8

Stefan Molyneaux, on Twitter, said:

If even one American is found to be one of the forces behind the Honduran ‘caravan,’ that’s straight up treason.

He is referring to the migrant caravan that originated in Honduras and that is currently on its way to the United States border.

Now, I know that Molyneaux is not a law expert and that he was not educated in the legal profession. I also know that Molyneaux is intending to be provocative and probably doesn't care much whether what he says has any legal logic. (On a personal note: I think that most of what Molyneaux says is nonsense) Despite all of this, what he said still made me wonder if there is any merit to his claim.

According to Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Would helping to plan the caravan be "..adhering to [the United States's] enemies, giving them aid and comfort"? Under Article III, Section 3, could the act of aiding the caravan be considered treason?

Darien Springer
  • 199
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
    "Treason against the United States, shall consist ...in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." I wonder what the legal definition of "enemy" here is? Can a single person be an enemy? – NoDataDumpNoContribution Oct 24 '18 at 12:51
  • 10
    "During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown" [https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason] - perhaps Molyneaux is still in the 13th century. – BobE Oct 24 '18 at 14:15
  • 8
    "The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war." [https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason] – BobE Oct 24 '18 at 14:22
  • 3
    Treason, no. Criminal, possibly. – Richard Oct 24 '18 at 17:55
  • @Richard unlikely, however. You've linked to the conspiracy statute. What's the underlying offense? – phoog Oct 25 '18 at 04:47
  • 1
    @phoog - Entering the country illegally is a crime. Helping someone to enter the country illegally is also a crime. – Richard Oct 25 '18 at 06:48
  • 2
    @Richard it's not clear that anyone in the caravan is trying to enter the country illegally. If they're heading to the border with the intention of presenting an asylum application at a port of entry, for example, no crime is contemplated. A conspiracy prosecution would be difficult unless there were evidence showing an intention to help people enter illegally. – phoog Oct 25 '18 at 12:36
  • @phoog - There are no end of interviews from people in the caravan stating that they intend to enter the US illegally. – Richard Oct 25 '18 at 16:57
  • 1
    @Richard I haven't seen any such interviews -- could you post a link? Regardless, the presence of a person intending to commit a crime would not make an organizer guilty of conspiracy if the organizer did not know of the person's intent to commit the crime. Also, helping someone to enter the country illegally is only a crime if the illegal entrant is inadmissible on certain grounds (related to crime and security) and the person helping knows it (8 USC 1327). – phoog Oct 25 '18 at 17:33
  • @phoog - There are a considerable number of interviews here; https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/world/americas/honduras-migrant-caravan-voices.html. All appear to be economic migrants rather than those fleeing violence/persecution. – Richard Oct 25 '18 at 17:38
  • 3
    Nothing from that link suggests that any of them want to cross illegally. It is just a bunch of interviews of migrants saying why they are heading towards the US border. – Darien Springer Oct 25 '18 at 19:12
  • 1
    @Richard what Darien Springer said, plus being an economic migrant is not against the law. It suggests that any asylum claim they might make would be denied, but that's also not illegal. – phoog Oct 26 '18 at 12:00
  • @phoog - It's good to know that they'll all be making asylum claims, then leave peacefully if/when they're rejected rather than attempting to enter the US through illegal channels. – Richard Oct 26 '18 at 12:09
  • 1
    @Richard I'm sure they won't all do that, but we're talking about a conspiracy charge for an organizer of the caravan, and I haven't seen any evidence that one would stick. Suppose you organized a political march in Washington, and it became apparent that several participants intended to take hostages during the march. The presence of those people would not make you guilty of conspiracy. – phoog Oct 26 '18 at 12:33

2 Answers2

46

Reading some background on Stefan Molyneux (Wikipedia) would indicate that he is a (Canadian) right-wing provocateur (Merriam-Webster) and there is no legal logic to his claim that anyone involved with the migrant caravan - either as a refugee or a person giving aid - is committing an act of treason.

Provocateurs - on the political left or right - seek to incite arguments and/or movements on social or political issues with emotion and not on legal frameworks or logical discussion. Provocateurs use words and phrases that can be identified as Dog-whistles (Wikipedia). Calling out "treason" and accusing one of being a traitor are examples of dog whistles.

The legal reasoning against leveling calls of treason against anyone helping the caravan members are many; the migrants are not (from the U.S. Constitution:)

levying war against them (the US), or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort....

because:

• None of the countries of origin of the migrants are currently in armed conflict with the U.S.

• None of the migrants - alone or as a whole - are armed to engage the U.S. or are a threat to the U.S.

• The refugees are easily identified as economic migrants, political refugees or those fleeing violence (domestic, communal, sectarian).

• According to Refugee law (Wikipedia) and US Federal law, migrants have a right to due process at the border.

• There is no clear proof of an ulterior motive or funding for the migrants in the the caravans.

There could be - now or in the future - Americans or American-based aid groups helping individuals or the group as a whole with necessities with food and safety while they travel or after they arrive at the border. But the fact remains that each migrant - when and if they reach the US border - will be legally assessed individually as a migrant or refugee. The aid they may have received is really no different than what many NGOs provide who help arrange a refugees' processing through legal immigration channels, in some instances in conjunction with a US Government agency or with an arm of the United Nations. Such aid by an American is not treasonous for the legal reasoning above.

BlueDogRanch
  • 18,824
  • 5
  • 35
  • 61
  • 8
    I gave legal reasons - not political reasons - why there is no merit to his arguments. It sounds like you are more interested in the political background of what he said; that's a better fit for https://politics.stackexchange.com/ – BlueDogRanch Oct 24 '18 at 03:23
  • 12
    Agreed. Also, "enemy" in the sense of the treason clause means a country or organization with which the United States is at war or in active armed hostilities with, something that does not remotely encompass a group of unarmed migrants who purport to be refugees from Central American countries with whom the U.S. is not at war and has not been in armed hostilities with for many decades. – ohwilleke Oct 24 '18 at 03:28
  • 3
    I agree that his statements are nonsense. I just wanted to know if what he said had any merit. I find it helpful to know how to combat arguments I disagree with. – Darien Springer Oct 24 '18 at 07:14
  • 13
    This is right. The use of "treason" here is in the sense of "I don't like what you're doing, but America is really patriotic so I only need to call you a 'traitor' to encourage you to stop", which is increasingly in vogue right now. – Lightness Races in Orbit Oct 24 '18 at 09:31
  • 2
    "There is no clear proof of an ulterior motive or funding for the migrants and the caravan" - playing the other side, what are the considerations regarding the usage by EG human traffickers, drug smugglers etc? – SE Does Not Like Dissent Oct 24 '18 at 15:14
  • 1
    @SSight3 The possible existence of "human traffickers (and) drug smugglers" in the caravan are completely different questions. – BlueDogRanch Oct 24 '18 at 16:03
  • 3
    It seems to me that the answer hinges on the definition of "enemies" in that phrase. At one extreme, if one interprets "enemies" as "anyone we don't like", then the definition of treason becomes more expansive. -- @ohwilleke, do you have any references (e.g. Supreme Court decisions) for "enemy" in Article 2 section 3 being restricted to "organizations in active armed hostilities"? (I agree that would be how I would interpret it in context, but my opinion on the matter holds exactly zero weight, legally speaking.) – R.M. Oct 24 '18 at 17:06
  • Suggestion: Either add supporting evidence to points 2 and 5 or remove them. A quick duckduckgo search turns up 7k in the group. Considering the brazen disregard for officials and laws, it seems extremely unlikely none of them are armed. –  Oct 24 '18 at 18:55
  • 3
    There's no such thing as an "economic refugee". The right term is "economic immigrant" or possibly "illegal immigrant" in this case. – JonathanReez Oct 24 '18 at 19:18
  • 3
    @JonathanReez I know this is nit-picking, but it’s just economic migrant as they can not only immigrate but also emigrate. ;) – e-sushi Oct 25 '18 at 00:26
  • @R.M. See David's answer below. – ohwilleke Oct 25 '18 at 02:56
  • 1
    @Physics-Compute what brazen disregard for officials and laws? And what bearing does it have on the question if any of them are armed? Even if they are armed, they are not engaged in an armed conflict with the United States. – phoog Oct 25 '18 at 04:51
  • 3
    @LightnessRacesinOrbit Calling someone a traitor is more worrying than that in my opinion. These people are basically saying that their opponents should be killed, which is the penalty for treason. So on the one hand you are enabling your more unstable supporters to justify violent action against the so called traitors and on the other hand scaring your opponents (or simply people you don't like) with the idea that these unstable, potentially violent people, will come after them. I think being worried you are not seeming patriotic enough is a lesser concern. – Eric Nolan Oct 25 '18 at 08:41
  • 1
    @Eric Exactly that yes – Lightness Races in Orbit Oct 25 '18 at 09:35
  • 3
    @Physics-Compute "Considering the brazen disregard for officials and laws, it seems extremely unlikely none of them are armed" What a load of hateful nonsense. – Lightness Races in Orbit Oct 25 '18 at 09:35
  • @ohwilleke you seemed to have forgotten to upvote David's answer when I looked at it last night. The main reason for this comment is to ask about the scope of the definition he cites, though: it certainly doesn't apply directly to the crime of treason. Is there anything suggesting that the same definition or a similar definition would apply? – phoog Oct 25 '18 at 12:48
  • 2
    R.M. the concept that you need to look at is named constructive treason. A lot of interpretation and analysis of the Treason Clause has hinged upon the Framers' explicit and recorded intention to avoid abuse and overextension of the crime of treason. – JdeBP Oct 25 '18 at 13:06
  • @phoog The definition adopted in 50 USC § 2204 restates the widely used definition of the term at common law and in a variety of other contexts (e.g. the enemy combatant cases), some of which have constitutional dimensions. – ohwilleke Oct 25 '18 at 23:01
  • "Calling out "treason" and accusing one of being a traitor are examples of dog whistles." It seems to be that it's pretty much the opposite of a dog whistle. It's a straight-up human whistle. – Acccumulation Aug 05 '21 at 21:00
6

According to 50 USC § 2204 [Title 50. War and National Defense]

"enemy of the United States" means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States.

This is not limited to nations, but it is limited to those activly engaged in the use of force against the US.

David Siegel
  • 113,558
  • 10
  • 204
  • 404
  • 4
    I have upvoted this answer, but it should be noted that the cited definition does not apply directly to the crime of treason, because it is scoped to the chapter in which it is found, while treason is defined in a different chapter (indeed, in a different title, at 18 USC chapter 115). Still it seems likely that a similar definition would apply to the crime of treason. – phoog Oct 25 '18 at 12:41
  • 3
    Although there's a fair body of analysis of the Treason Clause, explanation of what specifically constitutes an Enemy is notable by its absence from the literature. In part, I suspect, this is because no case law has yet hinged upon that. However, it seems unlikely that enemy of the United States as it pertains to the Treason Clause could be bent so far out of shape as to encompass people who want to come into, live in, and work in the United States; none of which being treasonable overt acts on their faces. – JdeBP Oct 25 '18 at 13:17