Australia and the World Past and Present

Recently the Trump administration deported hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants over alleged ties to a Venezuelan crime syndicate – the Tren de Aragua.

In January of this year, Trump signed an executive order designating the group a Foreign Terrorist Organisation.

The administration has used the Alien Enemies Act to justify government actions.

They allege that TdA is “conducting irregular warfare” against the US.

The Alien Enemies Act was established in 1798. It seems unlikely that, at the time it was created, it was intended to apply to an international crime syndicate.

Do the activities of a transnational criminal enterprise meet the definition of warfare?

The use of the Alien Enemies act in this way is controversial. The law is hundreds of years old and has previously only ever been used in wartime.

The deportations were quickly challenged in court where the judge ruled that the Venezuelan nationals could not be deported without due process.

The judge issued verbal orders for two planes in flight to return to the United States.

However this did not occur.

This prompted some to allege that the Trump administration had deliberately ignored the judge’s ruling.

For its part, the Trump administration argued that as the planes were outside of US territory, a US judge no longer had jurisdiction. They also argued that what is important is when the written order was received, rather than the timing of the judge’s verbal orders.

Its an interesting case.

If the planes had been on the tarmac in the US, the case would have been much clearer.

The argument that the planes were no longer in US territory may provide a bit of wiggle room for the Trump administration to argue that there was no defiance of the order.

The Venezuelan nationals were deported to El Salvador.

The judge who made the ruling, James Boasberg of the Washington D.C. District Court, has come under fire from Trump.

Trump sees the ruling as an intrusion of the judiciary into the operations of the executive.

Trump argues that he has a mandate from the voters and that this should override all other considerations.

Others argue that no matter what actions Trump takes, they can still be reviewed by a court of law and they must at all times be legal and constitutional.

Trump is certainly pushing the limits of executive power.