ACE

Author: Laiba Mehmood

  • 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 While most of the Alien and Sedition Acts were either repealed or left to expire under President Thomas Roosevelt, the AEA remained in place and was expanded in 1918 to include women.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.

  • 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.

  • Laiba Mehmood, Rutgers University

    Laiba Mehmood, Rutgers University

    Laiba Mehmood (she/her) is a sophomore at Rutgers University, where she is part of the Honors College and pursuing a major in political science. She actively contributes to the university community as a member of the Muslim Student Association and serves as a peer mentor, fostering unity and building bonds within the student body.

    With a passion for environmental advocacy, Laiba has gained experience as an Environmental Legislative Advocate for a research project in Camden, NJ. In this role, she conducted in-depth research on environmental legislation, engaged with diverse community members, including residents, factory workers, and city council members, to understand their perspectives on Camden’s environmental issues. This experience sparked her interest in policy and governance, as it allowed her to connect with people across different sectors while deepening her understanding of the complex dynamics of urban environmental challenges.

    As a Student Fellow, Laiba is eager to further develop her research skills and explore her personal interests in the world of political science, policy-making, and government. Linkedin