# The Left’s Entire Alien-Rights Theory Just COLLAPSED! | PART 3

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KasPpfukNP4
Recap page: https://rapidrecap.app/video/KasPpfukNP4
Generated: 2025-12-24T13:33:51.31+00:00

---
## Quick Overview

The speaker concludes that the majority opinion's theory regarding the First Amendment protections for non-citizens, particularly illegal aliens, has collapsed because it relies on a dubious interpretation of the Constitution's text which contradicts historical understanding derived from founding-era documents and Supreme Court precedent that generally reserves such rights for citizens.

**Key Points:**
- The Constitution's text, particularly the seven provisions mentioning "the people," historically refers unambiguously to American citizens, not illegal aliens.
- The Preamble's phrase "We, the People of the United States" was historically understood to refer to citizens who ratified the Constitution, as argued by James Wilson and supported by Patrick Henry's reaction.
- The Ninth Amendment counters the objection that rights not enumerated are retained by the people, stressing that those rights were retained by the ratifiers (citizens) and not surrendered to the government.
- The Supreme Court has never confirmed that the Fourth Amendment applies to non-citizens, especially those who are illegally present, and lower courts often entertain restrictions on non-citizen First Amendment rights.
- The majority's reliance on the Second Amendment's use of "the people" to suggest it applies to illegal aliens is flawed because the First and Fourth Amendments, which use the same term, have restrictive interpretations based on historical context limiting them to citizens.
- Historical sources like the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights suggest that rights like petition and assembly were traditionally prerogatives of English subjects, which the founders codified as rights for American citizens.
- The speaker argues that the double inference used by the majority—extending Fourth Amendment protections to aliens and then applying that logic to the First Amendment—overextends the law contrary to clear history.

![Screenshot at 00:04: The screen displays page 37 of a legal document, Case No. 24-5668, United States v. Escobar-Tomal, with the section titled "III. Text" visible, showing the speaker highlighting text that discusses the historical understanding of "the people" in the Constitution.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/KasPpfukNP4/00-00-04.jpg)

**Context:** The video features attorney Andrew Branca analyzing a legal document, likely a court opinion or brief, concerning the application of constitutional rights, specifically the First and Fourth Amendments, to non-citizens, particularly undocumented immigrants. The analysis focuses heavily on the historical and textual understanding of the phrase "the people" as used throughout the Constitution and its amendments, contrasting this with modern interpretations that might extend these protections to all persons physically present.

## Detailed Analysis

Andrew Branca analyzes page 37 of a legal document discussing the historical interpretation of "the people" in the Constitution. He asserts that the text incorporates the historical understanding that "the people" unambiguously refers to American citizens. He cites the Preamble, "We, the People of the United States," noting that Patrick Henry questioned who authorized the drafters to use this language instead of "We, the States," which James Wilson explained meant the government was founded upon the power of the people, existing in their name and authority. Branca points out that the Ninth Amendment clarifies that retained rights belong to those individuals who obtained and established the Constitution—namely, citizens. He then references structural provisions in the Constitution and Bill of Rights that uniformly point to American citizens when using "the people." Moving to Section B, "Amendments I & IV," Branca notes that the majority opinion mentions the five references to "The People" but focuses exclusively on the uses in the First and Fourth Amendments, which guide the Court's interpretation in the Second Amendment. He argues that constitutional text and history do not support applying these uses to non-citizens. He cites the First Amendment's protection of speech, assembly, and petition, noting that historical context, like the English legal tradition, restricted these rights to subjects or citizens, not foreigners or illegal aliens. He points to President John Adams' contemplation of applying the Alien and Sedition Acts as instructive, noting that the First Amendment protections were historically meant for citizens, not aliens. Branca notes that the Supreme Court has never confirmed the Fourth Amendment applies to non-citizens, and lower courts often restrict First Amendment rights for non-citizens. He critiques the majority's reasoning as flawed because it extends Fourth Amendment protections to aliens (even illegal ones) and then uses that to argue for extending Second Amendment rights, which he claims is contrary to clear history. He cites Justice Story's view that the Fourth Amendment codified pre-existing English common-law rights for subjects, which were later interpreted as applying to citizens. Finally, he mentions that the majority's reliance on analogous terms like "person" and "citizen" further supports that "the people" was a term of art referring to citizens.

### III. Text

- The Constitution's text incorporates the historical understanding of "the people" as American citizens
- All seven provisions mentioning "the people" uniformly point to American citizens
- The Preamble announces "We, the People of the United States," prompting Patrick Henry's "political curiosity"
- James Wilson explained the government was founded upon the power of the people, reflected in "their name and their authority"
- Bernard Bailyn clarified that "The People" referred generally to those who appoint public officers and choose civil government characters.

### Structural References

- References to "the people" throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights uniformly point to American citizens
- The heated discussion over the Preamble demonstrates a uniform understanding that the phrase referred to citizens with ratification and federal electoral authority.

### The Bill of Rights expands on this theme

- The Ninth Amendment provides that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage rights retained by the people.

### B. Amendments I & IV

- The majority mentions five references to "The People" but focuses exclusively on the uses in the First and Fourth Amendments
- The majority's inference that these Amendments extend to aliens is not supported by constitutional text or history, which suggests these rights were restricted to citizens
- The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws respecting religion, speech, assembly, or petitioning the government for redress of grievances, which historically applied to citizens
- The right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition is restricted to American citizens, stemming from English legal tradition where these rights were restricted to subjects of England.

### Alternative Terms

- The Constitution's reliance on analogous terms like "person" and "citizen" further supports that "the people" was a term of art
- Founders used "person" instead of "the people" when referring to non-citizens
- The Fourth Amendment codified a pre-existing right of "Englishmen" and "subjects" against search, seizure, and arrest, derived from English common law rights.

### The Fourth Amendment

- This amendment is more complicated, guaranteeing the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, similar to the First and Second Amendments.
- The Supreme Court has never confirmed the Fourth Amendment covers aliens, much less illegally present ones, and has assumed, without deciding, that it could apply to non-citizens.
- The court has mirrored this approach, assuming illegal aliens have Fourth Amendment rights without even discussing it.
- The history suggests founders did not intend to expand coverage to non-citizens.

![Screenshot at 00:05: The speaker highlights text discussing how the Constitution's text incorporates the historical understanding of "the people" referring to American citizens.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/KasPpfukNP4/00-00-05.jpg)
![Screenshot at 00:31: The speaker emphasizes the phrase "uniformly point to American citizens" regarding references to "the people" in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/KasPpfukNP4/00-00-31.jpg)
![Screenshot at 01:34: The text details Patrick Henry's reaction to the Preamble's language, calling it a "political curiosity" and questioning who authorized the drafters to use "We, the People."](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/KasPpfukNP4/00-01-34.jpg)
![Screenshot at 03:36: The speaker points to the Tenth Amendment provision reserving powers not delegated to the federal government to the states "or to the people."](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/KasPpfukNP4/00-03-36.jpg)
![Screenshot at 05:01: The text contrasts the majority's focus on the First and Fourth Amendments with the fact that the First Amendment clearly extends to non-citizens.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/KasPpfukNP4/00-05-01.jpg)