Americans Who Voted for Deportations Frustrated With System

By Nick Griffin

President Donald Trump’s hardline stance on immigration played a major role in his second-term victory. The president therefore has a very clear mandate to get a grip on immigration, secure the borders and expel criminals and potential threats.

Click the Link Below to Listen to the Audio of this Article

Hardline nationalists may consider that the expulsion of some criminals and illegals does not begin to address the far more fundamental problem of demographic change through legal immigration.

Others, of a more delicate disposition, may worry that some of the deportations—especially those encouraged by the Zionist lobby—are not wholly just. But the fact remains that, on this issue, Trump really does embody the hopes of a huge block of decent Americans.

The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday, May 16, 2025, to block the president from deporting a group of Venezuelan migrants under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA) is thus a frustrating setback. It also raises once again the role of politicized, activist judges in public life. What is to be done when the niceties of the law clash with the will of the people and the power of the man they chose to enforce it?

This unsigned 7-2 ruling leaves Trump’s broader efforts to reverse criminal immigration in a precarious state. With Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting, the decision halted the deportation of Venezuelans detained at the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Anson, Texas, under the AEA.

Trump invoked this wartime law on March 15, 2025, to swiftly remove alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, a Venezuelan criminal organization designated as a foreign terrorist group by the State Department. The administration argued that the gang’s presence constituted an “invasion,” justifying rapid deportations without the usual legal processes.

Tren de Aragua has been linked to sex trafficking, drug smuggling, and murders across U.S. cities. Yet, the court’s insistence on due process—requiring habeas corpus challenges in the district where detainees are held—creates a labyrinth of legal hurdles.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the migrants, claimed that some deportees were misidentified and lacked criminal records in the United States, as noted in Immigration and Customs Enforcement court documents, further complicating the narrative.

The court sided with the ACLU, ruling that the administration failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for the detainees to contest their removal. The justices sent the case back to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana to determine whether Trump’s use of the AEA is legal and how much notice the migrants should receive, maintaining the court-ordered block until then.

This builds on a pattern of judicial resistance to Trump’s immigration agenda. Needless to say, it is not an isolated phenomenon. The hard-left and liberal elite have recovered from the shock of the election and set about using—and abusing—the legal system to try to frustrate the president at every turn. It is lawfare on a grand scale.

Trump took to social media to lament that the ruling allows “murderers, drug dealers, and gang members” to stay, committing “great harm.” While the legal fight continues in lower courts, the uncertainty and delays frustrate the democratically expressed wishes of the electorate and encourage more illegal entries.

Trump’s effort to eliminate foreign gangs and criminal networks, as stated in his January 2025 inaugural address, is faltering under this judicial overreach. The AEA, last used during World War II to intern Japanese, German, and Italian nationals, is a powerful tool, but its use now is problematic, and not just because the United States is very obviously not at war with Venezuela.

The AEA was used ruthlessly, and with scant regard to basic human decency, let alone justice, during the war. Its provisions proved very useful to those who wanted to demonize, isolate and suppress popular resistance to America’s involvement in the conflict—just as the anti-immigration sentiments of the American people are now being exploited to silence critics of the Zionist genocide in Gaza.

However much frustration over the immigration flood may lead people to want to throw away the rule book and let the executive ride roughshod over the law, the fact remains that such actions—if permitted—could all too easily be used by a future regime against individuals and groups that patriots consider to be “good.” Precedent cuts all ways.

In his bid to reverse the tide of immigration and its associated crimes, Trump must navigate this judicial quagmire, perhaps by seeking congressional repeal of the AEA’s outdated constraints or leveraging other immigration laws.

The successful use of the legal system to frustrate the deportation of tattooed gang members will embolden those seeking to frustrate the entire Trump revolution. But this controversy goes far deeper than the simple politics of the day.

Tension between the law and the popular will, between the judiciary and the executive, is a long-standing feature of the political history of the United States—and indeed of England, long before the U.S.A. came into being. It has caused great advances and terrible civil wars in the past—and history isn’t over yet!