Alien Enemies Act and Civil Liberties

Anjali Mehta

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798. It’s... a fascinating, yet concerning piece of legislation from a historically tense period, right? Like, the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans were politically divided, and the Quasi-War with France was stirring immense paranoia about foreign influence.

Duke Johnson

Right, which is why they drafted it. Clear threat environment back then. I mean, foreign nationals from hostile countries - they could’ve been a danger to the nation. Couldn't take chances.

Anjali Mehta

But it was more than just precaution. The Act granted, um, sweeping powers to the president—allowing detention or deportation of noncitizens during times of war, without any due process. It set a legal precedent for bypassing judicial oversight.

Duke Johnson

You’re saying bypass like it’s a bad thing. Sometimes, you gotta work fast. Courts? They slow things down during wartime. You can’t wait on bureaucracy when you're facing threats. Period.

Anjali Mehta

Okay, but, Duke, don't you think this opens the door to executive overreach? Think about historical cases—like, I mean, ordinary people were uprooted and detained. Japanese-Americans during World War II—

Duke Johnson

—Hold up, hold up. That wasn’t the Act itself, though. You’re mixing it up. That internment went way beyond just... wartime legislation. The Act’s meant for real declared wars, not for political theater.

Anjali Mehta

Maybe, but the Alien Enemies Act stayed in place and was invoked in questionable ways. I—it feels like it created a slippery slope, where fear can, basically, override fundamental rights. And marginalized groups—not the power players—face the brunt of this.

Duke Johnson

Yeah, listen, I hear you on that. But if we’re talking about relevance, the fact that the Act’s still around means it serves a purpose. Its survival, unlike the other Alien and Sedition Acts, kinda proves that.

Anjali Mehta

Hmm, or maybe it’s because it's vague enough to be repurposed as a tool for... well, what some might call abuse, right? During crises, there's a pattern—executive powers expand, sometimes unchecked. And it’s regular folks who end up paying the price.

Duke Johnson

Wars aren’t tidy, Anjali. You can’t protect every right while protecting the nation. Sometimes there are costs. But I get it, history shows some clumsy handling. Doesn't make the Act itself bad—it’s how you use it.

Anjali Mehta

And that’s exactly why we have to question it. Whether historical or modern, the effects of these sweeping powers ripple out far beyond the immediate need. Execu—

Duke Johnson

—Hold on, you’re about to dive into examples, like World War stuff, right? Let's save that and jump in properly when you're ready to unpack those.

Anjali Mehta

Okay, Duke, let’s dive into those examples you mentioned. Starting with World War I—this Act was invoked amid fears of espionage. German nationals in the U.S. were surveilled, some detained, and others faced restrictions on things like employment or property ownership. The extent of it, though—whole communities were uprooted.

Duke Johnson

Right, but it wasn’t just the German nationals. Look at World War II. By then, it was ramped up, especially with Japanese, German, and Italian nationals. Some detentions, surveillance of their homes, even turning over businesses. That’s wartime reality—measures were tough but necessary, considering the threats back then.

Anjali Mehta

Necessary? Okay, but let's get specific about Japanese-Americans. Over 120,000 people were forcibly relocated to internment camps under the justification of “national security.” Many were U.S. citizens, Duke. They're the ones who suffered under the kind of unchecked executive power the Alien Enemies Act enables.

Duke Johnson

Sure, it got messy. I’m not here to defend internment camps. That wasn’t just this Act—I mean, that was a whole cocktail of wartime hysteria and bad decisions. But I’ll say this: leaders had to react to real threats, even if they overstepped lines.

Anjali Mehta

Alright, but overstepping lines has consequences. The Korematsu case comes to mind. The Supreme Court upheld the internment camps as a “military necessity” back then, but just a few years ago, the Court openly called that decision “gravely wrong.” Doesn’t that prove how dangerous these powers can become?

Duke Johnson

Yeah, modern courts tossed Korematsu under the bus. But back in the '40s, leaders were dealing with what they had—half a million Japanese troops sitting across the Pacific doesn’t let you gamble on loyalty issues. Was it perfect? No. But it wasn’t baseless either.

Anjali Mehta

Okay, but it created a precedent. When we allow sweeping powers in the name of security, we risk repeating those mistakes. And marginalized groups—those who aren’t in positions of power—they always pay the highest price. All while the Act itself remains on the books without addressing its historical abuses.

Duke Johnson

Look, I hear you on that, but doesn’t history also show how much we’ve learned? Courts today wouldn’t greenlight something like Korematsu again. The Act might have flaws, but the system’s evolved. We’ve got limits now—checks and balances. It’s not 1940 anymore.

Anjali Mehta

But, Duke, those “checks” are... kind of only as strong as the leaders in charge. And emergency powers tend to creep, don’t they? What starts as a narrow measure can expand quickly when fear takes over.

Duke Johnson

Fair. But fear ain't always irrational, Anjali. Look at how threats today evolve—cyber, espionage, hybrid warfare. Tools like this Act? They still matter.

Anjali Mehta

Fine, they matter. But should they exist without reform? I mean... history doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. And speaking of modern threats—let’s dive into how this legislation could look in practice today.

Anjali Mehta

Alright, Duke, so we’ve established how history set the stage for this Act’s controversy. Now, let’s explore how it’s resurfacing in today’s policies. Take Trump’s proposal to expedite deportations—he’s invoking this 18th-century law in a context far removed from its original purpose. Doesn’t that feel unprecedented?

Duke Johnson

Yeah, you’re right. It’s a big move. But look, he’s focused on streamlining deportations. Immigration courts? Backlogged for years. If this law bypasses those delays, maybe it’s what we need to stay on top of things.

Anjali Mehta

Sure, but bypassing courts means bypassing due process. It risks turning immigration enforcement into a no-questions-asked policy. People have rights, Duke—rights that shouldn’t evaporate because of efficiency.

Duke Johnson

Rights are important, Anjali, but so is national security. If folks are here illegally, especially from nations with hostile intentions, we’ve gotta prioritize safety. And yeah, maybe it’s not pretty, but neither is letting threats fester because we’re hung up on procedures.

Anjali Mehta

Okay, but let’s talk about precedent. Like, during World War II, overreach under the guise of security led to the internment of Japanese-Americans. We paid reparations for that, Duke. Doesn’t it feel like we’re repeating the same mistakes all over again?

Duke Johnson

Mistakes, sure. But we’re in a different world now. We’ve got watchdogs, courts, the media. Leaders don’t get to just... run wild anymore. Plus, internment camps and deporting gang members? Not even close to the same thing.

Anjali Mehta

Alright, I’ll give you that it’s not one-to-one. But the core issue remains: unchecked executive power risks targeting the marginalized. And today, in a globalized society, do we really want to rely on a law designed for... I don’t know, the Quasi-War with France?

Duke Johnson

It’s old, yeah. But just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s useless. The principle still works—if you’re a threat, you shouldn’t stick around. That’s not saying forget ethics... it’s saying be practical, too.

Anjali Mehta

And the practical thing would be to reform it, don’t you think? Make it align with modern legal standards, ensure due process is baked in, prevent it from becoming a tool for discrimination. I mean... if the goal is security, then the application has to be fair.

Duke Johnson

Sure, fair’s important. But reform takes time—we don’t always have that luxury. National security isn’t about perfect plans; it’s about action when it matters. That’s just reality.

Anjali Mehta

True. But unchecked action—without accountability—has consequences, Duke. We have to balance urgency with ethics, or we risk creating more problems than we solve. And history shows us where those missteps lead.

Duke Johnson

Fair enough. Look, I’m not saying this thing’s flawless. But we shouldn’t toss it out either. It’s a tool and like any tool, it’s about how you use it. And hopefully today, we’re smarter about it than they were back in 1798.

Anjali Mehta

If only history guaranteed that, huh? But, yeah, I hope so too. And maybe this conversation—the one we’re having right now—helps more folks think critically about these powers and how they’re wielded.

Duke Johnson

Yeah, if nothing else, we need eyes on it, right? Can’t let stuff slip through without asking the hard questions.

Anjali Mehta

Exactly. And on that note, I think we’ve given the Alien Enemies Act its due. Thanks for hashing this out with me, Duke. Always... enlightening.

Duke Johnson

Same here, Anjali. Good talk. Alright, folks, thanks for sticking with us. Until next time.