text: in an attempt to make some sense of his reading,luna posits that congress might have believed that crimes having an interstate connection are generally more serious than those lacking one for example,that interstate child pornography is worse than the intrastate variety.brief for petitioner.but to begin with,that theory can not explain the set of results just described not even luna maintains that congress thought local acts of selling a child,receiving explosives,or demanding a ransom are categorically less serious than,say,operating an unlawful casino or receiving stolen property whether or not in interstate commerce.and it is scarcely more plausible to view an interstate commerce element in any given offense as separating serious from conduct why,for example,would congress see an alien who carried out a kidnapping for ransom wholly within a state as materially less dangerous than one who crossed state lines in committing that crime the essential harm of the crime is the same irrespective of state borders.luna argument thus misconceives the function of interstate commerce elements rather than distinguishing greater from lesser evils,they serve as earlier explained to connect a given substantive offense to one of congress enumerated powers.see supra,at.and still more fundamentally,luna account runs counter to the penultimate sentence central message that the national,local,or foreign character of a crime has no bearing on whether it is grave enough to warrant an alien automatic removal 