S5 E02 - Immigration and Due Process: Unpacking Constitutional Misinterpretations

Due Process, the Constitution, and Immigration Enforcement: A Contract, Not a Slogan

The script argues that phrases like “freedom of speech,” “separation of church and state,” and “due process” are commonly quoted as slogans and misapplied when separated from the Constitution’s full text and structure. It claims the Constitution is a contract that applies to “We the People of the United States” and is meant to protect citizens from their own government, not to extend Bill of Rights protections to illegal aliens. The speaker focuses on the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, quoting “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” and contends that immigration enforcement—refusing entry, detaining, or removing illegal immigrants—does not deprive them of life, liberty, or property because they can leave and are only prevented from remaining in the U.S. The script further asserts that the due process clause is aimed at preventing lynchings and mob rule in capital-crime contexts, not guaranteeing elaborate procedures for removal, comparing removal to being ejected from Disney World. It uses analogies (reading sock labels, car-rental contracts) and examples (Pearl Harbor, “hot pursuit,” the “Maryland Father” Kilmar Abrego-Garcia, claims about asylum and benefits, comparisons to Nazi Germany and Venezuela) to argue that critics are creating a constitutional crisis by promoting mob rule, while ICE is enforcing the rule of law, concluding with calls to support ICE and law enforcement and to impeach Democrats for sowing sedition.

00:00 Due Process in the Headlines: Why the Constitution Isn’t a Slogan
00:33 Misquoting Rights: Free Speech & Religion Taken Out of Context
04:26 Read the Label: The Socks Story & Plain-Text Constitution
07:21 What a Constitution Is: A Contract for ‘We the People’
08:22 Do Non‑Citizens Get Constitutional Rights? Who the Contract Covers
14:02 Fifth Amendment in Context: Life, Liberty, Property (Not Entry or Benefits)
15:46 Detention, ‘Self‑Deportation,’ and the Deterrence Argument
21:57 The Real Target of Due Process: Capital Crimes & Anti‑Lynching Protections
22:57 Disney World, Hot Pursuit, and Why Enforcement Isn’t a Due Process Violation
26:20 Wrap‑Up: Mob Rule vs Rule of Law, ICE, and the Call to Action

#ICE #DueProcess #Immigration #TheTenthMan

Commentary on trending issues brought to you with a moderate perspective.

Transcript

0:11

As immigration enforcement ramps up, the phrase due process dominates the news, but the due process clause is to protect us from mob rule. Which side is creating the constitutional crisis today? On the 10th Man America, some Americans have developed a bad habit. People like to quote the Constitution, but they do it in fragments, short phrases that become like sound bites. Half sentences that get repeated so often that they begin to sound like the truth, even though the actual constitution might say something very, very different. People misread phrases like freedom of speech and they apply it to things where freedom of speech really has nothing to do with it. Like. Rioting in the streets or even in neighborhoods, they'll go outside people's homes and keep people awake with a ruckus and then call it just exercising their free speech rights or even attacking agents of law enforcement throwing frozen water bottles at'em and setting buildings on fire. Uh, how is that speech will misread freedom of religion. A lot of Americans think the phrase separation of church and state appears in the Constitution and that the Constitution requires banning religious activity as long as it's for Christians. But that phrase isn't in there at all. The Constitution actually just says hands off religion. And now we're seeing it with the phrase due process. People who have never read the Constitution, they've still have learned these two words and they take them out of context and they think they can just yell, due process and apply it willy-nilly to any situation. In this situation, we have criminals, criminal aliens, running loose across the country, hundreds of thousands of them. And people think there's supposed to be some kind of lavish, long, drawn out legal procedure just to have them taken into custody. No. You know the Japanese, when they attacked Pearl Harbor, they got shot at by American soldiers and sailors and Marines and the fighting men did not get a warrant to do so Illegal immigrants. Are not all that much different. And yet those two words due process. They get detached from the structure of the Constitution and treated by people as if you can just apply it anytime, anywhere, to every circumstance. But you know, the Constitution is not a collection of slogans, the Constitution. Our constitution, well, the constitution of every nation, all the ones who basically copied us. It's not just a collection of likes and people get wrapped up in things that they just happen to like, but it's not that. It's a contract, literally as a governing framework for the country. It only works when it's read as the whole, and you know. The Constitution was not written in some kind of code either. It's not complex. It was written so that ordinary citizens could understand the structure of the government. It was written with short sentences and with direct meanings. It's almost blunt, and if we just bother to read it, it actually becomes pretty clear. So we're gonna do some of that. Because that's what we like to do on the 10th Man Channel. Just look at simple truths because some things are as simple as reading a label. Lemme give you an example. So I was out ice fishing and I fancy myself and outdoors and I work at it and I'm not that good, I admit. But I was out ice fishing, had frozen feet, and I said, well, I think I need to check into my socks. I didn't know technically exactly how good the socks were and I needed new ones anyway, so I was at a department store and also at a home center with an outdoor department, and I picked up some socks in each one, turned'em over and read the label. They were labeled wool blend on the front. Well, fine'cause all socks are a blend of some kind. But I read the fine print and the wool content on one pair was 15% and on the other pair. It was 20%. So at this point, do you think I'm gonna have a debate with anybody about whether that was enough wool? Am I gonna have some Harvard educated DEI selected woman of color, Supreme Court Judge, tell me a long explanation that that's actually a wool blame than I should be happy with it. Or am I just gonna read the simple language that that's more likely a. Or more logically called a polyester blend or a nylon blend because it was not mostly wool. And I went out and I found some socks that were 75% wool and most of that was baby alpaca. And the rest was Marina Marino, wilt Marino wool. Thank you, Australia. And uh, if I weren't doing a podcast right now, I'd be out testing them. But the Constitution is also pretty simple. It's as simple as reading it, but judges and past court decisions even will tell you that the Constitution means something much more complicated than its own plain text. And somewhere along the way, Americans have been encouraged to believe that the Constitution is just too complicated for plain, everyday reading. And of course Second Amendment arguments are the most common. People do logical contortions to make the Second Amendment read something that it does not. And we mention the second because it's the most obvious example of what the Bill of Rights, the section we'll be looking at actually does. And it spells out our rights, which are limits on what the government can do. So we don't need highly trained interpreters to tell us, tell us what it really means. Anybody reading on a sixth grade level can understand the constitution because it's not mysterious and it's clarity is actually part of its genius. So what is a constitution? As we said, it's not a bunch of slogans. It's not a bunch of likes and desires. What it is technically exactly is a contract. A contract. And what is a contract? A contract is an agreement between parties, specified parties, and all we have to do with the Constitution is to open up the very first part, the preamble, and find out. Who those parties are. And a lot of people, a lot of Americans of the Baby Boomer to millennial age might remember the show Schoolhouse Rock and might have memorized the preamble to the Constitution. And if so, you know already whether, you know, you know it, who the Constitution applies to, and uh. Now don't turn us off'cause we're gonna say it doesn't apply to illegal aliens, but that's just our first argument. So a contract applies to the people who are listed in it and the constitution does not bury this. It's right in the beginning, the very first words, we, the people of the United States. So. The Constitution doesn't apply to the world. It doesn't apply to humanity at large. Now, others might benefit from it and we'll explain some of that, but it just does not apply to everybody. It applies to the people named, Now, the reason people get confused about this is because what our Constitution defines is what we consider to be human rights. Rights that are given to us all mankind, by God. But the fact that the Constitution recognizes it does not mean that the Constitution defends anyone else's rights other than we the people. Now. Do people visiting the US get free speech? Well, I think they do. I don't mind that they do. But they get it circumstantially and no one's gonna take it away from them because it is a human right, but it's not a constitutional right for them. The Constitution absolutely does not say that They get free speech. It says we, the people do. Now if it did apply to them, let, let's just apply the common sense test because an interpretation of the Constitution has to pass the common sense test. If the Constitution applied to the whole world, who would enforce that? So now it begins we, the people of the United States, and then it goes on to say, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. So that's the complete picture of who the Constitution applies to. It applies to we, the people, to ourselves, our children, and our posterity, which is us. And it's not written as an exclusionary language, it just defines who is included. And the fact that it defines who it applies to just means that it cannot possibly apply to everyone by default. And it makes perfect logical sense, this interpretation, because everyone forgets this, the Bill of Rights, and we're talking about the Bill of rights. That's where the due process clause appears. What is the Bill of Rights? It protects us from our government. So logically speaking, how can a document that protects citizens from its government apply to anyone else? They don't need protection from our government. So the constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens. But even if it did, even if you disagree, we haven't given the main argument. There's two more points coming, so let's finish this one. We're just saying a contract defines who benefits from it, who has obligations in it, and the obligations to'em are important. And it's just like renting a car. Renting a car that also has a contract you pay, that's your obligation. And the aliens aren't paying anything. But two different people might have two different car rental contracts. So you can rent a car. Your neighbor can rent a car and unlimited miles. Aren't those nice? Yes. Unlimited mileage is nice, but your neighbor. It doesn't get unlimited miles on their rental car just because unlimited miles are nice and they like them and you got unlimited miles on yours. You get whatever's in the contract that has your name on it. Now other people benefit from the constitution. Well, actually not really. They do benefit from the law, the framework of laws that fall under the Constitution, like. Aliens in our country are protected from violence and from theft. They're protected from harm because we happen to prosecute criminals and crimes are offenses against society, and our laws protect society, including aliens incidentally or circumstantially. I was watching a police show the other day where, uh, the woman victim after hearing the man's story, she felt sorry for him and said, I don't wanna press charges. And the police said, well, it's out of your hands. And it would be a crime against society regardless of who the victim was, whether it was a citizen or not. So in that way, non-citizens benefit from our laws and it doesn't make'em citizens, and it doesn't make them quote, protected by the Bill of Rights, unquote, because remember, the Bill of Rights protects citizens from the state, and aliens don't need protection from the state because they don't live here. So that's the first argument against this cry for due process. What's the second? Well. Once we've determined who is covered by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, then we're ready to ask what is covered. So here are the actual words quoted in context from the Fifth Amendment, and it says, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Huh? Notice it does not say. Everybody gets to be an American citizen and keep getting free stuff until they get due process of law. It doesn't say that. No, it says nothing's gonna be taken away from you. The government can't take away your life, your liberty, or your property. So the calm adult question we have to ask is, is being refused entry into the United States, the loss of life, liberty, or property? Clearly it isn't any of these, and neither is catching an illegal alien and throwing them out when ice snatches a criminal alien off the street. He's not losing his life, he's not losing his property, and he's not even losing his liberty. Despite what you might might think, the amendment doesn't mention being able to enter the us. It doesn't say you can stay here, get benefits or even have a job. It only says you can't have something taken away from you that you already had. And that's quite the opposite of how we're seeing this applied, isn't it? Now about this liberty. I know what you're thinking. They're losing their liberty and maybe you're also thinking, yeah, but they could have left voluntarily, but they didn't and now they got caught. And that's true. All the people roaming freely through the United States, they can leave anytime they want, anytime they want. It's odd that we have this phrase, um, self deportation. We visited Europe a couple years ago. And when our tour was done, we went home and we go to Canada for lunch occasionally. And when we are done eating, we go home. And we don't call that self deportation. We just do what you're supposed to do. You go and you do what you, you take care of business and then you leave. So yes, they can leave anytime they want, all the millions. Who are living in fear supposedly, and are they living in fear? We don't know that. They just say that they are, or the news says that they're living in fear. But if they are, all they have to do is leave. They don't have to live in fear. But here's where you might be wrong. When you said. Too bad they should have left before they got caught. No, that doesn't matter because even the people in de detention, you notice they're not in jail. They're not in prison. They're in something we call detention. You know what that means? They can leave any time they're in a jail, not with four walls, but with three. They're only blocked from coming into the us. They have an open door. To go home at any time. It's actually a one way detention for the vast majority. Now, if you make this argument argument to someone, they're gonna bring up some obscure case like the"Maryland Father" Kilmar Abrego-Garcia. He can't go back to El Salvador because that's where he is from, and the other gangs will kill him. So what are we a witness protection plan here. We're supposed to protect gang members from each other. Yeah. Any violent criminal that comes here and convinces the left, that it's scary back home. We have to house them forever, but even that's the, not the same as he can't go home. If he wanted to go, he could go. We're not keeping them here. No one is in detention. We're those, those cases exist? There are the tiniest, tiniest majority, and the other people, the one in the children in cage is Chain Link fence detention. They by and large can go home anytime. The detention just means they cannot roam around the US waiting for their asylum hearing date, which is another farce. Virtually none of them qualify for asylum, which is why they break in in the first place. We're giving them free food, free board, free healthcare, free legal counsel, all paid for by the Americans, and yet they could go home if they wanted to. So they're not using losing any liberty. We should probably talk about deterrence because we wouldn't have them here if we punished them for breaking the law. When America had a disagreement with Venezuela, Venezuela took a half dozen American businessmen and made up some charges and threw them in jail. I don't think they're following the Venezuelan constitution even. And then the American families had to raise money to support them while they were in jail. Imagine if the millions of people coming here illegally were actually punished for breaking our laws actually, were deprived of life, liberty, and Property. Australia does it. Canada does it. They put illegals in jail. If we just took a hundred of people, put'em in jail and said, that's what we're gonna do from now on, and then made their families pay for their support, well, they wouldn't come here. And it's not because we wanna put anybody in jail, it's just deterrent to stop their breaking the law. But all these people to detention. If they say, I give up, I don't want to enter the United States anymore. They're free to go home. So it's not like the Nazis either. It's the opposite. It's not the Gestapo. People say ICE is putting families into concentration camps. No, it's the opposite. It's double opposite. The Nazis rounded up their own citizens, not foreigners coming in uninvited. That's one opposite. And those German citizens were desperate to leave to get out of Nazi Germany and their government wouldn't let them. That's the opposite. It's, it's double opposite. We can't get them to leave and Venezuela is encouraging them to come here. It's triple opposite. So you notice what we're doing and as we're explaining this, explaining the Constitution, we're just using common sense, explaining what it says and why it works and it works for everyone everywhere. And that's why it's common sense. It works everywhere for everybody. A logical document without an illogical interpretation will work for everybody all the time in every situation. And people only apply this ill logic to the United States. No one in the United States, no one in Minneapolis would try doing what they're doing here going into Canada or Mexico. Nobody from the US would say it's stolen land and charge into Canada demanding the protection of the crown. I don't know why they don't, they hate us. They threaten to leave, just go to Canada demanding the same things from America's very similar northern brother that people demand here, wave that banner and march into Canada. I dare you to try. Now, the main point, even having an understanding of that no life, liberty, or property has been taken away unless we read the beginning of the Fifth Amendment. We don't apply the situation that this applies to. And this is an eye-opener. It reads. No person shall be held to answer for a capital crime, et cetera, et cetera, without due process. The right to due process refers to being deprived of life, liberty, or property for a capital crime without being given a fair trial. In other words, a lynching, the Fifth Amendment is written to stop lynchings. Now this is important not for what a capital crime is, but for what it is not nowhere. Is anyone saying that illegal immigration is a capital crime? It's no more a capital crime than is jumping the fence to get into Disney World, which is why if you jump the fence to get into Disney World. They don't have to give you due process. They don't have to get a judge's warrant to pick you up. They can just throw you out because they feel like it. With cause or frankly without cause. I mean they do have, cause in this case they saw you jump the fence. They know you jumped a fence, you know you jumped a fence or without, cause they just don't like your MAGA hat or your defund the police shirt. They can kick you out. You're not being deprived of life, liberty, or property by being kicked out of Disney World. Now, do you see why immigration enforcement is the same as being kicked out of Disney World or the same as not getting a second date with a girl or a guy? They don't have to give you due process. The Constitution simply does not cover that. People have a great deal of discretion in granting privileges and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to capital crimes and not getting lynched not to privileges. The due process clause is the anti lynch mob clause of the Constitution. The anti-lynching clause is to keep people from doing mob rule. Now applying it to illegals, led in by Biden deliberately has nothing to do with a capital crime. But I think a lot of us, most of us would agree that. We don't wanna lynch aliens for committing murder. We still wanna give him a trial, but it doesn't apply to getting into to getting into the country if you don't think that makes sense. And answer this just as Biden let in all these illegal alien criminals. What would happen if he had just opened up the doors to the jails and let all the criminals out onto the street, all the American criminals. Would you insist on due process to round them up like one of them's hiding in a house somewhere? Would you insist that the lawmen on their trail with the blood hounds trying to catch'em, you know, they, they followed him right up to their grandmother's front door, followed the trail, and they know they're inside, they can see him. Would you insist that they need a search warrant from a judge to go in when they know he is in there? Police pursue criminals in hot pursuit all the time, and they don't have a judge's warrant. So I've explained to you why the due process concept is wrong, and if this is wrong, then would a Harvard lawyer explain to me why the constitution actually says something else, and why that other meaning is a better common sense argument. That works for everybody in every situation. That's the true test because following the law correctly should work out for everybody because if we go to the sanctuary cities, if we go to places like Minneapolis, you'll find that in those cities it is ice. It is immigration and customs enforcement that is enforcing the rule of law. It is the rioters who are ignoring the due process because they have ignored the petitioning of grievances, clause of the Constitution, going straight to mob rule, and many of these people have advocated actual lynchings. The Constitution does protect we, the people and our posterity from mob. So stand with ice support all law enforcement and impeach Democrats sowing sedition. Thank you for listening.