Illegal Aliens Are NOT “We the People,” Judge Explains Why

Quick Overview

The core legal argument presented is that the phrase "We the People" in the Constitution, as interpreted through historical context, refers exclusively to citizens who consented to the new federal government, thereby excluding illegal aliens from Second Amendment rights, which are reserved for citizens.

Key Points: The discussion centers on the legal interpretation of "We the People" in the Constitution, arguing it refers only to citizens who consented to the new government (0:18). Justice Thapar's dissent in United States v. Escobar-Ternal asserts that illegal aliens cannot claim the right to bear arms reserved for 'We, the People' because they are not citizens (1:09). Historical context shows the term 'people' in the founding era referred to citizens, while foreigners were often termed 'subjects' or 'aliens' (4:50). The English right to bear arms, from which the Second Amendment is derived, was historically restricted to subjects (not aliens) who swore allegiance to the Crown (5:16). American colonists discarded their identity as Crown 'subjects' and redefined themselves as self-governing 'citizens' upon declaring independence (7:41). The speaker references historical figures like Locke and Montesquieu to support the idea that rights derive from consent given to the governing body (8:44, 10:07). The video highlights the case of Mildor Escobar-Ternal, a Guatemalan citizen illegally present, who was charged with illegal firearm possession (1:42).

Context: The video features attorney Andrew Branca analyzing a judicial opinion, likely a dissent by Justice Thapar in the case of United States v. Escobar-Ternal. The central theme is the constitutional scope of 'We the People' as it relates to the Second Amendment rights of non-citizens, specifically undocumented immigrants, contrasting historical English concepts of 'subjects' with American concepts of 'citizens'.

Detailed Analysis

Andrew Branca analyzes Justice Thapar's dissent regarding whether an illegal alien can claim Second Amendment rights based on the phrase "We, the People." Branca emphasizes that the phrase encapsulates popular sovereignty and that the founding generation understood legitimate authority derived from the consent of the governed (0:24). The dissent argues that an illegal alien, not being a citizen who consented to the government, cannot assert the right to bear arms (1:09). Branca traces the historical lineage, noting that in England, the right to bear arms belonged only to 'subjects,' not 'aliens' (5:17). When the founders translated this concept into American context, they retained a distinction, using 'citizen' for those sharing sovereignty and implicitly excluding those who did not consent, such as illegal aliens (2:23, 4:30). The background of the case involves Mildor Escobar-Ternal, an illegal alien charged with firearm possession, whose motion to dismiss was denied by the district court (1:42). Branca stresses that the historical analysis confirms that the founders deliberately shifted from the monarchical concept of 'subjects' to the republican concept of 'citizens' who derive rights from consent (7:41, 8:50).