It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Vitchilo
Originally posted by broahes
When did we get rid of section 1 of the 14th amendment?
Thing is...the 14th amendment was never ratified by Arizona... so there ya go.
But still it probably won't fly since this is a federal matter...
[edit on 28-5-2010 by Vitchilo]
you guys can talk all the smack you want, it doesent matter you can send all the illegal immigrants and anchor babies home tomorrow, people of hispanic descent will still be here and will outbreed white america. soon enough the tables will be turned and white people will be the minority. white people have had a great run at it and dominated the usa for a long time now, what will the next 100 years look like?
However, the Bear Stearns investment firm and others have concluded that the actual number of illegal aliens in the United States could be as high as 20 million. When using the higher estimate of 20 million illegal immigrants and FAIR’s 33 births per 1,000, this would roughly double FAIR’s estimate to approximately 574,000 to 726,000 anchor babies born in the U.S. each year.
Thus if the illegal population is 40 million there could be 1.5 million Anchor Babies born each year in the USA.Thus if the illegal population is 40 million there could be 1.5 million Anchor Babies born each year in the USA.
Why is the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" ignored? www.freerepublic.com... In the US Supreme Court case Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the Court stated regarding the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction", “The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
In the Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Court stated, "The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."
Originally posted by The Sword
Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Grumble
I fail to see how this makes one a bigot.....perhaps you could enlighten me. How is keeping the foriegn hoarde at bay bigotry?
You answered your own question.
[edit on 4-7-2010 by The Sword]
Originally posted by Maslo
But illegals are exactly that. They come hidden like thieves and use your countrys hard-earned resources without much contributing themselves. A foreign hoarde is a fitting description, and if that makes me a bigot, then I am one.