Transcript of the above video:

As the title of this video suggests, well the thumbnail, folks might not know what this is. This is actually from a scene in the movie Bridge of Spies. And there's a scene where Tom Hanks is defending Abel who, he's this accused spy, turned out he would be convicted in the actual history and he wasn't actually, and he was actually a Soviet spy. But Tom Hanks is defending him in the Law Courts and there are legal arguments to be made. And one of the ones that Tom Hanks brings up his Yick Wo v. Hopkins I believe where he basically says, "look you have to accord able certain due process rights, because you didn't," basically he's challenging the warrant, he said you didn't get a warrant to search this specific area, and the Judge basically throws this out. and he says, there's a scene in there where Tom Hanks is essentially citing a very foundational case with regard to immigrants or people who are in the United States is that even people, whether they are Americans or not, there are certain due process rights that are just accorded by default by being in America, that's basically the underlying holding of the case. The Judge departs from that in the case involving Abel because he basically says, "rights as what? Depriving them of what due process rights? You're saying we violated his Fourth Amendment due process rights. Well rights as what?" 

And that brings up a fundamental question, and I think it's one that people are going to be asking and frankly Americans are going to be struggling with in the years ahead, is this question, "rights as what?" And it comes back to a notion in the Constitution and now I'm going to sort of bring forth my first year of law school, Con Law 1 class, which Privileges and Immunities of United States Citizenship. By dint of being an American there are certain privileges and immunities and that's what brings up the Judge’s question in that film Bridge of Spies that we are using in the thumbnail is "rights as what?" Is this person that we're dealing with that's in the United States illegally, do they have any rights? And if so, rights as what? 

And I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from Zero Hedge zerohedge.com, the article is titled: Is Trump's Third World Immigration Ban A Precursor To The Insurrection Act? Quoting directly: "Trump already has the ability to cancel TPS extensions, cancel extensions on visas, and expand the ban on immigrant and visa applications from any country he chooses (19 nations are already on the ban list). However, under the Insurrection Act Trump can deploy the National Guard for direct deportations, rather than simply acting as a barrier between ICE Agents and protesters. This would expedite deportations far beyond what is currently possible. Of course there will be accusations of Constitutional violations from both Democrats and Republicans." 

Well let me start by saying, I don't know that I'd want National Guard, the whole notion of troops in America domestically gets very creepy. That's why this is starting to be where this nexus of law policy, sovereignty, plenary power, legal authority, even military intervention gets very nebulous in the analysis of American Immigration Law. Now that said, it does bring up the point of what constitutional violations really do accrue to somebody who entered the country illegally? And is the Insurrection Act entirely outside of bounds if you consider a mass movement of people to enter the country illegally starts to look like an invasion at a certain point. That said, quoting further: "That said, many of these people may not realize how substantial the public support for deportations is."

Yeah, I can completely understand it as both an American and as somebody who has lived in Thailand for years. And I respect the Thai system of "hey, if you don't have a reason for being here, you're not Thai, you don't have an unfettered right to be here, move along kind of thing. There is some sense in it. Quoting further: "According to surveys, 66% of Americans agree with Trump's deportation policies, even if a migrant has not committed a crime after entering into the country." Well they committed a crime entering the country; that's the point. And that's what we get back to with the issue of this Judge, "rights as what?" Americans? And then we are according rights and privileges and immunities to people who from the get-go, from their initial interaction with the country, broke the law. I'm sorry you just simply can't get away from that part of the analysis. And it brings you sort of full circle back to this "rights as what?"  

I'm not saying people shouldn't be accorded basic rights for human dignity, and yeah there should be no cruel or unusual punishments, and people should be put through the system as efficiently as possible. But the notion that there are rights associated with people who intentionally contravene the laws of the nation which they entered from the moment they entered it, is pretty nonsensical to me. And this is as a legal professional and as somebody who has been involved with US Immigration, been practicing it for almost 20 years. And look, I get I'm an anomaly; I do it from abroad. I know I have colleagues in America who would just be very upset I'm even talking like this, but it's a fact. I mean at the end of the day, if people that aren't Americans and that contravene American law in entering America, want to be accorded the same privileges and immunities of Americans, what does that say about our legal system? What's the point of having the distinction, if we're not going to ask the question “rights as what?” in the exact same way that that Judge in that film Bridge of Spies asked that question.