An LGBTQ+ asylum-seeker from Venezuela has allegedly been deported from the United States due to his tattoos, raising concerns about the use of an outdated 1798 law. According to Lindsay Toczylowski, the founder and president of the Immigrant Defenders Law Centre (ImmDef), her client, a Venezuelan tattoo artist, was sent back to El Salvador after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials misinterpreted the meaning of his body art.
The controversial decision reportedly relied on the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, a law originally designed to deport individuals deemed a threat to national security. Historically, the act was invoked during World War II to intern Japanese Americans. In this case, ICE officials allegedly linked the tattoos to Tren de Aragua, a notorious Venezuelan criminal gang, despite no evidence supporting this claim.
Toczylowski defended her client, stating, “Our client’s tattoos are not gang-related. They are benign and reflect his work in the arts.” She also criticized ICE for submitting photos of the tattoos as “evidence” without any other proof of criminal ties.
The asylum-seeker fled Venezuela last year to escape persecution and sought refuge in the United States. However, after months of detention in ICE custody, he was deported without a court hearing. Toczylowski expressed her concern about the impact of this deportation, especially given the absence of any legal proceedings.
ImmDef’s alarm grew when the client failed to appear at a scheduled court hearing, and the government lawyer could not provide an explanation for his absence. After contacting the Texas detention facility, Toczylowski learned that her client had “disappeared” from the online detainee locator.
The 1798 Alien Enemies Act grants the U.S. president broad authority to remove individuals based on their nationality or suspected affiliation with enemy organizations, often without concrete evidence. Legal experts and human rights organizations have raised alarms about the law’s vague criteria and its potential for misuse.
The law was previously challenged during the Trump administration, when former President Donald Trump claimed that Tren de Aragua posed an existential threat to the United States. However, a district judge ruled that the law could not justify deportations, as terms like “invasion” and “predatory incursion” refer to actions by enemy nations, not individual criminal groups. The case is expected to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to BBC reports.
Related topics: