On March 15, a U.S. federal judiciary halted, for a period of 14 days, any possible deportations tied to a relatively obscure wartime statute invoked by President Donald Trump. The act, known as the Alien Enemies Act from 1798, was enforced against a Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, accused by President Trump. Citing the United States’ confrontation with an ‘incursion’ from this criminal syndicate tied to various illicit activities including but not limited to abduction, blackmail, organized crime, and targeted assassinations, Trump made this invocation.
This decisive measure arrived after President Trump declared earlier in the day that the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was applicable against the aforementioned group. The decision was accompanied by the narrative of the nation grappling with this ‘invasion’ from a criminal affiliate associated with manifold menacing activities such as organized crime, kidnapping, contract assassinations, and extortion.
Within hours of this pronouncement, Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary injunction halt that would endure for a period of two weeks. In his legalistic assessment, Judge Boasberg disputed the standing of the act to support the proclamation by the President, arguing that the definition of invasion or predatory incursion is generally confined to aggressive activities executed by a sovereign entity in a manner akin to a state of warfare.
In his endorsement of the act, Trump implicated the gang members of waging an ‘irregular warfare’ and initiating hostile movements against the United States, purporting to unhinge the national stability. The act, characteristically utilized in instances of warfare, might enable the President to circumvent the due process privileges of migrants deemed hazards and expedite their deportation.
With this pronouncement under President Trump, the Alien Enemies Act stipulates that any Venezuelan nationals, aged 14 years and older, identified as members of this gang, currently residing within the United States, and not officially naturalized or holding lawful permanent residency status, are subject to the risk of arrest, restraint in secure facilities, and expulsion in line with the Alien Enemies definition.
Historically, the Alien Enemies Act is best recognized for its application in sanctioning internment camps for individuals of Japanese, German, and Italian heritage during the Second World War. Advocacy groups championing civil rights, along with several Democratic affiliates, have expressed criticisms against the proposal to resuscitate this act to resolve mass deportation.
In February, prior to this development, the Trump administration classified Tren de Aragua, along with the Sinaloa Cartel and six other fringe groups, as global terrorist collectives. Trump frequently emphasized the looming threat posed by this gang during his political campaigns to substantiate his allegations of a surge in ‘migrant crime’.
Contrary to these assertions, extensive research studies have demonstrated that immigrants do not perpetrate higher rates of crime than their American counterparts who are native-born. Immigration proponents and Democratic affiliates conveyed staunch criticism against Trump’s decision.
Letitia James, the New York Attorney-General, voiced severe criticism of President Trump’s decision, stating, ‘The exploitation of the Alien Enemies Act, a significant wartime authority with a regrettable history, to indiscriminately detain and banish immigrants is biased, menacing and deeply unjust.’
The enforcement of this action by Trump followed a previous temporary suspension by Judge Boasberg. He stopped the U.S. government from expelling five Venezuelans on March 14 after two non-profit groups filed a case, arguing that the use of the act in these circumstances would be illegal.
The law in question has essentially been applied in wartime and is explicitly applicable to war-like situations. The temporary restraining order issued by the court helped to prevent these individuals from being deported for the subsequent two weeks. Interestingly, these Venezuelans, ostensibly misidentified as members of Tren de Aragua, are pursuing asylum.
Despite these sweeping proposals for deportation, the Trump administration’s initial deportation rates have not exceeded those of his Democratic precursor, Joe Biden. Biden grappled with high levels of illegal immigration and swiftly deported many individuals crossing the border recently.
Contradictorily, court documents reveal that the government has submitted an appeal against the Judge’s temporary restraining order. Trump, a Republican, returned to power on January 20 with an ambitious pledge to deport millions of immigrants residing in the U.S. illegally. Trump has executed a variety of measures to ramp up immigration law enforcement, including deploying additional military personnel to the U.S.-Mexico border and redistributing federal agents to assist in locating immigration violators.