Feedback Box:

US Immigration Quotas: Unconstitutional

If criteria replaced quotas, we would have no illegal immigration problem

By Dave Leach (Dave Leach is listed in Marquis' "Who's Who in Media and Coommunications". Email: HispanicHope@Saltshaker.US) 4682 words

If criteria for Legal Permanent Residence replaced US immigration quotas, we wouldn't have an illegal immigration problem. If we allowed every immigrant to live here legally who, during a probationary legal work period, learns English, learns about our form of government and the pillars of our freedom and prosperity, stays off welfare and out of jail, gets an education, and works hard as measured by promotions and pay raises -- reasonable goals within reach of almost every immigrant -- little interest would remain in being here illegally.

But of course we can't just get rid of quotas. Not even if we replace them with criteria which would eliminate the growing non-English-speaking subculture of disfranchised U.S. residents. And why not? Because "we just can't", sputtered Rush Limbaugh April 6, 2005. As if sensitive to the possibility that some might desire further elaboration, he explained, "no one wants that", anyway.

Rush offered to allow "illegals" to "get in line", raising the question whether he realizes how many of those lines are a generation long just to live here legally, and another generation long to become a citizen! Does he realize how many of those commonly called "illegals" have already been in line for years? (For example, in Michelle Malkin's article about the Real ID Act, she complains about the "loophole" that exempts "illegals" who have applied to the USCIS for "adjustment of status", and are required to wait for years while the USCIS decides whether they are here legally or not. The USCIS requires years before it can decide, but not Michelle Malkin. She already knows the second they apply. They are not!) But I digress.

If quotas are the cause of all our illegal immigration problems, is there some rational reason we cling to them?

"Our land would become too crowded", explain some. We might be able to understand the loyalty to quotas if abortionists were behind it. Abortionists lead a liberal subculture that says we are running out of room in the world so we have to reduce world population. That is one of the benefits of war, they teach.

But resistance to immigration reform is not lead by abortionists today, but by people like adamantly prolife Pat Buchanan, who proposed a tall, sturdy fence from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico as he ran for President in 1992. And people like prolife stalwart Congressman Steve King of Iowa, who got 35 other Congressmen to sign his 2003 letter opposing Bush's Guest Worker Plan. King patently rejects the myth that the world is getting too crowded, I was assured by Chuck Laudner, his chief of staff.

Prolifers love to quote Psalm 127:4-5, which says children are to parents as bullets are to a soldier; that the more children you have, the more political influence you enjoy. Prolifers love to refute Population Control myths by pointing out how little of the land area of the U.S. is required to hold the entire world population comfortably. One example is that if the entire world population were as densely compacted as Chicago, they would fill up only 10% of U.S. land.

By the way, world population growth is projected to level off in about another generation,

And by the way, we aren't talking about "giving" immigrants "our" land. No one gives away land to immigrants or anyone else. Citizens sell their land freely, and immigrants pay for it with their hard-earned money.

One more by-the-way: were quotas eliminated, there would be this natural limitation on the number of immigrants wanting to come here: when the percentage of citizens from a given country, dissatisfied enough to want to come here, becomes significant, it becomes easier for them to repair the politics of their own country that have caused their disatisfaction, than to leave their family, homeland, and culture behind.

We are close to that point with Mexico. Disatisfied Mexican residents are assisted by U.S. immigrants from Mexico who have sent so much wealth back to Mexico (not nearly so much by U.S. standards as by Mexican standards) that they have demanded, and received, the right to vote in Mexican elections! This process is frustrated by current generation-long USCIS backlogs which place 10 million immigrants in limbo, disfranchised from any foreseeable hope of participation in our form of government. Were reasonably qualified immigrants allowed hands-on experience with our political system, that they might understand the alternative to the current communist government of their homeland, they could export knowledge as well as money to their families back home and make Mexico as free and prosperous as the U.S.

If the illegal US immigration problem exists only because of immigration quotas, and if immigration quotas serve no useful purpose which anyone can explain, should we keep them? Before you decide we should, there is one more thing you should know about immigration quotas: they are unconstitutional.

"No State shall ...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- The 14th Amendment

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"?

No. If that happened, lawyers would sue the city for discrimination against an entire class of people: people who get up late. But it isn't civil rights lawyers who behave like the lawyers whom Jesus condemned: it's US voters who have allowed US immigration quotas.

"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." Luke 11:46

How can quotas be Constitutional, much less Biblical? Both the 14th Amendment, and the Word of God, say the same thing about immigration quotas. They say that everyone in the land with the same capacity to exercise rights (excluding for example infants who need a little more time to mature, or fresh immigrants who need a little more time to learn English and how our political system works) ought to have those rights protected, and not denied just because they were the wrong number on some arbitrary list of how many people get to have rights!

We do not tolerate quotas upon our own rights. Then how can we look ourselves in the mirror and call ourselves "fair", after we impose quotas upon the rights of others?

How can we say we support the "Rule of Law", and support US immigration quotas? The historical meaning of "The Rule of Law" is distinct from "majority rule". "Rule of law" means a law which applies equally to all, as the 14th Amendment and Scripture provide. But a majority can vote to tyrannize a minority, which is not a rule of law at all, but is only an extension of the concept of a dictator to a larger number of people.

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

Or, we might say today, "you would be the children of illegal aliens yourselves, had your fathers, when they came to America, been forced to climb over the US immigration quotas you impose on your Southern neighbors today."

Minnesota Congressman Mark Kennedy's website has an article that says it this way: "Like it or not, Americans will have to live with the fact that while these newcomers are here illegally, they're not going to be deported. They are not fearsome aliens, just the latest iteration [repetition] in an ongoing immigration drama in which, not too long ago, our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents were the protagonists."

"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."

Quotas have turned 10 million otherwise honest, law-abiding, but desperate immigrants into "illegals" who would, were we to let them, gladly cooperate with us in solving our security problem. Why won't Americans let them?

Court Quotes. The U.S. Supreme Court is not likely to declare quotas unconstitutional, according to these quotes, but not necessarily because it thinks they are constitutional. The following quotes indicate immigration policy is one area where the Courts won't interfere with Congress, believe it or not:

"(O)ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over the admission of aliens." Oceanic Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320, 339 (29 S. Ct. 671, 676, 53 L. Ed. 1013) (1909). 408 U.S. at 753 at 765-67, 92 S. Ct. 2576 ,33 L. Ed. 2d 683 (footnotes omitted).

In ADAMS v. HOWERTON, 673 F.2d 1036, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals analyzed the U.S. Supreme Court position that Congressional jurisdiction over immigration law is so complete that the Supreme Court may not even overturn Congressional violations of constitutional rights: "Thus, the Court has upheld the broad power of Congress to determine immigration policy in the face of challenges based upon the first amendment, id. (statutory [*1042] exclusion of individuals advocating world communism), the due process clause, Boutilier v. INS, supra (vague statutory language excluding homosexuals), as well as the equal protection component of fifth amendment due process and constitutionally-implied fundamental rights, Fiallo v. Bell, supra, 430 U.S. at 794, 97 S. Ct. at 1479 (discrimination based on sex and illegitimacy and denial of fundamental constitutional interests in family relationships). In Fiallo v. Bell, the Court observed "that in the exercise of its broad power over immigration and naturalization, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens." Id. at 792, 97 S. Ct. at 1478, quoting Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 80, 96 S. Ct. 188 3, 1891, 48 L. Ed. 2d 478 (1976). Explaining the "special judicial deference to congressional policy choices in the immigration context," id. at 793, 97 S. Ct. at 1479 (footnotes omitted), the Court stated: "Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government. In the enforcement of these policies, the Executive Branch of the Government must respect the procedural safeguards of due process.... But that the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly embedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic as any aspect of our government." Id. at 792, 97 S. Ct. at 1478

Fiallo v. Bell, supra, 430 U.S. at 793, 97 (1977): "This Court's cases 'have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control,' Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210 ; see also Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 ; Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588 -589, and no factors exist in the instant case warranting a more searching judicial scrutiny than has generally been applied in immigration cases. Pp. 792-796. ....Our cases reflect acceptance of a limited judicial responsibility under the Constitution even with respect to the power of Congress to regulate the admission and exclusion of aliens, and there is no occasion to consider in this case whether there may be actions of the Congress with respect to aliens that are so essentially political in character as to be nonjusticiable."

But the Adams v. Howerton ruling sees the possibility of Court intervention in this last clause, noting: "On the other hand, the Court has not dismissed the possibility that 'there may be actions of the Congress with respect to aliens that are so essentially political in character as to be nonjustifiable.' Fiallo v. Bell, supra, 430 U.S. at 793, 97 (1977) S. Ct. at 1478."

Notice this next quote acknowledges right to discriminate against people for their "characteristics". But quotas discriminate against applicant x over applicant y for no reason related to any characteristic or reason, but the placement of applicants on quota lists is wholly arbitrary. The Court accepts Congress' "plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens and to exclude those who possess those characteristics which Congress has forbidden." Boutilier v. Immigration and Nat uralization Service, 387 U.S. 118, 123 (87 S. Ct. 1563, 1567, 18 L. Ed. 2d 661) (1967).

If Courts are willing to stay out of this determination of constitutionality, that's fine with me! Courts aren't always the most intelligent evaluators of such things anyway. That doesn't keep the rest of us from reading the plain words of the 14th Amendment and figuring out what it allows. Nor does it keep the rest of us from caring whether US immigration quotas are constitutional.

Quotas: Institutionalized Unfairness. One day I am going to figure out how the USCIS calculates how many immigrants may come legally from each country. I have been staring at the USCIS official explanation, and I feel sorry for immigrants far more affected by the USCIS than I, less educated than I, with no access to the USCIS website, and little command of English, trying to figure it out from rumors.

Parents, children, and spouses of U.S. Citizens are exempt from quotas. Don't let anyone tell you that makes their road through USCIS hoops easy, inexpensive, or certain! But at least quotas are not added to their barriers. However, a large number of immediate family applicants reduce the number of other immigrants who may apply from any country from the other two groups!

The other two main groups of immigrants received legally are those accepted in work programs, and those related to citizens (besides parents, children, or spouses). The USCIS will not receive more of these applicants from any one country than 7% of the total immigrants from all countries, and the total worldwide immigration cap is only 421,000! Theoretically it could swell to a whopping 675,000, if there were few immediate family applications -- a big "if". Yet even counting immediate family members, total worldwide immigration was only 705,827.

That 7% limit applies to all countries, whether great or small, whether the desire within those countries to come here is strong or weak. Thus immigrants from a small country with few interested applicants, who "got in line" themselves and made it in, though it was difficult, may be tempted to feel exasperated with Mexicans who still come after the quota lines are closed, because they are from a large country bursting with applicants far beyond any reasonable hope of finding a "line" of any length to get in.

115,864 were accepted legally from Mexico by the USCIS in fiscal year 2003 (which ended June, 2004). This is about half the estimated number of "illegals" who successfully crossed our Southern border (from all countries, although mostly Mexican), and about one tenth the estimate of those who try! The 115,864 is down from 219,380 in 2002 and 206,426 in 2001. Do the phrases "immigration laws" and "efforts to repeal reality" seem at all related here?

Of the 115,864, 78,782 were spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens not subject to quota; the rest, subject to the 7% quota, included 29,664 who were less directly relateed to citizens or legal residents; only 3,261 who were allowed in to work; 85 allowed in as refugees or asylee adjustments; 2,503 "cancellation of removal"; and 1,557 "other". (Page 29, USCIS document 2003IMM.PDF, on USCIS website.)

Total legal immigration since 1820 has totaled 68,923,308, according to the USCIS website. Mexico has sent the second highest number of immigrants, but its proportionate impact on the U.S. population is smaller than many other countries when you take into account that Mexican immigration has been recent, when U.S. population was greatest, compared with smaller waves from other countries long ago when U.S. population was also far smaller. Here is the breakdown:

Germany 7,227,324 <> Mexico 6,675,296 <> Italy 5,443,948 <> UK 5,320,551 <> Ireland 4,786,062 <> Canada/Newfoundland 4,561,629 <> Soviet Union 4,050,706 <> Austria 1,849,270 <> Hungary 1,680,833 <> Phillipines 1,673,400 <> China 1,477,680 <> Sweden 1,264,263 <> India 998,713 <> Cuba 980,347 <> Dominican Republic 915,274 <> Korea 858,638 <> Africa 841,068 <> France 836,367 <> Vietnam 832,765 <> Poland 806,758 <> Norway 760,335 <> Greece 735,059 <> Jamaica 641,475 <> El Salvador 579,973 <> Japan 556,524 <> Portugal 527,972 <> Columbia 473,128 <> Haiti 468,067 <> Turkey 461,282 <> Hong Kong 435,288 <> Netherlands 393,069 <> Denmark 378,323 <> Switzerland 375,446 <> Spain 306,904 <> Oceania 279,358 <> Romania 270,104 <> Iran 265,909 <> Equador 259,657 <> Yugoslavia 258,177 <> Belgium 220,008 <> Israel 190,519 <> Argentina 168,249 <> Czechoslovokia 160,874 <> Other Asia 1,964,610 <> Other South America 1,084,745 <> Other Central America 959,588 <> Other Caribbean 935,659 <> Other Europe 272,285 <> Other America 110,188 <> Not specified 355,154. There are exactly 50 divisions on the USCIS chart, just as there are 50 stars in the American flag!

Leaders of the Anti-Immigrant Hatred: Surprise! How can it be that the hatred of immigrants who applied for citizenship after the quotas were full is led by, of all people, immigrants who slipped in under the quotas, or who came from countries with low or no quotas? Is it that "gringo" Ku Klux Klan types are the real fire behind anti-immigrant fervor, but they discern the partisan image they would give the movement were they at its fore, so they seek out and support immigrants willing to carry their water for a fee?

Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin was born in Philadelphia in 1970 to Filipino immigrants. Her face, at the top of her columns, pleases the eye, partly because it is the face of a foreigner, an oriental, and variety is a component of beauty. It reflects what makes America beautiful, as well as strong.

But her face appears very out of place atop her scathing attacks on anyone with any mercy for immigrants who still come after the quotas are full! She has so little mercy for her fellow immigrants, that her article about the Real ID Act complains of its "loophole" for "illegal aliens" whose applications for legal status are being processed by the USCIS. Such people live in limbo, waiting for years for our government to process a simple sheet of paper. Since what they are waiting for is for the USCIS to declare whether they are here legally or not, and since the USCIS is the top authority on that subject, it cannot be said by any lesser authority that they are either. Just one of the cruel effects upon them of these years of waiting is that they cannot cross the border for a wedding or a funeral or a visit with their families back home, while they are waiting. yet Malkin calls the acknowledgment, by the Real ID Act, of their legal right to be here while they are waiting, a "loophole" which she hopes Congress will close!

Does Michelle Malkin have no appreciation of the mercy shown by God to her and her parents, in giving her the right which she so vehemently loathes sharing with her fellow immigrants?

Comparable sanctimony marked the June 25, 1997, hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary in the House of Representatives. HR 7 was debated, which would have stripped babies born to unauthorized immigrants of any right to U.S. citizenship. Ms. Gwat Bhattacharjie, who immigrated from India, and wound up in Santa Barbara, California, felt "insulted" by other immigrants who still come in after the quotas are full. Here is some of her testimony. See if you can follow her reasoning:

"Ms. BHATTACHARJIE. I am an immigrant, of Chinese ethnicity, born and brought up in Indonesia.... I was offered a master's scholarship at the University of Rochester, New York....

"While at the University of Rochester, I met my future husband, an Indian physicist who came to the United States as a Fullbright Exchange Fellow after completing his Ph.D. at Delhi University. We were married at the end of 1962 and went west to his next job at Northrop Space Labs. At Northrop's request and sponsorship, my husband's status was changed and we were under so-called docket control for the next 5 years before obtaining permanent resident visas. What docket control means is that you cannot leave the country while you are in that status. You have to stay in the United States.

"We applied for citizenship as soon as we became eligible and were sworn in on September 1974. It took 14 years from the time I entered the United States to the granting of citizenship. And may I stress here that there is a tremendous amount of frustration among legal immigrants, as well as, of course, the citizen constituents, about this loophole: this birthright citizenship.

"....The 14th amendment has become the back door to instant citizenship. It is an insult to us who came and waited to come legally-to legitimize and to reward an illegal act...."

"Mr. SMITH. 'If my colleagues to the right will allow me, I'm going to ask one more question to Ms. Bhattacharjie. Ms. Bhattacharjie, in your testimony when you said that you would be insulted -- it is insulting to legal immigrants to continue to allow children born to illegal aliens to become citizens, what did you mean by "insulting to legal immigrants?" Would you expand on that?'

"Ms. BHATTACHARJIE. 'Mr. Chairman, it took me 14 years to be a citizen, and that was because of my own free will. I became a resident of this country, and if you live, reside, in a country and you enjoy the benefits, you should also accept the responsibilities of citizenship. One of the carrots that we have is the right to vote. It's very important.

"It's insulting because we had to go through a lot of rigmarole in order to be eligible and to come here. I wasn't issued an I­20 visa automatically, although I had a reason to come here. In fact, one of the things that they said was, 'Why don't you continue your education in Australia?' And I said, 'Well, the scholarship that was offered to me was not from an Australian university, but from an American university.' I must stress at that time that my own country was in a precarious political condition because Indonesia under Sukarno, President Sukarno, was aligned toward-although we carried out a nonalignment policy, was very friendly toward Communist China. And so my parents were advising me not to go home, and one way out, was to come here.

"But, despite the fact that I had to go through some difficulty in getting an I­20 visa, that was just part of the beginning. I have many friends who have found it even much more difficult than what I have gone through. I thought mine was not a dramatic case of how difficult it was to come here. And I think it's an insult to us who came here legally to find that the difficulties that we had confronted were nothing."

"Mr. SMITH. I think that answers my question. Thank you, Ms. Bhattacharjie."

Wow! It sure doesn't answer MY questions! The question was "Why is it insulting to legal immigrants to allow children born to illegal aliens to become citizens?" The answer: "I had such a hard time because of the outrageous INS red tape, and it is insulting that some of my friends had an even harder time!" That was an answer? Sounds like we're back to having to guess. How about this guess: "I'm flat-out jealous. I'm not sympathetic with my brother for having the same straight-from-Hell INS to deal with that I did. If the INS treats someone else better than me, I'm insulted! I want the INS to treat everyone else even worse than it treated me, so that I will know it wasn't personal, and I can get back my self-respect!"

What makes Ms. Bhattacharjie's venom surreal is that she does not merely want other immigrants to suffer under the same laws under which she suffered: she wants to change the law -- no, no, not just change the law but amend the Constitution! -- so that those after her will suffer monstrously higher hurdles than she overcame! She wants to repeal the 14th Amendment provision that babies born here (so long as they are not born with immunity to our laws, as they would if born to a foreign ambassador) are citizens!

Congressman Horn, a little later: "My father was a naturalized immigrant.... I listened to some of the earlier testimony, and I think of friends of mine who are Filipino, who are from India; they've been sitting in line legally to wait for years, and it's just simply unfair that 49 other countries can get into the United States from either land or sea, nor through Southeast or West, and people that want to be good citizens and come here and have made a great contribution, when they do come here, are sitting there stalled by the legal process, whereas if they took the illegal process, in one night they could be in the United States, but they'd have difficulty -- or they should have difficulty -- taking that route to become a citizen."

Oh, I see. It's unfair that God made Mexico right next to the U.S. but made the Phillippines so much farther a swim. Does anyone mind the unfairness that so much larger a percentage of those who want to come from any other country may come legally, except Mexico? Why not stop griping about how all this Hellish red tape isn't being shared equally, and replace quotas with criteria so that EVERYONE may come? Why not work together to end the Hellish red tape, rather than just make enough more of it to crush all alike, just to make it "fair"?

How can these people, who should know better, talk as if Mexican illegals have the same opportunity they do, if they would just "wait"? Have they no compassion for those who worked just as hard, waited just as long, as they did, but upon whom the quota door slammed shut?

Who is this Michelle Malkin, who looks as oriental as if she just stepped off a junk, and has made a career of attacking the freedom of other immigrants to do what she has done? Is she so arrogant that she thinks her parents "earned" passage through USCIS Bureaucracy Hell by virtue of some patience or intelligence superior to that of millions of Hispanics for whom the quota door would not crack open?

Has she no gratitude to God that the quota door cracked just wide enough for her parents? Is she clueless that the God who blessed her family with freedom, wants the same blessing for all the families of the earth -- the goal she so passionately opposes? Has she no appreciation for what a narrow escape her family had, and the danger she puts America in by urging the replacement of "the rule of law" with "majority rule"?

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

Don't misunderstand Jesus' quote. Jesus is not promoting government welfare, where a politician takes my money by force and gives it to my neighbor. "Illegal aliens" don't come here for welfare, which is good because they don't get any, unless you count, as "welfare for illegals", what they receive for their children who are born here as citizens. The purpose of citing this verse here is not to make unauthorized immigrants any more eligible for welfare.

But do ctizens really own U.S. air? Can the air and sunshine which God made for all (Matthew 5:45) be fenced in and reserved only for citizens? U.S. land and business is privately owned by citizens. If a U.S. citizen wants to sell his land to an immigrant, and offer him a job in his business, why do we need to make that a crime? If we as a nation have more air than we need, why do we need laws against sharing it with others who want to breathe free alongside us?

On March 11, 2005, I was a guest on the Jan Mickelson Show, WHO Radio, Des Moines Iowa. A caller, "Bob", told me, "Well maybe if you'd try thinking that the majority of people here know darn well this country is based on the rule of law, and anyone who comes here legally, welcome to the country. And the people that aren't, frankly, are criminals. And, and you can send as many people as you want, but if the majority decides that they're criminals, and they want 'em out of the country, and they start doing it on their own [by violence], that wouldn't be a good situation, would it?" (I think his point was that if I would be hypocritical to want the laws obeyed that restrain him from commiting crimes against unauthorized immigrants, but not the laws obeyed that keep unauthorized immigrants out.)

Bob confused the "rule of law" with "majority rule". You see, if the majority decides to impose, upon a minority, restrictions it will not accept upon itself, that is not the "rule of law", but the "rule of raw power". It is lawlessness. It is hypocrisy. When we impose mindless quotas upon Hispanics which we are glad were not imposed upon our own great grandparents, when we deny Hispanics the right to come here and not live off charity but to pay, with their own hard labor, for goods and services willingly sold by American businesses and individuals, while we expect for ourselves the right, should we choose, to emigrate to another country for all summer, or for a few years, or to retire, then we fall under Jesus' bitter criticism of the lawyers of His day: "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." Luke 11:46.

The majority of Americans have NO RIGHT to "decide" that a minority of those sharing their land are "criminals" for doing what they themselves do! Any "majority" which makes such a cruel, hypocritical "decision" ought to be ashamed of itself!

Jurisdiction. Controversy rages over whether unauthorized immigrants ("illegal aliens") are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. The fact that they can be arrested and deported doesn't seem to settle the question. The war over how to define the word rages on the battlefield of whether to keep giving citizenship to babies born here to unauthorized immigrants. (See separate article, "Should babies of 'illegal aliens' born here be counted as citizens? and, while we're at it, does the Constitution answer this: May we enslave "illegals"? The answer depends on how we define "jurisdiction")

The fact is if "U.S. jurisdiction" is defined in such a way that their babies are not under it, then neither are their parents. And if parents are not under it, then not only is the citizenship of their babies at stake, but the equal protection of the laws for their parents. If their parents -- unauthorized immigrants -- have no "equal protection of the laws", then literally our lawmakers may enact any laws against them which they do not impose upon citizens, fulfilling Jesus' condemnation against lawyers, up to and including slavery.

"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." Luke 11:46

We can't even blame this on the Supreme Court. As Congressman Bilbray told the 1997 hearing, "...no Supreme Court case has ever been tried involving illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants just didn't exist during the debates of the 14th Amendment because we did not have any immigration laws at that time." His statement is not precise, since Plyler v. Doe, in 1982, determined that children of unauthorized immigrants should not be denied a "free" public education. But he was close to the truth, if he meant that the Court has never examined the Constitutionality of US immigration quotas, which turn millions of immigrants into "illegals".

US immigration quotas are the problem. Were the U.S. keeping "the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free" out based on their lack of qualifications, that would be reasonable and constitutional. If we merely said "you cannot be a citizen and vote until you learn English so you can understand what the candidates are saying, and understand how freedom works", we would require no more than our Founding Fathers did from the beginning, when they established a 5-year wait from an application for citizenship, and citizenship. But when we keep out millions of immigrants more qualified than our own citizens, not just for five years but forever, just because of an arbitrary quota, we do not apply the law equally. We don't even treat immigrants alike: some are more welcome than others! Any time we make our laws less equal for some than for others, we attack the very concept of "rule of law". We replace it with "rule of the unlucky by the privileged", the ancient Satan-inspired tyranny which America was founded to replace.

US Immigration Quotas have done all this. US immigration quotas were first established in 1882, in between the beginning of construction on the Statute of Liberty and its delivery to New York! US immigration quotas defy common sense.

US immigration quotas came into existence after the Iowa Constitution and the 14th Amendment were enacted, which explains why those constitutions "guarantee" rights for all, even for those who still want to come after the quotas are full. But those constitutions were written precisely to guarantee freedom for ALL human beings, even those whom lawmakers would rather restrict, and to the extent we ignore, or amend, those protections, we make ourselves vulnerable to future hard-hearted lawmakers.

What kind of "America" makes a man a criminal for wanting to do an honest day's work? And don't tell an unauthorized immigrant to "get in line like everybody else" when YOU never stood in those lines! And stop talking about what "everybody else" has to stand in, when you know not "everybody" has to get in those lines, which are a generation long just to live here legally, and another generation long to become a citizen, and that's for those for whom the quota door cracks open a little!

Those lines are unconstitutional.

Those lines defy God and His Laws.

Those lines defy the Rule of Law.

Those lines, along with their champions, await the expiration of God's "goodness and forbearance and longsuffering", Romans 2:4.

Those lines, along with abortion, will join Death and Hell in the Lake of Fire, Revelation 20:14-15.

Feedback Box This web site is part of Uncle Ed.'s search for truth. God didn't make any man able to find the truth by himself. Proverbs 15:22 says only in a "multitude of counsellors" are purposes established. And counsel can come from anybody: 2 Chronicles 35:20-24 says God can speak even through your generation's representative of Antichrist! (Isaiah 30 for perspective.) So if you see errors here, and you don't warn poor Uncle Ed.,, their continued presence here will be your fault! (Ezekiel 3:18-20) (If you don't want your email address posted when we post your comments or criticism, SAY SO!) Join our FORUM on any article posted here. The discussion board set up at http://x.saltshaker.us/forums is designed for you to respond to any article on this website. (Or start a discussion on your own topic.) To respond to any article on this website, just copy enough of the beginning of the article to let everybody know to what you are responding, along with the url of the and then have at it. If your comment would be appropriate inserted in one of my articles, email your comment to me, with a little of the text on either side of where you think it should be inserted, and I'll try to post it there, along with any response I may have (to which you are invited to respond further.) Would you like us to email new articles or forum "threads" to you? Let us know!