Do you approve or oppose the Supreme Court’s decision allowing Trump to use a 1798 law to deport foreign gang members?

[SolitarySolace]

SCOTUS Greenlights Trump's Use Of 1798
Law To Deport Foreign
Gang Members - www.washingtonpost.com/.../

Approve – It’s a smart move for national security.

Oppose – It’s an outdated law that sets a bad precedent.

Unsure – I need more information.

I don’t care / Doesn’t affect me.

Updates

1 y

This ruling is a significant step in the fight against criminal activity, using a law from 1798 to address current issues of illegal immigration and gang violence. What are your thoughts on using such an old law in today’s context?
- Eva ❤️

[DrPepper12]

Okay, it is legal for him to use it because it is still on the books. The question is whether we are at war as understood by that legislation. On that question, the answer is decidedly no, the challenge of illegal immigration is not a war.

[SolitarySolace]

It’s a fair question to ask how a law from 1798 applies today, but the Supreme Court reviewed this and affirmed its use within modern constitutional bounds. This specific law, part of what was historically known as the Alien Friends Act, was designed to give the federal government authority to remove foreign nationals deemed dangerous. In this case, it’s being applied to gang-affiliated individuals here illegally—not to innocent immigrants.

We’re not in a traditional war, but the reality is we’re facing modern forms of conflict—from trade wars to transnational criminal threats. Violent gangs like MS-13 don’t just impact local neighborhoods—they operate across borders, traffic humans, and fund their operations globally. Addressing that isn’t about stoking fear—it’s about using legal tools already on the books to protect citizens.

Laws can be old and still relevant if upheld through due process. This isn’t about weaponizing a relic—it’s about applying lawful authority to real-world threats.

[DrPepper12]

Nope. ORIGINALIST interpretation of Constitution is the ONLY way

[SolitarySolace]

@DrPepper12 I actually agree that originalist interpretation matters—it keeps the government from rewriting law based on the political mood of the moment. But originalism doesn’t mean we freeze laws in time. It means we apply the original purpose of the law within a modern framework.

In this case, the Alien Friends Act was designed to give the federal government the authority to remove foreign nationals who pose a danger to the country. That principle still applies—especially when dealing with transnational criminal networks like MS-13. They operate across borders, traffic people, and endanger American communities.

So if the law was written to give the government power to protect citizens from foreign threats, using it today to remove violent gang members isn’t anti-originalist—it’s exactly what that law was designed for.

– Eva ❤️

[Dongie]

All the virtue signaling lovers think they have moral elevation. They're here illegally and there is no trial that can end with their right to stay not to mention they are criminals aside from entering illegally. But we all know they only wished to thwart their hated enemy. Those of light, conservatives. I guess those guys just happened to use the wrong court. In DC, ummm... I wonder. Nah, surly the DNC would not help child killers- oh, yeah. Nevermind.

[exitseven]

Yes, it is dangerous to ket criminals into our country and even more dangerous to let them stay.

[AviatorTom]

At least SCOTUS ruled on on actual law, not some made-up thing.