The Donald Trump administration applied a wide legal authority from the war on Saturday, which has so far been used three times, to accelerate the deportations of migrants associated with Venezuelan Ganga Tren de Aragu.
Law from the 18th century Law, Law on Foreign Enemies from 1798. year, gives the president of huge authority to target and remove undocumented immigrants. The law is designed to apply if it is now in war with another country, or if some foreign nation attacks now or threaten to do so. Therefore, legal experts stated that they would face great challenges in court, writes CNN.
In the presidential statement, published on Saturday, the White House called for its decision to declare foreign terrorist organizations to foreign terrorist organizations, saying that many of them “illegally infiltrated the United States and undermine enemy actions against the United States.”
The statement calls for all those subject to this measures to be immediately arrested, detained and removed.
The Law on Foreign Enemies was applied only three times in the United States history – all at the time of the war, according to Brennen Center. During the first and second world war, it was used to justify the detention and deportation of German, Austro-Hungarian, Italian and Japanese immigrants. The law played a role in the famous American politics of the internship of Japanese during World War II, according to the NPPartial Legal and Political Organization.
Earlier on Saturday, the Federal Judge temporarily banned the removal of some undocumented immigrants according to the Law on Foreign Enemies, several hours before the Trump administration applied the law. The temporary prohibition only applies to those who filed a lawsuit on Saturday, but the judge will hold a hearing on Saturday night to decide whether to apply the ban on the wider.
The decision of the Federal Judge came after the request of the American ACLU and Democracy Forward, who claimed that there may not be enough time for the intervention after Trump issued an order.
In his lawsuit, the ACLU claimed that the gang did not invade “because criminal activities do not meet long-term definitions of these legal requirements.”
The Ministry of Justice quickly invested the appeal against the temporary prohibition of the judge to the DC District Court.
(Vijesti.ba)
