Kerry Kupecker-Bonn, Fox News legal editor and former counselor to attorney general Bill Barr under President Trump. Kerry, first of all, we call them migrants, and I have no confusion around the word and know the difference between that and an illegal immigrant, because we don't know if they're here legally or illegally. We do know they're from Venezuela, and that they've been in that house for over a year. So we're still piecing parts of this together. You want to talk about this today. How do people deal with this?

The New York legal system is such a mess. In this particular situation, I blame the judge. Harris, did you know that this judge who let these migrants off without bail did the same thing for two migrants who beat up that cop on a New York City subway platform in November? It appears to be the same judge.

No, I didn't know it was the same judge.

It appears to be the same judge, according to our research. That's problem number one. Then problem number two, of course, you have the squatter laws in New York City. The fact that these guys have been living in this basement for as long as they have, that owner of that building wouldn't even legally be allowed to lock the door. He would be charged with a crime if he locked the door to not let them back in after 30 days, which is just crazy. I think part of the problem, and it In addition just to these bail reform laws, there was a piece of legislation that was passed in 2019 that eased restrictions on bail. That's where this really started. But then what exacerbated it was COVID. If you remember during COVID, there was a lot of concern about inmates being housed in jails and the spread of the disease. So they eased up on these restrictions even more. And I think we're continuing to see the effects of that play out even right now.

I mean, COVID was a snapshot in time now. Oh, I know. And I'm hoping we learn some lessons, not the least of which is you don't soften your crime laws behind the pandemic when everybody hits the streets again, particularly the criminals. That's a lot that you just told us. Thank you for sharing your research on this, Judge. Let's get to this. Major free speech concerns over Scotland Scotland's new hate crime law. It makes it a crime to say something insulting about someone's age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, or transgender identity. So if you misidentify someone, that's a hate crime in Scotland. That comes with a maximum sentence of seven years in prison. What if you can't tell the difference? What if it's an accident? Harry Potter, author J. K. Raling, dared Scottish police to take action. She posted, If they go after any woman for simply calling a man a man, I'll repeat that woman's words, and they can charge us both at once. Rauwling added, Freedom of speech and belief are at the end in Scotland. If the accurate description of biological sex is deemed criminal. Jimmy Fala called out the hypocrisy. Let's watch.

If the speech is controlled, as are the people. For that reason, I applaud this all the way. Again, this is the tolerance crowd once again telling you that they will imprison you for disagreeing with them, which if anybody wants to Google tolerance, I promise you it doesn't involve imprisoning the people who disagree.

A new opinion piece with this headline, Scotland's idea of hate speech can't be accepted in the US. Is this a slippery slope, Kari?

Oh, yes. I would argue it's already happening in the US, in Colorado. Do you remember the baker, Masterpiece, Cake Shop Baker, who won a case in the Supreme Court a few years ago? Well, the state of Colorado has continued to persecute him, specifically with respect to him refusing to bake a transgender celebration cake. This is an ongoing case that's still happening in the state of Colorado. The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to hear it. It was a transgender activist who asked Jack Phillips to bake that cake for him, and on top of it, also asked for a cake of Satan smoking marijuana. Jack Phillips, a devout Christian, said baking these cakes and using speech and expression this way would violate his conscience in his beliefs. He has been penalized for this, and now he's back up at the court again.

Wait a minute. Are they targeting him over and over again?

Yes. This particular activist even said, and this is documented, that they submitted this request to, correct the errors of his thinking. When people are looking at what's happening in Scotland, I would say, well, take a look at what's happening in Colorado because that's not that dissimilar.

I always think about the danger when we make so much out of something that isn't actually what it is. So what about real hate crimes in Scotland or real hate crimes in America where people get killed, they get brutalized, so on and so forth? How does misgendering someone, calling a man a man, even though he may be dressed up as a woman, how is that equal?

To your point, hate crimes were traditionally understood, at least in this country, with some of the awful things that we happened during during segregation, the civil rights movement, the KKK and all that, and awful, awful things. Some of the anti-Semitic attacks that we've seen over the last year in our own country, which has shocked, I think, a lot of us, not even realizing this was happening here in the US. These are obvious examples of hatred. But saying that a biological man is a biological man, and somehow the government construing that as hate, it's just wild. That's the concerning aspect of these laws. It's not just in Scotland. You see this This has been a trend that's emerged across Europe. Again, where it happens in the US is in the context of these local anti-discrimination laws.

Well, I guess they'll come after journalists next because every time we do those stories about women in girls' sports and biological boys and men in them, I guess I would be thrown in prison for seven years because I'm not going to lie by telling the truth in that story. Journalism is next. We'll watch it. A new California bill would let employees legally put their bosses on silent. The proposal says workers must have uninterrupted personal and family time outside of working hours. That means if your boss calls or sends you a text message, and when you're not on the clock, you can legally ignore them without punishment. Fines for breaking the law begin at $100. The assemblyman who introduced the bill explained it this way: smartphones have blured the boundaries between work and home life. Workers should not be punished for not being available 24/7 if they're not being paid for 24 hours of work. Kari.

This is an interesting proposal. A similar piece of legislation passed in Australia pretty recently. It certainly makes things tricky for an employer. They would need to, at a minimum, of course, they'd have to review the way they do business. At least with respect to Australia, there were a bunch of parameters that were set within this law, like what is the person's job, what are reasonable expectations of them answering the phone, what are their family obligations, and things like that. But it certainly would make things interesting.

That's a lot of detail in someone's life. If I prefer to have nap time during a certain afternoon hour, I wonder if that would qualify for my boss can't reach me. And by the way, work ethic, watch out, because for those of us who will do the work 24/7, I guess we'll just keep the jobs.

In Australia, I think it hinged on the reasonableness aspect of the refusal. So that's what they honed in on there.

All right, Kari, it's always great to have you in focus. Thank you. Good conversation today.

I'm Steve Ducey.

I'm Brian Kilme.

And I'm Ainsley Earhart. Click here to subscribe to the Fox News YouTube page to catch our hottest interviews and most compelling analysis.