Fighting Terrorism Through the Immigration and Nationality Act: Dangers of Limiting th INA’s Breadth Under Cheema v. Ashcroft
Daniel C. LaPenta
This Comment will explain the majority and dissent’s reasoning, with the argument that such a narrow reading of the statute could be a danger to the national security of the United States and restrain the War on Terror during a time when the interpretation of our immigration laws should be anything but limited in their breadth. While the War on Terror persist abroad, a significant front will inevitably remain on our borders, as the United States attempts to prevent penetration, and, more significantly for this Comment, to remove those who threaten national security. Therefore, this Comment will argue in accordance with Judge Rawlinson’s dissent in Cheema.