Skip to main content

Featured

Alberta Separation Dream Stalls: What the Court Ruling Means for Your Wallet and Canada's Future

                                                                                               Alberta Legislature Building, Edmonton.  A judge has killed Alberta’s separation referendum petition, citing a failure to consult First Nations. Premier Danielle Smith vows to appeal — but the path forward is murky, and the economic stakes for all Canadians are enormous. MoneySavings.ca Staff  •  May 15, 2026  •  6 min read For much of the past year, Alberta separatists believed they were on the cusp of a historic moment. The grassroots group Stay Free Alberta had gathered over 301,000 petition signatures — well above the 178,000 required — and Premier Danielle Smith had already booked Oct...

article

Supreme Court Decision Sparks Debate Over Alien Enemies Act


The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump, allowing the use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members. This decision, made in a 5-4 vote, has reignited discussions about the application of this wartime law in modern times.

The Alien Enemies Act, historically employed during wartime, grants the president authority to deport individuals deemed a national security risk. Trump's administration invoked this law to expedite the deportation of members of the Tren de Aragua gang. However, the court emphasized that detainees must be given notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal through habeas corpus claims.

Critics argue that the law's application in this context exceeds its intended scope, as it was designed for wartime scenarios involving foreign governments. Supporters, however, view the decision as a victory for national security and presidential authority.

The ruling has sparked legal and ethical debates, with dissenting justices questioning the legitimacy of using the Alien Enemies Act for non-state actors like gangs. The case continues to highlight tensions between executive power and judicial oversight in immigration policy.

Comments