President Donald Trump said that some of the migrants in the country are in the justification for being expelled without proper processing.
The White House’s March 1 March announcement states that the evidence shows that (train de Aragua) has attacked the United States. ” Train de Aragua is a Venezuela-based gang that has some US presence.
The announcement says Aragua train “There is a hybrid criminal state that is causing the attack in the United States and the attack of the hunter”, and therefore, the age of 14 or older, who is a member of the train de Aragua and who does not have American citizenship or permanent residency and can be executed using the 1978 alien annemies law.
Trump and their collaborated countries have mentioned the move to come from abroad and use it under the agitation for years Law It depends on this feature for refugees. In order to request the law, the United States should be invaded in war or abroad.
But is the US invasion? And who decides whether it is happening or not?
Arriving abroad and legal experts say that the United States is not in the attack of Venezuela gangs or any other group or country, and is not invaded alone in an undocumented immigration.
Federal Judge The Trump administration is temporarily blocked from the use of a foreign enemy law Deportation People. The administration says that the judgment of the judges is illegal and seizes the rights of the President.
In the past, it is a matter of national security and foreign policy, saying that immigration can be classified as an attack. But legal experts say that there are exceptions that the judges are motivated to rule the question, in which the President has behaved with bad faith or if he has made a clear mistake.
The law is allowed to expel the gang members from the United States. But those laws must go to the Immigration Court. The law of foreign enemies, such as the immigration judge, overtakes the right process.
What is the basis of the Trump administration to use the Alien Anemies Act?
The law allow the President to arrest and deport people without hearing the “adverse nation or government” when the United States has warned of that country or the risk of an attack or attack against the United States as a “hunting deficiency” against the United States.
Trump’s announcement made two late contradictory arguments to represent a foreign attack in the United States.
First, the train de aragua is working as a semi-government in Venezuela province where the Venezuela government has “permanent control”.
The announcement also states that the train de Aragua is “closely associated with Maduro’s rule and has really infiltrated”.
White House’s press secretary Carolin Levit said in the Birring of March 1 March that the train de Aragua Venezuela government has been sent to the United States.
“A hunter infiltrate along with the train de Arauu, has been sent here by an adverse Maduro rule in Venezuela,” said Livit.
Professor of Harvard University’s law, Naha Feldman, wrote in the March 17 column, “In other words, the Trump administration is claiming that the gang is the government of Venezuela and the gang is independent of Venezuela government.”
Trump has repeatedly saidWithout evidence, countries with Venezuela are emptying their prison and sending people to the United States.
Ronna Riskez, a journalist, said in an interview of Venezuela, who published a book on Train de Aragua, said in an interview on March 3 March from the jail of the train de aragua Venezuela. She added that she did not see the evidence that the Venezuela government has responded or driven by the gang or sent the train de Aragua members to the United States.
Undoculated to live forever abroad invades alone?
The five legal experts who interviewed the polytelief and many other legal experts written on the subject.
“The law is just as wrong as the law, the facts and the general civilization of the migrants,” said the Notre Dem Law Professor University Mary Ellen O’Connell. “The United States is not in war with Venezuela; Venezuela does not threaten or not threaten to attack the United States.”
One thing to describe as an invasion of immigration is, “But when we go to the legal field, words mean words,” said Catherine Yon Ibrite, expert of the constitutional war powers in the Brain Center for Justice. “In the context of a foreign enemy law, the attack and the hunter invading or the organized army or the paramilitary the civil war or the armed attacks mentioned.”
Professor Michael Gerarhard, the constitutional law of North Carolina Chapl Hill University, said: “If our government has evidence of coordinated attacks in this foreign country in an engineer, it must have evidence. Otherwise it is fictional.”
What is an attack?
In the Constitution, the word “attack” is used four times related to the rights of the National Security, the Federal Government’s war, and the states in which the states can be involved in war. But the incident did not define the “attack”. And the Supreme Court of the United States did not rule either.
The purpose of “attack” in the context of historical references and records makes sense.
Matthew Lindse, a professor of Baltimore’s law, said, “Framers consistently characterized the army infiltrate in the US region. He pointed out to the writing of former President James Madison in 2006:” The invasion is a war. Rescue from the invasion is an exercise of the power of war. “
Legal experts noticed three times the foreign enemy law – the war of 1922, World War II and the Second World War – to explain the differences at that time and now. All the previous requests were during the war period.
Former President Franklin Daleno Roosevelt did not ask Congress to declare the war by the Japanese troops.
“In fact, he did not even recognize the armed attack that led to the law of war,” said Yon Abrite.
Yon Ibrite pointed out that Trump has also said that the US is no longer an attack. Trump posted on the truth on March 1, “The invasion of our country is over.”
What do the courts have said about the coming abroad and invasion to live forever?
In the 1990s 1990s, many states filed a claim on the federal government and said they failed to protect them from their unreal immigration attack and forced them to take financial burden. Four district courts of appeal rejected cases; Judge said that they are unable to rule, because these cases have faced political issues.
The Legal Information Institute of Cornell University said that the federal court usually refuses to rule the political issues – the Constitution has made the “sole responsibility of the Legislative Branch”.
The court did not rule out whether the courts invaded to come from abroad to live forever in the 1990s 1990s, but one federal judge said in 1996 1996 in, in another state or abroad and it was not “clearly”.
In February 2024, then Texas approved the law Claiming some extent to the immigrants, the federal judge ruled that “Surgeses in immigration do not make ‘attacks’ in the sense of the event.” The case is then pending The state appealed Against the decision.