The White House has refuted an accusation from human rights organizations that it violated due process by disobeying a judge’s order during the deportation of individuals over the weekend. A total of 238 alleged Venezuelan gang members and 23 alleged members of the international MS-13 gang were transferred from the US to a prison in El Salvador. Some were deported using a law that had not been activated since World War Two.
Despite a temporary block imposed by a judge, the deportations proceeded. The White House argued that the judge’s order was deemed unlawful as it was issued after the deportation had taken place. Both the US government and El Salvador have not disclosed the identities or details regarding the alleged criminal activities or gang affiliations of the detainees.
President Trump announced the move on Saturday, accusing the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang of threatening an invasion against the US. He invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a law dating back to 1798 that allows for the deportation of non-citizens during times of war or invasion. Critics have raised concerns regarding the justification provided by Trump.
According to the White House, 137 out of the 261 deportees were processed under the Alien Enemies Act. The reasons for the removal of the remaining deportees remain unclear, and information about the group as a whole has not been made public.
Some relatives of individuals believed to be part of the group have denied any gang affiliations. The White House maintains that the detainees were indeed gang members based on intelligence reports.
The situation raises constitutional questions as US government agencies are expected to adhere to federal court rulings. A hearing to gather more information on the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act is scheduled for Monday.
The order to stop the deportations came from US District Judge James Boasberg on Saturday evening, demanding a 14-day pause pending further legal arguments. Despite claims by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt that the court order was not violated, reports suggest that the administration had the opportunity to halt some of the deportations.
President Bukele of El Salvador confirmed the arrival of the deportees and expressed disregard for the judge’s order through social media. The controversy surrounding the deportation actions continues as legal proceedings unfold.
In a controversial move by the White House, the government of El Salvador has reportedly received $6 million in exchange for taking in detainees, a figure dubbed as “pennies on the dollar” compared to the cost of housing them in US prisons, according to El Salvador’s Minister of Security, Rogelio Rivas. This financial transaction has sparked a debate on the methods employed by the Trump administration, with critics accusing the President of skirting due process through the utilization of a centuries-old law.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has raised concerns regarding the administration’s invocation of a sweeping wartime authority to facilitate expedited deportations. Lee Gelernt, a prominent figure within the ACLU, expressed apprehension, stating, “I think we’re in very dangerous territory here in the United States with the invocation of this law.” The contentious law in question, the Alien Enemies Act, historically permitted deportations solely in times of declared war with the foreign government in question or during periods of invasion. Gelernt emphasized the difference, asserting, “A gang is not invading.”
Furthermore, Gelernt highlighted the remarkable rarity of employing such legislation, noting that the Alien Enemies Act had not been utilized since World War Two, where it was infamously employed to intern Japanese-American civilians. The lack of transparency surrounding the administration’s actions has only exacerbated the situation, as Gelernt criticized the lack of oversight, stating, “the administration is saying nobody can review what they’re doing,” thus raising additional concerns about accountability and governmental power.
Adding to the chorus of dissent, Amnesty International USA condemned the deportations as part of a larger pattern of discriminatory behavior by the Trump administration towards Venezuelans. The organization denounced the actions as another instance of racial profiling under the guise of combatting gang activity, drawing attention to the broader implications of such policies on vulnerable migrant populations. In response, Venezuela itself denounced Trump’s actions, decrying the unjust portrayal of Venezuelan migrants as criminals solely based on sweeping allegations of gang affiliations.
The recent wave of deportations under Trump’s second term continues to underscore the president’s relentless crackdown on illegal immigration. Amidst these developments, efforts to strengthen diplomatic relations with El Salvador have also been put into motion, signaling a multifaceted approach to immigration and international relations by the current administration.
The focus on two specific gangs designated as “foreign terrorist organizations” following Trump’s return to the White House in January has raised further questions about the criteria for such classifications and the implications for individuals associated with these groups. As the debate rages on, the implications of these actions reach beyond national borders, resonating with global implications for migration policies and human rights standards.
In a rapidly evolving landscape of immigration policy and international relations, the clash between security concerns and human rights principles continues to shape the narrative around the treatment of migrants and asylum seekers. As the debate unfolds, the world watches closely, awaiting the next chapter in this complex saga of politics, power, and human dignity.
