What's wrong with this story?

originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The logic doesn't follow for me.

If a country immigrates someone, it has to accept that any number of scenarios could play out. Notwithstanding that, it agrees that said individual is a naturalised citizen.

I don't think it's fair to revoke that citizenship if their behaviour doesn't come up to scratch. You have to remember that it knew in advance that this was indeed a possibility and granted citizenship anyway.

It's not fair because native citizens have an advantage due to the mere happenstance of having been born there...even if their ethnocultural background is different from their country of birth.

For example, there are many ethnoculturally Pakistani Muslim undesirables in the UK who can't be deported because they were born in Britain.

What do we do about those? Well, we lock them up.

That's all that should happen. Once citizenship has been granted, it ought not to be revoked.

If there is a problem with the behaviour of a certain category of immigrants, it might be an idea to be more careful about immigrating them in the first place.

But that wouldn't be very popular with the globalists.

Well, what you finished with pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? Not allowing in people who are likely to prove dangerous seems far better! Those in the UK that you mention if their parents hadn't been allowed to settle there, they wouldn't be a problem now. Better to limit immigration from certain areas, and avoid those problems, I'd say!

And, no, the globalists wouldn't like that at all!!