Detailed Breakdown:

1. Introduction to the Issue:
   The speaker begins by addressing the misunderstanding and confusion surrounding the concept of due process, particularly as it pertains to illegal immigration and criminal activity in the U.S. The speaker identifies the right-wing position on the matter, which asserts that individuals who enter the country illegally and commit a crime do not deserve due process. The speaker immediately rejects this viewpoint as “un-American” and wrong, setting the stage for a detailed explanation of due process.
2. What Due Process Is and Why It Matters:
   The speaker begins to clarify the concept of due process, emphasizing that in the U.S., due process is a legal safeguard that ensures individuals are not arbitrarily deprived of their liberty or rights. This is an essential principle of American democracy. The speaker explains the basic procedure: If someone is suspected of committing a crime, they must be brought before a judge who determines whether they should be incarcerated, deported, or allowed to go home. The government does not have the power to act unilaterally and decide someone’s fate without judicial oversight.
3. Government Overreach and Its Dangers:
   The speaker contrasts the American legal system with the actions of dictatorships, where people can be taken without due process, thrown into vans, and disappeared. This serves as a warning about the dangers of unchecked government power and emphasizes that the right to due process is a protection against the government’s overreach. The speaker makes a clear distinction between a democratic society where judicial review is fundamental and authoritarian regimes where leaders wield unchecked power.
4. The Misunderstanding of Due Process:
   The speaker addresses a misconception held by some, particularly on the right, that due process is tied to the defendant’s behavior. This idea is explained as incorrect—due process is not about the crime or behavior of the defendant but about ensuring that the government follows proper procedures and respects individuals’ rights. The speaker argues that due process serves as a check on the government, making sure it does not act arbitrarily and without sufficient legal justification.
5. Historical Conservative Support for Due Process:
   The speaker points out that the idea of protecting individuals from government overreach has historically been a core value of conservatism. Conservatives, in the past, have championed the idea of safeguarding citizens’ rights from governmental power. The speaker implies that the modern shift in conservative thinking, which may support the idea of denying due process to certain individuals, is a betrayal of these core principles.
6. Clarifying the Message:
   The speaker concludes by addressing a specific audience member, Scott Jennings, humorously asserting that the message has been delivered clearly enough for even someone with a potential misunderstanding to comprehend. This personal jab is designed to reinforce the point and underline the clarity with which the speaker believes the issue has been explained.

Deep Analysis:

1. The Central Role of Due Process in American Democracy:
   The speaker’s main argument hinges on the foundational principle that due process is a protection against government tyranny. By explaining that due process requires judicial oversight, the speaker draws a clear line between democratic governance—where even those accused of crimes are entitled to a fair process—and authoritarian systems, where arbitrary action is the norm. This framing is crucial because it ties the issue directly to the core values of American freedom and justice. The speaker is asserting that allowing the government to act outside of the law would compromise these ideals.
2. The Danger of Ignoring Due Process:
   A central theme in the speaker’s argument is the threat to civil liberties posed by undermining due process. By suggesting that certain groups (e.g., illegal immigrants who commit crimes) should forfeit their right to due process, the speaker warns of the slippery slope that could result in the erosion of rights for all citizens. The comparison to dictatorships is a stark and powerful rhetorical device, aiming to emphasize the extremity of such proposals and their potential consequences.
3. The Misinterpretation of Due Process:
   The speaker delves into a critical misunderstanding—the belief that due process is contingent on the defendant’s behavior. This is a misreading of the principle of due process, which is primarily about protecting individuals from arbitrary state action. The government’s power is not absolute; it must adhere to legal procedures and be held accountable through judicial review. This part of the argument emphasizes that due process is not about whether a person is “good” or “bad” but whether the government is acting within the bounds of the law.
4. Conservatism and the Protection of Rights:
   One of the more nuanced aspects of the speaker’s argument is the appeal to historical conservatism, which traditionally emphasized limited government and the protection of individual rights. The speaker points out the irony in modern conservative support for policies that could strip away due process protections, calling it a departure from core conservative values. This serves as both an educational and strategic move—by invoking traditional conservative principles, the speaker is attempting to reframe the issue in a way that resonates with a broader audience, including those who may traditionally align with conservative ideologies.
5. Humor and Persuasion:
   The speaker ends with a humorous jab at Scott Jennings, which serves both as a personal challenge and as a rhetorical tool to reinforce the clarity of the message. This direct, slightly mocking tone adds a layer of confidence and assertiveness to the argument, ensuring that it is not only informative but also engaging and memorable. The speaker is presenting the message as if it is so clear that anyone—even those with opposing views—should be able to grasp it, thereby reinforcing the speaker’s position as logical and unassailable.

Conclusion:

This piece is a forceful defense of due process as an essential component of American democracy. The speaker argues that denying due process to certain individuals, particularly immigrants, threatens the foundational principles of justice, liberty, and protection from government overreach. Through clear, logical reasoning, the speaker stresses that due process is not about the defendant’s behavior but about ensuring the government adheres to the rule of law. By invoking the historical conservative commitment to protecting individual rights, the speaker also calls on conservatives to return to their roots of advocating for limited government power. The humor injected into the final lines serves to lighten the tone, making the argument both sharp and accessible.