(Photo by Joe Kovacs)
A new fight now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court is just exactly what constitutes “material support” for terrorism.
It could end up being significant, as a ban on “material support,” if defined broadly enough, could ensnare those who advocate for radical groups that work to undermine American security, election integrity, international policy and more.
Federal law states an immigrant is inadmissible if he or she is found to have delivered that “support” to terrorists.
But while guns, ammunition, explosives and the like easily qualify, the question is whether cooking for terrorists does.
A report at Courthousenews explains, “Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an immigrant who has given material support to a terrorist organization is removable and ineligible for various immigration benefits.”
But there’s no definition for “material support,” only several categories identified as examples such as “transportation, communications, funds” and more.
Weapons, “chemical, biological or radiological” are counted.
Attorney General Todd Blanche, however, is asking if such support “must advance the organization’s actual commission of terrorism,” or not.
He suggests that supplying food, shelter, bedding and clothing also qualify.
“By its plain terms, the bar against those who provide ‘material support’ does not distinguish between guns and butter,” Blanche charged. “It applies to all who help a terrorist organization function, not just to those who specifically advance its terrorist activities.”
The fight comes out of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled in favor of a man named Izuchukwu Ozurumba, claiming he did not supply “material support” to terrorists even though he cooked meals for them for months.
Blanche challenged, “Providing meals to a terrorist organization’s members is no less a material form of support than providing gasoline for its vehicles.”
Ozurumba claimed he was lured to a Nigerian camp with the promise of work, but then held there by armed members who “forced him to prepare meals.”
His court filings argue that the law doesn’t “extend” to anything beyond actual support for terreorism.
The report said the the DOJ is arguing the 4th Circuit’s decision that such activities are not “material support” actually finds no footing in the statutory text, which prohibits material support both “for the commission of a terrorist activity,” and also “to a terrorist organization.”
Continue reading...
[ H/T WorldNetDaily ]
