Federal Tort: Suing Gov't. for Constitutional Violations

[Rakym75]

Can a person sue the U.S. government for violations of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution? Based on the wording of the 14th Amend. it would appear that it was designed only for the purpose of preventing a state from writing a law that takes away someone's right to fair and indiscriminate protection of rights & privileges.

For instance, if a person naturalized & became a U.S. citizen as a minor, wouldn't he for ever have the rights as a born U.S. native citizen. If the INS held this naturalized citizen, wouldn't that fall under violations of the 14th Amend? Based on the fact that this is a naturalized citizen, he can't be held by INS or be considered for deportation because he is still a citizen, naturalized or not. Isn't this still discriminatory? Does this 14th Amend. not apply to the U.S. Gov't., or just states?

 

[Rakym75]

Need some help w/ this question. Any takers out there?

 

[racer72]

Can't answer all your questions but I do know the answer to one. Even though a person is a naturalized citizen, they can still be deported for breaking certain laws. A former co-worker of mine was born in Mexico but was naturalized at the age of 15. He was arrested during the infamous (at least here in the Seattle area) WTO protests in November of 1999. Today he still waits in an INS holding facility and is facing be deported as an undesirable. He was charged with malicious mischief and destruction of public property by the Seattle PD (since dismissed) and for anti government activities by the INS. He said his attorney told him he can be deported for violating the terms of his naturalization. He has been in detention for 14 months and there is no federal time limit on when he gets to have his hearing. He had worked at a major aircraft manufacturer for 14 years and has a wife and 2 kids. The INS is a federal entity and does not have to adhere to state laws. Even if your friend sued, it would have to be in federal court and unless he got a simpathetic judge, the suit probably will not go far. Naturalized citizens have to play by a different set of rules than those of us born here.

 

[Rakym75]

Did anyone actually read the facts above. We are not talking about an "Alien". I am talking about a child who did go through the "procedures"; who pursuant to 8USC1432 or INA:321, became a US citizen on the day of his mothers Naturalization. The "procedure" is "automatic", and immediate, upon the fullfillment of its requirements. There is no seperate application; citizenship is derivative, from paren to child. Allow me to post the law, from the United States Code, this is also paralleled in the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA:321):

TITLE 8 USC

Sec. 1432. Children born outside United States of alien parents; conditions for automatic citizenship

(a) A child born outside of the United States of alien parents, or of an alien parent and a citizen parent who has subsequently lost citizenship of the United States, becomes a citizen of the United States upon fulfillment of the following conditions:

(1) The naturalization of both parents; or

(2) The naturalization of the surviving parent if one of the parents is deceased; or

(3) The naturalization of the parent having legal custody of the child when there has been a legal separation of the parents or the naturalization of the mother if the child was born out of wedlock and the paternity of the child has not been established by legitimation; and if

(4) Such naturalization takes place while such child is unmarried and under the age of eighteen years; and

(5) Such child is residing in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence at the time of the naturalization of the parent last naturalized under clause (1) of this subsection, or the parent naturalized under clause (2) or (3) of this subsection, or thereafter begins to reside permanently in the United States while under the age of eighteen years.

(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply to an adopted child only if the child is residing in the United States at the time of naturalization of such adoptive parent or parents, in the custody of his adoptive parent or parents, pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence.

So, the child did in fact become a citizen on the day mother naturalized. So, why would the INS have the right to hold a citizen? They are the custodians of their records, if the records-keeping was in error, then this would be negligence. The average person isn't responsible for the accuracy of their INS status, you don't know if their up to date. Now outside of perjury on the application (which wasn't the case), or anti-allegiance activity against U.S. (ie, terrorism, espionage, involvement in the political election race of a foreign country, etc.), then there is no cause to revoke or suspend someone's citizenship. So, if this is the case then this person was deprived of their right to be a citizen, to pursue life & liberty as protected by the U.S. Constitution. This isn't something to be deprived w/o good cause. So, after someone READS ALL the facts above, please feel free to answer my question. Thanks.