The 14th Amendment, Sans Lawyers, Doesn't Allow for Deportation

   I suggest we all are prejudiced if we cannot see the Fourteenth Amendment grants "illegal" immigrants the right to remain in the United States, and protects them against deportation.
   Words have meaning long before lawyers come along to corrupt them. Read those words, then, and just look at what they say.
    Sans a lawyer.
    And, sans your prejudice. Sans what you already believe, for you've already been prejudiced. Long before you sat down to read the Fourteenth Amendment, you were taught that we have the right to deny people entry into the United States. Fine, if you believe that we have that right, but should you be coloring the Fourteenth Amendment with these biases that have been taught to you?
   All I'm asking, is that you think for yourself.
   It is the nature of man to search for reasons -- excuses -- for why they are right. Regardless what truth exists, you can find reason to dismiss it. Now, if you have already determined to search for reasons I am wrong, you will rationalize your way to maintaining your belief.
   Dirt can be found on a pavement, but it does not mean the pavement is a dirt road. Regardless what specks you try to cover the truth with, the truth will remain.
   So, here we go. And, as we sail off on this adventure, I beg you set aside your biases and don't prosecute the words of the amendment, but view them as if for the first time, just looking at what they actually say.
    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
   Yes, you might suggest the rights granted in the first portion of the amendment do not apply to the "illegal" immigrant. But, consider the final 31 words:
   "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
   It does not say "any citizen," it says, "any person." Does not "any person" mean everyone? Surely, then, it includes those who migrated here without our permission as quick as it does those who were born and raised here.
   And, what does it say is to become of "any person?" It says that that person is not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, nor denied the equal protection of the laws. Equal protection does not mean you let one person stay and kick another one out. Equal doesn't work that way. If you are to protect one, you must protect them all. So, if you create a law, you create a law that applies to them all equally.
   Your law must apply to everyone -- not just those born here. It must apply to those who migrated here, just as well. So, if your Constitution says every person is to be allowed life, liberty, and property, then everyone is everyone and everyone is to have those freedoms. Now, if a lawyer gets hold of those words, he might suggest they can march right back to Mexico or South America to get their life, liberty, and property, so they aren't really being deprived those rights. But, do the words of the Fourteenth Amendment require that?  Do the words say they must go elsewhere for their freedom? Is there anything there to suggest we are talking about anywhere but here in the United States? Are there words suggesting that, yes, you can deprive them of life in the United States, and liberty in the United States, and property in the United States, as long as you chase them off to another country where they can get those freedoms?
  I don't believe so. The Constitution outlines the freedoms to be enjoyed here -- in America -- not in some foreign land. If you don't let a lawyer peer over your shoulder and shift the freedoms from this to another country, it should be clear those freedoms are to be enjoyed right here in this land.
   Before lawyers get hold of them, words already have their meanings. Lawyers might seek to twist the truth, and to insert things that are not there, but when you clear away the varnish, the truth comes forth again.
   In conclusion, I have suggested you look at this issue unbiased. You might say that is heavy-handed of me. You might ask how it is I am not the one being biased. Well, truth is truth. It only knows one master. Alternate truth is not something that exists. If one person says the sun sets at night and the other says it does not, only one of them is seeing the truth. Yes, I think I have thought this thing through. Yes, I think it is clear. If you think it through, though, and still hold to your belief, that, too, is okay. What I'm saying is, all of us think things through, best we can, and of course we think we are right, and of course we think it is ourselves who are being unbiased.
   So, yes, I think I am right and, yes, I think I am being unbiased. But, I realize well you might think it is you are right and unbiased. You might beg with me to put aside my biases, and to study it more carefully in order to know the truth. Bless us both.