What a concept, revoking the citizenship of convicted terrorists? What's the downside? Canada is thinking along these lines, what about doing this in the United States?
Jamal Akkal, a naturalized Canadian citizen of Palestinian origin has been released from an Israeli prison, where he served a four-year sentence after pleading guilty to charges of terrorism. This in itself isn't particularly noteworthy. What is noteworthy though is that Akkal has now returned to Windsor where he plans to take up residence.
According to Israeli intelligence sources, Akkal took up weapons training in 2003 in anticipation of returning to Canada to take action against Jews and visiting Israeli diplomats.
While in opposition, Conservative public safety critic Peter McKay urged the Liberal government of Paul Martin to revoke the citizenship of Fateh Kamel, an Algeria-born Canadian citizen who served time in a French prison, following his conviction of terrorism. Given that the circumstances of Mr. Akkal's case are similar to that of Mr. Kamel, should the Conservative government take action to revoke Akkal's citizenship? After all, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. [snip]
Be that as it may, terrorism is a particularly heinous crime and those convicted of participating or conspiring to participate in terrorist acts should have their citizenship yanked at warp speed. After all, the government of Canada has no problem revoking the citizenship of old German or Ukrainian men who are accused of committing war crimes during World War II, sometimes on the flimsiest evidence. (Canada Free Press)
Also on immigration and illegal aliens: Them's Fighting Words, Blue Collar Muse:
After the furor over the Illegal Alien Amnesty bill died down, I was content to move on to other issues and conversations. I was aware the issue still simmered out there and that flashpoints such as the recent deportation of Elvira Arellano existed, but none seemed serious enough to trigger additional response from me.
Until this morning.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon's comments proved a fuel source rich enough to rekindle the flame of outrage in me. Evidently, proponents of illegal immigration are convinced this is a fight they can win. They seem determined to prod the sleeping dog until it gets up and tears their feral cat to pieces once and for all.
Calderon's comment "Where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico!" by itself is no more offensive than "You can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy!". When you add his statement, "Mexico does not end at its borders!" the meaning of his first statement becomes ominous. Is he suggesting Mexicans are a fifth column here in the US waiting to be activated by Mexico City? Is he saying Mexico's official position is to make her northern borders irrelevant and that he intends to behave as if they do not exist? If he is concerned he is being misunderstood, he is free to issue clarifying statements. Absent corrections, he is either acknowledging we understand him perfectly or he does not care how we take his words. Either option is unacceptable (More)
Immigration Invasion - The Line in the Sand, at Aryan Awakening. A video and article.
**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, Email Stik and let us know at what level you would like to participate.