Transcript of the above video: 

So this is going to be a quick kind of, not really an exercise in Comparative Law, but it's going to be a general video talking about Immigration Law and Policy; it's not Thailand specific and it's not US specific, but as I'll get into in the analysis, it has implications in both. 

There is a difference between Plenary Power and Legal Authority. And going over here to www.law.cornell.edu, quoting directly: "Plenary Power refers to complete and exclusive authority over a particular subject matter constrained only by constitutional limitations. When a governmental body holds Plenary Power, it may legislate or act within that area without requiring additional authorization. The term frequently describes Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution, which grants Congress broad authority to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has likewise recognized Congress's Plenary Power over Immigration, including the admission and exclusion of non-citizens, as affirmed in Kleindienst vs. Mandel." 

So a couple of things going on here. First of all, you need to understand, Plenary Power it is different than legal authority and how? I get into this in another video where I directly address naturalization. But briefly, Plenary Power, the way I look at it in my mind, Plenary Power changes facts. So when you go through the naturalization process you become - if you naturalize to US citizen or you naturalize to Thai citizenship for example - you become that nationality. It's a fact. You are from that point forward a Thai or an American, even though you weren't prior to that. I have talked about it before. They mention it in the movie Dogma with Kevin Smith. There is like an arc of plenary indulgence. I'll try to find a clip and maybe do that as a thumbnail for this particular video. But what they were talking about, it was in the context of the Catholic Church and people forget, especially in Christendom and the history of jurisprudence, there is input if you will from the old Ecclesiastical Law and the Ecclesiastical Courts going back to pre-Henry XIII, at least in the Anglo legal tradition, and like there are these things called an arc of plenary indulgence or an archway of plenary indulgence, where if you pass through the archway your sins are just forgiven; under a Catholic Doctrine, very, very similar. Again, naturalization is a good example. From one minute to the next you are something different via the exercise of plenary power. You can say the same thing in an American context with the granting of Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Residence, you cease to be a Non-immigrant and you become a resident of the United States. This is the type of power that's being used. In some circumstances, the law cannot overcome that Plenary Authority and that's what this Kleindienst stuff and the Plenary Power Doctrine, there are some that argue with the Supreme Court, somewhat fractured.

I would actually argue it's going to be reinforced as we see things move forward, because they are going to want basically in the American context, they are going to want to be able to enforce Immigration law and Immigration prerogatives to the fullest extent they can. So, I kind of expect that this notion of Plenary Power is going to be reinforced in coming months and years. 

That being said, I wanted to explain the difference because Plenary Power is different than legality. Legality is an exercise in analyzing whether or not a given set of facts, how it interacts with a given set of law, okay? With Plenary Authority though, you are actually changing facts, and that's an important distinction to understand when you are looking at both policy, law, lawmaking as well as enforcement, in an Immigration context in either Thailand or the USA frankly, but really I think the same could be said for most jurisdictions throughout the world.