Jerce Reyes Barrios was born in Venezuela in 1989. In February and March of 2024, he marched in two demonstrations in Venezuela to protest the authoritarian rule of Nicolas Maduro. At the second demonstration, he was detained and taken to a secret building where he was tortured.
Shortly after he was released, he fled the country, hoping to receive asylum in the United States. In Mexico, he registered online with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to request asylum in the U.S. He presented himself to CBP officials on the day of his appointment. He was taken into custody and detained at Otay Mesa Detention Facility in San Diego, California, in September of 2024. His immigration attorney--Linette Tobin--filed a request for asylum. His final individual hearing was set for April 17, 2025 before an immigration judge--Judge Robinson--at the Otay Mesa Immigration Court.
Barrios was initially placed in maximum security at Otay Mesa because he was accused of being a Tren de Aragua gang member. This accusation was based on two claims. The first was that he has a tattoo on his arm of a crown sitting on top a soccer ball with a rosary and the word "Dios." Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials say this tattoo is proof of gang membership.
The second claim is that when DHS reviewed Barrios' social media posts, they found a photo of him making a hand gesture that is proof of gang membership.
His lawyer responded to these charges by explaining that Barrios was a professional soccer player in Venezuela, and that he chose this tattoo because it resembles the logo for his favorite soccer team Real Madrid--a crown on top of a soccer ball.
She also explained that the hand gesture in his social media posts means "I Love You" in sign language.
His lawyer also submitted a police clearance from Venezuela showing that Barrios has no criminal record, letters about his steady employment as a soccer player and soccer coach, a declaration from the tattoo artist who rendered the tattoo, various online images of the Real Madrid logo, and an explanation of the "I Love You" hand gesture. Barrios was then transferred out of maximum security.
Barrios was waiting for his final hearing on April 17. But on March 10 or 11, he was transferred from Otay Mesa to Texas without any notice to him or his family. Then, on March 15, 2025, he was deported by plane to El Salvador. His lawyer and his family have had no contact with him, and they know nothing about where he might be.
Venezuelans Deported to El Salvador
All of this information comes from a sworn declaration of Barrios' lawyer that was filed in federal court on March 18.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Mr. Barrios was going to have his due process at his hearing before Judge Robinson on April 17.
At that hearing, his lawyer would have presented her evidence that he was not a member of the Tren de Aragua gang and that he was not a criminal terrorist. She would also have presented evidence that he had fled Venezuela to escape from torture and persecution by Maduro's authoritarian government, and therefore that he deserved asylum in the U.S. under the conditions set down in the U.S. Asylum Law (8 U.S. Code, Section 1158). DHS officials could have presented their evidence and arguments as to why he should be deported. Judge Robinson would then have decided the case after weighing the evidence and arguments presented to him. That's due process of law.
And that's one of the fundamental natural rights that is expressly declared in the Constitution as necessary for securing individual liberty. If you can be deprived of your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, you are not a free human being.
Under the authoritarian dictatorship of Maduro in Venezuela, Mr. Barrios did not have that right. He fled to the United States because he thought that America was dedicated to securing such rights, and that in America, he could be a free man. He was wrong.
He did not foresee that Donald Trump would become the Red Caesar, ruling as one man over an autocratic government, and that he would issue an executive decree on March 15, 2025, suspending the constitutional right to due process of law.
On that date--only six days ago--Trump signed his "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua". In this executive order, Trump authorized the immediate deportation of any Venezuelan immigrants who were not naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States if any DHS officials identified them as members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a Venezuelan gang that Trump had earlier identified as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. As legal authority to do this, Trump appealed to his constitutional authority as president with authority to conduct the nation's foreign policy in time of war and to his legal authority under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
The Alien Enemies Act was originally one of the four laws enacted 1798 by the Federalist Party in Congress that were known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. These laws raised the residency requirements for citizenship from 5 to 14 years, and authorized the president to arrest, imprison, and deport "aliens" during time of war. The Sedition Act made it a crime for American citizens to "print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the government. These laws were enacted by the Federalists against the opposition party--the Democratic-Republicans. It was assumed that new citizens would typically support the Democratic-Republican Party, and so the Federalists wanted to reduce the number of new citizens. In particular, the Federalists were afraid of Frenchmen in the United States because the Democratic-Republicans were thought to be supporters of the French Revolution at a time when the U.S. was in a quasi-war with France, and it was widely thought that the U.S. and France would soon be openly at war. The Federalists also wanted to use the Sedition Act to punish editors of Democratic-Republican newspapers.
The intense controversy over these laws was one reason why the election of 1800 became one of the most dangerous elections in American history, which came close to provoking a civil war. Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans won the election, which marked the beginning of the decline of the Federalist Party. (As I have said previously, it's good to be reminded of this election as showing that partisan polarization going to the edge of civil war is nothing new in American history.)
As a consequence of Jefferson's victory, three of the four Alien and Sedition Acts were repealed. But the Alien Enemies Act was preserved, and it remains a statutory law today. Here is section 21 of that law:
Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.
Originally, in the law of 1798, the law applied to "males of the age of fourteen years and upward." In 1918, the word "males" was dropped. Otherwise, the language of this law is the same today as it was in 1798.
Notice that this law is restricted to circumstances in which the U.S. is in a "declared war" with a foreign nation or government, or in which there has been some "invasion or predatory incursion" by a foreign nation or government. A "declared war" requires a declaration of war from Congress, which is an enumerated power of Congress. But an attack by a foreign nation or government might create an emergency even without a congressional declaration of war.
Notice what the law does not say. It does not say that the President in the specified circumstances may suspend the right to due process of law. Therefore, before the immigrants subject to this law can be detained or deported, they must have the right to a hearing before a judge where they can present evidence that they are not "alien enemies" of the United States. That's what would have happened if Mr. Barrios had been permitted his hearing on April 17.
But if you interpret this law as implying the suspension of due process--because it is assumed that "all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government" who have not become naturalized citizens of the U.S. are "alien enemies" of the United States--then this law is unconstitutional because it violates the Fifth Amendment right to due process held by "all persons."
In all of American history, the Alien Enemies Act has been invoked only three times--in the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. In World War I and II, it was the law that authorized detentions and expulsions of German, Austro-Hungarian, Japanese, and Italian immigrants.
In his executive order of March 15, Trump declares that the TdA gang is "conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States," and that they are acting under the control of Nicolas Maduro's government in Venezuela. Trump claims that this has created "a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States."
Trump then proclaims "that all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies." He orders that "pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, consistent with applicable law, apprehend, restrain, secure, and remove every Alien Enemy described in section 1 of this proclamation."
This presidential proclamation is clearly illegal and unconstitutional. It is illegal because it does not satisfy the conditions prescribed by the Alien Enemies Act: Venezuela is not at war with the U.S., and the TdA gang is not an agent of the Venezuelan government carrying out an invasion of the U.S.
It is unconstitutional because it denies the constitutional right of Venezuelan immigrants to due process of law by denying their right to have a hearing before a judge to determine whether they really are "alien enemies" of the U.S.
In his proclamation, Trump claims that TdA is an agent of the Venezuelan government. But there is little evidence for this. Trump does not even mention the fact that Venezuelan security forces have exchanged gunfire with TdA gang members.
Trump says that the gang had expanded in the Venezuelan region of Aragua when Tareck El Aissami was governor of that region, and then in 2017 Maduro appointed him as vice president. But Trump says nothing about the fact that Aissami is no longer in the Maduro administration, which is prosecuting him on charges of corruption.
Within a few hours of Trump's proclamation on March 15, about 238 Venezuelan immigrants (including Mr. Barrios) were flown out of Texas to El Salvador, where the U.S. had made a deal to pay El Salvador $6 million dollars to imprison up to 300 Venezuelans deported from the U.S. for one year. El Salvador's prisons are notorious for their brutality.
On the night of March 15th, Judge James E. Boasberg of the Federal District Court in Washington issued an order blocking the deportation of these Venezuelans. When he was told that the planes were already in the air, he ordered that they must be told to turn around and return to the U.S. DHS officials refused to obey his order. Trump has said that this judge needs to be impeached, and that no judge has the right to obstruct a president's orders in cases like this.
Trump and his DHS officials have asserted that all of these Venezuelan deportees are clearly foreign terrorist members of the TdA gang. But when the DHS officials are asked to present evidence of this to Judge Boasberg, what they say is laughable. For example, Robert Cerna, an Acting Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations for ICE submitted a sworn affidavit, which includes this passage:
While it is true that many of the TdA members removed under the AEA do not have criminal records in the United States, that is because they have only been in the United States for a short period of time. The lack of a criminal record does not indicate they pose a limited threat. In fact, based upon their association with TdA, the lack of specific information about each individual actually highlights the risk they pose. It demonstrates that they are terrorists with regard to whom we lack a complete profile (sec. 9).
Notice what he is saying here: the lack of any specific evidence that someone is a terrorist demonstrates that he is a terrorist!
In the meantime, Mr. Barrios is languishing in a secret prison in El Salvador where he will be tortured and perhaps killed.
This one case of the deportation of Venezuelans by order of Trump clearly illustrates how the Red Caesar Plan works. Trump will appeal to both statutory law and constitutional law to justify his autocratic power as the Red Caesar. In this case, he interprets the Alien Enemies Act as giving him absolute power to deport immigrants that he identifies as "alien enemies." And he interprets the Constitution--particularly, Article II as interpreted by the Unified Executive Theory--as giving him absolute power: "I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president."
When a federal judge rules that Trump's orders are illegal and unconstitutional because his interpretations of statutory law and constitutional law are mistaken, Trump will ignore the judge's ruling and claim that a President has the power to interpret the laws and the Constitution in any way he wants. And if the Supreme Court rules against him, he will say what Andrew Jackson reputedly said in response to a Supreme Court ruling he didn't like: you have made your ruling, now enforce it.
The joke, of course, is that federal courts cannot enforce their orders without help from the officers in the executive branch--such as U.S. Marshalls enforcing contempt of court rulings. But a Red Caesar like Trump will order the executive officers not to enforce these court orders.
Notice how Trump as the Red Caesar has the absolute sovereignty that comes from combining the executive, legislative, and judicial powers in his hands. Trump makes laws by signing executive decrees. Trump executes those laws that he has made by ordering executive officials to carry them out according to his directions. Trump judges the laws by interpreting them for himself and deciding how they apply to particular cases, and refusing to obey judicial orders that go against his will.
Here we see the foundational principle for the Red Caesar Plan: autocratic nihilism. There is no law constraining the will of Caesar because the law is nothing more than the product of Caesar's will. This overturns one of the fundamental principles of countervailance (the separation of powers with checks and balances)--that no man is permitted to be the judge in his own case.
Trump's sovereign will is the law. As the source of the law, he himself cannot act unlawfully. Whatever he does, he wills to do; and if he wills to do it, it is for that reason lawful.
This conforms to Curtis Yarvin's argument for a Filmerian monarchy exercising political sovereignty that is unlimited and undivided. Yarvin and Michael Anton devised the Red Caesar Plan as the best way for Trump to claim absolute sovereignty.
That's the dark future we face as we enter into the postconstitutional order of Red Caesarism.
As I have said in my recent posts, we need to understand the grandiose narcissism of Trump's chimpanzee politics and how his despotic dominance can be challenged by the resistance to dominance coming from those few people with an ambition to rule and those many people who don't want to rule but who don't want to be exploited by the dominant rulers.
The particular case here--Trump's deportation of Mr. Barrios to an El Salvadorean prison where he will be tortured and killed by prison guards paid by the U.S. government--raises a stark question for the American people: Do they want to be ruled by a Red Caesar who has the power to take life, liberty, and property without due process of law?
This question points to deeper questions about Trump's nihilism. Are the intellectual promoters of Trump's Red Caesarism--at the Claremont Institute and elsewhere--right in their nihilistic claim that there is no moral law constraining the will of Caesar, because all law is the arbitrary creation of his will? Or is it possible that rights such as the right to due process are not just legal or constitutional rights but natural rights rooted in the moral law of nature in the state of nature?
Originally, the Claremont Institute was grounded in Harry Jaffa's teaching that America was dedicated to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and particularly to the Lockean understanding that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are natural rights, that governments are established to secure those natural rights, and that any government that is destructive of those rights can be altered or abolished, and the people can institute new government that is more likely to secure those natural rights.
To Trump's claim that "I have the right to do whatever I want as president," Jaffa would have answered: No, you don't, because you have no right to violate the natural rights invoked by the Declaration of Independence and secured by the Constitution--natural rights such as every person's right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. But now the Claremont Institute has rejected Jaffa's teaching so that they can promote the nihilism of Red Caesarism.
In my next post, I will argue that Darwinian Lockean Liberalism would support Jaffa's moral naturalism against Trump's immoral nihilism.
No comments:
Post a Comment