. The federal government has not removed these people, including 1.3 million who already have final removal orders. This is where states must step in.

Each legislature should impose significant sentencing enhancements for those who commit any crime after entering the United States illegally. For aliens arrested for minor crimes that don’t require incarceration for justice, states should offer a diversion program. This program could provide a suspended sentence in exchange for self-repatriation. States could even cover the cost of a plane ticket and grant leniency, as long as the person doesn’t return to the state.

This approach combines incentives and consequences to encourage self-repatriation without risking accusations of states actively engaging in deportation. Federal law implicitly supports the idea of self-removal during or outside a criminal trial under either federal or state law.

Outlaw illegal presence in states: The above approach would target criminal aliens caught committing additional offenses. To deter all illegal aliens, states need to make illegal presence itself a crime. Oklahoma’s House Bill 4156, passed last session, aimed to do just that, though a federal judge has currently enjoined it. As a contingency, states should strengthen penalties and enforcement of related crimes involving illegal immigrants, such as trespassing, criminal vagrancy, identity theft, tax fraud, human trafficking, and harboring illegal aliens.

States should leverage enhanced sentences to encourage self-repatriation, avoiding judicial interference. State agencies should rigorously investigate identity theft by cross-referencing welfare benefits, driver’s licenses, and employment records for duplicates. Additionally, individuals arrested for offenses tied to transnational gangs like MS-13 or Tren de Aragua should face even harsher sentencing enhancements.

Beef up employment enforcement: If illegal aliens cannot get jobs, they will not come. That’s the bottom line. Right now, only six southeastern states and Arizona require universal E-Verify, and even these states often fail to enforce the law vigorously. Additionally, many employers use labor brokers, who officially hire these workers on behalf of local companies, to sidestep regulations. States must start prosecuting these labor brokers for human trafficking and evading state laws against employing illegal workers. Eliminating job opportunities will significantly reduce illegal immigration.

Reject Biden’s amnesty: Joe Biden continues to offer various forms of quasi-legal status to illegal aliens through unlawful parole programs or by expanding Temporary Protected Status. States must stand firm and refuse to recognize any amnesty Joe Biden and Kamala Harris attempt to grant in the final months of their administration. For state purposes, they should treat those individuals as illegal aliens.

Bar illegal aliens from public schools: It’s unfair for American children and parents to see their schools overwhelmed by illegal immigrants with different cultures and languages, who may pose security risks. This issue has even reached small, rural districts facing a surge in such enrollments. The right to K-12 education for illegal immigrants stems from the activist court ruling 42 years ago in Plyler v. Doe, which applied the equal protection clause to illegal aliens. The current Supreme Court might rule differently. At the very least, states should bar all prospective illegal immigrants or those who can't prove they arrived before 2021.

Or states could require a state-issued photo ID (rather than just a utility bill) to prove residency in a school district, applying the same standard to all residents, similar to voter ID requirements in many red states. Since most red states, except Utah, don’t issue photo IDs to illegal immigrants, those individuals would be ineligible to register for school under a residency verification law applied equally to everyone.

States should also require disclosure of immigration status during interactions like motor vehicle registrations, business license applications, welfare benefits, financial transactions, and arrests. State agencies should maintain a database of this information, including names, addresses, and Social Security numbers, for informational purposes. Florida has already implemented such a policy in hospitals and has reported a decline in illegal immigrants using those services. States could share this information with ICE, enabling federal action if a future administration takes a tougher stance on immigration.

Use zoning laws to limit town transformations: Small towns like Springfield, Ohio, Charleroi, Pennsylvania, Colony Ridge, Texas, and Sylacauga, Alabama, have faced rapid changes due to an influx of immigrants. While some claim that small towns have no power to stop this, a reporter on my podcast noted that Charleroi’s transformation stemmed from local business interests buying homes on Main Street and converting them into de facto “labor barracks.”

Local governments can use zoning laws to ban multi-unit dwellings and other living arrangements that attract illegal immigration. Although localities can’t make immigration law, they can use housing, transportation, and criminal vagrancy ordinances to discourage settlement in their areas.

End the 'unaccompanied minor' scam: Hundreds of thousands of volatile and violent teens enter our communities under humanitarian statutes, aided by sponsors who often lack legal status themselves. States should require sponsors of unaccompanied alien children to register with state child welfare departments, which must verify any claimed family relationship. This step would deter bad actors from perpetuating child trafficking and immigration status manipulation.

Revoke licenses of nonprofits aiding illegal immigration: A Florida Grand Jury found that several federally funded NGOs provide illegal immigrants with cash cards, cell phones, and even “safari-style guide maps,” aiding the invasion. States should criminalize activities that facilitate illegal immigration, similar to the unenforced federal law that makes it illegal to encourage or induce unlawful entry into the United States. States should also revoke business licenses and state recognition of NGOs that violate these laws.

Republicans at the national level have given up key leverage points in addressing this issue. States where Republicans control the executive and legislative branches need to act now.

New Report Details Hefty Price Americans Are Paying For Biden-Harris’ Open Border Mayhem

U.S. Rep. Chip Roy's office has detailed the 'breadth and depth' of the destruction in the report titled, 'America Invaded.'
Invaded in Every Way
play icon

Invaded in Every Way

MSNBC Darlings Jen Psaki, Rachel Maddow Mock Voters For Noticing Biden’s Border Invasion

However much you hate the corporate media and their lying and scheming to cover for the Biden regime, it is not enough.

Media Spin Nearly Record-High January Border Incursions As ‘Good News’ For Biden

Customs and Border Protection said there was a nearly record-high number of encounters at the U.S. southern border in January.

Former impeachment champion Joe Biden calls GOP efforts to hold Mayorkas accountable 'unconstitutional'



House Republicans successfully impeached Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas Tuesday night, leaving it to the U.S. Senate to decide his ultimate fate.

While historically a champion of impeachment when a Republican is in the crosshairs, President Joe Biden lashed out at those seeking to hold Mayorkas responsible for overseeing the illegal entry of several million foreign nationals into the nation. Like the DHS, Biden called the vote to impeach his DHS secretary "unconstitutional."

The vote and the articles of impeachment

Without the help of Republican Reps. Ken Buck (Colo.), Mike Gallagher (Wis.), and Tom McClintock (Calif.), the House GOP managed to pass a resolution to impeach Mayorkas in a 214-213 vote Tuesday evening.

The first article of impeachment accuses the Biden Cabinet secretary of a willful and systematic refusal to comply with the law.

Mayorkas allegedly violated "his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and to well and faithfully discharge the duties of his office," according to the article.

The second article accuses the DHS secretary of knowingly making false statements and obstructing lawful oversight of the DHS.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection figures indicate that in Mayorkas' first nine months as DHS secretary, 1,516,650 illegal aliens stole across the southern border and into the United States — nearly quadruple the number of migrants who entered throughout the entirety of the previous fiscal year. Roughly 6 million more have entered the country in the years since.

The Democratic-controlled Senate will almost certainly refuse to charge Mayorkas, rendering the House vote largely symbolic.

Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, stressed that his committee's "investigation and subsequent impeachment proceedings demonstrated beyond any doubt that Secretary Mayorkas has willfully and systematically refused to comply with the laws of the United States and breached the public trust."

"With this vote, Congress has made clear that we will not tolerate such lawlessness," added Green.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said, "Secretary Mayorkas has willfully and consistently refused to comply with federal immigration laws, fueling the worst border catastrophe in American history."

"Alejandro Mayorkas deserves to be impeached, and Congress has a constitutional obligation to do so," continued Johnson.

Biden lashes out

Biden was less than pleased over Republicans' successful vote to impeach Mayorkas.

"History will not look kindly on House Republicans for their blatant act of unconstitutional partisanship that has targeted an honorable public servant in order to play petty political games," Biden is credited as saying in a lengthy statement.

Although quick to invoke history in the abstract and to paint the impeachment initiative as petty, Biden previously championed impeachment when it meant the possible removal of a Republican from office.

Biden and other Democrats sought to impeach Trump over a phone call he had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy concerning possible corruption on the part of the Biden family.

— (@)

Biden even incorporated such demands for Trump's impeachment into his presidential campaign.

Time reported that while campaigning in 2019, then-candidate Biden told a small audience in Rochester, N.H., "Donald Trump has violated his oath of office, betrayed this nation, and committed impeachable acts. You know, to preserve our Constitution, our democracy, our basic integrity, he should be impeached."

In his Tuesday statement, Biden further claimed Mayorkas "has upheld the rule of law faithfully and has demonstrated a deep commitment to the values that make our nation great."

"Instead of staging political stunts like this, Republicans with genuine concerns about the border should want Congress to deliver more border resources and stronger border security," continued Biden. "Sadly, the same Republicans pushing this baseless impeachment are rejecting bipartisan plans Secretary Mayorkas and others in my administration have worked hard on to strengthen border security at this very moment."

Contrary to the president's suggestion, in recent weeks and months, Mayorkas and other elements of the Biden administration have fought not against illegal immigration but against Texas' efforts to secure the southern border. Just last month, the DHS threatened Texas after the Lone Star State seized control of a high-traffic area along the border in Eagle Pass.

A Jan. 14 letter from DHS General Counsel Jonathan Meyer instructed Texas to "remove all barriers to access to the U.S.-Mexico border."

Extra to casting Mayorkas as a man traduced, Biden accused Republicans of "playing politics with the border."

DHS echoes Biden

The DHS regurgitated the Democratic president's talking points in its response to the impeachment vote, noting, "House Republicans will be remembered by history for trampling on the Constitution for political gain rather than working to solve the serious challenges at the border."

"Without a shred of evidence or legitimate Constitutional grounds, and despite bipartisan opposition, House Republicans have falsely smeared a dedicated public servant who has spent more than 20 years enforcing our laws and serving our country," said DHS spokesman Mia Ehrenberg.

Ehrenberg further alleged that Mayrokas "will continue working every day to keep Americans safe."

Congressional investigators behind the impeachment push suggested in recent reports that Mayorkas' "open-border policies" and the illegal immigration they have ostensibly guaranteed not only impose an annual net burden of hundreds of billions of dollars every year on the U.S. economy but also exacerbate the fentanyl crisis, adversely impact public safety, contribute to a rise in human trafficking and exploitation of minors, and jeopardize public health.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Republican Legislators In These 14 States Are Backing Texas Over Biden Border Standoff

Republican lawmakers in more than a dozen states are backing efforts by GOP Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to reinforce the U.S. border.

McConnell, Tillis Openly Trash ‘Dim’ And ‘Short-Sighted’ GOP Voters After Base Rejected McConnell’s Bogus Border Bill

Republicans eager to ram Ukraine funding through the upper chamber are just as eager to dismiss their voters as dimwitted.