Transcript of the above video: 

It is not often that the subject matter, what we tend to cover over here on this channel comes to, frankly the subject matter itself is discussed by two people from very disparate if you will parts of - if you were to look at the internet or the social media sphere as an ecosystem - two people that come from two very different parts of it and its subject matter that I get to talk about with regard to US Immigration out here. The issue of US Immigration is going to become more and more of a hot button issue I expect, especially going into the midterm elections in 2026. And the reason for this is it cuts to the quick of some of the most pertinent issues regarding things like US Citizenship, Privileges and Immunities of US citizenship including rights to privacy - and I am so sick and tired of that nonsense of "oh well the Constitution doesn't explicitly state anything about privacy". Well one, we inherently have the right pursuant to what is it, the 9th Amendment which just notes our inherent rights to begin with, and that anything not meant, it doesn't have to be codified in the Constitution or the Declaration or the Bill of Rights in order to be an inherent right. We have it regardless; again the 9th Amendment speaks to that directly. So the whole concept of "oh well privacy isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, therefore it's"; I remember seeing that in an old Law and Order with old Fred Dalton Thompson, I think after he had been a Senator or before he had been a Senator, whatever, but in that episode they were talking primarily about the Roby Wade decision and getting into the issue of the penumbra of due process and things and he says, "where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to privacy?" basically. It's a constant trope I used to hear, and it was nonsense then it's nonsense now. Just because the word 'privacy' is not inherently written, like specifically written in the document, does not mean it lacks a right of privacy element. I mean the Fourth Amendment says what it says. It has been ignored in my opinion far too often; just threw legislative excess and interpretive overreach I think it has been ignored willfully at this point. But that being said, it's sitting there, and it is what it is. 

The reason I am coming to this, I bring up privacy to begin with is I talked recently in another video about ICE, ICE Nine, the threats to American liberty in terms ICE collecting all this data, but at the same time I tend to agree with ICE going after people who enter the country illegally. I made a video not too long ago, years back but not too far back, where I was talking about how Patton got into a gun fight with Pancho Villa along the border; there was a time that the American Army patrolled the border. In my opinion we would be better off having them do that. That really fits very neatly into their bailiwick of what their function is, the army. That being said I also want my privileges and immunities of an American citizen no matter where I am at, whether I'm in the United States or not, and this idea of Digital ID that they are trying to kind of roll out in conjunction with the notion that well we have got to do it to fight illegal immigration, I don't necessarily agree with that. The point I am trying to make is assiduous enforcement and maintenance of our inherent liberties as Americans is going to be the tightrope that effectively this generation going through this fourth turning from what I can see, is going to walk in every way that counts. And I bring this up because there was recently Rogan, Joe Rogan of all people, which an illustrious individual within the pantheon of podcasting and sort of the internet altmedia, made some observations recently about Immigration and how it was sort of bad optics and things. I get his point, I really do, Rogan did bring up some good points. But as another person who I have listened to and read for a long period of time who is very much on the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of at least visibility out there in the social media, notwithstanding the fact he keeps getting up every day and plowing ahead is Mr. Brandon Smith over on Alt-Market, alt-market.us, and we will put a link in the description below in the photo credits because I used the photo he's got in his article for the thumbnail for this video that I made the thumbnail with. But that said, Brandon Smith has brought up some good points. I don't agree with Brandon on every little detail sometimes, but when he's right, he's right and I have noticed there being a lot of really almost to the point of sophistry sort of semantic arguments being tried to be rolled out on this illegal Immigration issue and I get it. I'm an anomalous US Immigration Attorney. Stateside most US Immigration Attorneys are going to have very different views. Probably one thing driving that is their client base and how they make their living, is going to bias them in their opinions on a certain level. I don't disagree with them either and people do have a fundamental right to due process. Now that said, as Mr. Smith brings up and I think Mr. Tom Homan has mentioned before too, look if you cross over into the country illegally, you're illegal from the moment you're going in, so due process gets pretty vague and thin and ethereal when you get into the issue of, 'well from the get-go, somebody operated illegally', so what type of due process rights are we talking about?

That said, I thought initially of making this video after watching the clips from Rogan, and then, some of my thoughts weren't fully articulated on it, and then Brandon Smith released this on his website, again, Alt-Market, alt-market.us, the article is titled: Joe Rogan criticizes the Harsh Tactics of ICE: Here's Why He's Wrong. Quoting directly: "Rogan is right more often than not, but he's completely wrong on the issue of ICE arrests. An illegal that has been living in the US for 20 years should be at the TOP of the list for deportation." - now I urge those who are watching this video, go read that article by Mr. Smith. You'll get more context but as they point out earlier in the article, that is kind of what Joe Rogan was saying. Look somebody has been here 20 years, they get arrested, it's hard to see. Yeah, true, but they have been illegal for 20 years. I mean that's the point Mr. Smith is also making. They really ought to be at the top of the list if they've been flouting the law that long. That said, quoting further: "They have been feeding off the US economy, taking jobs that should have gone to Americans, and they've been doing it for a painfully long time. I have no sympathy for illegals who defy deportation after years of exploiting the system, refusing to work for naturalized citizenship, refusing to assimilate and even getting violent when they're caught." Quoting further: "Illegal migrants do not have the same due process rights under federal law as native citizens." Yeah, that is true. "Illegal immigrant" is a term under US Federal Law. They are in a different category; it does not accord the same privileges and immunities of United States citizenship. That's the difference between being a citizen and not being a citizen. Quoting further: "Due process for an illegal only requires that ICE verify that the person is a foreigner and that they do not have a proper Visa or green card. That's it. No courts, no jury, no appeals, no playing games. They can be quickly booted, and this is a good thing." 

I have discussed this in videos in the past. There's actually a mechanism under old IIRAIRA, the Act, I think it was passed in the '90s, called Expedited Removal. US Customs and Border Protection have that power at their disposal at all times. I've often wondered why it wasn't being utilized far more often in matters pertaining to the border the last four and a half years or so, but I never got much of a clear answer. Meanwhile, I get really angry on this on another level because I deal with a lot of legal immigrants and legal immigrants oftentimes get all kinds of problems through the legal system because for political reasons people want to look like they are “doing something”, and it's kind of easy to shake the tree of the people going through the process. But it's even more aggravating when you consider especially the past four years, where the illegality was so wantonly and brazenly ignored. I would also argue negligently ignored by the very institutions that are there to thwart it. That's another thing that is so galling in all this is the legal system, frankly it has gotten more Byzantine, more difficult to deal with, more time consuming while the illegal side, for a while it just seemed like a free-for-all. And I tend to agree with the attitude of Mr. Smith and other Americans in his way of thinking that "hey, we need to clean this up" and I think we do. I mean it has kind of to an extent made of mockery of the very legal system itself in a way, as Mr. Smith again points out when pointing out the fact that illegal immigrants is a legal status. They try to come up with all these weird buzz words: undocumented and all this nonsense. Illegality is what it is. If you came in illegally, with intent especially, then I mean why expect any higher if you will threshold of legal benefit when you knew you were entering illegally to begin with. He brings up a good point on that.

That said, quoting further: "It's interesting to me that globalist propaganda has been so effective in brainwashing liberals and centrists..." - and that is interesting. He brings that up. I tend to think of myself as, a lot of people would say, "oh well you're heavily out on the libertarian side of the spectrum". I don't think of myself that way. I actually I think myself as an old school centrist. More in line I think than people would otherwise believe me to be with a guy like George HW Bush or a Bob Dole from back in the day, but that said, I don't know how those guys would feel about the way things have turned out now. That being said, centrists as Mr. Smith points out really need to kind of understand where we are at in this that to enforce Immigration Law anywhere, and look there are ramifications in a way or at least there is a reverberating clang, to borrow from the Shepherd Case in my Evidence Class back in law school, there's a reverberating clang of this over in Thailand insofar as people sometimes say 'well you know the Thais are real strict on immigration'. Yeah, because they watch the problems through the rest of the world that being not strict on immigration can cause and this is one of them. And it can cause internal tensions once these people are in if they are illegal, because it's not fun to see people removed from a place and deported, but if they're there illegally, that is the legal remedy for that. That said, quoting further: “...centrists that they continue to think that basic Immigration Laws common to most nations around the world are somehow Draconian and ugly when applied in the US." Yeah, and that has been an interesting one too. Places like Mexico, if you are illegal in Mexico and the Immigration Authorities find that out, they will deport you; they have no problem doing that. Other countries same way. Thailand same deal, yet again it has been something of a snow job from a PR sense the last few years where they have sort of made folks think in the West that to enforce their Immigration Laws is somehow like he says Draconian or something. No. It's just law enforcement. It's what it is. That said, quoting further: "...somehow Draconian and ugly when applied in the US. Only the US gets this kind of criticism. Only American conservatives are called "monsters" for wanting secure borders and a country free from foreign invasion." Yeah, good point, Mr. Smith. Tip of the hat to you sir. 

Again, I urge those who are watching this video go check out that article, and this is I think, Rogan has a tendency I think, I think he's a good guy at the end of the day. And he doesn't want to be overly reactionary toward people; he wants sort of goodwill toward men; I get that. But Mr. Smith brings up a good point as well when he points out the fact that "hey, at the end of the day, people that intentionally came into America illegally are illegal immigrants from the get go, and we really have got to keep that in the forefront of our minds when dealing with them, because yeah as sad, as sympathetic as their story could be after they committed their crime, they still committed the crime. And in a sense, very much akin to the way in RICO cases there is something called a "Continuing Criminal Enterprise" if you will, to continue to be in the US illegally as an ongoing commission of that crime. So again, Law enforcement in that set of circumstances is not unwarranted let alone unreasonable; it just is what it is. Again it's not always the most pleasant thing to see but I think Mr. Smith makes a good point in his article that look there's going to be some time for enforcement of relevant Immigration Law isn't going to be the most pleasant thing to see moving forward. 

Now that said, I think it's important to also keep in mind that there are those who come to America legal and are trying to go through the process through the correct manner and America was very much not founded, well in a sense founded by and maintained by immigrants, but legal, lawful immigrants and they came through the system, not invaded, and that's a big difference. There is a huge chasm of difference between immigration and invasion, and I think at this particular moment perhaps this sort of difference in mindset between Mr. Rogan and Mr. Smith goes a long way in elucidating that difference between immigration and invasion. That said, exactly how this plays out remains to be seen so we will certainly be keeping you updated on this channel as the situation evolves.