Hacker News Reader

Comment by Avshalom | Hacker News Reader

“The lack of criminal records does not indicate they pose a limited threat. In fact, based upon their association with Tren de Aragua, the lack of specific information about each specific individual actually highlights the risk they pose,

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article30...

View on HN

So essentially - ‘They are super dangerous because we have no evidence they are dangerous, which provides they are the most dangerous threat - the one that we can’t prove exists’

The argument is basically that because the deportees had no due process to be deported that no due process can bring them back. The Trump administration claims that they are gang members, but provided no evidence to support this claim, and then refused to work with any members of the judicial system attempting to provide oversight. In any other administration this would be a scandal that rocks the media for months and ends with the resignation of several top officials. For the Trump administration it was Tuesday.

yeah well on thursday he shit the bed on the economy so i guess we've moved on. stupid tariffs are one thing but the extrajudicial deportation and imprisonment is quite a worse thing if unchecked.

Comfortably wealthy US citizens aren't personally affected by these extrajudicial disappearances. It's just a headline to them. The stock market, on the other hand...

It’s classic narcissist behavior - get caught with their pants down somewhere? Set somewhere else on fire so you get distracted.

They’re still in court. The judge today set a deadline of April 7 for the specific guy “accidentally” deported to return to the US, and seems like there may even be people held in contempt of court (can’t tell how much that’s wishful thinking on my part).

https://apnews.com/article/trump-deportations-el-salvador-ju...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

Doesn’t fix everyone else who is there, but ugh.

The lack of evidence is evidence. Right.

Also, war is peace.

"Arbeit macht frei (Work Sets You Free."

It’s even better - the lack of evidence is apparently evidence they are even more dangerous than those who they have evidence on.

"We don't have any evidence, but we just know they are bad people. Because ... reasons ... that we don't have to share with silly plebians like you."

Perhaps this sounds familiar ...

"While I cannot take the time to name all the men in the State Department who have been named as members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring, I have here in my hand a list of 205." -- Senator Joseph McCarthy

Boy, just think how communist the guys NOT on that list must have been!

The powers under the Act don't specify a standard of proof required. It just says:

>all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.

Nothing there about the President needing to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Presumably he would need to prove the particular facts, in habeus corpus proceedings, should they be brought, only on the balance of probabilities?

You skipped the bit at the front:

> Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21

Which nation is invading us? All of them? It's extremely obvious ordinary crime wasn't what this was intended for.

And who declared war? Because of course that is reserved to Congress.

Don’t worry congress up and abdicated their responsibility to provide oversight on this “war”.

https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hres211/BILLS-119hres211r... - page 4

In other words, they are so afraid to publicly vote on whether this “war” should continue that they have to play stupid games with the legislative calendar.

Tren de aragua is, according to the government, a terror group, and the Venezuelan government alleges they receive state sponsorship from Columbia.

IF those things can be demonstrated as true, then prevent from prior supreme Court rulings cover this scenario pretty well.

If they can't demonstrate that, then the deportations are clearly outside of the scope of the law and judicial interpretation.

There are a lot of “ors” and commas in that law, but it’s not hard to parse unless you’re being willfully obtuse.

((Declared war OR (invasion OR predatory incursion)) IS (perpetrated OR attempted OR threatened)) BY (foreign nation OR foreign government).

The law was drafted in the early 18th century when nation was more of an ethnographic term than a political one.

So "a predatory invasion threatened by Venezuelans" would satisfy that definition.

There is clear legislative intent to limit when the president could apply the law. You're suggesting limitations set by congress are meaningless, so long as the president's staff can form some sort of argument by stretching the facts enough.

Edit: typo

I think it’s hilarious and pathetic that you, and our government, advocating for the Alien and Sedition Acts in 2025.

You should read about the obvious problems with a circa 1798 law that was as odious and abusive then as it is today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com