Part Five 618 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 Five 
Original Intent of the 14th Amendment. It is argued that the authors of the 14th Amendment never meant its protections to apply to "illegal aliens", even if the language doesn't spell it out. 
This cannot be true, because July 9, 1868, when it 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. 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! 
How about amending our 14th Amendment so it protects everybody but "illegals"? But if we start a list of exempted groups, who will finish it? 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, not majorities, or dictators. 
The difference is that laws apply, by definition, equally to everybody, including the lawmakers, while a dictator or even a majority may enact decrees applying only to others. We cannot have it otherwise, without anarchy. 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 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. 
Another argument against applying the 14th Amendment to undocumented immigrants is that the United States has incomplete jurisdiction over babies whose parents are here temporarily in the shadows of the law. That is like saying police have no jurisdiction over criminals because they can't catch them! Jurisdiction over a person does not depend on whether a government knows where he is. Jurisdiction means legitimate authority over someone. Parents have jurisdiction over their own children, and over other children who enter their home. The same with governments.