Question for those that support sanctuary cities/states.

[Coyote]

I know! Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it. Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards. Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge! The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!

Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.

There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.

 

[Coyote]

It will not affect the economic reasons driving illegal immigration much, all it will do is create an underclass of uneducated people and essentially punish children for the actions of their parents. The first is dangerous the second just plain wrong.

When it comes to enforcement we have a limited pot of money. I would rather prioritize enforcement, concentrating on violent crime, drug trafficking and improving enforcement at the border.

The other part of it is tearing apart families...do we really want to put most of our efforts into that, over other aspects of illegal immigration if they are not causing problems?

No need to tear families apart.......

The parents are free to go home with their illegal offspring

But the real problem is not solved until there is a REAL deterrence to crossing the border illegally.
Something more unforgettable than the fear (lol) of deportation. Deportation is a running joke.
It simply means a all expense paid trip home only to return again...and again...and again

And their legal offspring?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.

There is little to no credible evidence Trump is a racist...but you still believe it....why?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

And their legal offspring?

As far as the sovereignty of THIS nation is concerned.....

ANY child born to an illegal must go home with their illegal parents.
The birther law was a HUGE mistake. Only two developed nations have that disastrous nonsense. And of those two, ONLY the USA has had it's culture destroyed because of it.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

It will not affect the economic reasons driving illegal immigration much, all it will do is create an underclass of uneducated people and essentially punish children for the actions of their parents. The first is dangerous the second just plain wrong.

When it comes to enforcement we have a limited pot of money. I would rather prioritize enforcement, concentrating on violent crime, drug trafficking and improving enforcement at the border.

The other part of it is tearing apart families...do we really want to put most of our efforts into that, over other aspects of illegal immigration if they are not causing problems?

No need to tear families apart.......

The parents are free to go home with their illegal offspring

But the real problem is not solved until there is a REAL deterrence to crossing the border illegally.
Something more unforgettable than the fear (lol) of deportation. Deportation is a running joke.
It simply means a all expense paid trip home only to return again...and again...and again

And their legal offspring?

They can take them with them. Children move with their parents all the time. They are, after all. the responsibility of their parents.

 

[Humorme]

At the expense of severe trolling, I will tell you this:

The ONLY thing keeping people from coming here properly, as differentiated from illegally is a VERY POORLY WRITTEN FEDERAL STATUTE. Those who enforce the laws have one interpretation of the law; those who dominate these boards, promoting intolerance of foreigners have a view... and there is another possible view.

The first view of the statute (and I will not discuss it further than this entry on this thread - so PM me) is that there is a criminal statute, making improper entry a crime. The anti-immigrant lobby dares anyone to challenge them on this (to the point of threatening their lives for what I'll say in my next paragraph.)

The second view is that there is a federal civil law that makes coming here without papers a civil misdemeanor. This has been the prevailing view for decades. It is the basis on which immigration officials have interpreted the law.

Finally, the way the law is written, some laymen believe that one can be charged both criminally and civilly for the same offense. They cannot.

When any law is unenforceable, it should be repealed. And those exercising common sense will remember that employers treat workers as if they are commodities and goods. They are numbers and to put it into the words of the 19th century economist, Otto T. Mallery:

“If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky.”

In short, you can regulate Liberty, but you cannot criminalize it.

10USC246 is federal law; when is the right wing going to be legal to federal law?

I think you're going too far afield...

OTOH, this whole build the wall B.S. is the result of a time when the militia WAS manning the border and protecting private property. National Socialists did not like that and preferred that private property owners not have the Right and the Duty to protect their own land.

the law is the law, right wingers.

What is with you and this incessant need to make everything a right wing issue? The left has no monopoly on being right.

No kidding. But I see the Left supporting sanctuary cities and states, in flagrant disregard for federal law. Many if not most are for open borders, come on in and we'll take care of you. We'll worry about whether you are a drug runner or terrorist later. As for the drain on our public coffers , consider this from The Hill:

The total cost of illegal immigration to federal, state and local taxpayers for the nation’s 12.5 million illegal aliens has increased to $116 billion annually, according to a new study released Wednesday by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The study, one of the most comprehensive to date on the issue, investigates the major contributing factors driving the high cost of illegal immigration, and compares that to the revenue state and local governments collect from illegal aliens.

The findings paint a much different picture than what open-border proponents and many in the mainstream media try to portray — that illegal immigration is somehow a net positive to the United States economy.

FAIR found that while illegal immigrants pay billions of dollars in taxes every year, they ultimately cost taxpayers more than seven times what they contribute. The study found that illegal immigrants pay almost $19 billion annually in combined federal, state and local taxes. This estimate is actually considerably higher than what many studies before this have suggested. However, the amount of taxes illegal immigrants pay is dwarfed by the considerable costs that they impose on American taxpayers: nearly $135 billion annually, creating a net deficit of $116 billion.

The majority of the costs to taxpayers, $89 billion (66 percent), are borne at the local and state level. This means that American taxpayers are forced to bear the costs of the federal government’s failure to secure our borders every time they pay school taxes, local tolls, sales and excise taxes. It also means that illegal migrants get a lot of benefits that they don’t pay for.

Let me explain what is wrong with your stats:

1) Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is owned and financed by John Tanton. Tanton is a neo-nazi and billionaire racist

2) Independent studies done by non-partisan organizations dispute your stats

 

[Humorme]

And their legal offspring?

As far as the sovereignty of THIS nation is concerned.....

ANY child born to an illegal must go home with their illegal parents.
The birther law was a HUGE mistake. Only two developed nations have that disastrous nonsense. And of those two, ONLY the USA has had it's culture destroyed because of it.

A birther law? WTH is that? Let me repeat post # 6 since you're obviously not going to read this thread:

You build a wall. You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing. So, anyway you kick them out along with their American born children. Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key. Problem solved. Right? Wrong.

The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not. You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "Social Security Number" and a birth certificate. They want to come home. Sorry guys, you can't keep them out. They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)

So, they start coming here in droves. They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills. Now what do you do? I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.

You can give me all that "open border" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with. I do have well reasoned responses for you, IF we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.

 

[danielpalos]

A plaque placed at a statue does not make law or immigration policy. Currently, our country is not open to everyone by law passed by congress and signed by the president.

Except for those sanctuary cities and states that openly flout that law for purely political purposes.

And why, really, does the anti-immigrant lobby demand that immigration laws be enforced above any other laws? And why do they suggest that improper entry cases be treated like felonies? You don't think that is politics?

If they demanded that the drug laws be enforced to the degree they demand immigration laws be enforced, you would not have any drug problem.

The first offense for improper entry is a federal criminal misdemeanor, the second offense is a federal criminal felony. No, it's not politics, it's actual law. SMFH

Blame the local/state leaders telling LEO not to police it when the locals want it policed. It is the politicians placing the priority on the crime. SHRUG

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no Prohibition or drug war clause.

We also have a foreign relations clause. SHRUG

there is no power to Prohibit in our federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

At the expense of severe trolling, I will tell you this:

The ONLY thing keeping people from coming here properly, as differentiated from illegally is a VERY POORLY WRITTEN FEDERAL STATUTE. Those who enforce the laws have one interpretation of the law; those who dominate these boards, promoting intolerance of foreigners have a view... and there is another possible view.

The first view of the statute (and I will not discuss it further than this entry on this thread - so PM me) is that there is a criminal statute, making improper entry a crime. The anti-immigrant lobby dares anyone to challenge them on this (to the point of threatening their lives for what I'll say in my next paragraph.)

The second view is that there is a federal civil law that makes coming here without papers a civil misdemeanor. This has been the prevailing view for decades. It is the basis on which immigration officials have interpreted the law.

Finally, the way the law is written, some laymen believe that one can be charged both criminally and civilly for the same offense. They cannot.

When any law is unenforceable, it should be repealed. And those exercising common sense will remember that employers treat workers as if they are commodities and goods. They are numbers and to put it into the words of the 19th century economist, Otto T. Mallery:

“If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky.”

In short, you can regulate Liberty, but you cannot criminalize it.

10USC246 is federal law; when is the right wing going to be legal to federal law?

I think you're going too far afield...

OTOH, this whole build the wall B.S. is the result of a time when the militia WAS manning the border and protecting private property. National Socialists did not like that and preferred that private property owners not have the Right and the Duty to protect their own land.

the law is the law, right wingers.

What is with you and this incessant need to make everything a right wing issue? The left has no monopoly on being right.

No kidding. But I see the Left supporting sanctuary cities and states, in flagrant disregard for federal law. Many if not most are for open borders, come on in and we'll take care of you. We'll worry about whether you are a drug runner or terrorist later. As for the drain on our public coffers , consider this from The Hill:

The total cost of illegal immigration to federal, state and local taxpayers for the nation’s 12.5 million illegal aliens has increased to $116 billion annually, according to a new study released Wednesday by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The study, one of the most comprehensive to date on the issue, investigates the major contributing factors driving the high cost of illegal immigration, and compares that to the revenue state and local governments collect from illegal aliens.

The findings paint a much different picture than what open-border proponents and many in the mainstream media try to portray — that illegal immigration is somehow a net positive to the United States economy.

FAIR found that while illegal immigrants pay billions of dollars in taxes every year, they ultimately cost taxpayers more than seven times what they contribute. The study found that illegal immigrants pay almost $19 billion annually in combined federal, state and local taxes. This estimate is actually considerably higher than what many studies before this have suggested. However, the amount of taxes illegal immigrants pay is dwarfed by the considerable costs that they impose on American taxpayers: nearly $135 billion annually, creating a net deficit of $116 billion.

The majority of the costs to taxpayers, $89 billion (66 percent), are borne at the local and state level. This means that American taxpayers are forced to bear the costs of the federal government’s failure to secure our borders every time they pay school taxes, local tolls, sales and excise taxes. It also means that illegal migrants get a lot of benefits that they don’t pay for.

the federal government has flagrant disregard for State laws and States' rights.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

A birther law? WTH is that? Let me repeat post # 6 since you're obviously not going to read this thread:

You build a wall. You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing. So, anyway you kick them out along with their American born children. Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key. Problem solved. Right? Wrong.

The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not. You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "Social Security Number" and a birth certificate. They want to come home. Sorry guys, you can't keep them out. They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)

So, they start coming here in droves. They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills. Now what do you do? I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.

You can give me all that "open border" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with. I do have well reasoned responses for you, IF we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.

Well,
Let me clarify.....
200 years ago, this nation benefited from immigration. People came here to INTEGRATE and become Americans. Today, that is rarely the case. Too many come here simply to enjoy the luxuries they can get from the government via US taxpayers.

Today, with modern robotics and a dwindling need for a human workforce, there simply is no room in the sardine can.

So you have a choice....continue to allow open borders and illegals to come here and overload the system eventually causing a complete failure of that system for EVERYONE.....or......you come to your sense and realize that resources are not infinite and do whatever it takes to secure a border. Period. Whatever....it....takes. Not this pussy ass BS in place now.

Immigration needs to change....and that does NOT mean to relax it so that more can arrive.
We need to realize that resources ARE scarce and that a nation and it's people have limits.
Our military is already suffering, homelessness in the USA is rising to epic levels, major cities are falling into bankruptcy......expenditures on welfare for non citizens and their US born children is soaring..causing Traditional American Children to suffer so they can prosper.
Look at the US's Debt to GDP ratio. Even a fool can see trouble ahead. This CANNOT be sustained. Our infrastructure will suffer, or our military will suffer or our quality of life will suffer....or ALL of the above. Is that a good thing in your opinion?

What more proof does any intelligent being need?
Sure, we'd LOVE to save and heal the world. But it's never gonna happen.

BOTTOM LINE
Resources are scarce and limited....if we continue to pretend they are not we are destined to decline rapidly and severely.

 

[task0778]

I know! Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it. Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards. Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge! The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!

Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.

There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.

No credible evidence that they aren't either, such evidence is pretty hard to come by don't you think? Are you seriously denying that a major reason why democrats want open borders is so they can get more votes? An ABC poll taken a few years ago said that 80% of Americans support stricter border security to reduce illegal immigration. Why else would the democratic party take a stance in opposition to that many people? Another poll found that 80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with. And yet so many democrats support sanctuary cities and states. Why? Knowing the high costs to our gov't at every level? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Sorry, not buying that. It's because it's a political weapon and because they believe it will expand their political base.

 

[Humorme]

I know! Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it. Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards. Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge! The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!

Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.

There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.

No credible evidence that they aren't either, such evidence is pretty hard to come by don't you think? Are you seriously denying that a major reason why democrats want open borders is so they can get more votes? An ABC poll taken a few years ago said that 80% of Americans support stricter border security to reduce illegal immigration. Why else would the democratic party take a stance in opposition to that many people? Another poll found that 80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with. And yet so many democrats support sanctuary cities and states. Why? Knowing the high costs to our gov't at every level? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Sorry, not buying that. It's because it's a political weapon and because they believe it will expand their political base.

Your poll would not reflect that even if they were polling people at a KKK rally.

 

[Humorme]

Except for those sanctuary cities and states that openly flout that law for purely political purposes.

And why, really, does the anti-immigrant lobby demand that immigration laws be enforced above any other laws? And why do they suggest that improper entry cases be treated like felonies? You don't think that is politics?

If they demanded that the drug laws be enforced to the degree they demand immigration laws be enforced, you would not have any drug problem.

The first offense for improper entry is a federal criminal misdemeanor, the second offense is a federal criminal felony. No, it's not politics, it's actual law. SMFH

Blame the local/state leaders telling LEO not to police it when the locals want it policed. It is the politicians placing the priority on the crime. SHRUG

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no Prohibition or drug war clause.

We also have a foreign relations clause. SHRUG

there is no power to Prohibit in our federal Constitution.

Yes there is. You're lying and you know it.

 

[Humorme]

A birther law? WTH is that? Let me repeat post # 6 since you're obviously not going to read this thread:

You build a wall. You kick out all the undocumented foreigners (you really want to call them expletive deleted) but, you call them "illegal aliens" when they've never been arrested much less convicted of a damn thing. So, anyway you kick them out along with their American born children. Lock the door on the wall and throw away the key. Problem solved. Right? Wrong.

The American born children of foreigners are American citizens whether we like it or not - agree with it or not. You send them back south of the border and in a few years they start showing up at the border with their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops. "Social Security Number" and a birth certificate. They want to come home. Sorry guys, you can't keep them out. They are American citizens and you cannot challenge their citizenship (ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution.)

So, they start coming here in droves. They no longer speak English; they have no family support system (you deported that family); they will most likely have no money, education or job skills. Now what do you do? I've been asking this for a dozen or more years and have never gotten a direct / honest / realistic answer.

You can give me all that "open border" paranoia all you want, but that is only one question I have to counter you with. I do have well reasoned responses for you, IF we can get past the name calling, shouting, false allegations, the usual banter that ensues.

What was meant by quoting me and not posting something of your own?

 

[danielpalos]

And why, really, does the anti-immigrant lobby demand that immigration laws be enforced above any other laws? And why do they suggest that improper entry cases be treated like felonies? You don't think that is politics?

If they demanded that the drug laws be enforced to the degree they demand immigration laws be enforced, you would not have any drug problem.

The first offense for improper entry is a federal criminal misdemeanor, the second offense is a federal criminal felony. No, it's not politics, it's actual law. SMFH

Blame the local/state leaders telling LEO not to police it when the locals want it policed. It is the politicians placing the priority on the crime. SHRUG

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no Prohibition or drug war clause.

We also have a foreign relations clause. SHRUG

there is no power to Prohibit in our federal Constitution.

Yes there is. You're lying and you know it.

No, there isn't. It was repealed as a Bad idea, last millennium.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

To recap the facts:

There is no such thing as a ‘sanctuary city/state’ all state and local jurisdictions cooperate with Federal immigration authorities when requested to do so.

The Federal government cannot compel state and local jurisdictions to enforce Federal immigration law or compel state and local jurisdictions to allocate limited law enforcement resources to enforce Federal immigration law.

It is perfectly appropriate and lawful for local jurisdictions to elect to not allocate limited law enforcement resources to detain those suspected of being in violation of Federal immigration law.

That one might be undocumented does not mean he is ‘illegal.’

Those undocumented are entitled to a presumption of innocence and due process of the law.

Local jurisdictions that afford legal assistance to those undocumented seeking to establish refugee status are not affording ‘sanctuary’ to undocumented immigrants; indeed, they are complying with the 14th Amendment’s requirement that all persons in the United States are entitled to due process of the law.

The right’s hostility toward immigrants is the consequence of their bigotry and racism, as express by Trump, and an unwarranted fear of change and diversity.

 

[Circe]

That one might be undocumented does not mean he is ‘illegal.’

Of course being an undocumented immigrant means he is illegal!! That's the very definition of an illegal alien. They all need to be caught and deported.

Leftists like you keep trying to define things out of existence, by telling us what we can't say.

Too bad. I say it's spinach and I say the hell with it, to quote Eloise. Build the Wall.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

To recap the facts:

There is no such thing as a ‘sanctuary city/state’ all state and local jurisdictions cooperate with Federal immigration authorities when requested to do so.

The Federal government cannot compel state and local jurisdictions to enforce Federal immigration law or compel state and local jurisdictions to allocate limited law enforcement resources to enforce Federal immigration law.

It is perfectly appropriate and lawful for local jurisdictions to elect to not allocate limited law enforcement resources to detain those suspected of being in violation of Federal immigration law.

That one might be undocumented does not mean he is ‘illegal.’

Those undocumented are entitled to a presumption of innocence and due process of the law.

Local jurisdictions that afford legal assistance to those undocumented seeking to establish refugee status are not affording ‘sanctuary’ to undocumented immigrants; indeed, they are complying with the 14th Amendment’s requirement that all persons in the United States are entitled to due process of the law.

The right’s hostility toward immigrants is the consequence of their bigotry and racism, as express by Trump, and an unwarranted fear of change and diversity.

Yeah right.....
All the terrorists attacks in France, all the rapes in Germany, the USA terrorist attacks.....MS-13....teens being murdered....drugs proliferating in our schools....

All perfectly acceptable to you.....
Imbecile.

Maybe when a drunken illegal slams head on into you, your children, or someone you care about, or maybe when a 12 year old Salvadoran illegal pops a cap in your skull for looking at him the wrong way.... then gets "deported" (meaning off the hook and free to return), maybe then you'll get it....at your last breath

Which of these people do YOU defend? I think the answer is clear.

 

[task0778]

I know! Let's have open borders and sanctuary cities and states everywhere so you do can pretty much do whatever you want up including shooting people and get away with it. Oh, and then let's give 'em every benefit that American citizens get, the whole 9 yards. Most of 'em will vote democrat so we'll be back in charge! The country will go to hell in a handbasket but who cares, we'll blame the repubs!

Dems are after more Democrat voters in the medium to long run.

There is little to no credible evidence that illegals vote in appreciable numbers.

No credible evidence that they aren't either, such evidence is pretty hard to come by don't you think? Are you seriously denying that a major reason why democrats want open borders is so they can get more votes? An ABC poll taken a few years ago said that 80% of Americans support stricter border security to reduce illegal immigration. Why else would the democratic party take a stance in opposition to that many people? Another poll found that 80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with. And yet so many democrats support sanctuary cities and states. Why? Knowing the high costs to our gov't at every level? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Sorry, not buying that. It's because it's a political weapon and because they believe it will expand their political base.

Your poll would not reflect that even if they were polling people at a KKK rally.

Talk to the ABC News/Washington Post about the 1st poll, and Harvard-Harris about the 2nd one.

 

[Humorme]

The first offense for improper entry is a federal criminal misdemeanor, the second offense is a federal criminal felony. No, it's not politics, it's actual law. SMFH

Blame the local/state leaders telling LEO not to police it when the locals want it policed. It is the politicians placing the priority on the crime. SHRUG

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no Prohibition or drug war clause.

We also have a foreign relations clause. SHRUG

there is no power to Prohibit in our federal Constitution.

Yes there is. You're lying and you know it.

No, there isn't. It was repealed as a Bad idea, last millennium.

danielpalos, you've been proven wrong on this so many times it makes my head hurt. You are the worst freaking troll on these boards and, fortunately, nobody with an IQ above their shoe size takes you seriously.

The Unites States Constitution expressly states:

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed,"

Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3

Rather than to be subjected to danielpalos attempts to filibuster and bullshit us ,let's define that term:

"Overview
Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:

1. Art 1, § 9
   1. This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
2. Art. 1 § 10.
   1. This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto."

Ex Post Facto

Cornell School of Law v. danielpalos. danielpalos is blowing smoke.

If the child of an undocumented foreigner is issued a birth certificate, a National ID Card and / or a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "Social Security Number," they are a United States citizen. You cannot uncitizen them by virtue of the above provision in the United States Constitution AND, according to Cornell (an accredited law school) ex post facto DOES prohibit Congress from passing a law that makes someone a criminal when what they did was legal at the time.

Sorry, but the damielpalos is wrong yet again.