Some truths about Trump’s birthright plan – BBC News
These are external links and will open in a new window Close share panel Image copyright Getty Images Image caption New American citizens wave American flags during a naturalisation ceremony President Donald Trump says he plans to end “birthright citizenship” in the US by executive order. Can he do that?
In an interview with Axios President Trump claimed that he was working on an end to birthright citizenship, the 150-year-old principle that says anyone born on US soil is an American citizen.
“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” Mr Trump said. “You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order.”
Mr Trump claimed that such an order is currently in the works, and not long after, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted : “I plan to introduce legislation along the same lines as the proposed executive order from President @realDonaldTrump.”
The president’s comments have ignited a furious debate about whether or not the president has the unilateral power to do such a thing, and whether the underlying premise – that birthright citizenship is exploited by undocumented immigrants – has any merit. Image copyright Hulton Archive/Getty Images Image caption The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified in 1868 1) What is ‘birthright citizenship’?
The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment establishes the principle of “birthright citizenship”:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
Immigration hardliners argue that the policy is a “great magnet for illegal immigration”, and that it encourages undocumented pregnant women to cross the border in order to give birth, an act that has been pejoratively called “birth tourism” or having an “anchor baby”.
“The baby is an essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all those benefits. It’s ridiculous,” Trump told Axios. “It has to end.”
A 2015 Pew Research Center study found that 60% of Americans opposed ending birthright citizenship, while 37% were in favour. 2) How did it come about? Image copyright US National Archives Image caption Wong Kim Ark was born in the US but denied re-entry after leaving
The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, after the close of the Civil War. The Thirteenth Amendment had abolished slavery in 1865, while the Fourteenth settled the question of the citizenship of freed, American-born former slaves.
Previous Supreme Court decisions, like Dred Scott v Sandford in 1857, had decided that African Americans could never be US citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment overrode that.
In 1898, the US Supreme Court affirmed that birthright citizenship applies to the children of immigrants in the case of Wong Kim Ark v United States. Wong was a 24-year-old child of Chinese immigrants who was born in the US, but denied re-entry when he returned from a visit to China. Wong successfully argued that because he was born in the US, his parent’s immigration status did not impact the application of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“Wong Kim Ark vs United States affirmed that regardless of race or the immigration status of one’s parents, all persons born in the United States were entitled to all of the rights that citizenship offered,” writes Erika Lee , director of the Immigration History Research Center at the University of Minnesota. “The court has not re-examined this issue since then.” 3) Can Trump end birthright citizenship by executive order?
Most legal scholars agree that President Trump cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order.
“He’s doing something that’s going to upset a lot of people, but ultimately this will be decided by the courts,” says Saikrishna Prakash, a constitutional expert and University of Virginia Law School professor. “This is not something he can decide on his own.”
Mr Prakash says that while the president can order the employees of federal agencies to interpret citizenship more narrowly – agents with the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, for example – that will inevitably invite legal challenges from people whose citizenship is being denied.
That could lead to a lengthy court battle that could ultimately wind up at the US Supreme Court. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption A presidential executive order could direct federal offices to interpret citizenship a certain way
Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan was blunt in rejecting the president’s claim he could act unilaterally.
“You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order,” he told Kentucky radio station WVLK.
However, Martha S Jones, author of Birthright Citizens, wrote on Twitter that the Supreme Court has not directly addressed whether or not the children of non-citizens or undocumented immigrants should automatically become citizens at birth.
“SCOTUS could distinguish from Wong Kim Ark on the facts,” Jones writes. “Wong’s parents were authorized or we might say legal immigrants. Their presence in the US was authorized.”
Mr Prakash agrees.
“People who are on a tourist visa or here without permission… their children are automatically given birthright citizenship,” he says. “That’s the way it’s been read in modern times even though there’s been no definitive Supreme Court pronouncement on that.”
A constitutional amendment could do away with birthright citizenship, but that would require a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. 4) Any politics at play here?
Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington
Donald Trump’s decision to once again push for an end to birthright citizenship – which he now says can be done with a stroke of his presidential pen – should be seen in the context of next week’s mid-term elections.
As with the White House announcement of more than 5,000 troops dispatched to the US border, this appears to be another effort to focus American attention on the immigration issue.
Mr Trump made a hard-line immigration stance a central part of his 2016 presidential campaign and views it as one of the reasons he prevailed.
Now, in the electoral home stretch that could determine the success of the final two years of his presidential term, Mr Trump is reaching again for a familiar handhold.
A poll conducted in 2017 shows a majority of the public supported birthright citizenship, including for undocumented migrants, but 30% were opposed.
Even if those numbers haven’t changed, convincing that third of the American public that the president is fighting for them – and could get what they want if Republicans hold the Congress – might be enough to tip the balance the president’s way in key races next Tuesday.
“This has nothing to do with elections,” Mr Trump said in a recent interview. The timing of these efforts, however, is hard to ignore. 5) Do other countries have birthright citizenship?
In his remarks to Axios, Trump falsely claimed that the United States is the only country that has birthright citizenship.
In fact, more than 33 countries – including Canada, Mexico, Malaysia and Lesotho – practise automatic “jus soli”, or “right of the soil”.
No nation in Europe or East Asia has birthright citizenship, although in the UK citizenship is automatically granted if one parent is a citizen or permanent resident. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Londoners attempt to answer real UK citizenship questions
The United States is also not the only country where the practice has come under fire.
In August, delegates at the national convention for Canada’s centre-right federal Conservatives voted to end birthright citizenship for children unless one parent is either Canadian or a permanent resident.
Following the vote by the grassroots, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer said the party would look into developing a more targeted policy addressing the issue of so-called “birth tourism”, a term used to describe when a pregnant non-Canadian comes to the country specifically to give birth and ensure her child citizenship. 6) Who uses birthright citizenship?
According to the Pew Research Center , there were 275,000 babies born to unauthorised immigrant parents in 2014, and 4.7 million US-born children under the age of 18 living with at least one parent who is undocumented.
Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, births to unauthorised immigrant parents steadily rose before peaking in 2006, and have declined since then. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Bangladeshi immigrant Khadijatul Rahman, 29, holds her baby boy Zavyaan, 2 weeks, after becoming a US citizen in a naturalisation ceremony
Although Pew does not have exact numbers on the countries of origin of these parents, Mark Lopez, Director of Global Migration and Demography, says that three-quarters of unauthorised immigrants in the US are from countries in Latin America.
“Hispanics will make up the majority of these children born to unauthorized immigrant parents,” he says.
However, he adds that since we do not know how Mr Trump might write his executive order, the children of visa-holders or other temporary residents may also be impacted.
Reporting by Jessica Lussenhop
Did you get your American citizenship through birthright? Have you used it? Tell us about your experiences by emailing
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also contact us in the following ways: WhatsApp: +44 7555 173285
The 100 greatest foreign-language films – BBC News
– Foreign-language masterpieces you may not know
From the perspective of an English-language website, that’s an accurate description – but equally, as an internationally-focused one, we’re happy to acknowledge that, depending on who you are, many of these films won’t be in a language that’s foreign to you.
And as the poll exists to salute the extraordinary diversity and richness of films from all around the world, we wanted to ensure that its voters were from all around the world, too. The 209 critics who took part are from 43 different countries and speak a total of 41 languages – a range that sets our poll apart from any other.
The result: 100 films from 67 different directors, from 24 countries, and in 19 languages. French can claim to be the international language of acclaimed cinema: 27 of the highest-rated films were in French, followed by 12 in Mandarin, and 11 each in Italian and Japanese. At the other end of the scale, several languages were represented by just one film, such as Belarusian (Come and See), Romanian (4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days), and Wolof (Touki Bouki).
If there’s anything disappointing about the final list, it’s the paucity of films directed or co-directed by women . There are just four out of 100. But we made sure to contact as many female critics as male ones; of those who responded, 94 (45 per cent) were women.
One statistic we noted was that a quarter of the films on our list were East Asian: that is, 25 of them were made in Japan (11), China (6), Taiwan (4), Hong Kong (3) or South Korea (1). And the winning film, Seven Samurai , by the Japanese director Akira Kurosawa, was loved by critics everywhere – everywhere, that is, except for Japan. The six Japanese critics who voted didn’t go for a single Kurosawa film between them.
But it’s clear that culture isn’t bound by borders, and language needn’t be a barrier to enjoying great film-making. While the cinema of an individual nation is inevitably tied to its unique identity and history, the language of film is universal.
One more thing: the purpose of every BBC Culture film poll has always been to generate debate as well as encourage discovery. And we are aware that no list can be either definitive or please everyone – so get in touch using the hashtag #WorldFilm100 and let us know what’s missing. And look out for more BBC Culture features on the greatest in world cinema in the weeks to come.
100. Landscape in the Mist (Theo Angelopoulos, 1988) 99. Ashes and Diamonds (Andrzej Wajda, 1958) 98. In the Heat of the Sun (Jiang Wen, 1994) 97. Taste of Cherry (Abbas Kiarostami, 1997) 96. Shoah (Claude Lanzmann, 1985) 95. Floating Clouds (Mikio Naruse, 1955) 94. Where Is the Friend’s Home? (Abbas Kiarostami, 1987) 93. Raise the Red Lantern (Zhang Yimou, 1991) 92. Scenes from a Marriage (Ingmar Bergman, 1973) 91. Rififi (Jules Dassin, 1955) 90. Hiroshima Mon Amour (Alain Resnais, 1959) 89. Wild Strawberries (Ingmar Bergman, 1957) 88. The Story of the Last Chrysanthemum (Kenji Mizoguchi, 1939) 87. The Nights of Cabiria (Federico Fellini, 1957) 86. La Jetée (Chris Marker, 1962) 85. Umberto D (Vittorio de Sica, 1952) 84. The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (Luis Buñuel, 1972) 83. La Strada (Federico Fellini, 1954) 82. Amélie (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, 2001) 81. Celine and Julie go Boating (Jacques Rivette, 1974) 80. The Young and the Damned (Luis Buñuel, 1950) 79. Ran (Akira Kurosawa, 1985) 78. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Ang Lee, 2000) 77. The Conformist (Bernardo Bertolucci, 1970) 76. Y Tu Mamá También (Alfonso Cuarón, 2001) 75. Belle de Jour (Luis Buñuel, 1967) 74. Pierrot Le Fou (Jean-Luc Godard, 1965) 73. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929) 72. Ikiru (Akira Kurosawa, 1952) 71. Happy Together (Wong Kar-wai, 1997) 70. L’Eclisse (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1962) 69. Amour (Michael Haneke, 2012) 68. Ugetsu (Kenji Mizoguchi, 1953) 67. The Exterminating Angel (Luis Buñuel, 1962) 66. Ali: Fear Eats the Soul (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1973) 65. Ordet (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1955) 64. Three Colours: Blue (Krzysztof Kieślowski, 1993) 63. Spring in a Small Town (Fei Mu, 1948) 62. Touki Bouki (Djibril Diop Mambéty, 1973) 61. Sansho the Bailiff (Kenji Mizoguchi, 1954) 60. Contempt (Jean-Luc Godard, 1963) 59. Come and See (Elem Klimov, 1985) 58. The Earrings of Madame de… (Max Ophüls, 1953) 57. Solaris (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1972) 56. Chungking Express (Wong Kar-wai, 1994) 55. Jules and Jim (François Truffaut, 1962) 54. Eat Drink Man Woman (Ang Lee, 1994) 53. Late Spring (Yasujirô Ozu, 1949) 52. Au Hasard Balthazar (Robert Bresson, 1966) 51. The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (Jacques Demy, 1964) 50. L’Atalante (Jean Vigo, 1934) 49. Stalker (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1979) 48. Viridiana (Luis Buñuel, 1961) 47. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (Cristian Mungiu, 2007) 46. Children of Paradise (Marcel Carné, 1945) 45. L’Avventura (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1960) 44. Cleo from 5 to 7 (Agnès Varda, 1962) 43. Beau Travail (Claire Denis, 1999) 42. City of God (Fernando Meirelles, Kátia Lund, 2002) 41. To Live (Zhang Yimou, 1994) 40. Andrei Rublev (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1966) 39. Close-Up (Abbas Kiarostami, 1990) 38. A Brighter Summer Day (Edward Yang, 1991) 37. Spirited Away (Hayao Miyazaki, 2001) 36. La Grande Illusion (Jean Renoir, 1937) 35. The Leopard (Luchino Visconti, 1963) 34. Wings of Desire (Wim Wenders, 1987) 33. Playtime (Jacques Tati, 1967) 32. All About My Mother (Pedro Almodóvar, 1999) 31. The Lives of Others (Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, 2006) 30. The Seventh Seal (Ingmar Bergman, 1957) 29. Oldboy (Park Chan-wook, 2003) 28. Fanny and Alexander (Ingmar Bergman, 1982) 27. The Spirit of the Beehive (Victor Erice, 1973) 26. Cinema Paradiso (Giuseppe Tornatore, 1988) 25. Yi Yi (Edward Yang, 2000) 24. Battleship Potemkin (Sergei M Eisenstein, 1925) 23. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1928) 22. Pan’s Labyrinth (Guillermo del Toro, 2006) 21. A Separation (Asghar Farhadi, 2011) 20. The Mirror (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1974) 19. The Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo, 1966) 18. A City of Sadness (Hou Hsiao-hsien, 1989) 17. Aguirre, the Wrath of God (Werner Herzog, 1972) 16. Metropolis (Fritz Lang, 1927)15. Pather Panchali (Satyajit Ray, 1955) 14. Jeanne Dielman, 23 Commerce Quay, 1080 Brussels (Chantal Akerman, 1975) 13. M (Fritz Lang, 1931) 12. Farewell My Concubine (Chen Kaige, 1993) 11. Breathless (Jean-Luc Godard, 1960) 10. La Dolce Vita (Federico Fellini, 1960) 9. In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar-wai, 2000) 8. The 400 Blows (François Truffaut, 1959) 7. 8 1/2 (Federico Fellini, 1963) 6. Persona (Ingmar Bergman, 1966) 5. The Rules of the Game (Jean Renoir, 1939) 4. Rashomon (Akira Kurosawa, 1950) 3. Tokyo Story (Yasujirô Ozu, 1953) 2. Bicycle Thieves (Vittorio de Sica, 1948) 1. Seven Samurai (Akira Kurosawa, 1954)
Read more about BBC Culture’s 100 greatest foreign-language films:
Migrant caravan stops in Mexico same day Mattis says US military is deploying resources to border
Migrant caravan stops in Mexico same day Mattis says US military is deploying resources to border FOX News 4 hrs ago Zoe Szathmary Click to expand Replay Video UP NEXT Son of Pittsburgh Synagogue shooting witness: The sounds were ‘unmistakable’ Zac Weiss, whose father was inside the Tree of Life Synagogue during the deadly attack in Pittsburgh on Saturday, joins Sunday TODAY’s Willie Geist and describes the scene when gunfire rang out. “The first initial sound was described as a car crash … but the next multiple sounds were – they were unmistakable,” he says. TODAY Shooting believed to be deadliest US attack on Jews CNN’s Victor Blackwell discusses the impact the Squirrel Hill synagogue shooting had on the Pittsburgh community with Megan Guza, a staff writer for “The Pittsburgh Tribune Review.” CNN Pittsburgh Mayor to Trump: Guns in synagogues aren’t the answer Pittsburgh Mayor William Peduto joins Meet the Press a day after a deadly synagogue shooting killed 11. NBC News 1 Cancel SETTINGS OFF HD HQ SD LO US military deploying resources to border as caravan approaches, Mattis says FOX News See more videos SHARE SHARE TWEET SHARE EMAIL What to watch next Son of Pittsburgh Synagogue shooting witness: The sounds were ‘unmistakable’ TODAY 3:21 Shooting believed to be deadliest US attack on Jews CNN 3:45 Pittsburgh Mayor to Trump: Guns in synagogues aren’t the answer NBC News 5:16 Israeli PM: The entire people of Israel grieve CNN 1:46 Trump: This attack is an assault on all of us CNN 2:33 Synagogue shooting suspect targeted Jews online CNN 2:13 Multiple Casualties Confirmed in Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting Time 1:40 Pittsburgh official: Synagogue crime scene is ‘one of the worst I’ve seen’ NBC News 10:35 Migrants reject Mexico offer, press on to U.S. Reuters 0:36 Leicester City owner’s helicopter crashes near stadium Reuters 1:06 Woman warned Twitter about bomb suspect CNN 2:45 Is there a moral vacuum left by Trump, compared to other presidents? MSNBC 4:53 Federal charges for package bomb suspect Reuters – US Video Online 1:57 Video of mail bomb suspect in custody, handcuffed Associated Press 0:22 Khashoggi fiancée rejects Trump’s U.S. invitation NBC News 1:55 Nor’easter Storm Batters Coast of New Jersey Storyful 0:47 UP NEXT A caravan of Central American migrants attempting to reach the U.S. border took a break on Sunday, stopping in Tapanatepec, Mexico.
The news came the same day that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis announced that the military has already begun delivering countermeasures to the southern border.
The Pentagon has sent jersey barriers in conjunction with plans to deploy active duty troops there, and full details of the number of troops to be deployed as well as their roles should be announced Sunday night, he told reporters.
During an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen vowed that the caravan “is not getting in.”
© Provided by Fox News Network LLC “There’s a legal way to enter this country,” she said. “Those who choose to enter illegally will be stopped. We are working with our partners in Mexico. They have taken unprecedented efforts within their territory to ensure an orderly flow and that those who have no legal right to be there are removed. We intend to do the same.”
Nielsen soon addressed the convoy itself.
“My general message to this caravan is: Do not come,” Nielsen said. “You will not be allowed in. … There is a right way to immigrate to the United States,” she continued, “and this is not it.”
The caravan, which has included as many as 7,200 people and is currently approximately 1,000 miles from the closest border crossing with the U.S., has become a major issue with less than two weeks before the Nov. 6 midterm elections. The group has traversed about 30 miles per day since forming in Honduras, with many members saying they are fleeing the violence and widespread poverty there.
On Saturday, an arm of the Mexican federal government for the first time seemed to be directly helping the migrants advance: Grupo Beta, Mexico’s migrant protection agency, gave rides to stragglers and passed out water.
US MILITARY DEPLOYING RESOURCES TO BORDER AS CARAVAN APPROACHES, MEXICO SAYS
Other agencies have periodically tried to impede or erode the mass migration, whose progress has led President Trump to threaten action against Mexico. Earlier Saturday, more than 100 federal police dressed in riot gear blocked a highway before dawn to encourage the migrants to apply for refugee status in Mexico rather than continuing the journey north.
Police let the caravan proceed after representatives from Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission convinced them that a rural stretch of highway without shade, toilets or water was no place for migrants to entertain an offer of asylum.
The Mexican government says more than 1,700 people in the caravan have applied for asylum and that other people have gone home, Reuters reported Saturday. Honduras, according to the report, says that 4,500 Honduran citizens trying to leave have recently come back to the Central American country.
On Thursday, Trump directly addressed the caravan members on Twitter.
“To those in the Caravan, turnaround, we are not letting people into the United States illegally,” he wrote.
He added, “Go back to your Country and if you want, apply for citizenship like millions of others are doing!”
‘There is nothing at all to worry about’: Fox News host Shep Smith says the migrant caravan hysteria is actually about the midterm election
Made in NYC Stock quotes by finanzen.net ‘There is nothing at all to worry about’: Fox News host Shep Smith says the migrant caravan hysteria is actually about the midterm election Oct. 29, 2018, 5:46 PM Shep Smith dismissed hysteria about the migrant caravan making its way north on Fox News Monday. Fox News Fox News anchor Shep Smith stressed during his show Monday that the migrant caravan travelling through Mexico is nothing to worry about. The caravan is around two months away from the southern border of the United States, and may not make it there. In a 30-second clip, Smith said the hysteria stirred up over it is because the midterms are approaching. His remarks are yet another break between him and the Trump-supporting opinion side of Fox News. Fox News anchor Shepard Smith broke from his coworkers on the opinion side of the company to stress that the political hysteria about the migrant caravan making its way north through Mexico is nothing to worry about. “There is no invasion. No one is coming to get you. There is nothing at all to worry about,” he said during his show on Monday. The Trump administration, late-night opinion hosts on Fox News , and Fox News guests have been giving a daily drumbeat of stark warnings about the caravan, often with unfounded claims . On Monday, for example, a Fox News guest said — without evidence — that people travelling on the caravan may have leprosy . But Smith said that the caravan is at least two months from reaching the southern border of the United States, if they even decided to go there. He said the conversation about it only exists because of the approaching midterm elections on November 6. “Tomorrow, the migrants, according to Fox News reporting, are almost two months away, if any of them actually come here,” he said. “But tomorrow is one week before the midterm election, which is what all of this is about.” Smith reminded his viewers of the caravan that left Central America in April, only to cause a ripple in the national conversation in May . “When they did this to us — got us all riled up in April, remember? — the result was 14 arrests,” he said. “We’re America. We can handle it.” Smith has occasionally broken off from his fellow hosts on the opinion side of Fox News, all of whom are staunch supporters of Trump. In June, he said the administration was “lying” about a meeting between a Russian lawyer and Donald Trump Jr. And in November 2017, he picked apart a conspiracy theory Fox News host Sean Hannity pushed about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a Russian energy company.
New suspicious package addressed to CNN discovered at Atlanta mail facility
Suspicious Packages New suspicious package addressed to CNN discovered at Atlanta post office Law enforcement officials told NBC News the latest package is similar in appearance to the ones allegedly sent by Cesar Sayoc, who is accused of mailing more than a dozen pipe bombs to prominent critics of President Trump. Oct. 29, 2018 03:43 Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings. SUBSCRIBE Oct. 29, 2018 / 2:36 PM GMT / Updated Oct. 29, 2018 / 6:51 PM GMT By Pete Williams, Jonathan Dienst and David K. Li Another suspicious package was sent to CNN — the third mailed to the network in a week — and intercepted at an Atlanta post office, officials said on Monday. A U.S. Post Office at 400 Pryor Street SW was evacuated shortly after calls came to local police at 9:30 a.m., officials said. The bomb squads of both the FBI and Atlanta police rushed to the scene, which is about 1.2 miles from CNN headquarters in Atlanta, according to federal officials. The piece of mail was removed, rendered safe and sent to the FBI laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, authorities said. An FBI spokesman on Monday morning declined to speculate if this package could be the work of suspect Cesar Sayoc. But hours later, the FBI confirmed this latest Atlanta package is “similar in appearance to” one addressed to former CIA Director John Brennan and another to former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, both sent to CNN’s offices in New York Federal authorities in Florida on Friday arrested Sayoc , 56, and accused him of sending more that a dozen pipe bombs to critics of President Donald Trump’s, including to CNN. It’s feared Sayoc might have sent a package as late as Thursday, just a day before his arrest, sources told NBC News. Sayoc had a list of more than 100 possible targets, including political figures, journalists and entertainers, law enforcement sources said. Officials are working to contact everyone on that list. CNN chief Jeff Zucker sent the announcement to staff and sought to quell any fears felt by network employees at the Atlanta headquarters or bureaus. “This morning another suspicious package addressed to CNN was intercepted at an Atlanta post office,” he said in a statement. “There is no imminent danger to the CNN Center. All mail, at all CNN domestic bureaus is being screened at off-site facilities as of last Wednesday, so this package would NOT have come directly to the CNN Center even if it hadn’t been intercepted first. Our screening process is working and we will keep you updated as we learn more,” Zucker said in the statement. Pete Williams Pete Williams is an NBC News correspondent who covers the Justice Department and the Supreme Court, based in Washington. Jonathan Dienst Jonathan Dienst is a reporter for WNBC-TV in New York, leading its investigative reporting team and covering justice and law enforcement issues. David K. Li David K. Li is a breaking news reporter for NBC News. He’s previously worked for The New York Post, Oakland Tribune and Los Angeles Herald Examiner. MORE FROM news