Part Four 779 words
The Logic of Cruelty
The Case that Keeps "Illegal" Drivers Uninsured
Analysis of Sanchez & Doe vs. State of Iowa, Iowa Department of Public Safety, and Iowa Department of Transportation, Iowa Supreme Court, No. 14 / 04-0176 Filed February 18, 2005
By Dave Leach(Dave Leach is listed in Marquis' "Who's Who in Communications". Write to him at Leach@Saltshaker.US)
Translation into Spanish by Gabriela G. Buenrostro,former newspaper and magazine journalist and writer, and former host Zero Radio Show in Mexico City. (Write to her at Gabriela@Saltshaker.US)

Part Four 
"Driving is not a right, but a privilege." Meaning, that privileges are granted by a generous government, which may revoke any privilege it likes, whenever it likes. So say judges, lawmakers, police, and many drivers. The only problem with this thinking is the concept of "equal protection of the laws" in that annoying 14th Amendment. If all "persons within the jurisdiction of the states" have "equal protection of the laws", then the government can't go around revoking privileges, any more than it can rights, any time it likes, whenever it likes, for whatever reasons it thinks of. 
It explains nothing to label some Rights as "privileges". A "right" and a "privilege" are only the same thing from two directions. A "right", such as the right to be free and to vote, can be taken away for a violation of the law; but voting is still called a "right" and not a "privilege". A "privilege" is something only some can do and not all, but opportunity to earn access to any privilege is required, by the Constitution, especially the 14th Amendment, to be equally available to all. We theoretically base our award of privileges, such as doctor's licenses, on merit. But merit is also used to qualify people to exercise their rights. For example, neither a mental inmate, nor a child, may vote.
Calling driving a "privilege" instead of a "right" cannot change the fact that the 14th Amendment "equal protection of our laws" requires legislatures to make the opportunity for both of them -- both "rights" and "privileges", if there is any actual difference -- equally available to all. 
The opportunity to become a legal resident is not equally available to all! Irrational arbitrary quotas limit living legally to a lucky few. Our founding fathers used the word "right" to mean what God meant for us to have, regardless of how much governments interfere. The right to travel freely on any public road, by any conveyance, was not subject to any license or restriction of any kind, in America, until automobiles were invented. The public was alarmed that those first cars scared horses, so they urged lawmakers to discourage them.
It's not just that we are locked into an amendment enacted 137 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 officially outlaw slavery. 
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! " 
Next week: Part Five, "The Original Intent of the 14th Amendment."