A quick take on some of the questions raised by President Trump's ... dubious invocation of a 1798 statute as a basis for arresting, detaining, and removing non-citizens with ties to Tren de Aragua.
Thanks for this impressive and, under the time constraints, very comprehensive overview of the issues raised by Trump's Executive Order. I would expect DOJ to press very hard on the President's foreign relations powers and national security discretion, in order to invoke some creditable doctrine of judicial deference and non-review. The Administration certainly has some chance at getting the Court of Appeals it wants, and already has three or four votes at the Supreme Court for a hands-off deference to a unitary and near-plenary presidency. Thinking ahead -- because ahead we are going -- where might a SCOTUS majority stand on these issues??
Whatever deference might have been due any proclamation by any prior president, it definitely is not due this president.
Trump is profoundly different from any president before him in ways that reflect on his credibility and whether he's acting in good faith. He cannot be voted out of office (or re-elected). He almost certainly will not be impeached again by the House, much less convicted and removed by the Senate. He apparently could not care less about the Republican party or conservatives, generally. And, most compelling, six SCOTUS justices--for the first time in our nation's history--proclaimed that Trump (and everybody he grants pardons to) cannot be prosecuted for any of the federal crimes they commit in their wild and egregious abuses and usurpations of power.
After SCOTUS usurped the power to pretend that we delegated to SCOTUS the power to make presidents "immune" from prosecution for criminal abuses and usurpations of power, Trump campaigned for control of America's nuclear arsenal by proclaiming “If I were the president, I would inform the threatening country — in this case, Iran — that if you do anything to harm this person, we are going to blow your largest cities and the country itself to smithereens. We are going to blow it to smithereens.”
Trump (even as president) has a long and well-known history of tossing about wildly excessive proclamations, implications and threats as a negotiating tactic. He did it on and before January 6. In another example a mere month ago, Trump proclaimed, "I would like a deal done with Iran on non-nuclear. I would prefer that to bombing the hell out of it.”
Then, there is the long, well-documented record of Trump's utter disregard and disrespect for truth or factual accuracy when it is contrary to his objectives. Far too many times for me to care to try to count, Trump proved that he could not be trusted to tell the truth or be accurate as to material facts (except to the extent it might benefit him). Everything for this president is a matter of bluff, bluster and negotiation (often through intimidation).
Long ago, I learned who Trump was from Trump, himself. I read his book, "The Art of the Deal." Trump pretty explicitly boasted that the art of his deal was the manipulation of perception, and sometimes, specifically, the practice of deception. Moreover, what motivates this man is money and the power it can buy. I would not be even slightly surprised to learn that Trump's true objective is getting a piece of Maduro's pie.
When Trump speaks of the corruption of government, we all should listen. Trump knows what he's talking about. Trump knows corruption. No rational person could reasonably defer to any proclamation by any such president.
I think it would be interesting to know how long those World War II appellants were kept in detention. Even if each were subjected to a lot of case by case review, it might have taken a long time and could equally apply here and leave plenty of detainees in custody until after Trump’s presidency.
Please note what the law says about due process of law after the president issues his proclamation, including who has the power to order removal and when and why. See 50 U.S.C. 23:
After any such proclamation [by the president] has been made, the several courts of the United States, having criminal jurisdiction, and the several justices and judges of the courts of the United States, are authorized and it shall be their duty, upon complaint against any alien enemy resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President may have established, to cause such alien to be duly apprehended and conveyed before such court, judge, or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint, and sufficient cause appearing, to order such alien to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties for his good behavior, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations established as aforesaid, and to imprison, or otherwise secure such alien, until the order which may be so made shall be performed.
"(The government’s appellate brief puts forward the regrettable argument that one acceptable definition of invasion is “the arrival somewhere of people or things who are not wanted there”—a ludicrously low bar)." Hmmm, under this definition are Musk's people an invasion?
Politico: "Federal Judge halts Trump's [ & Pamela Jo Bondi ] deportations invoking the [1798] Alien Enemies Act". The case is an active & successful ACLU lawsuit.
Kudos to Politico's top legal Reporters: MYAH WARD, Kyle Cheney, Ali Bianco & Josh Gerstien all of which are in the Top 10 of our Country's legal reporters.
In regard to the people who were sent to El Salvador yesterday, was there any judicial determination that they were members of TdA? Or did ICE simply declare them TdA and, thus, deportable under the EO. And is there any U.S. judicial recourse for them now that they’re in an El Salvadoran prison?
All of which begs the question to some degree. It looks like the Government (it pains me to type that) 1. made an agreement with El Salvador to imprison these individuals, 2. rounded them up, 3. got them ready to transport, 4. issued Trump's emergency order accompanied by necessary actions by Sec. of State Rubio and El Salvador and then, immediately did "wheels up." By the time the Court acted, even with the ACLU "at the ready" these individuals were in Salvadoran custody )"oopsie...too late"). All niceties aside, when criminals take over the government, the government is a criminal enterprise.
This is a more general question but aren't lawyers obligated to present good faith arguments based on evidence in court? The argument that TdA is the Venezuelan government or a separate foreign nation is absurd on its face and there is no evidence supporting it. I know that courts are loath to sanction lawyers, especially DOJ lawyers, but there are now several examples of Trump's DOJ presenting arguments more akin to throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what will stick than to making substantive legal arguments. Can courts do anything to push back on this abuse and waste of time?
Not directly on point, but I recently posted a query about the meaning of "predatory incursion". It is not "invasion" under Art 4 and the Proclamation relies on terrorist statute. If you aid or abet a cyberattack will you not only be criminally charged, but deported?
Assuming the courts are willing to defer to the executive on the invasion question but still insist on reviewing the membership status of each individual potential deportee, does this EO make it easier for the government to detain people pending removal proceedings?
Good question. But, do not assume all federal courts are willing to defer an EO. Note WELL a federal Judge I have appeared before, Judge William H. Alsup, "Bill" in the Northern District of California. Judge Alsup has Musk-OPM has ... ahh has ... looking for the proper legal phrase ... has Musk-OPM by the balls.
Oh yeah, Judge Alsup ordered OPM Director (NOT) Charles Ezell to testify at Thursday's court Hearing.
Please note, Popcorn 🍿cannot be eaten during Court sessions.
The scan of the statute refers to 'males of the age fourteen years and upwards', but the EO seems to refer to all Venezuelans citizens including females. Had the Alien Enemy Act been rewritten or was there a general acknowledgement that references to only one sex shall include both sexes? Given the current governments obsession with gender, and the clear text of the original act, it seems curious.
Thank you for this impressively prompt and insightful consideration of this vitally important issue. My first thought was that Trump was guilty of a mere veneer of pretending to construe and comply with this law reminiscent of the characterization of Vice President Thomas Jefferson of abuses of the Alien and Sedition Acts in his time ("a reign of witches" that will "pass over" and "their spells dissolve" when "the people recovering their true sight, restore their government to it’s true principles"). https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-3002-0280.
My second thought was that Trump might be right, and I look forward to seeing the proof that the government of a foreign nation is doing what Trump proclaimed. Maybe this is today's equivalent of Bush's WMD's in Iraq. Maybe not. These might turn out to be fascinating proceedings.
By "anyone" you mean "anyone who originated as a native of Venezuela and is not engaged in legitimate business, labor or self-paid tourism"? Why does this possibility bother you? Have you never heard of Global Warming? According to President Obama's declaration that Climate Change is the Number One Threat, the simple fact that people from southern/equatorial nations have intentionally and illegally multiplied their carbon footprint by illegally entering and residing in the United States of itself justifies the declaration of hostile incursion and invocation of the Enemy Alien Act.
More importantly, Mr. Vladeck reveals a broader criminal offense: Pam Bondi, Tom Holman, orange psycho, orange psycho's lawyers are all LIARS....they are manipulating the Citizens of the United States of America (that is, We The People are being LIED to by MAGA freaks).
Some of the most important limiting language is in a later section of the very law with which Trump is pretending to comply (while he is blatantly violating it). Please note what the law says about due process of law after the president issues his proclamation, including who has the power to order removal and when and why. See 50 U.S.C. 23:
After any such proclamation [by the president] has been made, the several courts of the United States, having criminal jurisdiction, and the several justices and judges of the courts of the United States, are authorized and it shall be their duty, upon complaint against any alien enemy resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President may have established, to cause such alien to be duly apprehended and conveyed before such court, judge, or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint, and sufficient cause appearing, to order such alien to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties for his good behavior, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations established as aforesaid, and to imprison, or otherwise secure such alien, until the order which may be so made shall be performed.
You are correct the Proclamation did cite the language in the AEA, incl predatory incursion, which is not language supported by Art 4, Sec 4, (guarantee and so-called invasion clause). Presume states would have look to Fed govt under the Art, as a deemed "invasion", but yr emphasis is on AEA language that has no constitutional foundation, and would not invite war powers (which presumably would have been exercised day one). All very strained. Do you work or represent the Admin? Effort was to just avoid due process, as would have occurred in an immigration setting. BTW indians are native americans "not aliens". Factually, the rest of us would be "aliens", I will let the courts decide the violation of the TRO etc, so no need to respond, as I will ignore.
Here's an extension of the argument in favor of the Presidential Proclamation, incorporating the Guarantee Clause of Article IV, Section 4, and the concept of an "alien de facto government":
Extending the Argument: The Guarantee Clause and the Threat to Republican Governance
The Presidential Proclamation rightly focuses on the immediate security threat posed by Tren de Aragua and the applicability of the Alien Enemy Act. However, the gang's activities also strike at a more fundamental principle enshrined in the U.S. Constitution: the Guarantee Clause of Article IV, Section 4. This clause mandates that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion..." The presence and operations of Tren de Aragua constitute a violation of this guarantee, further justifying the Proclamation's strong measures.
Undermining Republican Principles: A "Republican Form of Government," as understood by the Founding Fathers and articulated in The Federalist Papers (particularly No. 39), fundamentally rests on:
Popular Sovereignty: Government derives its power from the people.
Majority Rule (with Minority Rights): Decisions are made through representative bodies accountable to the electorate.
Rule of Law: Government operates under established laws, not arbitrary power.
Citizen Participation: Citizens have the right to participate in their government.
Tren de Aragua's operations directly subvert all of these principles within the areas they control or influence:
Imposition of Alien Rule: The gang imposes its own rule through violence, intimidation, and extortion. This is a form of de facto governance that is entirely alien to the republican principles of the United States and the individual states. It's a rule by force, not by consent of the governed.
Disregard for Law: Tren de Aragua operates entirely outside the established legal framework of the states and the nation. Their "laws" are those of the criminal underworld, enforced through violence and fear.
Deprivation of Rights: The gang's activities directly deprive citizens of their fundamental rights: the right to life, liberty, property, and security. This is a direct assault on the very purpose of republican government, which is to protect these rights.
Erosion of Citizen Participation: Fear of the gang's violence suppresses citizen participation in the democratic process. People are afraid to speak out, report crimes, or engage in civic activities, undermining the very foundation of republican governance.
"Invasion" in a Broader Sense: While "invasion" is often understood in terms of a military force crossing a border, the Guarantee Clause's context suggests a broader meaning. It encompasses any situation where the ability of a state to maintain a republican form of government is threatened by external forces. Tren de Aragua's infiltration and establishment of criminal control within communities constitute an "invasion" in this broader sense – an invasion of the state's sovereignty and its ability to govern itself according to republican principles.
The Federal Government's Duty: The Guarantee Clause places a duty on the federal government to protect states from such threats. When a state's ability to maintain a republican form of government is undermined by an external force, the federal government is obligated to intervene. The Presidential Proclamation, invoking the Alien Enemy Act, is a direct fulfillment of this constitutional duty.
De Facto Alien Government: Tren de Aragua's control, even if localized, creates pockets of de facto alien governance. These are areas where the laws of the United States and the individual states are not the effective law. Instead, the gang's rule prevails. This is a direct challenge to the sovereignty of the states and the very structure of the federal system.
States request of help: The federal government can act even without a formal request if the invasion is obvious.
Conclusion:
The threat posed by Tren de Aragua goes beyond mere criminal activity. It represents a fundamental assault on the republican form of government guaranteed to each state by the U.S. Constitution. The gang's imposition of its own rule, its disregard for law, its deprivation of citizens' rights, and its erosion of democratic participation create a situation of de facto alien governance within U.S. territory. The Presidential Proclamation, invoking the Alien Enemy Act, is not only a justified response to a security threat but also a necessary fulfillment of the federal government's constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and ensure the maintenance of a republican form of government. The Guarantee Clause provides a powerful, and often overlooked, constitutional basis for the actions outlined in the Proclamation.
Thanks for this impressive and, under the time constraints, very comprehensive overview of the issues raised by Trump's Executive Order. I would expect DOJ to press very hard on the President's foreign relations powers and national security discretion, in order to invoke some creditable doctrine of judicial deference and non-review. The Administration certainly has some chance at getting the Court of Appeals it wants, and already has three or four votes at the Supreme Court for a hands-off deference to a unitary and near-plenary presidency. Thinking ahead -- because ahead we are going -- where might a SCOTUS majority stand on these issues??
Whatever deference might have been due any proclamation by any prior president, it definitely is not due this president.
Trump is profoundly different from any president before him in ways that reflect on his credibility and whether he's acting in good faith. He cannot be voted out of office (or re-elected). He almost certainly will not be impeached again by the House, much less convicted and removed by the Senate. He apparently could not care less about the Republican party or conservatives, generally. And, most compelling, six SCOTUS justices--for the first time in our nation's history--proclaimed that Trump (and everybody he grants pardons to) cannot be prosecuted for any of the federal crimes they commit in their wild and egregious abuses and usurpations of power.
After SCOTUS usurped the power to pretend that we delegated to SCOTUS the power to make presidents "immune" from prosecution for criminal abuses and usurpations of power, Trump campaigned for control of America's nuclear arsenal by proclaiming “If I were the president, I would inform the threatening country — in this case, Iran — that if you do anything to harm this person, we are going to blow your largest cities and the country itself to smithereens. We are going to blow it to smithereens.”
Trump (even as president) has a long and well-known history of tossing about wildly excessive proclamations, implications and threats as a negotiating tactic. He did it on and before January 6. In another example a mere month ago, Trump proclaimed, "I would like a deal done with Iran on non-nuclear. I would prefer that to bombing the hell out of it.”
Then, there is the long, well-documented record of Trump's utter disregard and disrespect for truth or factual accuracy when it is contrary to his objectives. Far too many times for me to care to try to count, Trump proved that he could not be trusted to tell the truth or be accurate as to material facts (except to the extent it might benefit him). Everything for this president is a matter of bluff, bluster and negotiation (often through intimidation).
Long ago, I learned who Trump was from Trump, himself. I read his book, "The Art of the Deal." Trump pretty explicitly boasted that the art of his deal was the manipulation of perception, and sometimes, specifically, the practice of deception. Moreover, what motivates this man is money and the power it can buy. I would not be even slightly surprised to learn that Trump's true objective is getting a piece of Maduro's pie.
When Trump speaks of the corruption of government, we all should listen. Trump knows what he's talking about. Trump knows corruption. No rational person could reasonably defer to any proclamation by any such president.
I think it would be interesting to know how long those World War II appellants were kept in detention. Even if each were subjected to a lot of case by case review, it might have taken a long time and could equally apply here and leave plenty of detainees in custody until after Trump’s presidency.
Yes!!
Please note what the law says about due process of law after the president issues his proclamation, including who has the power to order removal and when and why. See 50 U.S.C. 23:
After any such proclamation [by the president] has been made, the several courts of the United States, having criminal jurisdiction, and the several justices and judges of the courts of the United States, are authorized and it shall be their duty, upon complaint against any alien enemy resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President may have established, to cause such alien to be duly apprehended and conveyed before such court, judge, or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint, and sufficient cause appearing, to order such alien to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties for his good behavior, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations established as aforesaid, and to imprison, or otherwise secure such alien, until the order which may be so made shall be performed.
"(The government’s appellate brief puts forward the regrettable argument that one acceptable definition of invasion is “the arrival somewhere of people or things who are not wanted there”—a ludicrously low bar)." Hmmm, under this definition are Musk's people an invasion?
Politico: "Federal Judge halts Trump's [ & Pamela Jo Bondi ] deportations invoking the [1798] Alien Enemies Act". The case is an active & successful ACLU lawsuit.
Kudos to Politico's top legal Reporters: MYAH WARD, Kyle Cheney, Ali Bianco & Josh Gerstien all of which are in the Top 10 of our Country's legal reporters.
Good one lead Author, Myah!
In regard to the people who were sent to El Salvador yesterday, was there any judicial determination that they were members of TdA? Or did ICE simply declare them TdA and, thus, deportable under the EO. And is there any U.S. judicial recourse for them now that they’re in an El Salvadoran prison?
All of which begs the question to some degree. It looks like the Government (it pains me to type that) 1. made an agreement with El Salvador to imprison these individuals, 2. rounded them up, 3. got them ready to transport, 4. issued Trump's emergency order accompanied by necessary actions by Sec. of State Rubio and El Salvador and then, immediately did "wheels up." By the time the Court acted, even with the ACLU "at the ready" these individuals were in Salvadoran custody )"oopsie...too late"). All niceties aside, when criminals take over the government, the government is a criminal enterprise.
This is a more general question but aren't lawyers obligated to present good faith arguments based on evidence in court? The argument that TdA is the Venezuelan government or a separate foreign nation is absurd on its face and there is no evidence supporting it. I know that courts are loath to sanction lawyers, especially DOJ lawyers, but there are now several examples of Trump's DOJ presenting arguments more akin to throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what will stick than to making substantive legal arguments. Can courts do anything to push back on this abuse and waste of time?
Not directly on point, but I recently posted a query about the meaning of "predatory incursion". It is not "invasion" under Art 4 and the Proclamation relies on terrorist statute. If you aid or abet a cyberattack will you not only be criminally charged, but deported?
Good point Brooks White.
Assuming the courts are willing to defer to the executive on the invasion question but still insist on reviewing the membership status of each individual potential deportee, does this EO make it easier for the government to detain people pending removal proceedings?
Good question. But, do not assume all federal courts are willing to defer an EO. Note WELL a federal Judge I have appeared before, Judge William H. Alsup, "Bill" in the Northern District of California. Judge Alsup has Musk-OPM has ... ahh has ... looking for the proper legal phrase ... has Musk-OPM by the balls.
Oh yeah, Judge Alsup ordered OPM Director (NOT) Charles Ezell to testify at Thursday's court Hearing.
Please note, Popcorn 🍿cannot be eaten during Court sessions.
😂😂😂 on the popcorn!!!
The scan of the statute refers to 'males of the age fourteen years and upwards', but the EO seems to refer to all Venezuelans citizens including females. Had the Alien Enemy Act been rewritten or was there a general acknowledgement that references to only one sex shall include both sexes? Given the current governments obsession with gender, and the clear text of the original act, it seems curious.
The current version isn’t gender-specific:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21
When did that change?
April 16, 1918 (look at the bottom of the statute in the link SV provided. You will find a date and also a link to Stat (with the text as amended).
This was actually worse than I thought:
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/16/trump-white-house-defy-judge-deport-venezuelans?stream=top&utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts_all
So much for Judicial Review of actions by the Executive!
Yep.
Thank you for this impressively prompt and insightful consideration of this vitally important issue. My first thought was that Trump was guilty of a mere veneer of pretending to construe and comply with this law reminiscent of the characterization of Vice President Thomas Jefferson of abuses of the Alien and Sedition Acts in his time ("a reign of witches" that will "pass over" and "their spells dissolve" when "the people recovering their true sight, restore their government to it’s true principles"). https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-3002-0280.
My second thought was that Trump might be right, and I look forward to seeing the proof that the government of a foreign nation is doing what Trump proclaimed. Maybe this is today's equivalent of Bush's WMD's in Iraq. Maybe not. These might turn out to be fascinating proceedings.
Note: EO does not say "is" TDA, or even "accused" of being TDA... It says "deemed" TDA, which the Orange Stained Hitler can choose to do for *anyone*
By "anyone" you mean "anyone who originated as a native of Venezuela and is not engaged in legitimate business, labor or self-paid tourism"? Why does this possibility bother you? Have you never heard of Global Warming? According to President Obama's declaration that Climate Change is the Number One Threat, the simple fact that people from southern/equatorial nations have intentionally and illegally multiplied their carbon footprint by illegally entering and residing in the United States of itself justifies the declaration of hostile incursion and invocation of the Enemy Alien Act.
See https://tinyurl.com/Against-Human-Supremacy ]
Also available with copy-paste of the original share link at
https://aistudio.google.com/app/prompts?state=%7B%22ids%22:%5B%221WdlRL4qEvr8j0Uf7BINgbKpMe9u5ykiN%22%5D,%22action%22:%22open%22,%22userId%22:%22107024143318048300561%22,%22resourceKeys%22:%7B%7D%7D&usp=sharing
More importantly, Mr. Vladeck reveals a broader criminal offense: Pam Bondi, Tom Holman, orange psycho, orange psycho's lawyers are all LIARS....they are manipulating the Citizens of the United States of America (that is, We The People are being LIED to by MAGA freaks).
Some of the most important limiting language is in a later section of the very law with which Trump is pretending to comply (while he is blatantly violating it). Please note what the law says about due process of law after the president issues his proclamation, including who has the power to order removal and when and why. See 50 U.S.C. 23:
After any such proclamation [by the president] has been made, the several courts of the United States, having criminal jurisdiction, and the several justices and judges of the courts of the United States, are authorized and it shall be their duty, upon complaint against any alien enemy resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President may have established, to cause such alien to be duly apprehended and conveyed before such court, judge, or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint, and sufficient cause appearing, to order such alien to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties for his good behavior, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations established as aforesaid, and to imprison, or otherwise secure such alien, until the order which may be so made shall be performed.
You are correct the Proclamation did cite the language in the AEA, incl predatory incursion, which is not language supported by Art 4, Sec 4, (guarantee and so-called invasion clause). Presume states would have look to Fed govt under the Art, as a deemed "invasion", but yr emphasis is on AEA language that has no constitutional foundation, and would not invite war powers (which presumably would have been exercised day one). All very strained. Do you work or represent the Admin? Effort was to just avoid due process, as would have occurred in an immigration setting. BTW indians are native americans "not aliens". Factually, the rest of us would be "aliens", I will let the courts decide the violation of the TRO etc, so no need to respond, as I will ignore.
Here's an extension of the argument in favor of the Presidential Proclamation, incorporating the Guarantee Clause of Article IV, Section 4, and the concept of an "alien de facto government":
Extending the Argument: The Guarantee Clause and the Threat to Republican Governance
The Presidential Proclamation rightly focuses on the immediate security threat posed by Tren de Aragua and the applicability of the Alien Enemy Act. However, the gang's activities also strike at a more fundamental principle enshrined in the U.S. Constitution: the Guarantee Clause of Article IV, Section 4. This clause mandates that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion..." The presence and operations of Tren de Aragua constitute a violation of this guarantee, further justifying the Proclamation's strong measures.
Undermining Republican Principles: A "Republican Form of Government," as understood by the Founding Fathers and articulated in The Federalist Papers (particularly No. 39), fundamentally rests on:
Popular Sovereignty: Government derives its power from the people.
Majority Rule (with Minority Rights): Decisions are made through representative bodies accountable to the electorate.
Rule of Law: Government operates under established laws, not arbitrary power.
Citizen Participation: Citizens have the right to participate in their government.
Tren de Aragua's operations directly subvert all of these principles within the areas they control or influence:
Imposition of Alien Rule: The gang imposes its own rule through violence, intimidation, and extortion. This is a form of de facto governance that is entirely alien to the republican principles of the United States and the individual states. It's a rule by force, not by consent of the governed.
Disregard for Law: Tren de Aragua operates entirely outside the established legal framework of the states and the nation. Their "laws" are those of the criminal underworld, enforced through violence and fear.
Deprivation of Rights: The gang's activities directly deprive citizens of their fundamental rights: the right to life, liberty, property, and security. This is a direct assault on the very purpose of republican government, which is to protect these rights.
Erosion of Citizen Participation: Fear of the gang's violence suppresses citizen participation in the democratic process. People are afraid to speak out, report crimes, or engage in civic activities, undermining the very foundation of republican governance.
"Invasion" in a Broader Sense: While "invasion" is often understood in terms of a military force crossing a border, the Guarantee Clause's context suggests a broader meaning. It encompasses any situation where the ability of a state to maintain a republican form of government is threatened by external forces. Tren de Aragua's infiltration and establishment of criminal control within communities constitute an "invasion" in this broader sense – an invasion of the state's sovereignty and its ability to govern itself according to republican principles.
The Federal Government's Duty: The Guarantee Clause places a duty on the federal government to protect states from such threats. When a state's ability to maintain a republican form of government is undermined by an external force, the federal government is obligated to intervene. The Presidential Proclamation, invoking the Alien Enemy Act, is a direct fulfillment of this constitutional duty.
De Facto Alien Government: Tren de Aragua's control, even if localized, creates pockets of de facto alien governance. These are areas where the laws of the United States and the individual states are not the effective law. Instead, the gang's rule prevails. This is a direct challenge to the sovereignty of the states and the very structure of the federal system.
States request of help: The federal government can act even without a formal request if the invasion is obvious.
Conclusion:
The threat posed by Tren de Aragua goes beyond mere criminal activity. It represents a fundamental assault on the republican form of government guaranteed to each state by the U.S. Constitution. The gang's imposition of its own rule, its disregard for law, its deprivation of citizens' rights, and its erosion of democratic participation create a situation of de facto alien governance within U.S. territory. The Presidential Proclamation, invoking the Alien Enemy Act, is not only a justified response to a security threat but also a necessary fulfillment of the federal government's constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and ensure the maintenance of a republican form of government. The Guarantee Clause provides a powerful, and often overlooked, constitutional basis for the actions outlined in the Proclamation.