A justification for the deportation of some migrants in the country without legal procedures, President Donald Trump said the United States is suffering from an invasion.

“Evidence explains this irreversibly [Tren de Aragua] An advertisement at the White House said on March 15 that the White House Declaration on March 15.

The advertisement says Arajwa train “It is a hybrid criminal country committed by an invasion of predators in the United States,” and thus any 14 -year -old or older person can arrest a member of Tren De Aragua, who does not have American citizenship or permanent residence and deportes him using the 1978 foreign enemies law.

Trump and his allies referred to unreprenegled migration as a conqueror for years, and his transfer to use Verb For deportation, hinges on this description. To summon the law, the United States must be in war or under invasion by a foreign country.

But is the United States under the invasion? Who decides if that is happening?

Legal and legal experts say that the United States is not under the invasion of a Venezuelan gang or any other group or country, and that unreprenefrila migration does not constitute an invasion.

Federal judge The Trump administration has temporarily prevented the use of the law of foreign enemies to Deportation the people. The administration says that the judge’s ruling is illegal and rapes the president’s powers.

In the past, the courts refused to rule whether immigration could be classified as an invasion, saying it was the issue of national security and foreign policy. But legal experts say that there are exceptions that may lead the judges to judge this question, including whether the president acted in bad faith or made a clear mistake.

The current laws allow the deportation of gang members from the United States. But these laws require traffic through a immigration court. The law of foreign enemies exceeds legal procedures, such as appearing before the immigration judge.

What is the basis for the Trump administration to use the law of foreign enemies?

This law allows the president to detention and deport people from a “hostile nation or government” without a session when the United States is either in war with this country or that the country “committed or attempted” an invasion or raid called “predatory penetration” against the United States.

Trump’s advertisement has made two contradictory arguments to prove the presence of Trin de Arajoa in the United States represents a foreign invasion.

First, the advertisement says that Tren De Aragua operates as a semi -judgment in the Venezuelan regions, where “the Venezuelan government failed to control sugar.”

The advertisement also argues that Tree de Aragoa “is closely in line with the Maduro system.”

White House journalist Caroline Levitte said in a briefing on March 19 that TREN de Aragoa had been sent to the United States by the Venezuelan government.

“The predatory incursion is what happened at all with Treen de Aragoa, and he sent them here by the hostile regime in Venezuela,” Levitt said.

“In other words, Noah Feldman, a professor of law at Harvard University, wrote in a column on March 17,” in other words, the Trump administration claims that the gang is the government of Venezuela and that the gang is independent of the Venezuela government, “wrote Noah Feldman, a law professor at Harvard University, in a column on March 17.

Trump said again and againWithout evidence, that countries, including Venezuela, empty their prisons and send people to the United States.

In an interview with March 18, Rona Risskuiz, a Venezuelan investigation journalist who published a book on Trin de Aragoa, said in an interview with March 18, that Trin de Aragoa has grown and managed from prison managed by Venezuelan officials with the knowledge of the government. She added that she had not seen evidence that the gang was responding or run by the Venezuelan government, or that it had sent Tren de Aragua members to the United States.

Does immigration are not documented alone?

Five legal experts that Politifact met, and many others who wrote on this topic, they say no.

“It is simply wrong as a legal issue, a common truth and a common decency for the treatment of immigrants as” invasion “.” The United States is not in war with Venezuela, Do not threaten Venezuela or pledge to invade the United States. “

It is one thing that the migration is rhetorically described as invasion, “but when you reach the legal world, the words have a meaning.” “In the context of the law of foreign enemies, the invisible and predatory incursion referred to the civil war or armed attacks by the organized generation or paramilitary forces.”

“If our government has evidence of a coordinated invasion in this country that was designed by a foreign country, then it must have evidence. Otherwise, this is a fantasy,” said Michael Gerhardt, a professor of constitutional law at North Carolina Chaplin Hill University.

What constitutes an invasion?

The constitution uses the term “invasion” four times, related to national security, federal government war forces and the narrow exclusion that countries can participate in the war. But the constitution does not specify the “invasion”. The American Supreme Court did not judge its meaning either.

The context and historical records place the intended meaning of the “invasion” in the context.

Matthew Lindsay, a law professor at Baltimore University, said that the Office “is constantly describing it as a military incursion into American territory by a foreign country.” He referred to the writings of former President James Madison in 1800: “The invasion is a war process. Protection from invasion is the practice of war.”

Legal experts referred to the three times the law of foreign enemies – the 1812 war, the First World War and the Second World War – to clarify the differences from then and now. All previous invitations were during the war.

Trump did not ask Congress to declare war, as former President Franklin Dylano Roosevelt did after the Japanese forces attacked Perl Harbor, the last time the honor was invoked.

“In fact, it has not even specified an armed attack that would lead to the law of war,” Yoon Ibrait said.

Yoon Ibrait indicated that Trump also said that the United States was no longer under the invasion. Trump posted on March 1 on the social truth, “Our country has ended.”

What did the courts say about unrelated immigration and invasion?

In the nineties, several states filed a lawsuit against the federal government, saying that it failed to protect it from the unrelated immigration invasion, forcing them to bear a financial burden. Four courts rejected the appeal of cases; Judges said that they were unable to judge because the cases dealt with political questions.

The Information Institute at Cornell University said that federal courts generally reject the judgment on political questions – the issues that the constitution bears “the only responsibility” of the executive or legislative branches.

Although the courts did not judge in the nineties of the last century about whether the unrelated immigration constituted an invasion, one of the federal judges said in 1996 that the invasion had to be committed by another country or a foreign country and this did not happen “clearly”.

In February 2024, after Texas issued a law Partingly claiming that it was invaded by the immigrants, a federal judge spent that “storms in immigration do not constitute a” invasion “in the meaning of the constitution. The case is hanging after The state resumed Against judgment.