Should we, as citizens SUE the federal Government for having broken this law, continually, for decades?

Question

A BIG THANK YOU TO J D FOR THESE excellent precednets!

The courts of the USA have already decided, many times, in fact, that children born to non-citizens ARE NOT CITIZENS even if born on American soil!

Should a few Americans file a class action suit for flagrant disregard of the law?

The Fourteenth Amendment EXCLUDES the children of aliens.
(The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873))

The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction
between the children of aliens and children of citizens.
(Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874))

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction"
REQUIRES "Direct And Immediate ALLEGIENCE"
to the United States, NOT just physical presence.
(Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884))

There is NO automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case.
(Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898))

The Supreme Court has NEVER confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists.
(Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982)

Although there are 11 answers at this point, please read the page on the following link and consider it before answering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby

The crux of this issue is exactly the points made in the Wong Kim Ark decision.
Mainly these:
But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king (in this case the USA).
An illegal alien's obedienceand allegience toward the USA CANNOT be established, as his/her ENTIRE activity is against the laws of the USA!
Illegal entry
illegally obatining work
retaining a residence/home/family in another country
use of illegitimate documentation for the direct purpose of violation of law
entering the country for the sole purpose of trying to anchor the family through birth instead of the intent being one of a lawful member of this society!

Answer 1

That is a good idea.

Answer 2

From Wikipedia:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

The court ruled, in a 6-2 decision, that Wong Kim Ark was in fact a U.S. citizen and that the United States government could not deny citizenship to anyone born in the United States — even children of foreigners.

Wong Kim Ark was also cited in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), a Supreme Court decision which struck down a Texas state law that had sought to deny public education to undocumented alien children (i.e., children born abroad who had come to the United States illegally along with their parents — not children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents). The court's majority opinion in Plyler said that, according to the Wong court, the 14th Amendment's phrases "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and "within its jurisdiction" were essentially equivalent and that both referred primarily to physical presence.

In response to concerns over illegal immigration in the United States (and the associated fear that children of illegal immigrants could serve as "anchor babies"), bills have been introduced from time to time in Congress which have challenged the conventional interpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and have sought to actively and explicitly deny citizenship at birth to U.S.-born children of foreign visitors or illegal aliens. No such bill has ever come close to being enacted; even if one did, it would presumably achieve its intended result only if the Supreme Court, in a new case, were to conclude that Wong Kim Ark had been wrongly decided and that the precedent set in 1898 should be repudiated. Some attempts have also been made to supersede Wong Kim Ark by amending the Constitution itself, but no such amendment has ever been approved by Congress in order to be voted upon by state legislatures.

Oh, and to quote P.J. O'Rourke, "Every government is a Parliament of whores, but in a democracy the whores are us." Why would you want to sue yourself? For the huge settlement?

Answer 3

Naw, I like immigrants, they make our economy run. I'm from Oregon, where without Latin American immigrants farming would fail and I currently live in New York where legal and many illegal immigrants are crucial for our economy. Who would deliver Pizzas, cook food, or work as security guards?

You spelled precedents wrong.

Answer 4

If it were legal to sue the government, then I would say YES. All we can do now is get the politicians out of congress that are not willing to fix the problem.

Answer 5

JD is funny,
and most likely not the best source for constitutional law.

those cases deal with insular minorites and not the 14th.

you guys are too funny.

Answer 6

Thank you for enlightening me on the subject, but if I recall, the Federal Government can't be sued ... am I wrong on this?

Answer 7

yes, the mexicans should go back to their own country but you should also be executed for treason

Answer 8

I think it is a fine idea.

Answer 9

sounds good to me.

Answer 10

Sure ... whatever it takes to stop this farce ....