Should govt. revoke citizenship of Americans involved in terrorism?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's called the "Terrorist Expatriation Act"... and if it passes, the government could have the right to strip citizenship from any American suspected of supporting terrorism.
Bipartisan bills are being introduced in both the Senate and the House; and supporters point to the recent terror attempt in Times Square - which was carried out by a Pakistani-American. They say the measure reflects the "changing nature of war."
The proposal would actually update an existing - but rarely used - law run by the State Department. That 1940 measure allows the government to revoke citizenship for actions like voting in another country's elections or joining the army of a nation at war with the U.S.
What's interesting here is the measure isn't drawing the usual partisan responses. Some top Democrats seem to be supporting it... including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who says the administration will take "a hard look" at extending the existing powers of the government.
Also House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she supports the "spirit" of the measure... although she still needs to hear more details.
Meanwhile some Republicans are skeptical... including House Minority Leader John Boehner, who questions the constitutionality of the measure.
Legal experts are also mixed in their opinions. Some worry that it's an "extraordinary step" to take away citizenship from someone. And they say to do it based only on suspicion, without court trials, is giving the government too much power.
Here’s my question to you: Should the government revoke citizenship of people involved in terrorism?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How seriously do you take pres. & Congress on immigration reform?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The federal government is trying to play catch-up with Arizona - when it comes to immigration reform.
President Obama is calling on Congress to start work this year on comprehensive immigration reform. Translation: Nothing will get done this year.
The president acknowledges that the nation's immigration system is "broken," yet criticizes Arizona's new law - saying it undermines "fundamental principles that define us as a nation." Portions of the Arizona law are word for word the same as the federal law which is ignored year after year.
Mr. Obama promised immigration reform during his first year in office. We're now approaching the midway point of his second year. Even some Democrats are getting tired of waiting for the president to do something.
The president has suggested that there's not an appetite in Congress for another fiery debate in an election year; and just yesterday his press secretary said that there's not enough support to move forward. Except in the country… where there is huge support for doing something.
One Democratic Senator is asking Arizona to delay implementing its immigration law for a one year. New York Senator Chuck Schumer - in an act of great chutzpah - tells Arizona governor Jan Brewer the delay would give Congress a chance to pass a federal law, which would be more effective than Arizona's. Brewer says: No way.
She, like the rest of us, has been lied to before. They want another year to do nothing... so they can campaign for the midterms without having to explain to the voters why they refuse to do anything meaningful about border security and illegal immigration.
They're not even any good at covering up their real motives anymore.
Here’s my question to you: How seriously do you take the president and Congress when it comes to immigration reform?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments