text: luna and the dissent,see post,at must therefore fall back on a different defense that his approach would exclude from the universe of aggravated felonies fewer serious state and foreign offenses than one might think.to make that argument,luna relies primarily on a part of the act specifying that the term aggravated felony shall include a crime of violence as defined in for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year.a f see defining crime of violence as involving the use of physical force against the person or property of another.according to luna,many state and foreign offenses failing to match the act listed federal statutes for want of an interstate commerce element would count as crimes of violence and,by that alternative route,trigger automatic removal.a different statutory phrase,or so luna says,would thus plug the holes opened by his construction of the described in provisions.