Tag Archives: donald-trump

History of the Alien Enemies Act

By: Maggie Hong

United States Alien Enemies Act notice issued on April 18, 2025; obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union and filed in A.A.R.P. v. Trump. Via Wikimedia Commons and the United States Department of Homeland Security

Over the past few months, the Trump administration claims to have deported over 100,000 illegal immigrants from the United States. Among them are 130 Venezuelan men, accused of membership with a Venezuelan gang, designated by the US government as a terrorist organization. However, the men were given no chance to dispute these accusations, and many of them live and work legally in the US. So, what gives Trump the power to deport them with no evidence of gang affiliation?

In 1798, a law called the Alien Enemies Act was passed by Congress. It was intended to protect the United States in the event of a war with France, a possibility which seemed likely at the time. It granted the President the power to detain or deport any citizen of an enemy nation without evidence of a crime or a hearing in their defense. It was created as a wartime authority; something only to be used when the US is in a state of war or enemy invasion. However, only Congress, not the President, has the authority to declare war on another nation.

Since its creation, the Alien Enemies Act has only been used three times: during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. Notably, it was used to intern Japanese Americans in prison camps during World War II. Many of them were native born American citizens, making them not considered alien enemies under the law. However, they were still interned along with the rest of the Japanese American population.

Trump has invoked this act for the fourth time in US history, the first time not during a major conflict or state of war. This is backed by the opinion that the US is being invaded by illegal immigrants, largely from Mexico and other Latin American countries. This could justify a use of the Alien Enemies Act, as it does provide for enemy invasion. However, this opinion is not backed by any evidence of ill intent or antagonism against the US. And, as Congress has not declared a state of war, this invocation is highly questionable.

The Supreme Court has ordered that one of the immigrants, here legally, be returned to the US. When Trump met with the president of El Salvador, though, he refused to return him, saying the US has no jurisdiction over his prison. As this case continues to develop, it sets precedent as to the power of our executive branch and the other branches’ power to check it.

The other results of last week’s election

By: Nathaniel de Sam Lazaro

Image Credit: Wikipedia commons

By now, you probably already know that Donald Trump has won the 2024 US Presidential election. What you might have missed, however, are the other races that defined this election.

The president cannot make laws and do things all on his own. He needs to work together with both houses of congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate.

These two chambers are responsible for creating the laws that the executive branch is in charge of putting into place. In addition, the president often has to petition congress in order to get his agenda passed and put into effect. For this reason, it is much more difficult for the president to enact their agenda if the party in charge of congress does not align with the president’s party.

Each state has two senators, who serve six year terms. Every two years, roughly a third of the senators are up for election.  In this election, one of Minnesota’s senators, Democrat Amy Klobuchar, was up against Republican challenger Royce White. The Associated Press has called this race for Klobuchar, but they have also declared that Republicans will take a majority in the senate, having flipped a number of other Democratic seats. This is good news for president-elect Trump, since it means the senate will align with him as he attempts to enact his agenda as president.

In addition, the nation is divided into 435 congressional districts, each having one representative. These districts are distributed roughly proportionally to population, and redrawn every ten years in order to better represent groups of people as demographics shift. Highland Park is a part of congressional district MN-4, which has been represented by Democrat Betty McCollum since 2001. She has been elected to her thirteenth term in congress, easily defeating Republican challenger May Lor Xiong. AP has also projected that Republicans will win the house, having officially secured the 218 seats required for a majority. This is good for President elect Trump, as the house aligns with his party making it easier for him to pass legislation he wants enacted.

In addition to the federal government, each state also has their own government, which passes laws that only affect us in that state. Minnesota’s government works similarly to the federal government, with a governor and two chambers of congress. The Minnesota House of Representatives has elections every two years, while the Minnesota Senate holds elections every four years, with election years being the non-presidential even years.

This year, state senator Kelly Morrison stepped down from her position to run for US congress in district MN-3, which she has now won. This caused a special election to occur in her district, which had the potential of flipping the state senate. The Minnesota Star Tribune has called this race for DFL candidate Ann Johnson Stewart, meaning the DFL will retain control of the senate in Minnesota. Meanwhile, the state’s House of Representatives appears to be deadlocked with both major parties having 67 seats, but a recount of two seats could narrowly give the house to the republicans. If this occurred, it would make things difficult for our democratic governor.

There were also a few ballot measures in Minnesota and across the country. In Minnesota, the state asked whether state lottery funds should continue to be used to protect the environment, which passed with 77.5% of the vote.

Here in Saint Paul, two additional referendums were included. The first asked whether city property taxes should be increased to pay for childcare funding. This failed with 59.9% of the vote, according to the Star Tribune. The other ballot measure, asking whether city elections should be moved to presidential years, passed with 60.7% of the vote.

Is it good that newspapers are making the move to not endorse political candidates?

By: Baarika Suresh

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

Note: This is the second article in a series that looks at ethics.

Regarding the United States upcoming election, two major newspapers, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times decided to make the choice to not publish editorials endorsing a presidential political candidate. Newspapers choosing not to endorse a candidate has become more popular now. USA Today and the Wall Street Journal haven’t backed a candidate for awhile. That leaves just the New York Times still endorsing a candidate, out of all the major national newspapers, and they are backing Kamala Harris and the Democrats. Shifting away from the practice of endorsing candidates has also been a popular trend with more regional newspapers as well.

This has sparked a decline in subscriptions and many mixed reviews online. Some of these were a criticism of the move, claiming that this is the downfall of American democracy. The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times are owned by two billionaire American businessmen, Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong respectively, and were bought from families that had traditionally passed the papers down from generation to generation. Both the newspapers have historically leaned left but have recently decided not to endorse the democratic presidential nomination this election. People online think this is because if the republican candidate does get elected then the billionaires will lose money, as Trump might try to target their newspapers for not backing him.

The question is: Is this a method of self preservation or could it be the idea of good media ethics?

Newspapers that lean a certain way can show only one point of view clearly and show the other side more blurrily. For example, editorials in The Washington Post kept a count of Trump’s lies but did not bother to track Harris’s as well. Would it be fair if a newspaper only published Harris’s lies and not Trumps? Is it really fair if only one side is shown?

Good ethics is to get both sides of the story, to give the public all the facts to let them make their own decisions. I believe this is the true meaning of democracy; to not be influenced by the beliefs of others but to be provided with facts and make our own minds up. Elections can be decided by citizens influenced by the thoughts of others, without getting all the facts. Many readers of newspapers fail to see the difference, or don’t think there is one, regardless of how often it is explained that an editorial board and the newsroom function independently.

I believe it is good that newspapers are choosing to stay neutral.