It’s literally due to violent cartel gangs invading the country, committing crimes, and threatening everyday citizens. We’re talking about terrorists on interpol lists not a visiting student on a visa. The use of this legal approach seems appropriate. The alternative is wasting lots of time and money.
Lots of other countries have hunted down Tren de Agua in more aggresive ways. Venezuela, where they are from, had to literally use over 10000 troops to take over their headquarters in a raid. Obviously such an organization should be dealt with using such laws.
The government is claiming that their decisions are not reviewable by the courts. If the courts accept that argument, then tomorrow the President could proclaim that we are being invaded by, say, the Yakuza, and send any non-citizen Japanese person to a prison in El Salvador and the courts would have no power to question them.
There is nothing stopping the President from using this enormous, unchecked power against his political opponents.
> tomorrow the President could proclaim that we are being invaded by, say, the Yakuza, and send any non-citizen Japanese person to a prison in El Salvador
Why would he do that? Manzanar is much closer and successfully tested even against citizens.
I’ve heard that interned Japanese-American did not like to bring the whole thing up afterwards, but it was clearly a mistake trying to memory hole that abomination.
So your argument is a slippery slope argument. The government can do a lot of things. But it doesn’t. This action against violent criminals seems like an obviously good use of the law. I’ll worry about your theoretical slippery slope if and when it becomes an issue.
Also, what do you mean by “political opponents”? Are non citizen Tren de Agua members voting or running for office? If not, how are they political opponents?
The US government is currently doing crazier and crazier things on a daily basis, and is run by a guy who’s pretty much open in saying that, actually, he likes doing crazy things; the courts and legislature have made barely any attempt to stop this. I mean, at this point, I don’t think the slippery slope fallacy really applies; the crazy guy who’s obsessed with vengeance against perceived enemies may well get it. Do not assume that there is a limit.
The President has threatened to deport many people because of their political views, and he has already arrested at least two that I know of, plus one more who left the country before she could be deported. So it's not a "theoretical slippery slope" argument.
It's already likely that some people were shipped to Guantanamo who were not criminals[1][2]. They were kept in horrible conditions without media access and left without legal recourse or any means of communication with the outside world. Is that OK with you? What happens when Trump decides that "Democrats" or "leftists" are the enemy now, as he's been continuously suggesting[2]?
Let’s start with the fact that regardless of your support or lack of, president’s actions are deeply lawless. The invoked statue is obviously wasn’t created for this, and claimed presidents powers are authoritarian and anti constitutional.
There are already laws to deport terrorists from the US. The thing is, since we live in a land of law, unlike some other countries, you need to prove it in courts first. And the administration is more than welcome to do this (and in fact doing it, just like previous one was).
What do you say on the case of this male white German with a renewed greencard, who first moved over in 2007, has a US citizen wife and an 8 year old girl?
The words of Martin Niemöller, a Lutheran pastor who survived the concentration camp the Nazis put him in, seem appropriate at this point:
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
No citizen nor law abiding non citizen is affected. When you commit crimes, you “give up” your own liberty for the security of the public. That’s how all law works - when it is enforced properly, anyways.
You don't actually know whether these people are law-abiding or not, because there has been no due process. The government says they are in this gang, they say they aren't. Without due process we don't actually know if they got picked up for being in a gang, or just for having tattoos (which is what one of them alleges).
The law is blatantly absent if the executive explicitly states it can detain and deport any person it deems a threat without due process and without duty to notify anyone, let alone a court or judge.
It's literally the executive tyranny of a king and absence of balance of power in full action which led to the founding of the United States of America.
Even if you're a criminal, last I checked the law, properly enforced, grants you the right to an attorney to prevent exactly this: unchecked executive power.
No, they aren't. "Invasion" means something considerably different. You're using the word Trump is using to justify his actions, but word doesn't actually fit the situation.
Fundamentally, the problem is that the situation does not justify Trump's actions. He's using the "invasion" word to try to paper over that, but as I said, it doesn't actually fit.
Lots of other countries have hunted down Tren de Agua in more aggresive ways. Venezuela, where they are from, had to literally use over 10000 troops to take over their headquarters in a raid. Obviously such an organization should be dealt with using such laws.