GP is making the case that this person should <i>leave</i> now that they are 18 and are cognizant of the fact that their parent is an illegal immigrant and therefore they too are illegal. That&#x27;s a <i>one</i> generation hop. It&#x27;s simple induction to go from one generation to more generations. If we&#x27;re going to blame the children for the acts of their parents then why stop there, we might as well go further. And then at some point we find some Welsh people, recently converted to Mormonism that decided to move to the United States. He&#x2F;she received permission to move. But from someone who in the eyes of the GGP was an illegal himself, or, at least very closely related to one. Which casts doubt on the legitimacy of that permission.<p>See, if we&#x27;re going to be irrational about immigration then I can do a pretty good job of that too. Sure it&#x27;s not a defensible position, but then neither is the one the initial comment in this sub-thread is and I seriously wonder where he would draw the line.<p>By his reasoning all Americans should pack up and leave once they turn 18 because they realize the extent of the crimes committed by their ancestors.<p>Children that have lived their formative years in a country should - in my opinion - be allowed to continue as <i>legal</i> citizens of that country once they turn 18 (see: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10598346" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10598346</a> ). To wish to throw them out once they reach 18 is collective punishment of a degree that horrifies me. See elsewhere in this thread for why this subject hits a very raw nerve with me so apologies for the pointy answer.