ACE

Category: Immigration

  • Understanding Trump v. Hawaii: Travel Bans and Executive Power

    Understanding Trump v. Hawaii: Travel Bans and Executive Power

    The 2018 Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Hawaii upheld the third iteration of President Donald Trump’s 2017 travel ban, officially known as Presidential Proclamation 9645, affirming the executive branch’s broad authority over immigration and national security. The ruling raised questions about the balance between national security and constitutional protections, as well as the extent of executive power in shaping immigration policy.

    Context and Court Decision

    In 2017, the Trump administration issued a series of executive actions restricting immigration from predominantly Muslim-majority countries, citing national security concerns. The initial order, Executive Order (EO) 13769, faced legal challenges over its broad scope and alleged religious bias, leading to EO 13780, which removed Iraq from the list but remained contested. Following a Department of Homeland Security review, Proclamation 9645 was issued, targeting eight countries—five of which were Muslim-majority—based on security considerations.

    The State of Hawaii, the Muslim Association of Hawaii, and three individuals challenged Proclamation 9645. The plaintiffs argued the proclamation exceeded the president’s authority under 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) — a statute that grants the president power to suspend entry of foreign nationals deemed “detrimental” to U.S. interests. The plaintiffs also argued that the proclamation violated the Establishment Clause, a section of the U.S. Constitution that forbids the government from favoring one religion over another, because it disproportionately targeted Muslim-majority nations. 

    In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the travel ban. Chief Justice John Roberts applied the rational basis test—a judicial standard requiring that a policy must advance the nation’s best interest in order to be constitutional—and ruled that the policy had a valid national security justification. The majority emphasized that the judicial branch must defer to executive authority in immigration matters. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the Court failed to scrutinize potential discriminatory intent behind the executive orders. 

    Historically, the Supreme Court has upheld immigration restrictions based on national security and executive power. In Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889), the Court affirmed Congress’s plenary power to regulate immigration based on nationality. This precedent was reinforced in United States v. Thind (1923), which upheld racial classifications in immigration law, and Korematsu v. United States (1944), which ruled that national security concerns could justify executive actions, including the internment of Japanese Americans.

    Arguments in Favor

    Supporters of the decision argued that the travel ban was necessary for national security, asserting that it was based on an objective review of foreign governments’ vetting capabilities rather than religious bias. Given that Proclamation 9645 references certain nations that failed to meet U.S. standards for identity management, information sharing, and risk factor screening, supporters of the Trump v. Hawaii decision negate the plaintiffs’ argument that Proclamation 9645 targets nations based on religion. 

    Another key argument concerns the president’s authority under 8 U.S.C. §1182(f), which permits suspending the entry of foreign nationals when necessary for national security or public health reasons. The executive branch has traditionally been granted broad discretion in immigration matters, particularly concerning national security, a precedent supporters say was simply reaffirmed by the Court in Trump v. Hawaii. Supporters of the Court’s decision argue that courts should not second-guess executive branch decisions regarding national security.

    Arguments in Opposition

    Critics contended that the ruling in Trump v. Hawaii set a dangerous precedent by granting excessive deference to executive authority, allowing presidents to impose broad immigration restrictions with minimal judicial oversight. They hold that the 2018 ruling is indicative of a broader trend in which courts “hide behind national security” to avoid ruling against the executive branch. Opponents feared Trump v. Hawaii and similar cases would add to “rule of law backsliding”, in which policies that violate human rights avoid judicial scrutiny and remain in effect. After the majority decision was published, critics feared the ruling could enable future administrations to justify exclusionary policies under the guise of national security.

    Another primary concern was the disregard for evidence of religious discrimination. Critics pointed to Trump’s campaign remarks advocating a “Muslim ban,” arguing that these statements demonstrated clear discriminatory intent. Lower courts had previously considered these remarks substantial indicators of unconstitutional religious bias, yet the Supreme Court focused on the text of the proclamation rather than its underlying motivations. 

    The ruling also raised constitutional concerns. Critics argued that by prioritizing national security justifications over potential Establishment Clause violations, the Trump v. Hawaii decision suggested that religious exclusion could be legitimized if framed as necessary to national security.

    Conclusion

    Trump v. Hawaii reaffirmed the executive branch’s broad authority over immigration and national security, prompting critical questions: Does the decision set a precedent for unchecked presidential authority, or does it safeguard national security? How should courts balance deference to the executive with safeguarding individual rights? These unresolved issues ensure that Trump v. Hawaii will remain a key reference point in future debates over executive power and immigration law.

  • A Third Trump Term?: Debate and Future Prospects

    A Third Trump Term?: Debate and Future Prospects

    In an interview with NBC on March 30th, 2025, President Donald Trump conveyed interest in pursuing a third term, stating he was “not joking” at the prospect and that “a lot of people want [him] to do it”. When questioned about how he planned to go about seeking a third term, Trump admitted that he could see a method in which current Vice President J.D. Vance would run for President with Trump as Vice President and then pass the role onto Trump. President Trump did not identify other potential methods of seeking a third term.

    What Does the Constitution Say?

    The twenty-second amendment of the U.S. Constitution imposes a two term limit on the Presidency. Additionally, the twelfth amendment of the Constitution states that people who are constitutionally ineligible to run for President are also ineligible to run for Vice President. Since Trump has already reached his two-term limit, he is ineligible to serve as President and thus ineligible to run for Vice President under the Constitution. In sum, it would be unconstitutional for President Trump to run for Vice President or for a third term as President. 

    A Third Term: What Would it Take?

    Article V of the Constitution specifies that the Constitution can only be amended by either a two-thirds vote from both chambers of Congress or a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of all states that ratifies an amendment with a three-fourths majority vote. While 11,000 constitutional amendments have been proposed in U.S. history, only 27 have been ratified. The overwhelming majority required to achieve a Constitutional Amendment makes it highly unlikely that President Trump will be able to achieve a third term through these means. 

    Reactions and Controversy

    In reaction to President Trump’s statements, prominent Republican politicians have attempted to downplay Trump’s intentions of running for a third term. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that President Trump is likely “going to be finished” when his term ends in 2029. Additionally, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson admitted that running for a third term would be a “high bar” and that there would be “constitutional limitations.”

    Some Democrats caution against interpreting President Trump’s statements about a third term as hyperbole, with former Representative Tim Ryan (D-OH) stating, “[Seeking a third term] is a serious thing and he is capable of doing it.” Representative Dan Goldman (D-NY)—who has introduced and reintroduced resolutions to affirm the twenty-second amendment’s two-term limit—went farther in his condemnation of Trump’s suggestions. He stated, “Republicans are waging an all-out attack on the Judiciary to clear the way for Trump to serve a third term.”

    However, some lawmakers advocate for a third presidential term. On January 25, 2023, Representative Andy Ogles (R-TN) introduced a joint resolution to extend the Presidency to a three-term limit, arguing it would allow President Trump to “sustain the bold leadership our nation so desperately needs.”

    As the debate continues, only time will tell whether President Trump intends to act on his controversial statements about pursuing a third term.

  • Understanding Title 42: The Intersection of Public Health and Immigration

    Understanding Title 42: The Intersection of Public Health and Immigration

    What is Title 42?

    Title 42, established under the Public Health Service Act of 1944, grants the U.S. government authority to expel individuals recently present in a country with a communicable disease. Section 362 of the act allows the Surgeon General to halt the “introduction of persons or property” to prevent the spread of disease. While rarely used in modern history, Title 42 became a key immigration enforcement tool during the first Trump administration.

    The first recorded use of Title 42 occurred in 1929 to restrict entry from China and the Philippines during a meningitis outbreak. Decades later, on March 20, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) invoked the policy to limit the spread of COVID-19 across state and national borders.

    Implementation and Impact

    During the first two years of its enforcement, Title 42 was used around 2.5 million times to deport migrants entering the U.S. It gave border control agents the authority to expel migrants without offering the opportunity for them to seek asylum, although families and children traveling alone were exempt from this provision. Beginning in January 2023, migrants coming from Mexico could request a Title 42 exemption through the CBP One app if they met vulnerability criteria.  

    In April 2022, the CDC announced that Title 42 was no longer necessary and would be terminated in May 2022, citing increased vaccination rates and improved treatments for COVID-19. However, several Republican-led states challenged this decision, and the case went to the Supreme Court. While the Court allowed continued enforcement of Title 42 before it heard arguments, it dismissed the case the following year. Title 42 expired in May 2023.

    Arguments in Favor of Title 42

    Supporters of Title 42, including the Trump administration, argued that the policy was necessary to limit the spread of COVID-19 in detention centers and, by extension, within the United States. In a 2020 briefing, President Trump stated that his actions to secure the northern and southern border under Title 42 would “save countless lives.” The Trump administration’s declaration of a COVID-19 national emergency on March 18th, 2020, framed stricter immigration policy as a matter of public health.

    Some states also supported Title 42 to prevent a surge in migration that could overwhelm their border facilities. Texas, for example, argued that lifting the policy would place an undue burden on the state, leading it to implement Operation Lone Star, which allocated state resources to border security.

    The policy also received occasional bipartisan support, and was willfully enforced by the Biden administration until the CDC attempted to terminate Title 42 in April 2022. In early 2022, at least nine Democrats argued that Title 42 should be extended. President Biden also debated whether or not the policy should end. In January 2023, he expanded the scope of Title 42 to include migrants originating from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Venezuela. 

    Arguments Against Title 42

    Critics of Title 42 argue that it violates international norms, particularly Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes the right to seek asylum. While the U.S. did not ratify the declaration, it played a key role in its creation and remains a signatory. Additionally, since 1980, U.S. law has recognized the right to seek asylum, rendering Title 42’s restrictions controversial in the context of global and domestic asylum norms.

    Public health experts also questioned the policy’s effectiveness in controlling COVID-19. There is no statistical evidence linking Title 42 expulsions to a reduction in COVID-19 cases. Instead, critics suggest that overcrowding in detention centers may have worsened public health conditions. One migrant described being held in “crowded conditions” for days without COVID-19 testing before being transported in similarly congested vehicles. Additionally, a senior advisor to the Trump administration pushed for the use of Title 42 before COVID-19, raising concerns about whether the policy was implemented for genuine public health reasons. 

    Opponents also contend that Title 42 subjected migrants to precarious conditions. Doctors Without Borders emphasized that mass expulsions left individuals without access to shelter, food, medical care, or legal representation. A fire in a migrant detention center, which killed 39 people, underscored these risks; surveillance footage showed detainees trapped in locked cells while guards failed to intervene. Critics also argue that the policy’s implementation often resulted in asylum seekers being detained in poor conditions and returned to the dangers they had fled.

    Future Prospects

    While Title 42 was invoked as a measure to protect public health, its effectiveness in achieving those goals remains debated. Proponents argue it was an effective solution that addressed co-occurring public health and immigration crises, while opponents argue it invited human rights violations and had a counterproductive impact on public health. Internal documents collected from the Trump administration in February 2025 suggest that President Trump aims to reinstate Title 42 policies, labeling unauthorized migrants as “public health risks” that “could spread communicable diseases like tuberculosis.” The Trump administration previously shut down the CBP One app, which assisted migrants in requesting Title 42 exemptions. The policy continues to evoke mixed reactions, and if reintroduced, past experiences may provide insights into its potential impact.

  • President Trump Invokes the Alien Enemies Act: Updates and What Comes Next

    President Trump Invokes the Alien Enemies Act: Updates and What Comes Next

    On March 15th, Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in order to speed up the deportations of Venezuelan immigrants, specifically targeting the Tren de Aragua prison gang. Under this Act, the president has the authority to “detain, apprehend, and deport noncitizens from nations deemed hostile” during wartime without needing to appear before an immigration or federal court judge.

    What is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798?

    The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 is the last remaining law of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. It gives the president broad power over noncitizens and can be invoked only during periods of declared war or invasion. The Acts were originally used by President John Adams, who, in preparation for a war with France, aimed to limit public criticism of the U.S. government out of fear that “aliens” in the United States would sympathize with France. The Acts faced criticism for being an overreach of federal power that violated the First Amendment, and all except for the Alien Enemies Act were subsequently repealed or allowed to expire. The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 has only been invoked sparingly in times of major conflict: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. 

    Read more about the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 here

    Who are the Tren de Aragua?

    The Tren de Aragua (otherwise known as TdA) originated as a Venezuelan prison gang that later branched into what the Biden administration labeled a “transnational crime organization”, operating in the United States where the gang is suspected of committing a spree of robberies and the high profile shootings of a New York police officer and former Venezuelan police officer in Florida. Alleged gang members have been arrested and charged with crimes ranging from murder to kidnapping in Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois. 

    How Has Trump Used the Act?

    Trump is invoking the Alien Enemies Act to expedite the deportation of Venezuelan citizens considered to be part of the Tren de Aragua gang who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents. In his proclamation, President Trump states that Venezuela has ceded control of territory to gangs, including the Tren de Aragua, and that the Tren de Aragua is a “criminal state perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States.” The proclamation argues that the migration of Venezuelan citizens associated with the gang “demonstrates that the Tren de Aragua has invaded the United States.” Using the language of “invasion,” the administration asserts that the gang’s actions constitute “irregular warfare,” arguing that this gives the President grounds to invoke the Alien Enemies Act outside of a wartime context. 

    The Current State of the Act

    A few hours after President Trump initiated the deportations of Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg temporarily barred the Trump administration from carrying out the deportations. The block came after the American Civil Liberties Union brought a lawsuit claiming that the Alien Enemies Act only applied to “warlike actions” and “cannot be used here against nationals of a country” outside of declared war. Judge Boasberg agreed with this argument, stating that “invasion” relates to “hostile acts perpetrated by enemy nations” rather than individuals or gang activity. He also stated that delaying migrants’ removal “does not cause the government any harm,” as they will remain in government custody upon their continued stay in the United States. 

    Those in favor of Trump’s actions such as Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign argue that the use of the Alien Enemies Act is within the scope of the President’s power. Ensign points to a Supreme Court decision that allowed former President Truman to detain a German citizen three years after the end of World War II.

    What Comes Next?

    The Justice Department appealed Judge Boasberg’s temporary block against Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act and a federal appeals hearing was held on March 24th to determine the status of the block. The appeals court has not yet ruled on the temporary block, but it is expected that regardless of the outcome, the decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

  • Expedited Removal: History, Debate, and Modern Implications

    Expedited Removal: History, Debate, and Modern Implications

    Introduction

    Immediately after his inauguration, President Trump began introducing sweeping changes to U.S. immigration policy. One major change took place on January 21st, 2025, when the Trump administration broadened expedited removal for noncitizens. Expedited removal is a process that allows U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials to rapidly deport noncitizens who are undocumented or who have committed misrepresentation or fraud. Under expedited removal processes, noncitizens are deported in a single day without an immigration court hearing or other appearance before a judge.

    Prior to Donald Trump’s second term, immigration officers were permitted to utilize the expedited removal process on undocumented immigrants that were captured by officers within 100 miles of U.S borders, as well as those who had resided in the U.S for less than two weeks. However, under the new expanded policy, any undocumented immigrant in the United States who cannot provide proof of their legal presence in the U.S for more than two years will be subject to expedited removal. 

    There are exceptions to expedited removal, including for individuals who express an intention to apply for asylum, fear returning to their country of origin, or fear of torture or prosecution. In such cases, immigration officers will not remove the individual until they are interviewed by an asylum officer. 

    History of Expedited Removal in the U.S.

    Expedited removal has had a long history in the United States. It was first introduced in 1996 as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. This legislation was enacted with the goal of strengthening U.S immigration control policies, and imposed criminal penalties on individuals who utilize false documentation, engage in racketeering, or participate in smuggling. In addition to introducing expedited removal, the Act also mandated a new intervention for those seeking asylum: credible fear interviews. Credible fear interviews are a process whereby a trained asylum officer within the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services determines if an individual has a credible fear of persecution or torture if they return to their home country. 

    Originally, the policy of expedited removal was only enforced for noncitizens who arrived in the U.S. via a port of entry. However, in 2002, the policy was expanded to apply to noncitizens who entered by sea without inspection by government officers. It was expanded again two years later to include noncitizens who crossed any land border without inspection, and noncitizens who are found within 100 miles of a U.S. border during the first two weeks of their stay in the U.S. 

    This application of expedited removal remained consistent for over a decade, until President Trump issued an executive order in 2017 that expanded application to all noncitizens in the U.S. and directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to implement new regulations to speed up the removal process. This included conducting credible fear interviews via telephone, which hastened deportations if an asylum seeker’s fears were found incredible. While the Biden administration rescinded this order in 2022, President Trump’s memo to DHS on January 21st reinstated the policies of his first term. 

    Arguments in Favor

    A key argument in favor of expedited removal is that it helps reduce court backlogs. By utilizing expedited removal, fewer immigration cases reach the courts, thereby easing the burden on an overwhelmed immigration court system. At the beginning of 2017, the number of cases pending in U.S. immigration courts was around 534,000, and that number has since increased, reaching 3.6 million cases by the end of 2024. Supporters argue that expedited removal alleviates pressure on immigration courts by streamlining the deportation process. 

    Proponents also argue that expedited removal deters illegal immigration. In 2016, about 267,746 illegal immigrants were apprehended by DHS while trying to cross into the United States, compared to 140,024 in 2017. Supporters attribute this drop to the idea that the quick deportations under Trump’s first-term expedited removal policies discouraged other migrants from attempting to cross the border. 

    Third, advocates highlight the reduction in court costs associated with expedited removal. Because expedited removal bypasses lengthy court proceedings, fewer cases reach immigration courts, resulting in lower expenditures on DHS lawyers, court staff, and detention bed space. As a result, the funds that would be used on these immigration cases can be redirected to other resources and services.

    Arguments against

    One key argument against expedited removal is the matter of family separation. Historically, family unity has been a guiding principle in U.S. immigration policy. Many families in the U.S have mixed legal statuses, meaning some family members may be subject to expedited removal, while others may not. With the current administration’s expansion of expedited removal, family separation is likely to increase, impacting mixed-status families. Opponents argue that this is not only unjust, but also contrary to the principles of the U.S. immigration law. 

    In addition to family separation, critics point to instances where entire families – including vulnerable members such as elderly grandparents and young children – are detained through expedited removal policies. In 2019, 69 mothers detained with their children in South Texas wrote an open letter to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) highlighting the severe physical and psychological effects of detention on their children as they waited for their credible fear interviews. In previous administrations, even infants were subjected to expedited removal along with their mothers who were attempting to seek asylum. 

    Critics of expedited removal also argue that it violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. Under other immigration policies, individuals facing deportation are entitled to a full immigration court hearing. In these hearings, the individual can present evidence, call witnesses, and have legal representation. Afterward, an immigration judge will evaluate the case and may provide an opportunity for appeal. Because expedited removal bypasses formal court proceedings, immigrants facing deportation are not given the opportunity to speak to an attorney or have their case reviewed by a judge. Opponents argue that this increases the risk of mistakenly detaining or deporting individuals who may have legal status.

    Finally, critics argue that the expansion of expedited removal fosters fear and mistrust within immigrant communities. As a result, individuals may be less inclined to seek out assistance or report crimes to authorities due to fear of being detained and deported. 

    Future Prospects

    The debate surrounding expedited removal reflects a broader conversation about immigration reform in the United States. Supporters emphasize the efficiency, cost savings, and deterrent effects of expedited removal, while critics stress the risks of family separation, lack of due process, and increased fear and mistrust within immigrant communities. Given the Trump administration’s recent renewal of its first-term expedited removal policies, it is likely that the number of immigrants deported via expedited removal will increase over the next four years. Immigration policy remains divisive, so it is likely for the Trump administration’s expedited removal policies to face continued debate.

  • Understanding the Alien Enemies Act: History, Perspectives, and Current Implications

    Understanding the Alien Enemies Act: History, Perspectives, and Current Implications

    Introduction and History 

    The Alien Enemies Act (AEA), enacted in 1798 as a part of the Alien and Sedition Acts, grants the President the authority to detain, apprehend, and deport noncitizens from nations deemed hostile during times of declared war or invasion. While war can only be declared by Congress, some believe a rhetorical reading of “invasion” leaves a legal gray area for the executive branch to invoke the AEA in the absence of a physical invasion or declaration of war. The law gives the executive branch power to manage national security concerns via the detention and deportation of foreign nationals without judicial oversight. 

    The AEA passed during a period of heightened tensions between the United States and France, with the United States facing threats of foreign influence, espionage, and internal dissent. It has been invoked three times throughout U.S. history: during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. The AEA is most notorious for its role in creating Japanese internment camps after the Pearl Harbor bombing of 1941. 

    The broader Alien and Sedition Acts received criticism for suppressing political opposition, particularly against immigrants from nations deemed hostile. While most of the Alien and Sedition Acts were either repealed or left to expire under President Thomas Roosevelt, the AEA remained in place and was expanded in 1918 to include women. While the AEA itself has been invoked sparingly by U.S. presidents, its broad language has left room for interpretation and debate today. 

    Recent Developments

    During his 2024 presidential campaign, President Donald Trump pledged to invoke the AEA as part of Operation Aurora, an initiative aimed at addressing immigration issues and criminal networks. In line with this plan, President Trump released executive orders that categorized immigration as an “invasion” and designated certain drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Some legal scholars believe that by classifying these cartels as state actors, the Trump administration is seeking to create legal justification for future use of the AEA to deport individuals from Mexico and other regions deemed hostile to national security.

    In response to concerns over potential executive abuse of the AEA, Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) introduced the Neighbors Not Enemies Act, a legislative effort to repeal the Act entirely. 

    Arguments in Favor of the Alien Enemies Act

    Supporters argue that the AEA is a vital tool for safeguarding national security, particularly during times of war or crisis. By allowing for the swift removal of individuals from hostile nations, the Act is seen as a preventive measure against espionage, sabotage, or other threats. Some proponents also contend that mass migration could provide cover for criminals, terrorists, or spies seeking to infiltrate the United States, making strict enforcement of the AEA a necessity. 

    Proponents also highlight the potential use of the AEA in dismantling transnational criminal organizations operating within American borders. Targeting noncitizens involved in illicit activities, including drug trafficking and organized crime, is seen as a means of enhancing public safety. Some argue that strict enforcement of the Act can serve as a deterrent against illegal immigration and unauthorized criminal activity. 

    From a policy standpoint, strong border control measures are often considered essential to maintaining national sovereignty. Advocates for the AEA argue that it falls within the President’s constitutional duty to protect the United States from foreign threats, and contend that the political question doctrine prohibits courts from intervening if the President decides to invoke it. They also assert that transnational criminal organizations meet criteria for the constitutional definition of “invasion”, justifying an invocation of the AEA in modern times. The AEA’s potential to bypass local sanctuary city policies, which may limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, is another reason some advocate for the Act’s use today. 

    Arguments Against the Alien Enemies Act

    Critics argue that AEA violates several fundamental rights, particularly the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the right to be free from indefinite civil detention. They point to the AEA’s ability to bypass standard immigration court proceedings and deport individuals without hearings, arguing that the absence of judicial review leaves affected individuals with limited legal recourse. Experts note that this lack of judicial oversight could allow for large-scale detentions and deportations, opening the door to wrongful detentions nationwide. They argue that the lack of due process puts noncitizens and lawful immigrants at risk of being wrongfully detained or deported without the opportunity to defend themselves in court. 

    Another primary concern surrounding the AEA is the potential for discriminatory enforcement based on nationality. The Act applies not only to citizens of a hostile nation but to “natives” of a hostile nation, which includes those who were born in a hostile nation but have since renounced their citizenship from that state. In this way, the AEA explicitly allows discrimination based on ancestry. Given that past uses of the AEA led to the surveillance, kidnapping, and indefinite detention of residents based on their nationality, critics fear that invoking the AEA today would replicate the human rights abuses of the Japanese internment era and lead to widespread racial profiling. 

    Some legal scholars also criticize the Act’s broad allowance for executive action and vague definitions of security threats such as “invasion” and “predatory incursion”. They warn that these broad terms leave room for an administration to target civilians in times of peace. They highlight the Supreme Court’s 1948 Ludecke v. Watkins decision – which upheld President Truman’s use of the AEA for six years after the end of World War II – as a dangerous precedent that might allow future administrations to use wartime powers to attack civilians during peacetime if the AEA is not repealed. 

    Beyond legal and ethical concerns, critics emphasize that mass deportations under the AEA could have significant economic implications. Many industries, particularly those reliant on immigration labor, could face workforce shortages and disruptions. The potential loss of workers in agriculture, construction, and service industries could negatively affect local and national economies. Some economists warn that a mass deportation strategy could lead to increased costs for consumers, reduced productivity, and job losses for American citizens who labor alongside immigrant workers. 

    The Alien Enemies Act’s Future Prospects

    Applying the AEA in modern contexts is likely to face legal challenges. Courts may be called upon to determine whether broad applications of the act align with constitutional protections and international human rights obligations. Given the potential for legal disputes, any large-scale innovation of the AEA would likely be subject to judicial review. Legal scholars suggest that any attempt to broadly apply the AEA, such as categorizing all foreign-based cartels as state actors, may struggle to hold up in court.

    If the Trump administration or future administrations seek to implement the AEA extensively, congressional efforts to alter the Act’s provisions may also gain traction. The Neighbors Not Enemies Act represents one such effort to repeal the AEA outright. Alternatively, some lawmakers may push for reforms that introduce judicial oversight or limit the scope of the Act under modern legal standards. 

    Numerous civil rights and immigrant advocacy organizations have signaled their intent to challenge any broad use of the AEA. These groups may use litigation, public awareness campaigns, and lobbying efforts to limit the Act’s application or push for its repeal in the future. Public perception and media coverage will likely shape the discourse around the Act’s future. 

    Conclusion

    The Alien Enemies Act, rooted in the national security concerns of 1798, continues to be a subject of debate in contemporary American politics. While some view it as a necessary tool for maintaining national security, others argue that it risks civil rights violations, racial profiling, and economic harm. As political, legal, and legislative battles unfold, the future of the Act remains unknown. The resolution of this debate will shape the future trajectory of immigration law, civil liberties, and national security policy in the United States for years to come.

  • The Laken Riley Act and Immigration Policy

    The Laken Riley Act and Immigration Policy

    On January 29th, President Trump signed the Laken Rikey Act into law. This law now requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain and deport non-U.S. nationals who are accused, but not yet convicted, of “theft, burglary, assaulting a law enforcement officer, and any crime that causes death or serious bodily injury.” The law has received support from Republicans and some Democrats, with 12 Democratic senators voting in support of the bill in order to send it to the President’s desk to be signed into law.

    Background

    Laken Rikey was a nursing student who was murdered by Jose Ibarra, a man who was initially arrested for illegal entry into the United States in 2022 near El Paso, Texas. Ibarra was temporarily released by immigration officials due to the surge in immigration and was allowed to pursue his case in immigration court. 

    Contents of the Law

    The law aims to immediately deport undocumented immigrants if they are arrested for specific crimes, regardless if they have been convicted of the crime. Trump and his Republican allies have pushed for the passing of the law, arguing that the law gives law enforcement the means to detain illegal immigrants once arrested. Additionally, the law also grants States the power to sue the federal government if it fails to enforce this immigration policy.

    Supporters of the law argue that the law provides the necessary to keep illegal immigrants accused of crime off the streets. The law also aims to enforce border security and mass deportation. They also believe that this law will “prevent situations like what occurred to Laken Riley” as stated by Arizona’s democratic Senator Ruben Gallego.

    Critics of the law argue that it strips migrants of their right to due process of the law as they would be deported without having been found guilty of the accused crime. The law would grant law enforcement the power to arrest, detain, and deport an immigrant even if the police later concluded that he was not involved in the crime. Critics argue that the nation currently lacks the safeguards necessary to ensure that immigrants who have temporarily protected status, such as immigrants under DACA, are protected from the law as they might be accidentally detained and deported before receiving their due process. Additionally, Democrats have criticized the law for failing to allocate funds to support the law’s initiative as the law is estimated to cost $83 billion over the next three years and does not address the root causes of immigration.  

  • Pros and Cons of Texas Senate Bill No. 4

    Pros and Cons of Texas Senate Bill No. 4

    Introduction

    Texas Senate Bill No. 4 (SB4), passed in 2023, aims to address illegal border crossings into Texas. The bill created new state-level criminal offenses for unauthorized entry and non-compliance with removal orders, giving local law enforcement the power to detain suspected undocumented individuals. It also provided legal protection for officers who act in accordance with the law. While SB4 is a state-level bill, it sparked national debate on issues of immigration, human rights, and federalism. Supporters of SB4 believe the bill is necessary to protect Texas residents and secure state borders. However, critics argue that the bill could lead to racial profiling and harm immigrant communities, many of whom are fleeing dire circumstances in their home countries. 

    What are SB4’s Main Provisions?

    SB4 gives police officers the power to arrest and detain individuals who are under suspicion of having illegally entered the country. The bill restricts law enforcement from making immigration-related arrests in places that are not designated ports of entry, such as elementary and high schools, hospitals, places of worship, and forensic medical facilities. This provision intends to create safe havens where individuals can seek help without being detained for their suspected status. Arrests on college and university campuses are permitted under SB4.

    Under SB4, judges can also issue orders for non-citizens to return to their home countries under specific conditions. The non-citizen will not receive a criminal charge if they meet the following conditions: have no prior criminal record, are not facing severe charges unrelated to immigration, and are willing to provide biometric measures including fingerprints. The biometric measures will be cross-referenced with local, state, and federal criminal databases.

    SB4 has harsh penalties for those who enter Texas without using official ports of entry and those who re-enter after being deported. Those who refuse to leave the United States under court-ordered returns may face felony charges. Inmates convicted under SB4 have limited eligibility for parole, meaning they are less likely to be released early. 

    SB4 also includes strong legal protections for law enforcement officers and officials involved in immigration enforcement. To give officers the confidence to enforce the bill without fear of being sued, the bill grants officers immunity from lawsuits as long as they act in good faith.  

    Legal Battles

    Texas SB4 is at the heart of an ongoing legal battle, highlighting the tensions between state and federal powers over immigration. Initially passed in 2017, the bill faced pushback from civil rights groups and local governments. After some revisions, Texas reintroduced SB4 in December 2023, but it quickly came under fire again. In January 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit, claiming the revised bill violated constitutional rights. By February 2024, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a ruling temporarily blocking SB4 from going into effect. However, in March 2024, the Supreme Court briefly allowed it to take effect, only for it to be blocked again by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. SB4 remains on hold as the Department of Justice’s lawsuit is pending. The case’s outcome could shape immigration policy nationwide, reflecting the struggle to balance state power with federal oversight. 

    Arguments in Favor of Texas SB4

    For supporters, SB4 is a crucial deterrent against what they see as unchecked illegal immigration that threatens the safety and stability of their communities. Many Texans live in border towns and worry about issues like drug trafficking and crime. They see SB4 as a step toward restoring order. Without SB4, state authorities are only able to arrest migrants for criminal trespass near the border with landowner permission. SB4 would allow them to prosecute illegal entry and reentry without landowner permission. Proponents hold that this provision drastically increases the efficiency of immigration law enforcement.

    Defenders of the bill also point out that it explicitly targets illegal border crossing and does not institute mass deportations. They say SB4 does not apply to those living in Texas without legal status. Instead, it focuses on areas close to the border where illegal entry is most common. Near the border, a magistrate must determine that there is enough evidence to make an arrest, which means the law has a more limited impact on communities further from the border. Supporters also emphasize that legal residents of Texas who are detained will have the opportunity to defend themselves in court. 

    Additionally, proponents of SB4 argue that the bill helps create consistency between state and federal enforcement efforts. They say the current system leaves too many gaps, with federal policies often shifting based on political changes in D.C. They cite the United States Constitution’s Article I, Section 10, which states that states may protect themselves from an “invasion” or imminent danger. For Texans in support of the bill, unauthorized immigration poses an “invasion” and impending threat to their state. According to them, Texas has the constitutional authority to do as it sees fit to protect its constituents in the face of the federal government’s failures. 

    Arguments Against Texas SB4

    According to critics, SB4 has the potential to increase civil rights abuses. They hold that the bill’s broad language and increased powers for local law enforcement open the door to racial profiling, especially against Latino and Hispanic residents, who make up 65% of Texas’s population. By granting extensive authority to local law enforcement to detain individuals based on suspected immigration violations, they say SB4 may lead to biased practices. They argue it will lead to the erosion of trust between Texas’s immigrant community and law enforcement, rendering it more difficult for law enforcement to maintain public safety. 

    Opponents also highlight legal concerns, arguing that SB4 oversteps the bounds of state authority. The Supremacy Clause of the American Constitution establishes that federal laws take precedence over state laws, and immigration enforcement is traditionally a federal responsibility. In the case Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled against a similar state law, limiting the role states could play in immigration enforcement. Critics argue that SB4 ignores this precedent.

    Critics also emphasize that SB4 will harm vulnerable immigrant populations, including refugees fleeing danger who have the right to seek asylum under U.S. law. SB4 does not create exceptions for these individuals and may lead to the deportation of people who qualify for asylum or other protections. Critics argue that by treating all undocumented individuals as criminals, the bill risks inflicting harm on families and children who are seeking safety. Moreover, critics emphasize that refugees and immigrants contribute positively to Texas’s economy through self-made businesses and taxes like other Americans, and forcing them to leave will cause more economic harm than good. 

    Conclusion

    Texas Senate Bill No. 4 reflects the broader national debate over immigration. Some see SB4 as a necessary step to protect Texas communities from the perceived chaos of border crossings. In contrast, others see it as an overreach that endangers the rights and well-being of immigrants seeking refuge. As the legal battle unfolds, Texas will grapple with balancing the principles of federalism, border control, and human rights. 

  • Points-Based Immigration System: Key Debates Explained

    Points-Based Immigration System: Key Debates Explained

    Introduction

    In recent years, the idea of a merit-based immigration system has gained traction in the United States. Unlike the more familiar family reunification approach to immigration, a merit-based system would focus on ranking immigrants’ skills, qualifications, and potential contributions to the nation. One model of this approach, a points-based system, assigns candidates scores based on factors like education, work experience, and language skills. The higher the score, the better the chance of an immigrant’s admission. 

    Countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia currently use points-based systems. In the United States, the RAISE Act of 2017 proposed adopting a similar model by reducing family-based admissions in favor of skills-based rankings. The bill did not pass; however, its introduction highlighted a shift in thinking about immigration reform. The debate around merit-based systems persists today. Supporters of a merit-based system say it will strengthen the economy, but critics argue it could distance the U.S. from its long-held values of offering refuge and opportunity to those in need. The tension between economic benefits and social ideals sits at the heart of the ongoing debate about the future of American immigration policy. 

    Arguments in Favor of Points-Based Systems

    Proponents of a merit-based immigration system argue that the policy prioritizes skilled workers who can positively contribute to the economy. They claim that by focusing on applicants with valuable assets, the United States could address labor shortages in critical sectors and select individuals whose skills match its needs. Proponents emphasize that this ability to fill economic gaps will enhance the nation’s innovation and competitiveness on a global scale by reducing dependence on foreign supply chains and prioritizing the hiring of documented American workers. They add that merit-based immigration could more effectively diversify the professional workforce than family-based policies, since prioritized applicants will be of appropriate age and skill level to enter certain vocations. 

    Additionally, proponents argue that a merit-based system will speed up the U.S. immigration process. Proponents point to the fact that when Canada, Australia, and New Zealand shifted to points-based systems, they did not have to expand their immigration departments because the system was less resource-intensive. The new points-based systems elicited a decrease in family-based visa applications, requiring less government personnel and time expenditures on screenings and interviews. Supporters add that the ranking component of points-based systems discourages unqualified applicants from submitting applications in the first place. They say this allows the government to cut down the time required to screen applications and invest that saved time in supporting new immigrants once they arrive. 

    Supporters also contend that a merit-based system would be more just than family-based immigration because it rewards individual achievements rather than personal connections. They argue that merit-based systems create a more transparent and objective process in which immigrants are chosen based on their potential contributions to society. 

    Finally, supporters argue that merit-based systems are more adaptable and flexible than family-based systems because point categories can change based on the country’s needs. For instance, as industries grow or decline, the criteria for earning points can adjust to attract the necessary talent or skills. This adaptability allows the government to respond quickly to labor shortages and emerging economic sectors, ensuring that immigration policy aligns with national interests. 

    Arguments Against Points-Based Systems

    Opponents of a merit-based immigration system raise concerns about discrimination and inequity. They argue that points-based systems favor immigrants from wealthier regions with access to higher education and professional development opportunities. Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign proposed several measures for a merit-based immigration framework, one of which involved ideological screening as a step in issuing green cards. Critics criticized this step in the ranking process, saying it will discriminate against immigrants with diverse political beliefs. 

    Another primary concern with merit-based systems is that they overlook essential workers in the agriculture, construction, and service industries. These fields rely on a continuous supply of laborers who may not meet the high educational requirements typically emphasized in merit-based frameworks. Critics hold that by focusing solely on highly-educated immigrants, a merit-based system could create labor shortages in these critical sectors of the American economy, disrupting production and creating economic bottlenecks. For example, in the agriculture sector, labor shortages directly impact food supply and prices, with ripple effects down to consumers. Similarly, the construction industry relies heavily on manual labor, and could face slowed project completion rates and increased labor costs if faced with a shortage in workers. 

    Opponents also argue that the merit-based system’s emphasis on skills undermines family reunification, a core principle of American immigration policy. For many, the ability to bring family members together reflects the fundamental value that family units contribute to resilient communities. Families provide social and economic stability, help preserve cultural traditions, and contribute to the well-being of society. However, a points-based system makes it more difficult for families to stay together or reunite quickly, since not all family members may meet the skill criteria. 

    Finally, critics hold that merit-based systems do not adequately address the needs of refugees or asylum seekers. These categories of immigrants may not meet educational requirements, but require immediate protection from persecution, violence, or conflict. Opponents hold that denying entry to a person fleeing a dangerous environment on the basis of education or skills is deeply unethical. 

    Additionally, opponents disagree with the notion that the American immigration system must choose between increasing economic value and tending to humanitarian needs. They point to research that shows that refugees stimulate their host country’s economy by creating jobs, contributing tax revenue, and driving consumer spending. They emphasize that refugees often fill crucial roles in the healthcare, manufacturing, agriculture, and education sectors, where labor gaps are common. In 2019, 13% of refugees in the U.S. identified as entrepreneurs and collectively generated $5.1 billion in business income. Critics of points-based systems argue that refugees and asylum seekers also broaden the cultural landscape of society by introducing diverse perspectives, skills, and cultural practices. They contend that limiting their entry disregards ethical imperatives and the long-term benefits of their presence in the U.S.

    Conclusion 

    The debate over whether the United States should adopt a merit-based immigration system raises critical questions about the country’s core values and future economic priorities. While proponents argue that points-based systems offer economic benefits by attracting skilled workers and decreasing processing times, critics warn that they risk widening global inequalities and eroding the humanitarian principles central to American immigration policy. This tension will continue to shape the ongoing debate over the future of American immigration policy.

  • The Rights of North Korean Defectors to the United States under Sections 207 and 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)

    The Rights of North Korean Defectors to the United States under Sections 207 and 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)

    Description of Issue

    North Korea is one of the United States’ toughest adversaries. The nation’s continuous nuclear development and human rights controversies have raised alarms for protecting global peace. Ruled by an authoritarian dictatorship, North Korea restricts both the physical and digital contact of its people with the outside world. Nevertheless, thousands of North Koreans leave the country illegally to escape from surveillance and oppression. Most of those defectors resettle in South Korea, as they share a common ethnicity and language. However, Congress also facilitates the entry of North Koreans into the U.S. as refugees to provide new educational and economic opportunities. 

    Description of Legislation

    The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is a federal law that governs immigration and naturalization in the United States. It was first enacted in 1952 and has been amended numerous times. In 1965, the INA abolished the national origins quota system, which diversified the racial and ethnic makeup of the U.S. by expanding immigration from Asian and Latin American countries. While the INA does not explicitly mention North Koreans, Sections 207 and 208 provide a broad framework for the admission of refugees and asylees.

    Section 207 [8 U.S.C. 1157] of the INA, titled ‘Annual admission of refugees and admission of emergency situation refugees,’ outlines procedures and criteria for accepting refugees. As per INA Section 101 [8 USC 1101], refugees cannot return to their home country due to a “well-founded fear of persecution” based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. In consultation with Congress, the President determines annually the maximum number of refugees that may resettle in the United States. Refugees can obtain humanitarian assistance through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), including housing, healthcare, education services, and financial support. 

    Section 208 [8 U.S.C. 1158] of the INA, titled ‘Asylum,’ allows individuals who are already present in the U.S. or arrive in the U.S. to apply for asylum if they meet the refugee eligibility criteria. Given the extensive process for determining refugee status, asylum seekers receive certain protections before they are officially recognized as refugees. This includes the ability to seek employment in the U.S. and travel abroad with prior consent of the Attorney General. However, if asylees are no longer eligible for refugee status or commit a serious crime, their right to stay may be terminated. In that case, the individual may get deported to another country where their life or freedom would not be threatened. 

    Arguments in favor

    Demonstrates global leadership

    Sections 207 and 208 of the INA illustrate the U.S.’ commitment to providing humanitarian aid to individuals fleeing persecution, violence, and other forms of harm in their home countries. Proponents assert that welcoming refugees is foundational to the U.S.’ national identity as a nation founded by those escaping religious persecution. By coordinating the world’s most extensive refugee resettlement program, the U.S. sets a model for other countries to also contribute to alleviating global humanitarian crises. 

    Human rights activists argue that North Korea is an authoritarian regime that restricts all civil and political liberties for its citizens, and defectors should be protected under the INA. It is widely perceived that the North Korean government routinely uses torture, forced labor, and executions to maintain fear and control. In accepting North Korean refugees, the U.S. offers safety to some of the world’s most vulnerable populations. 

    Flexible refugee resettlement ceiling

    Section 207 enables the current administration to determine the maximum number of refugees admitted to the U.S. yearly based on various humanitarian concerns, international obligations, and national interests. Notably, after President Trump’s election, he reduced the refugee resettlement ceiling to a historic low of 18,000 in 2020 to protect American jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Upon President Biden’s election, he raised the cap to 62,500 in 2021 and to 125,000 in 2022. 

    Collaborative consultation process

    The Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) utilizes the resources of several other national security agencies, including the National Counterterrorism Center, FBI, and Department of Defense, to approve refugees. A thorough consultation among multiple agencies helps ensure admission decisions are made responsibly to promote national interests. 

    Non-refoulement obligations

    The Principle of Non-refoulment under International Human Rights Law prohibits returning individuals to countries where they would face torture, cruel treatment, or other irreparable harm. In particular, the United Nations officially classifies North Koreans as “refugees sur place,” meaning that any nation that deports North Koreans violates the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention and the U.N. Convention Against Torture. The INA affirms the U.S.’ commitment to meet global human rights standards by protecting refugees. 

    Arguments against

    Numerical limitations

    Among over 108 million people forcibly displaced worldwide, the U.S. only admits a small fraction of them by setting an annual limit. Some advocate that the cap should increase to reflect the growing number of refugees. This would require a significant revision to Section 207 by preventing the presiding administration from changing the refugee admissions ceiling yearly and determining a higher quota permanently or removing the quota completely. 

    Despite the difficulty of escaping North Korea, tens of thousands of defectors are hiding in China, approximately 34,000 live in South Korea, and at least 2,000 have reached Europe and other Asian countries. However, the U.S. has only accepted around 200 North Korean refugees over the past two decades. Opponents of the fluid admissions ceiling believe that removing it could create stability and encourage the U.S. to accept more refugees. 

    Infrastructural limitations

    In recent years, the Biden Administration has struggled to admit more refugees due to slow processing and the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 2017, 134 resettlement sites nationwide have been forced to close due to funding cuts during the Trump Administration, leading to a 38% decrease in resettlement capacity. Agencies are hesitant to reopen offices and stretch their resources, only for resettlement caps to get slashed by the next administration. Additionally, the health risks of COVID-19 have disrupted in-person interviews for asylees since March 2020. While the Biden Administration has initiated some interviews using virtual teleconference (V-Tel) software, it has not adequately expanded its capacity. In 2023, the U.S. only admitted approximately 60,000 refugees out of 125,000 allocated spots. 

    Complex adjudication process

    The refugee adjudication process can be lengthy and complex, delaying assistance to people in urgent need. The USCIS conducts rigorous interviews to determine whether an individual satisfies refugee status. Refugees must also pass extensive background checks and medical screenings. On average, it takes nearly two years for refugees to be admitted to the U.S. By contrast, the resettlement process for North Korean defectors in South Korea begins almost immediately, and they are automatically granted citizenship. 

    Potential security concerns

    Despite strict screening measures, other critics are concerned about the potential security risks of the refugee admissions system. They argue that the process may not sufficiently prevent people with malicious intentions from entering the U.S. Out of over three million refugees who have entered the U.S., a handful have been implicated in terrorist plots. Of 192 foreign-born terrorists who committed attacks in the U.S. between 1975 and 2017, 25 were refugees. Of those attacks, three proved deadly, which occurred before the INA tightened its screening procedures in 1980. 

    Notably, in September 2017, the Trump Administration suspended the entry of North Koreans into the U.S., citing the country’s “provocative, destabilizing, and repressive actions and policies.” This executive order followed the death of an American student, Otto Warmbier, who was detained in North Korea and returned to the U.S. in a vegetative state. 

    In January 2018, the Trump Administration resumed accepting refugees from North Korea and ten other “high-risk” countries. Nevertheless, refugees from these countries are subject to stricter background checks from U.S. screeners. Given that American standards for accepting refugees are already considered some of the toughest in the world, critics view the additional screening measures as part of a broader goal to restrict all forms of immigration from “high-risk” countries. 

    Conclusion

    While Sections 207 and 208 of the INA serve as crucial mechanisms for providing refuge to vulnerable groups, they face critical challenges and limitations. Supporters of refugee admissions find it imperative for the U.S. to establish an efficient and just immigration system, especially for individuals who need shelter immediately, including those escaping North Korea. They claim that U.S. security measures against the North Korean regime should not target the people who are fleeing from the exact danger and remind us that government actions do not necessarily represent the masses.