Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Jim Henderson wrote:
> >>> I don't think that this is what Darren was saying, but rather that the 
> >>> Arizona law opens the potential for someone who *is* a legal citizen but 
> >>> isn't carrying their papers on them to be deported.
> > 
> >> No. I'm saying that some people want to pass a law to deport someone who 
> >> *is* a legal citizen and who *is* carrying their passport to be deported 
> >> because they were born of illegal immigrants.
> > 
> >   If someone commits a crime which is so serious to deserve tens of years
> > of prison, it might, in fact, be more practical if he was thrown out of
> > the country because that would become cheaper.

> I'm not following what your point is. The people they're talking about 
> throwing out haven't committed any crimes.

  My point is that if someone commits a serious crime, it could be quite
practical if it was possible to throw him out of the country to stop him
from wasting taxpayers' money. In other words, the plain idea of deporting
big criminals can have some sensible logic in it. This was an introductory
idea to what I wrote next (in other words, why this idea becomes an
impossibility when we are talking about citizens). I was not saying that
you were talking about criminals.

> >   A cynic could say "the government granted him citizenship, the government
> > is stuck with him, so it just has to suck it up".

> In this case, the government didn't "grant" him citizenship. He was born 
> here, making him a citizen automatically from birth.

  That's granting citizenship. There are explicit laws stating how one
gets citizenship, and that's one of them. In theory the law could be
different (ie. it doesn't automatically grant citizenship if neither
parent has).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message