It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.