The ‘Exclusion’ Of Immigrants

This is right time for the Old Professor to drop a bit of history on you that tries to enlighten the reader to the history that is all too forgotten.

Little Donny is deporting people at an alarming right all in an effort to keep the loyal in line with his brand of ignorance…..so far this year…Within the span of 100 days, the results of this sweeping and sustained set of actions, touching nearly every corner of the U.S. immigration system, have yielded some quick results. U.S. Border Patrol encounters of irregularly arriving migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border plunged to 7,000 in March—the fewest since at least 2000, when the government started publishing monthly apprehension numbers—after the administration declared an “invasion,” sent 10,000 troops to the border, and effectively barred access to asylum there.

All these deportations is a first for a president, right?

Not even close.

Just another misguided attempt to appear as if he truly cares about this country.

Before I go on maybe it would be a good spot to drop some history about the ‘law’ that the Trumpites are using to justify these deportation….even though the justification for these deportations is the ancient act from the 18th century….about here would be a good time to explain the “Act” for the history impaired….

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 is a wartime authority that allows the president to detain or deport the natives and citizens of an enemy nation. The law permits the president to target these immigrants without a hearing and based only on their country of birth or citizenship. Although the law was enacted to prevent foreign espionage and sabotage in wartime, it can be — and has been — wielded against immigrants who have done nothing wrong, have evinced no signs of disloyalty, and are lawfully present in the United States. It is an overbroad authority that may violate constitutional rights in wartime and is subject to abuse in peacetime.

… but the mass deportations occurred in the beginning of the middle 19th century and the Chinese immigrants.

The United States’ current deportation process traces its roots to the late 19th century as the nation moved to exercise federal control of immigration.

The impetus for this shift was anti-Chinese racism, which reached a fever pitch during this period, culminating in the passage of laws that restricted Chinese immigration.

The influx of Chinese immigrants to the West Coast during the mid-to-late 19th century, initially fueled by the California Gold Rush, spurred the rise of an influential nativist movement that accused Chinese immigrants of stealing jobs. It also claimed that they posed a cultural threat to American society due to their racial otherness.

The Geary Act of 1892 required Chinese living in the U.S to register with the federal government or face deportation.

The Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of these statutes in 1893 in the case of Fong Yue Ting v. United States. Three plaintiffs claimed that anti-Chinese legislation was discriminatory, violated constitutional protections prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure, and contravened due process and equal protection guarantees.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Geary Act’s deportation procedures, formulating a novel legal precept known as the plenary power doctrine that remains a key tenet of U.S. immigration law today.

https://theconversation.com/from-the-chinese-exclusion-act-to-pro-palestinian-activists-the-evolution-of-politically-motivated-deportations-254683

Is Donny’s use of ‘Act’ legal by Executive Order?  Damn good question!

… no court has expressly interpreted “invasion” in the context of the AEA, the definition of “invasion” in the constitutional sense has received recent judicial and scholarly attention. Early last year, Texas tried to make the immigration-as-invasion argument in two cases, United States v. Texas and United States v. Abbott, the former of which dealt most directly with the claim. There, a district court—after providing one of the most comprehensive analyses of “invasion” in the State War Clause—enjoined the enforcement of Texas law that established state criminal liability for immigration law violations. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ultimately stayed the injunction, it was “not persuaded” by Texas’s immigration-as-invasion argument. The case is still pending. In light of interpretative uncertainty, recourse might also be had to interpretations of the president’s unilateral authority to use force to repel attacks or invasions.

(there is more legal wrangling going on)

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/can-trump-invoke-the-alien-enemies-act

This will be a sticky situation for only recently a Trump appointed judge rules against Donny’s move on Venezuelans.

A federal judge on Thursday barred the Trump administration from deporting any Venezuelans from South Texas under an 18th-century wartime law and said President Trump’s invocation of it was “unlawful.” US District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. is the first judge to rule that the Alien Enemies Act cannot be used against people the administration claims are gang members invading the United States, the AP reports.

  • “Neither the Court nor the parties question that the Executive Branch can direct the detention and removal of aliens who engage in criminal activity in the United States,” wrote Rodriguez, who was nominated by Trump in 2018. But, the judge said, “the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation … is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.”
  • Rodriguez’s ruling is significant because it is the first formal permanent injunction against the administration using the AEA and contends the president is misusing the law, the AP reports. “Congress never meant for this law to be used in this manner,” said Lee Gelernt, the ACLU lawyer who argued the case, in response to the ruling.
  • If the administration appeals, it would go first to the New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the nation’s most conservative appeals courts. The Supreme Court has already weighed in once on the issue of deportations under the AEA. The justices held that migrants alleged to be gang members must be given “reasonable time” to contest their removal from the country. The court has not specified the length of time

This whole debacle will be interesting to watch….and I will watch.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

That “One Big Beautiful Bill”

What is That?  A faint glimmer of bi-partisanship?

Do not get too excited this passed a committee of the House…..not finished yet.

This was the bill that rumors flew around about it would gut Medicaid and other needed benefits to pass on more assistance to the wealthy that as we know are suffering badly right?

Here is what we know so far….

Republicans advanced their massive tax cut and border security package out of a key House committee during a rare Sunday night vote as deficit hawks who blocked the measure two days earlier reversed course after gaining commitments on the package’s spending cuts, the AP reports. Speaker Mike Johnson met with Republican lawmakers shortly before the meeting, telling reporters that the changes agreed to were “just some minor modifications. Not a huge thing.” Democrats on the panel pressed for more details about the changes that Republicans had agreed to in the private negotiations. But Rep. Jodey Arrington, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, said he could not give those details.

(good one…..why should those that will possibly suffer at the hands of this bill know what it says?)

Deliberations continue at this very moment,” Arrington said. “They will continue on into the week, and I suspect right up until the time we put this big, beautiful bill on the floor of the House.” The first time Republicans tried advancing the bill out of the House Budget Committee, deficit hawks joined with Democratic lawmakers in voting against reporting the measure to the full House. Five Republicans voted no, one on procedural grounds, the other four voicing concerns about the bill’s impact on federal budget deficits. On Sunday evening, the four voicing concerns about the bill’s impact on the deficit voted present, and the measure passed by a vote of 17-16. Johnson is looking to put the bill on the House floor before the end of the week.

“This is the vehicle through which we will deliver on the mandate that the American people gave us in the last election,” he said on Fox News Sunday. If the bill passes the House this week, it would then move to the Senate, where Republican lawmakers are also eyeing changes that could make final passage in the House more difficult. Johnson said: “The package that we send over there will be one that was very carefully negotiated and delicately balanced, and we hope that they don’t make many modifications to it because that will ensure its passage quickly.”

“Mandate of the people”….if that is truly then the ‘people’ are suffer from gross ignorance or to put a more polite term on it…..massively uninformed.

The only mandate that this House has is to make their wealthy patrons happy….you are a minor irritant to them.

There is more fireworks coming….so stay tuned and we will see where this goes.

But how will it effect your wallet?

President Donald Trump’s proposed “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB) has stirred significant debate in Washington, D.C., and across the nation. This sweeping legislative package aims to extend and expand upon the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, introducing a series of tax reforms and spending adjustments that could have profound effects on American households. While proponents argue that the bill will stimulate economic growth and provide relief to taxpayers, critics warn of potential increases in the federal deficit and disproportionate benefits to the wealthy. Understanding the key components of this bill is essential for assessing its potential impact on your personal finances. 

https://www.savingadvice.com/articles/2025/05/18/10156620_how-trumps-big-beautiful-bill-may-impact-your-finances.html

Hopefully you took the time to see how your wallet will fair with this bill that will affect the wealthy far more than you.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

News From The UK

IST has a some UK visitors which I appreciate very much but most of my writings are about this country and our problems and events…..so I would like to write about a couple of stories I read that involve the UK.

First there is the news about Prince Charles….oh my bad he is a king now…..it has been reported that he has cancer and now he is refusing chemo….

Buckingham Palace announced in February that the King had been diagnosed with cancer, and his treatment has included some challenging moments, including a brief hospitalization just days before the Italian tour. Despite this, he returned to his duties by April 1, determined to stay engaged.

According to royal sources, Charles sees his role not just as ceremonial, but as an opportunity to make a real difference. “He knows he is fortunate to be in a position to create change,” a senior aide shared. “That’s what keeps him going, impact, not obligation.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/surprising-reason-king-charles-not-171832554.html

Is he really that concerned about the optics of stating his cancer or is it to avoid any speculation at the length of time he has left?

Just asking.

I see the Andrew has taken over the title of King Charles from his father….

Does that mean he gets all the benefits of being the king (for now)?

Now how about the deal for more US beef?

The Prez and the PM have a deal now for sending American beef to English markets….is that a good idea?

Officials in Britain are worried contaminated beef from the U.S. could soon be flooding their supermarket shelves, RadarOnline.com can report.

However, the same beef is widely produced stateside, and many of us eat it willingly every day.

A new trade deal agreed to by the two nations will see 13,000 tons of U.S. beef shipped to the U.K. – enough meat to serve one medium-sized steak to every adult in the country.

However, consumers overseas are fearful the much more leniently regulated U.S. beef will contaminate their supply.

A common practice in the U.S. is for farmers to raise hormone-treated beef. These cattle are injected with growth hormones to accelerate muscle growth and shorten the time to slaughter, thereby increasing production efficiency and reducing costs.

But the practice has been linked to concerns such as early puberty in children and increased cancer risks.

While the hormone beef is prevalent on our store shelves, Great Britain has banned it since 1989, when the EU declared it unsafe.

https://radaronline.com/p/donald-trump-food-deal-uk-contaminated-beef-supermarket/

There was one thing I admired about the UK/EU….their ban on genetically modified products…..what has happened to that excellent idea?

I realize there is so much more that I have missed and if anyone would like to add something please leave a comment for I would love to here about the stuff that does not make it over here.

Just my small way of showing my UK readers that they are not forgotten here on IST.

Thanks for the visits and the comments.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”