And yet, Democrats lamenting their current polling status seem determined to land on the most radical position possible with Tren de Aragua deportations. And that's because of their knee-jerk automatic opposition to any action taken by Donald Trump. 

The deportation of hundreds of Tren de Aragua-linked illegal aliens is just the latest example of this ding-dong all-in to own the MAGAs. None of these illegal aliens have a claim to a legitimate presence in the US. All of them have been linked to an international criminal syndicate which has used their entries to expand their operations in the US. Communities across the country have suffered murders and other violent crimes at the hands of these illegal aliens. And their home country was more than willing to accept them and imprison them for crimes they have committed.

So what's the problem? Democrats and one activist judge objected to Trump's use of a 1798 law to expedite their removal, called the Alien Enemies Act. The statute gives the president authority under both declared wars or "any invasion or predatory incursion":

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.

Emphases mine. There is likely a justiciable argument of applicability in this instance. Trump had already declared an emergency on the border, and used the word "invasion" in support of it. However, the "invasion" does not directly involve a foreign nation or government, nor has Congress declared war on any of the countries in the Western Hemisphere. One could argue that even the "or" remains dependent on a state of war, which is the crux of the decision made by federal judge James Boasbeck.

Trump, however, did cite involvement by Venezuela's government in Tren de Aragua's "predatory incursion" in a declaration signed on Friday and released on Saturday:

I find and declare that TdA is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States. TdA is undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States both directly and at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela. I make these findings using the full extent of my authority to conduct the Nation’s foreign affairs under the Constitution.

So, yes, there are arguments in both directions, theoretically speaking. But in terms of political reality, why even bother to challenge it? In what world would it be an abuse of executive authority to deport illegal aliens affiliated with an international cartel associated with murder, drugs, and human trafficking? And in what world would it be a good idea to oppose such removals?

Perhaps that sells in Academia. But even there, one has to imagine some saner voices are questioning why the Left and Democrats are putting themselves in a position to oppose removals of crime-syndicate members that have created all sorts of misery in the US. How does anyone imagine that looks to 90% of voters, who wonder why they were allowed into the US to begin with? Even in general, deporting illegal-alien criminals is literally the most popular position that Trump has put in place, according to the February Harvard-Harris CAPS poll:

Even without the specific reference to Tren da Aragua, this is literally an 81/19 issue with the American public. Closing the borders against the 'invasion' is a close third place among Trump's policies, at 76/24. Furthermore, these are policies on which Trump enthusiastically ran and with which he won office again, so the popularity of these measures is no secret.

And yet Democrats and progressive activists insist in championing murderers and pimps illegally in the country rather than their swift ejection. And they wonder why polls show their favorability hitting bottom, and then some.

This comes in connection with the Left's push to make Mahmoud Khalil into a free-speech cause celebre. Khalil emigrated legally to the US, but has organized protests at Columbia -- which would be fine, if protests were all Khalil was organizing. However, Khalil also disseminates propaganda from Hamas, a known terrorist group listed as such by the State Department since 1997, and allegedly helped organize the violent seizure of at least one building at Columbia University that included the false imprisonment of two custodians on duty at the time. Those are crimes, not speech, and the US is under no obligation to allow people who commit such crimes to remain in the US. 

Is there an arguable case for this being a speech issue? A few people I respect believe so. But again, the question is why Democrats are going all-in on Khalil as some sort of political prisoner. Do they think 80% of voters care about Khalil or protecting the immigrant status of Hamas propagandists? Or have they bothered to look at polling data such as the aforementioned Harvard-Harris survey that consistently shows 75-80% of Americans supporting Israel rather than Hamas, including 75% of Democrats?

There's only one explanation for this full-speed rush to extremism -- Trump Derangement Syndrome. Whatever Trump says or does, Democrats rush to oppose it -- even when it makes sense and reflects the overwhelming consensus of the electorate. Even when it's common sense, Democrats will oppose it based on their only guiding principle: hating Trump. It's why their entire party is now enraged that Chuck Schumer failed to stop a bill that largely kept the last Biden budget levels in place -- because Trump supported it too. 

Groucho Marx diagnosed this insanity 93 years ago in Horse Feathers. The song "I'm Against It" could be the Democrats' anthem.