How Trump is banking on 18th Century laws for his border and citizenship promises | CNN Politics

CNN - Jan 4th, 2025

President-elect Donald Trump plans to revive centuries-old laws to push forward his first-year agenda, targeting immigration and birthright citizenship. He aims to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expedite deportations and the Insurrection Act of 1807 to possibly deploy the military domestically for immigration enforcement. Additionally, Trump and allies consider enforcing the Comstock Act of 1873 to restrict mailing abortion drugs, despite its controversial history. His approach is expected to face legal challenges, especially from a conservative Supreme Court, which could determine the extent of executive power under these laws.

The implications of Trump's strategy are significant as they could reshape immigration policies and civil liberties in the US. By using historical laws with contentious pasts, Trump seeks to challenge established norms, like birthright citizenship, protected under the 14th Amendment. Critics argue that these actions could lead to legal battles and civil rights concerns, drawing attention to how the Supreme Court may respond. The potential use of military forces for deportations also raises questions about the balance of power and the role of the military in domestic affairs.

Donald Trump Immigration Supreme Court Alien Enemies Act Birthright Citizenship Insurrection Act Comstock Act Abortion Laws Military Deployment

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.2

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

This article provides a detailed exploration of President-elect Donald Trump's potential policy strategies using historical laws, touching on the implications and challenges of such approaches. Its strengths lie in its thorough examination of the legal nuances and historical context of the laws discussed, as well as the potential political and judicial reactions. However, the article could improve in terms of balance by including more perspectives from those supporting Trump's strategies. While the sources and context are generally well-articulated, there are areas where additional verification and diverse viewpoints could enhance the article's depth and impartiality.

Accuracy

The article is largely accurate in its presentation of facts, citing historical laws such as the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and the Insurrection Act of 1807 with appropriate context and historical usage. It accurately quotes figures like President-elect Trump and legal experts like William Banks and Katherine Yon Ebright, lending credibility to its claims. However, while the article effectively outlines the legal background and potential implications of invoking these laws, it would benefit from more explicit citation of primary sources or legal documents to further substantiate claims. For example, while it mentions the Supreme Court's historical stance on laws like the Insurrection Act, direct references to specific cases or legal texts could bolster the article's factual foundation.

Balance

The article presents a predominantly critical viewpoint on Trump's proposed use of historical laws, supported by quotes from legal experts who highlight potential abuses and historical misuses. While it acknowledges that some conservatives support these strategies, the article could enhance balance by providing more viewpoints from Trump's allies or legal theorists who might justify or support these actions. This would help present a fuller spectrum of opinion and reduce perceived bias. The mention of Vice President-elect JD Vance's support for enforcing the Comstock Act is a step towards balance, but additional perspectives and arguments from supporters would provide a more nuanced understanding of the topic.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-organized, effectively communicating complex legal and historical information in a way that is accessible to readers. The structure logically progresses from discussing Trump's intentions to the historical context and potential legal implications. The tone remains professional, though there are instances where emotive language could be toned down to maintain a consistently neutral stance. For example, the phrase 'dust off a series of centuries-old laws' may carry a slightly dismissive connotation. Overall, the article successfully balances detailed legal analysis with a narrative that is easy to follow, though minor revisions could further enhance clarity and neutrality.

Source quality

The sources cited in the article, including legal experts and historical references, are generally credible and relevant to the discussion. Quotes from William Banks and Katherine Yon Ebright provide authoritative insights into the legal ramifications of Trump's potential actions. However, the article could strengthen its credibility by incorporating a wider variety of sources, particularly those with differing viewpoints or from institutions that could provide additional legal, historical, or political analysis. Furthermore, while the article references statements from Trump, more direct links to official speeches or documents would enhance the reliability of the information presented.

Transparency

The article does a commendable job of providing historical context and detailing the potential legal challenges of Trump's proposed actions. It outlines the historical usage and controversies associated with the laws in question, providing readers with a clear understanding of the basis for the claims made. However, it could improve transparency by explicitly disclosing any potential biases of the authors or the publication. Additionally, while the article discusses the legal opinions and predictions of various experts, it could provide more detail on the methodologies or criteria these experts use to form their opinions, offering readers deeper insight into the basis of their conclusions.