In Shunning 'Illegals,' do We also Shun Constitution?

Here's a pitch for the 'illegal' immigrant that might someday receive attention, maybe even making them legal.

This argument sits there in the Constitution, patiently waiting.

Pick up that venerable document, if you will, and go down to the 14th Amendment, which was enacted at the end of the Civil War, and which brought citizenship to those freed by the war.

Doesn't that last part of the amendment say no state shall deprive any person in its jurisdiction of equal protection under the laws? That means any person living in that state. Any. All you need to qualify, is to live there. It doesn't break it down into those who have been invited and those who haven't.

Strictly reading the words, for what they say and what they're worth, wouldn't that give undocumented residents the right to remain?

Then, right before that part of the 14th Amendment, there's the part that says no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process. Deporting folks is (surely), depriving them of liberty. If you disagree, you are going to have to argue that as long as they get due process, they can still be deported. But, I will reply that that is not enough. Due process is for those accused of having done harm to society. Simply living and breathing on American soil is not a harmful thing. Existing on American soil is not a harm. In fact, "existing" falls under the perimeters of "life" when the 14th Amendment mentions life, liberty and property.

Back up to what comes right before that in the 14th Amendment. Read how it says no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens. You might argue that it says "citizens" and they are not citizens. I would reply, Just what was a citizen back then, in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified? I think of all the emigrants out of England and Scandinavia about that time, of how so many of them made their way to Utah, and I don't remember hearing any stories of how they were detained for immigration questions, or considered undocumented or illegal. Seems they became "citizens" quite automatically.

If that is what the writers of the 14th Amendment had in mind, why make it different now?

There's one part of the 14th Amendment left, the first part. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." I'd say everyone who lives here is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. So, if you are subject to our laws by living here, that and a little more should be all it takes to consider you a citizen.

And, what is that "little more"? It is that you must be born here or naturalized. Back then, what did it take to be naturalized? In the beginning of our nation, naturalization required not much more than living here for a few years. You weren't stopped at the border, but rather you came in freely and it was your staying a few years that was the qualifier for being termed a citizen. Was that still the process in 1868?

It was.

So, it does seem the writers of the 14th Amendment had in mind that everyone who lives on American soil should be allowed to remain, and should be considered citizens within years of arriving.

That would include those who we call illegals and who we accuse of not respecting by our laws when they come here illegally. Maybe, instead of accusing them of not living by our laws, we should consider that it is us who are not living by the law. Perhaps it is us who ignore the highest law, even the Constitution.