Dear Dinesh, I’m sorry, but this is a cop-out. The video begins with its main concern regarding only “illegals” or “illegal aliens”, but its logic is quickly used to segregate immigrants in general, since they are all non-citizens.
The matter is much larger than a legal dispute, it is an ethical one, since it has to do, precisely, with rights. Should the government only be mandated to respect its citizens’ rights, or is the Constitution meant to exemplify the kind of behavior the government should have in general? If the government is democratic and civilized but only to a certain demographic, is it not exercising tyranny within a pocket of legitimation?
Now, the constitution does seem to exhibit this scrutiny, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” (4th Amendment). This phrase is used frequently, “the people”; and since it is written by and for “the people”, it should ostensibly mean citizens. On the other hand, “the people” is defined by Dishar as anyone engaged in the social contract, which ought not to discriminate between a “native” and a temporary resident. Justice is blind, no?
Only in the fifth Amendment is the terminology humanized, “No PERSON shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, […] nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Neither the legal immigrant nor the illegal immigrant is exempt from receiving a just and fair trial.
But the strongest support, I think, is the most incidental. When the ninth Amendment speaks of “others” it only is regarding those unenumerated rights. It intends to add those rights which ought to go without saying, (and which still do), “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Thus, rights which are already retained by the people, shall hitherto be retained. This might solidify the disparity between the citizen and the non-citizen, (all John and Jane Does). It can nonetheless be read slightly differently; using some poetic license, that we should not deny or disparage those same rights which are retained by the people, to others.
Of course, this is precisely the thing which Dinesh et al hopes to prevent, he wants to keep the other other. And this, moreover is ESSENTIAL, because the self has always defined itself in terms of the non-exterior. By continually reasserting otherness upon other groups, Dinesh feels he can restore and reunify the Ideal America, an ill-defined concept which has never existed. America has always been the result of competing factions, it was a nation built out of immigrants, it has graduated successively towards universalizing rights, not inhibiting them.
Oh well, TLDR.