The Alien Enemies Act - 1798

[Rightguide]

Illegal Alien Slapped with $1.82 Million Fine for Defying Removal Order — 20 Years Later​

by Jim Hᴏft May. 16, 2025 10:15 am252 Comments

A 41-year-old illegal alien living in Florida has been hit with a jaw-dropping $1.82 million fine after refusing to leave the United States for two full decades, despite receiving a formal removal order in 2005. Yes, $500 per day for 3,643 days.

The illegal alien, originally from Honduras and now a mother of three U.S.-born children, was charged under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act — a law that has remained largely dormant for years, even as millions cross the border illegally.
ICE finally dusted off the rulebook and took action, sending a notice of the fine on May 9.

According to CBS News, the massive fine stems from the alien’s failure to appear in court back in 2005.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/05/illegal-alien-slapped-1-82-million-fine-defying/

 

[Politruk]

Illegal Alien Slapped with $1.82 Million Fine for Defying Removal Order — 20 Years Later​

by Jim Hᴏft May. 16, 2025 10:15 am252 Comments

A 41-year-old illegal alien living in Florida has been hit with a jaw-dropping $1.82 million fine after refusing to leave the United States for two full decades, despite receiving a formal removal order in 2005. Yes, $500 per day for 3,643 days.

The illegal alien, originally from Honduras and now a mother of three U.S.-born children, was charged under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act — a law that has remained largely dormant for years, even as millions cross the border illegally.
ICE finally dusted off the rulebook and took action, sending a notice of the fine on May 9.

According to CBS News, the massive fine stems from the alien’s failure to appear in court back in 2005.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/05/illegal-alien-slapped-1-82-million-fine-defying/

You do understand, don't you, that this is something of which ICE should be deeply ashamed? ICE, and not the mother of three?

 

[Rightguide]

I never said there was.


We have not. Americans are being harmed by random criminals as per usual.
Under your delusional brain, you'd deport Democrats and claim invasion.

Here's a little education for you, I encountered while relaxing on Lake Havasu. It's called Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 19 19 (1827). In regard to the President's exclusive authority, above all others, for determining the following

“The authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.” courtlistener.com+9supreme.justia.com+9lawpipe.com+9
"The authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons," would apply to the use of the Alien Enemies Act, because both involve discretionary wartime or national emergency powers delegated to the President by Congress.

 

[Politruk]

Here's a little education for you, I encountered while relaxing on Lake Havasu. It's called Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 19 19 (1827). In regard to the President's exclusive authority, above all others, for determining the following

“The authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.” courtlistener.com+9supreme.justia.com+9lawpipe.com+9
"The authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons," would apply to the use of the Alien Enemies Act, because both involve discretionary wartime or national emergency powers delegated to the President by Congress.

The Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

 

[ll74]

Here's a little education for you, I encountered while relaxing on Lake Havasu. It's called Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 19 19 (1827). In regard to the President's exclusive authority, above all others, for determining the following

“The authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.” courtlistener.com+9supreme.justia.com+9lawpipe.com+9
"The authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons," would apply to the use of the Alien Enemies Act, because both involve discretionary wartime or national emergency powers delegated to the President by Congress.

We aren't at war.
We aren't being invaded.
/Fin

 

[Rightguide]

We aren't at war.
We aren't being invaded.
/Fin

The act does not require a declared war and the decision is up to the Executive.

 

[ll74]

The act does not require a declared war and the decision is up to the Executive.

Lol...keep at it

 

[Politruk]

The act does not require a declared war and the decision is up to the Executive.

The Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

 

[Rightguide]

The Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

Marten v Mott is a SCOTUS ruling.

 

[Politruk]

Marten v Mott is a SCOTUS ruling.

A ruling in 2025 overrides a ruling in 1827.

 

[Rightguide]

How foolish of the Founders not to realize that the President has no inherent power at all! According to the delusional theology of the modern American Left, true authority lies not in the elected executive but in a scattered cabal of black-robed mini-tyrants, federal district court judges, each apparently imbued with veto power over national policy. The President, that quaint office outlined in Article II, is reimagined as a ceremonial mascot, dutifully waiting for legal blessings from ideologically aligned jurists before daring to act. Want to secure the border? Better check with a Clinton appointee in the Ninth Circuit. Thinking about foreign policy? Hope a junior judge in Hawaii is feeling magnanimous. After all, under this twisted doctrine, the President can’t even sneeze without 870 judicial permission slips. Why even bother with elections when we could simply consecrate our true rulers, the lifetime-appointed high priests of judicial activism? Behold, the Left’s majestic vision of democracy: government of the judges, by the judges, for the judges.

 

[ll74]

How foolish of the Founders not to realize that the President has no inherent power at all! According to the delusional theology of the modern American Left, true authority lies not in the elected executive but in a scattered cabal of black-robed mini-tyrants, federal district court judges, each apparently imbued with veto power over national policy. The President, that quaint office outlined in Article II, is reimagined as a ceremonial mascot, dutifully waiting for legal blessings from ideologically aligned jurists before daring to act. Want to secure the border? Better check with a Clinton appointee in the Ninth Circuit. Thinking about foreign policy? Hope a junior judge in Hawaii is feeling magnanimous. After all, under this twisted doctrine, the President can’t even sneeze without 870 judicial permission slips. Why even bother with elections when we could simply consecrate our true rulers, the lifetime-appointed high priests of judicial activism? Behold, the Left’s majestic vision of democracy: government of the judges, by the judges, for the judges.

This is certainly something. Just curious what your copy pastad from

 

[Politruk]

How foolish of the Founders not to realize that the President has no inherent power at all! According to the delusional theology of the modern American Left, true authority lies not in the elected executive but in a scattered cabal of black-robed mini-tyrants, federal district court judges, each apparently imbued with veto power over national policy.

If you can characterize district court judges as "640 mini-presidents," there is real value in that. We already have an Imperial Presidency -- which the Founders did not intend -- anything that consolidates and centralizes power in the WH is a bad thing, and any countervailing check should be preserved.

 

[Rightguide]

This is certainly something. Just curious what your copy pastad from

I write my own stuff. Google it if you don't think so.

 

[ll74]

I write my own stuff. Google it if you don't think so.

Bullshit

 

[Rightguide]

Now that the SCOTUS has sent the 1798 Alien Enemies Act case back down to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt was arguing this point, "This has been invoked three times only in major, major wars. The government is now suggesting you can invoke it with a gang."
One of the judges, was more interested in procedural and jurisdictional issues, and asked Gelernt: "Can you give me a Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court has said you can, as a federal court, countermand the president of the United States in his determination that we're in an armed conflict?"

So we'll see how this turns out this time around.

 

[ll74]

Now that the SCOTUS has sent the 1798 Alien Enemies Act case back down to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt was arguing this point, "This has been invoked three times only in major, major wars. The government is now suggesting you can invoke it with a gang."
One of the judges, was more interested in procedural and jurisdictional issues, and asked Gelernt: "Can you give me a Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court has said you can, as a federal court, countermand the president of the United States in his determination that we're in an armed conflict?"

So we'll see how this turns out this time around.

We aren't in an armed conflict with any country.

 

[Rightguide]

We aren't in an armed conflict with any country.

He has determined that we've been invaded.

 

[ll74]

He has determined that we've been invaded.

We haven't been invaded.

 

[HisArpy]

Now that the SCOTUS has sent the 1798 Alien Enemies Act case back down to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt was arguing this point, "This has been invoked three times only in major, major wars. The government is now suggesting you can invoke it with a gang."
One of the judges, was more interested in procedural and jurisdictional issues, and asked Gelernt: "Can you give me a Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court has said you can, as a federal court, countermand the president of the United States in his determination that we're in an armed conflict?"

So we'll see how this turns out this time around.

I also want to know where the statute restricts the use of it to "times of war only." Because those words don't appear anywhere in there that I can see.

 

[Rightguide]

I also want to know where the statute restricts the use of it to "times of war only." Because those words don't appear anywhere in there that I can see.

Earlier I brought up Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 19 19 (1827) which highlights in regard to the AEA, the President's exclusive authority, above all others, for determining the following

“The authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.” courtlistener.com+9supreme.justia.com+9lawpipe.com+9
"The authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons," would apply to the use of the Alien Enemies Act, because both involve discretionary wartime or national emergency powers delegated to the President by Congress.

That aside the Act clearly states; "Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, "or" any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government,"

And of course, here for the last four years we've faced an illegal foreign invasion from many foreign countries.

 

[Mrtenant]

A lack of jurisdiction is a lack of jurisdiction. The civilian courts can pound sand and get the same end result because the courts cannot preemptively restrain the gov nor enjoin the use of war powers.

It really comes down to a simple question; who is in charge of running the government? The President or the courts?

Some where along my education in the last 50 years, I understood there are 3 separate but co-equal branches of government in the U.S. Fucking weird how long I mis-understood that.

 

[HisArpy]

Some where along my education in the last 50 years, I understood there are 3 separate but co-equal branches of government in the U.S. Fucking weird how long I mis-understood that.

Not my fault you weren't paying attention in civic class.

 

[Mrtenant]

Not my fault you weren't paying attention in civic class.

Right! I could have totally paid attention and realized that we are a republic if we can keep it! And that co-equal branches of governing power could be taken away or given away because god-kings deserve it....oh wait...that seems sorta familiar, like, where have I seen that before?

Thanks again Harpo, for setting me straight. You're the best.

 

[HisArpy]

Right! I could have totally paid attention and realized that we are a republic if we can keep it! And that co-equal branches of governing power could be taken away or given away because god-kings deserve it....oh wait...that seems sorta familiar, like, where have I seen that before?

Thanks again Harpo, for setting me straight. You're the best.

You're welcome.

Now IF ONLY you realized that co-equal branches don't get to control the other branches by fiat. You know, like rogue judges are trying to do.