Immigration Quotas: Violate

Constitution, Bible

The Constitution, like the Bible, allows Immigration Criteria, but not Quotas. No Court has ruled on the issue, but that doesn't keep us from reading the plain words of the 14th Amendment, figuring out what it allows, and conforming our immigration policies to the Rule of Law.

By Dave Leach (Dave Leach is listed in Marquis' "Who's Who in Media and Coommunications". Email: HispanicHope@Saltshaker.US)

"No State shall ...deny to any person within its jurisdiction [who can be arrested for violating its laws] the equal protection of the laws." -- The "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment

If Des Moines passed a law saying the first 500 people who woke up in the morning could drive to work, but the rest have to walk, would you say the people of Des Moines still have "equal protection of our laws"? Would you tolerate a quota on your rights - only 1% of citizens can speak freely, or have a right to trial by jury?

(For a legal version of these concepts which lawyers can use to challenge the Constitutionality of Numerical Limitations in Court, see Model Deportation Brief )

How are Immigration Quotas consistent with the Rule of Law, when our Constitution says everyone living here must have equal rights, but quotas limit the 2nd most important right - liberty - to only 1% of a group of 12 million U.S. residents?

Many of these "illegals" are children who have no power over where they live, and no capacity for "criminal intent". How can we hate them for "breaking our laws"? How can we deny them the Liberty which our Constitution says is theirs, and say we honor the Rule of Law? Is it time to change our Constitution? Until we do, does the Rule of Law require us to obey what the Constitution orders us to give these children?

Quotas on the rights of U.S. residents is unacceptable to the Constitution, and would be unacceptable to any citizen upon whom they were imposed. If only 1% of Americans had the right to speak freely, the right to drive to work, or the right to trial by jury, no one would say Americans still had “equal protection of the laws”. The 14th Amendment, both in its plain language and in its interpretation by Plyler v. Doe (1982), gives the same “equal protection of the laws”, which citizens enjoy, to “illegals”. (Also called “unauthorized immigrants”, “undocumented aliens”, or “unadmitted migrants”.) At least in theory. But because of quotas which only allow about 100,000 Mexicans per year to immigrate legally, only about 1% of our roughly 12 million illegals (largely Mexican) have a line they can get in. Or to put it another way, if no new immigrants apply for those 100,000 slots, our 12 million illegals will all be able to get in line within 100 years. Meanwhile, their “liberty” is that of a hunted man before the police find his address.

We're only talking about quotas on who is already here. As understood by our Supreme Court, the 5th and 14th Amendments only protect U.S. residents. They don't protect the rights of applicants for immigration living abroad. Many will find it outrageous that immigrants who came here illegally have full Constitutional rights, while those abroad who are legally "in line" have none, but this distinction will stand undisputed in Supreme Court opinions until we decide to amend the Constitution to replace "equal rights" for everybody with limited rights for those the majority doesn't want.

The Supreme Court is very explicit about wanting to protect the Constitutional Rights of “illegals” living here as much as for citizens. A wide variety of Constitutional rights of aliens has been defended by the Supreme Court, except, ironically, the 2nd most basic, the 2nd most fundamental right, without which the enjoyment of any other right is impossible: the right to remain here: Liberty.

One Supreme Court justice even pointed out that the right of every U.S. resident to liberty is explicit in the Constitution, while the right of Congress to deport is only implied. Another justice called it "liberty" in name only - a legal fiction - which exists at the arbitrary pleasure of another.

Or at the arbitrary pleasure of a thing: such as the roll of the quota dice. Quotas create this unconstitutional denial of rights. Quotas are clumsy, at best. The Supreme Court does not speak well of them. Quotas are unconstitutional.

Quotas undermine the Rule of Law because they make it impossible for either states or Congress to defend the liberty of 12 million souls. The 14th Amendment explicitly prevents states from denying “equal protection of the laws”, while the 5th Amendment explicitly prevents Congress from denying “due process”. The Supreme Court treats "due process" and "equal protection" as aspects of the same rights, as if unequally protected rights cannot satisfy “due process”.

What can justify the enormous cost to our nation of Quotas, since replacing them with reasonable Criteria would quickly, simply, thoroughly, and cheaply solve every immigration problem?

(If immigrants coming here actually had a legal line to get in, they would run to it, rather than risk their lives with coyotes and dangerous midnight swims. Only a tiny number - the real criminals, terrorists, and drug lords - would still hide, but they would be so easy to find without millions to blend with, and with USCIS staff freed of a 12 million person caseload! The same for the 12 million already here: if they actually had a line to get in, do you think they would rather spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulders, afraid to even mention jobsite problems to their employers? The proper criteria could powerfully motivate them to learn English, go to school, take high paying jobs, stay off welfare, learn how our Freedom and Prosperity works, learn why La Raza's goal of making half the U.S. like the country which drove them North is nuts, or whatever we think is important.)

Is there any "compelling government interest" that justifies retaining quotas which deny liberty to 12 million souls, in violation of our Constitution, while perpetuating our terrible Border Security problem? How about the fear of population growth? Does population growth harm our nation? Is population density undesirable? If that’s it, explain why people, to this day, migrate from rural land to cities! People talk about leaving the city for the suburbs, but most do not move to larger tracts of land. Even the few who do try to stay within commuting distance of cities. And when they leave, others replace them in the middle of the city; some from farms! Those most remote from other physical bodies stay in touch with billions of people through the internet, if not conduct business through it. Only a very few are "living off the land". Even farmers benefit from the wealth of population centers in the form of tax subsidies!

People say population growth is terrible, but who lives as if they actually believe it? In free America, population density is linked to jobs, opportunity, and prosperity, and even to minimal pollution compared with our more rural, more polluted past! Federal courts are situated in the largest cities. Can any federal court document any “compelling governmental interest” in restraining population growth?

The Equal Protection Clause only helps immigrants "within [U.S.] jurisdiction", not immigrants abroad who are looking for a legal line to get in. Plyler v. Doe, 1982, But how can quotas for illegals living here be Constitutional, which deny a legal line to get in, and thus deny liberty, to literally 99% of them?

There is no reason to assume quotas are Constitutional. The Supreme Court hasn't said anything good about them, though it has not ruled on them. Common sense cannot reconcile "equal protection of the laws" with not allowing 99% of a group of 12 million people living here, to live here legally. God clearly outlaws them, by saying the same thing as the Equal Protection Clause:

“One [the same] law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger [immigrant] that sojourneth among you.” Exodus 12:49 (also Lev 24:22, Num 15:16, 29)

Le 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex [Heb: deport] him. 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. ["Vex", as defined in Strong's: "to rage or be violent: by implication, to suppress, to maltreat:--destroy, (thrust out by) oppress(-ing, -ion, -or), proud, vex, do violence.

(Wait a minute: did I just read God rule against any law that classifies immigrants as "illegals" in order to deport them? Why, yes, I did! "Thrust out" (deport) is one of the definitions of the Hebrew word for "vex"! Here is another verse that says the same thing:)

Ex 22:21 Thou shalt neither vex [Heb: deport] a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Back to the 14th Amendment and verses like Exodus 12:49: they obviously say exactly the same thing. God obviously outlaws immigration quotas. Does the Constitution?

Why is it not equally obvious that the Constitution outlaws immigration quotas, if they say exactly the same thing?

Because God means what he says, and invites average people to understand and obey what He says. The Constitution, on the other hand, is read even less than the Bible, and we as a nation have the habit of asking nine Constitution High Priests to dictate to us what the Constitution means. So when we look at a plain statement from it, we ask ourselves not so much "what meaning does common sense dictate?" as "what does the Court say it means?"

In the case of Immigration Quotas, our initial inclination is to scoff at any suggestion that the Court sees any problem with them, since we still have them! Surely, if the Court saw any problem with them, it would have overturned them decades ago! Right?

A 1952 case expresses the Court's scathing contempt for quotas. (See quote 3 paragraphs later, and more in Model Deportation Brief) A 1982 case says "the equal protection of the laws was provided to the alien population [illegals, specifically, are the subject of the case].... not merely [for] a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be". This protection was not "intended" by its authors to be an empty promise, but to abolish any inferior legal status as surely as slavery was abolished: "The Equal Protection Clause was intended to work nothing less than the abolition of all caste-based and invidious class-based legislation.... and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another." Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202.

Then why do illegals still face quotas? If the Court really thinks the inferior legal status of illegals is unconstitutional, why did it stop at overturning the Texas law keeping young illegals out of public schools? Why didn't the Court go all the way and overturn the immigration quotas which deny a legal line for literally 99% of our illegal population?

Two reasons. (1) Mr. Doe never invited the Court to overturn quotas. Apparently no one has ever asked the Court to review immigration quotas, insofar as they oppress illegals living here, in light of the Equal Protection Clause. Courts don't rule on issues which no one raises. (Most of the time.) (2) The Court has often expressed reluctance to review Congress' immigration policy. (However, its reluctance is directed to policies about who may come here: the Court has often looked into the Constitutional rights of immigrants already here. )

It's not that the Court doesn't care whether immigration policy (towards applicants from abroad) is constitutional. The Court hopes, rather, that Congress, authorized by voters, will enact immigration policy that does not violate the Constitution. "In recognizing this power and this responsibility of Congress, one does not in the remotest degree align oneself with fears unworthy of the American spirit or with hostility to the bracing air of the free spirit. One merely recognizes that the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court. " HARISIADES v. SHAUGHNESSY, 342 U.S. 580, 598

Even with overwhelming evidence that quotas are, in fact, unconstitutional, can we bring ourselves to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, without the Court agreeing with us, even after the Court has told us it looks to us? Dare we step, ourselves, on to the holy ground tread by Constitution High Priests? Even with the High Priests waving us on in?

Dare we actually tell our Congressmen, "Quotas on the rights of our neighbors down the street, to work hard legally, are unconstitutional, not to mention stupid and anti-Christian, and we expect you to correct that!"?

Like the slave-owning churchgoer who never noticed the inconsistency between his life and his Bible, the “Moral Conservatives” across America do not notice that the Constitution, and the Bible upon which the Constitution was founded, prohibits denying others liberty which we take for granted for ourselves.

There is simply no way to “fix” this "problem", short of actually obeying the Constitution. We cannot take its protection from others, without losing its protection for ourselves.

God has so ordained. God has ordained that if we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven. (Matthew 7, 18.) If we enslave others, others will enslave us.

...all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Matthew 26:52

Luke 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

God has given us this land. Has He given it only to us? Has He exempted us from:

Luke 3:11 ...He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.

Is not God’s heart with immigrants? Shall we say "that was then; this is now! Israel's neighbors back then were peaceful. Mexicans are 3/4 criminals!" Not! Israel's neighbors then were as ruthless, violent, irrational, unreasonable, and bloody as Israel's neighbors today! Mexicans, by contrast, have not only never been accused of being terrorists, but have a crime rate, while here "illegally", that is about the same as that of citizens - except for the "crime" of violating our unconstitutional laws against their right to liberty, which are crimes all right, but they are OUR crimes - against God. Now see how God's heart cries for the rights of immigrants who make our immigrants look like angels of mercy laden with blessings from God:, at "Immigrant" ("Stranger") in the Bible.

"But how about the verses that keep 'strangers' out of the Temple?"

Even if God says immigrants live under the same laws as citizens, what if we can make a case that God discriminates when it comes to Church, and then note that America is not a theocracy as Israel was? Perhaps those differences are enough to muddy the waters as we attempt to model our immigration policy after God’s. Perhaps that is just confusing enough to deflect God's law that there must be the same law for immigrants as for citizens, as not quite true. Anyway, it should be interesting to investigate whether God grants immigrants equal rights, not only under criminal and civil law, but in access to the Temple.

The complete 4600 word study is at "Immigrant" ("Stranger") in the Bible. It includes the full text of 115 verses showing where God draws His line around the rights of immigrants - the same place He draws it around citizens' rights. Here is a brief summary of that study:, but do not stop at reading my summary of God's Word. You will completely miss God's eloquent passion for His beloved immigrant children. Without reading God's pleas for your mercy, your heart is in danger of remaining hard towards immigrants, which Jesus warns may cost you Eternal Life.

No Scripture keeps immigrants out of the Temple. In Jesus' time, there was an "outer court" for women and foreigners, but that was the temple built by Herod, the God-defying, wicked Edomite king. Josephus describes it. The tabernacle and temples before that had no such court. Ezekiel says Temple admittance rests not on citizenship but on circumcision, both physically and of the heart .

Eze 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

Exodus 12:43-49, below, applies the same "circumcision" criteria to participation of immigrants side by side with Jews in Jewry’s most sacred worship, the Passover Meal. God emphatically said that as long as foreigners meet the same criteria that citizens meet (circumcision), they should enjoy the same privileges (“one law”) that citizens do. In fact, notice God says in verse 43 “there shall no stranger eat thereof”, and again in verse 45 “A foreigner...shall not eat thereof”. Normally we would take these as unqualified statements. But God says in verse 48 that if a “stranger” is circumcised he may partake! This implies that God means other passages restricting foreigners from religious activities to be also qualified by “unless, of course, they are circumcised”. However, that might not make any difference anyway, since all of the Tabernacle-related activities prohibited for foreigners are also prohibited for citizens! Many of them are even prohibited for most Israelite priests, and for Israelite kings! In fact, in most if not all the 11 passages describing what only selected priests may do, the word “stranger” doesn’t even refer to a non-citizen, but to anyone other than the selected group of priests. The Online Bible note on “strangers” shares this understanding of the word in this context, giving Numbers 3:10 as an example where the word has to mean “one who is not of the family of Aaron”.

Ex 12:43 And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: 44 But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. 45 A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. 46 In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof. 47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. 49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Isaiah is pretty clear that God does NOT exclude aliens from fellowship IN ANY WAY: Isa 56:3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: .... 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. 8 The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

12 verses describe God's people as foreigners.

14 verses say immigrants and citizens are to be under the same law.

8 verses say immigrants must have the same spiritual access as citizens, when they meet God's reasonable, attainable criteria: circumcision.

20 verses state positively the equal access to worship offered immigrants.

l9 verses detail the equal protection of civil and criminal laws for immigrants, even if they are not circumcised.

7 verses detail the equal penalties, for violating civil and criminal laws, that immigrants must suffer.

19 verses command welfare for immigrants in need! (God doesn't mean government welfare, but private charity.) Only one of the verses is in the New Testament, but that passage warns that failure to help "strangers" in need will send you to Hell!

OK, I admit there is ONE exception to God's absolute equality of opportunity for citizens and immigrants: they can't be king, De 17:15. Herod was an immigrant king, and we know how that turned out.

OK, one more, except I don't know whether to call it a protection denied immigrants which citizens enjoy, or a special right given immigrants which citizens were denied. Today, lenders charge interest equally to everybody. But Deuteronomy 23:20 doesn't permit interest charges to citizens. The economic equivalent today would be high interest pawn shops. If our laws prohibited citizens from pawning possessions at those places, but only immigrants could go there, should we call that denyint protection to immigrants, or denying rights to citizens? See "Immigrant" ("Stranger") in the Bible.

~~~

The companion Deportation Brief shows that it is logically impossible to honor the 5th and 14th Amendments, and also the unbridled power of Congress to put a 1% quota on the rights of 12 million U.S. residents. Is it possible to amend the Constitution so we can still keep our freedoms, while constitutionally denying them to immigrants?

Is it possible to dumb down the 14th Amendment?

How about amending our 14th Amendment so it protects everybody but "illegals"? How about if we amend "any person" so the Amendment reads ""No State shall ...deny...the equal protection of the laws... to any person, except persons not born here who aren't lucky enough to find a spot in our quota line before we slam it shut"?

But if we start a list of exempted groups, who will finish it? God has drawn a line of protection around the rights of every person equally. Our nation was premised on this drawing of lines: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." Shall we say "but that doesn't mean men not born here, whom we have not admitted to come"? If we say that, we try to move lines which God has drawn, to a place where God has decreed they most not be moved! We cannot push against God without injury to ourselves.

When we ourselves draw a line around others which God does not permit, just because we are the Majority, what answer will we have when the majority wants to move God's line around ourselves? Our own logic will condemn us! We will have no spirit then to defend our own rights, accepting their oppression of us as legitimate!

If we deprive any group of persons of the equal protection of just "some" laws, what will prevent depriving that group of the equal protection of any laws? If we may withhold the protection of this law, why not the protection of that law? We are a "Republic", which means we are governed by laws which apply equally to everybody. We are not governed by majorities, as in a pure democracy. Majorities can vote to hold slaves.

The difference is that in a Republic, laws apply, by definition, equally to everybody, including the lawmakers, while a dictator or even a majority may enact decrees applying only to others. If we depart just a little bit from God's commandments to "have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country", Leviticus 24:22, we undermine the laws which protect ourselves. The Iowa Supreme Court (Footnote 10) tries to imagine that some "rights" are more "fundamental" than others. But when even the "smallest right" is protected unequally by law, from one group to another, justice is mocked, and profound injury done. It's not just that we are locked into an amendment enacted 139 years ago which we have no further interest in. We still want equal protection of the laws, even today. Not even the hardest hearted anti-immigrant wants it to be legal to murder "illegals", or to steal from them, or torture them, or to literally enslave them. But we all know that without this in our Constitution, that is literally what would happen: it would literally be legal, once again, to own slaves. In fact, the main reason for the 14th amendment was to help the 13th Amendment finish outlawing slavery, by prohibiting state laws that discriminated against former slaves.

No law is so unimportant that violating it brings no penalty, and no right is so unimportant that laws may keep rights from some persons without violating the Constitution. No American wants illegals to have NO protection from our laws, but many Americans today want them to have little. "They break our immigrations laws", you point out. "Why may we not restrict their freedom, the same way we restrict the freedom of other criminals (by putting them in jail), without you calling that 'unequal protection of the laws'?"

The difference between "illegals" and "other criminals" is that real criminals had equal protection of the laws; that is, laws had guaranteed to them the same opportunities as everyone else had, but they weren't content with that. "Illegals" have never gotten fair treatment from our laws. They have never been treated, by our laws, the same as other "persons" within the "jurisdiction" of the states, or even the same as other immigrants. We impose arbitrary, irrational quotas which limit legal residence to a lucky few. To call this "fair" or "impartial" or "equal protection of the laws" just because we let SOME come would be like calling slavery "freedom" because, after all, we let SOME of them buy their freedom, so everyone has the opportunity to be free!

July 9, 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, was 7 years before there was such a thing as an "illegal alien" in America! 1875 was the first law in America restricting the amount of immigration! There was no one at the border checking papers or keeping people from going wherever they liked. It was never illegal for anyone to come here, and it was certainly never illegal for anyone to get a job or to drive down the road! There was a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, but any non-citizen could quickly become a citizen if he liked. The only exception was for slaves, whom the 14th Amendment was designed to set free once and for all.

That's why the 14th Amendment makes no distinction between persons born here or elsewhere; between citizens and noncitizens; between people here legally or illegally. All "persons" are equally protected by all laws which are Constitutional. If we want it to be otherwise, we should, deciding together as a nation, repeal the 14th Amendment, and live under tyranny, but at least legally. Until that happens, we should not tolerate a few officials simply ignoring it. That is the ultimate challenge to the Rule of Law, dwarfing anything "illegals" do, when we let our very judges ignore our very Constitution!

Can we limit rights for some without limiting our own? The answer is found in a parable. A young man picked up his sweetheart at her parent’s home. As they left, her father said something innocently, at which the young woman screamed in rage, before turning back with a sweet smile to her young man. Shortly afterward, the young man married the woman, confident that she was incapable of the same rage towards himself which he had seen towards her father. How did the story end? Was he right? Was her father surprised?

Is it possible to thoroughly hate an enemy, and thoroughly love a friend?

Unbridled hatred towards anyone damages one’s heart capacity to love anyone. God has defined love. If we refuse any good towards immigrants which the verses above say are their due, it is our own heart that we break. The Word of God gives no hint of tolerance for 1% quotas! In fact God’s immigration policy places no restriction at all on incoming immigrants, other than the fact that after they come they must obey the same laws that citizens do.

America today is heartsick. 50 million of our very own babies, we have slain, and the most concerned of us take very weak measures to correct this sin, in the face of so much blood. Crime is higher than 50 years ago, but only a little compared with what it would be without the huge resources we have poured into restraining crime. From burglar alarms, to electronic fences through which retail customers must exit, to our giant investment in internet security. Bureaucrats oppress those they were hired to help, prosecutors put the innocent in jail, politicians lie proudly. We choose the one person in the whole world who seems easier to love than anybody else, and a few years later we are in divorce court as mortal enemies. Where love should logically be the strongest and steadiest -- in families -- it transforms into the deepest pain.

Were you surprised? When hatred anywhere is slapped on the back like “one of the boys”, can we be surprised if it spills everywhere?

Yet Americans today deprive 12 million neighbors of their God-given inalienable rights. The legal problem is that we draw a line which the Constitution does not permit. The spiritual problem is that we draw a line which God doesn’t permit. No wonder we suffer chaos, both spiritually and legally.

Perhaps you think a brief overly creative that jumps over “strict scrutiny”, “rational basis”, “fundamental rights”, “equal protection”, etc. on its way to alleging quotas are unconstitutional. I am disgusted, myself, with having to jump through so many hoops in the way of simply obeying the plain wording of the 14th Amendment. And then having to stop at asking mercy only for those already living here, and perhaps only their children.

It reminds me of the year I was reading every bill in the Iowa legislature, and there was one that added “milk boxes” to the list of containers that could not legally be stolen! I’m not making it up! God said, simply, “thou shalt not steal”. We fill a whole building with our laws, and change them every year. We enact a comprehensive “Immigration Compromise” bill that takes up 300 pages. God says, simply, and with a tear in His eye for the squabbling between His precious children,

“One [the same] law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.” Exodus 12:49 (also Lev 24:22, Num 15:16, 29)

This actually says the same thing as our 14th Amendment: “No State shall ...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” If Des Moines passed a law saying the first 500 people who woke up in the morning to go to work can drive on our roads, but the rest have to walk, would you say the people of Des Moines still have equal protection of our laws?

“Love ye therefore the stranger [foreigner]: for ye were strangers [foreigners] in the land of Egypt.” Deuteronomy 10:19

In other words, “Your 4th generation ancestors didn’t face quotas (about half a million from the whole world are allowed in legally) application fees of thousands of dollars, and forms requiring lawyers to fill out, which the USCIS takes a generation to process. Before 1882 there was not one law against anyone being here.

Acts 15:10 “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of [these immigrants], which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” God pronounces judgment on our hypocrisy: Luke 11:46 “...Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.”

Amos 9:7 "Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir? "

“And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” Luke 6:31 (Known as the “Golden Rule”, popularly translated as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

James 2:9 "But if ye have respect to persons, [if you treat one group of people by different rules than another], ye commit sin, and are convinced of [convicted by] the law as transgressors [lawbreakers]. "

Mark 12:29 "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. "

For more articles about immigration from God’s perspective, see www.Saltshaker.US, click on “immigration”.


While we are waiting to see how long the Supreme Court can maintain its respect for Congress's jurisdiction over immigration, we can act, ourselves.

Want to read the legal stuff? Read a Model Deportation Brief - a brief which some brave attorney and client may one day use to challenge Immigration Quotas

You will read more from the 1982 decision that applies the Equal Protection Clause to illegals.

You will read some blistering criticism of quotas from the 1952 decision. And that's in a majority opinion (a "concurrence", where one justice from the majority adds thoughts of his own to the majority ruling). Wait till you read the dissent, which actually prophesies that the Court will not be able to leave this cancer alone forever!

You will read short excerpts from other cases showing the Court's reluctance to review Congress' immigration policies, no matter how bad they are. You will notice this reluctance is directed primarily to Congress' decisions about who may come here; you will read where Congress has often reviewed the Constitutional rights of those already here.

These cases and analysis are focused on answering the questions:

(1) Regardless of what the Court thinks about it, is the apparently obvious actually true? Is there another way to interpret the 14th Amendment's plain words? Is there other language in the Constitution that should affect our interpretation?

(2) Does the Court see what non-lawyers see? What has it said about it?

(3) Would the Court ever accept jurisdiction to review Immigration Quotas that restrict illegals already living here? If so, under what circumstances? What kind of test case?

Other Fantastic Articles, Books, Movies, Music:
Home Sweet Home!
Does anyone care what the word actually means? Get in WHAT Line? For most, there IS no line! Public Schools aren't Free for ANYONE! Emergency Hospital Care Averages $21 Per Illegal PRUCOL: the Legal Illegals in Immigration Limbo Illegals don't receive welfare, unless you redefine either 'illegals' or 'welfare' Why God is not Stupid when He offers Populations the Blessing of Multiplying Rule of Law vs. God-Defying Legalism: how 'Rule of Law' was defined by Americas Founders If the study hadnt counted citizens as 'illegals' it would have concluded illegals contribute $10 billion MORE in taxes than they consume in 'services' 'Moral Conservatives' redefined by Immigration Debate Social Security: Rod of Gods Judgment 'Mark of the Beast' Constructed by Immigraphobic 'Moral Conservatives'; Why God Cares: Why We Should Care! Social Security: Rod of God's Judgment 'Moral Conservatives' redefined by Immigration Debate If the study hadn't counted citizens as Rule of Law vs. God-Defying Legalism: how 'Rule of Law' was defined by America's Founders Why God is not Stupid when He offers Populations the Blessing of Multiplying Illegals don't receive welfare, unless you redefine either 'illegals' or 'welfare'. PRUCOL: the Legal Illegals in Immigration Limbo Emergency Hospital Care Averages $21 Per Illegal Public Schools aren't Free for ANYONE! Get in WHAT Line? For most, there IS no line! Does anyone care what the word actually means? Bueno! Border Security: A Simple, $-Saving, Surprising, Solid, Sweeping, Consummate Solution Immigration Quotas: Unconstitutional 'Immigration Compromise': the whole bill, with Translation and Analysis 'Equal Protection of the Laws' for Illegal Children 'Immigration Compromise': the whole bill, with Translation and Analysis Immigration Quotas: Unconstitutional Border Security: A Simple, $-Saving, Surprising, Solid, Sweeping, Consummate Solution Related Immigration Articles If Solutions are more important to you than Shouting, this is the Site you have been waiting for! Have you suffered enough that telling your story no longer satisfies you, and now you are bristling to slay the Divorce Beast that destroyed your family? This site is for you. 'Sodomites' is what our Loving God calls them. (See Bible study.) Can I say I love them more, because I call them anything less? Solutions for Education Why the Child Abuse Industry Nabs the Wrong Kids; Why the Child Abuse Religion - Psychiatry - is a fraud; How Child Abuse Laws need to be changed Some of my Personal Experiences with the Drive-By Media Bible Studies on a Variety of Issues I pray, for Sudan, a government under a Constitution like ours. Heres how it would adapt to their situation, and by the way, this will help Americans understand our own Constitution. A few articles I wrote for voters while running for State Representative I really want your input! Family Music Center in Des Moines Iowa, what pays our bills Some of the good stuff about me - to balance the other stuff youve heard. Personal Leach and Barnes family stuff Every once in a while I remember to keep a record of changes to the site. Spectacular Music Videos of original songs by Dave Leach, produced by Lowbudget Productions Fiction by David Lane, who served time for redecorating an abortion office, daydreaming about what he would REALLY like to have done. Poems by David Lane about abortion, which he went to jail to stop. A roadmap of all the categories, and most of the articles, on this site. A roadmap of all the categories, and most of the articles, on this site. Poems by David Lane about abortion, which he went to jail to stop. Fiction by David Lane, who served time for redecorating an abortion office, daydreaming about what he would REALLY like to have done. Spectacular Music Videos of original songs by Dave Leach, produced by Lowbudget Productions Every once in a while I remember to keep a record of changes to the site. Personal Leach and Barnes family stuff Some of the good stuff about me - to balance the other stuff you've heard. Family Music Center in Des Moines Iowa: what pays our bills I really want your input! A few articles I wrote for voters while running for State Representative I pray, for Sudan, a government under a Constitution like ours. Here's how it would adapt to their situation, and by the way, this will help Americans understand our own Constitution. Bible Studies on a Variety of Issues Some of my Personal Experiences with the Drive-By Media Why the Child Abuse Industry Nabs the Wrong Kids; Why the Child Abuse Religion - Psychiatry - is a fraud; How Child Abuse Laws need to be changed Solutions for Education Have you suffered enough that telling your story no longer satisfies you, and now you are bristling to slay the Divorce Beast that destroyed your family? This site is for you. If Solutions are more important to you than Shouting, this is the Site you have been waiting for! Other Issues on this Website 'Ancient Riddles Solved!' 'Never Before Revealed Theological Secrets!' 'From the diary of an angel! A fictitious angel, but an angel nonetheless!' (Scroll half way down the page) Hell really makes a lot of sense, understood Biblically. We all know what its like to resist good, God, light, love, truth, evidence, life, and grace. Explain how it is possible to choose such woe even for a moment, before you reject Biblical evidence that some harden their hearts so much that they will resist forever! Will you? (Scroll almost to the bottom of the page) Spectacular Music Videos of original songs by Dave Leach, produced by Lowbudget Productions Spectacular Music Videos of original songs by Dave Leach, produced by Lowbudget Productions Hell really makes a lot of sense, understood Biblically. We all know what it's like to resist good, God, light, love, truth, evidence, life, and grace. Explain how it is possible to choose such woe even for a moment, before you reject Biblical evidence that some harden their hearts so much that they will resist forever! Will you? (Scroll almost to the bottom of the page) Really Great Books and Music! Quotas are Unconstitutional!