Arizona's New ID (Immigration) Law

[swansont]

But "suggests the possibility" applies to whether or not they're an immigrant -not to whether or not we can query their immigration status.

 

Follow the logic here. I clearly stated "when already detained and identified for another crime" - at that point, the possibility of an immigrant (legal or illegal) can be determined by their working knowledge of English. If they don't understand basic things, like "please exit the car sir", "can I see your driver's license", "do you have insurance" - those kind of things, then we can reasonably conclude that this person is likely not a natural born US citizen.

 

Since they are already detained for another crime, and detention and identification is already in progress, then checking immigration for their status of legal or illegal is entirely called for and responsible at this point.

 

I'm not sure how else you could possibly check someone's status any more fairly than that. And I'm not sure the Arizona law provides for that, since I'm not sure their working knowledge of English is a measurement for such. I'm clearly allowing for something the Arizona law doesn't even allow - it still requires "reasonable suspicion" that they're an illegal immigrant, not just merely an immigrant, as in my example.

 

Just trying to work out some method of how an officer might come to reasonable suspicion without using skin color or physical appearance. I'm sure real world examples are much better than mine.

 

I still think that "reasonable suspicion" is a higher bar than "the possibility exists," for reasons including what you're articulated here. A working knowledge of English is not a requirement for legally being in the US.

[ParanoiA]

Nope' date=' this just specifies when to check whether the person is an illegal immigrant (after lawful contact, such as when they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime, such as being in the country illegally, has been or is being committed). When I said to read the law, I meant the rest of it as well. Is this the one you are talking about?

 

As I said earlier, "lawful contact" seems to be a rather new thing, but it would make sense that it has something to do with reasonable suspicion of a crime. And being in the country illegally is a crime, so therefore lawful contact can be made to investigate this.

 

But only after the lawful contact can the cop check the person's immigrant status.[/quote']

 

Well sure I read the rest of the law - or scanned it anyway. The first part of the bill is what directly covers enforcement of immigration laws. That's where the interaction between law enforcement and immigrants comes into play. The paragraph I keep quoting is the relevant paragraph to this controversy. If you feel some other part of the law should be quoted, feel free to do so. Not sure why you're pestering me about it.

 

To me, it is obvious you cannot begin the process of suspecting illegal immigration status until a lawful contact is made. No other law, that I'm aware of, requires a lawful contact to be made before engaging in reasonable suspicion of that law.

 

Because of this, you cannot claim to make lawful contact - which requires reasonable suspicion - based on a law that requires lawful contact before engaging in reasonable suspicion. Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

By making lawful contact based on suspected illegal immigration status, you have "suspected immigration status" before you were allowed to. This is not circular. One subtends the other.

 

And this "show me your papers" offense is exactly why it's crafted that way. I think they went out of their way to make "reasonable suspicion" as dynamic as possible, making this illegal immigration status the only brick wall for initiating the detention of a citizen.

 

Believe all you like, but what do you think the effect of them being required to do everything legally possible to enforce this particular law will be?

 

I don't know. Because we don't know, does that mean we can make up shit instead?

 

Ok, I'll go first. I think they'll dress in white cloaks and pointy hats and torture children on the side of the road. Next?

 

I still think that "reasonable suspicion" is a higher bar than "the possibility exists," for reasons including what you're articulated here. A working knowledge of English is not a requirement for legally being in the US.

 

And hanging out in front of a convenience store at 3 AM with a mask and gloves on in the summertime is legal too, but it's reasonable suspicion as well. It shouldn't be too hard to imagine a better logical scenario though. Like people locked in the trunk of the vehicle.

 

My English example likely wouldn't fly, even though I'd personally use it to judge whether or not I'm talking to an immigrant. I doubt I'm the only one that uses English knowledge and dialect as a clue to someone being an immigrant. I usually say something like, "where are you from?" followed by "how do you like it here?" and maybe even a "what's it like where you're from?". Common sense and decency. It's not hard.

[jryan]

Believe all you like, but what do you think the effect of them being required to do everything legally possible to enforce this particular law will be?

 

Well, it will be legal, for starters...

[swansont]

And hanging out in front of a convenience store at 3 AM with a mask and gloves on in the summertime is legal too, but it's reasonable suspicion as well. It shouldn't be too hard to imagine a better logical scenario though. Like people locked in the trunk of the vehicle.

 

But if Westley was right, and people discover that they're terribly comfortable and start wearing them all the time, it would no longer be reasonable suspicion. If it were Halloween, it would probably not be reasonable suspicion. If we were descended upon by clouds of volcanic ash, it would probably not be reasonable suspicion. It's only suspicious because it has a high correlation with illegal activity. Absent special circumstances, wearing masks at 3 AM outside a convenience store indicates a high probability that a robbery is imminent. That has not been shown to be true of poor English skills correlating with immigration status being illegal.

 

My English example likely wouldn't fly, even though I'd personally use it to judge whether or not I'm talking to an immigrant. I doubt I'm the only one that uses English knowledge and dialect as a clue to someone being an immigrant. I usually say something like, "where are you from?" followed by "how do you like it here?" and maybe even a "what's it like where you're from?". Common sense and decency. It's not hard.

 

You can get an indication that they're an immigrant. But you can't ascertain the legal status by that.

 

 

———

 

The scenario that has popped into my mind that bothers me is this: under the scenario of legal contact, someone is suspected of being an illegal. So the police check the status. This takes some amount of time. Can the person be detained solely for the status check? Even if the original police contact was for a violation that would normally only result in a short delay while the officer wrote out a ticket? (e.g. a jaywalking ticket after the federal office has closed for the night. Can you hold the person overnight while you confirm their status as a citizen?)

[ParanoiA]

You can get an indication that they're an immigrant. But you can't ascertain the legal status by that.

 

Exactly. That's why when they are detained, if I ascertain they are an immigrant, then why can't I check their status? So long as it's instantaneous, that is.

 

I guess what bothers me is that we're acting like there is absolutely no scenario that could exist that would legitimate the act of checking someone's immigrant status. Why issue green cards at all if there's no such thing as checking it? Why have an immigration authority if we're never allowed to check with them about someone?

 

And actually, if we want to move on to immigration reform, I'd like to come up with a system that doesn't rely on citizens carrying a damn thing. It may not show, but I am bothered by that. I'm bothered that people think I should have ID when I walk around my block, or go for a jog. Just because it's not a popular problem for people to leave the home without their wallets, doesn't mean we can view anonymity as antiquated.

 

So, I'm working within the current structure of immigration law and I see no issue with Arizona's law. In the bigger picture, I would like to see a clever solution that doesn't rely on citizens having paper work, with directives that they should carry a card with them everywhere they go. I'm not sure what that is, but I think a militarized border could be a start.

 

The scenario that has popped into my mind that bothers me is this: under the scenario of legal contact, someone is suspected of being an illegal. So the police check the status. This takes some amount of time. Can the person be detained solely for the status check? Even if the original police contact was for a violation that would normally only result in a short delay while the officer wrote out a ticket? (e.g. a jaywalking ticket after the federal office has closed for the night. Can you hold the person overnight while you confirm their status as a citizen?)

 

It's a legitimate concern. And my previous source I linked, talks about that sort of thing in general:

 

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZjZmY3OThiZWJkYTNiMDI4NzM4MGZiOTNhOTMzMzU=

 

The permissible duration of a Terry stop depends on the circumstances. The Supreme Court has not set in stone some magic moment where a brief detention evolves into an arrest. But arrest happens when the detention has become police custody. At that point, the officer must have probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed.

 

So the Arizona immigration law does not allow the police officer to have contact with the person unless the contact is lawful. This means if even the briefest detention is involved, the police officer must have reasonable suspicion that some crime has been or is being committed. Absent that, the officer is not permitted to stop the person.

 

I don't think that is a reply to your concern, but it certainly demonstrates that this isn't an isolated concern unique to any particular law. "..a reasonable attempt should be made, when practicable..." doesn't exactly create the kind of limit I'd prefer, but that's absolutely nothing new to legalease.

 

 

And, if this part is true, federal law agrees with my view above:

 

Now, why do I say the Arizona law is more restrictive of police than is federal law? Well, the Supreme Court has held that one common rationale for a permissible Terry stop is to ascertain the identity of the person who is detained. That is, federal law would probably permit an inquiry into citizenship as a part of establishing who the detainee is — again, as long as the officer had a good reason for detaining the person in the first place.

 

The Arizona law, by contrast, does not give a cop this latitude. Instead, the officer is permitted to attempt to determine the person's immigration status only if, in addition to the initial contact being lawful, there also exists specific "reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States."

 

So, federal law may actually agree with my precarious language based initiation of immigrant status query during the act of detention for another offense - but Arizona definitely does not.

 

Or, at least according that article, which is an opinion piece.

Edited May 6, 2010 by ParanoiA

[Pangloss]

Except that this law requires them to do so. Really, it's not very forgiving about this. If they are allowed to do something under federal law, in their attempt to enforce immigration law, then they must do it. It's not like they are even allowed to follow the spirit of these laws; they are required to use sneaky workarounds if they are available. And if they don't do so, then they can be fined and sued.

 

No, the new law does not require them to use racial profiling. The required part is that once they have evidence of illegality, they have to act on it. I've indicated several means here by which they can come upon such information without racially profiling. The governor stated that racial profiling is disallowed.

 

 

Did you really mean to imply that customs and immigration have no local offices?

 

No, I'm saying that local law enforcement is in better communication with the local community and may now be better enabled to take act on information than allegedly-overburdened federal authorities operating in the state.

[Rickdog]

No, the new law does not require them to use racial profiling. The required part is that once they have evidence of illegality, they have to act on it. I've indicated several means here by which they can come upon such information without racially profiling. The governor stated that racial profiling is disallowed.

 

Point E (in lines 37,38 and 39), article 8, of the Senate Bill 1070, it says clearly, that the officer can arrest a person, if the officer has probable cause that the person has commited any crime, to arrest him. It doesn`t say, evidence of illegality.

 

How can you prove probable cause, as being illegal ?

 

I think that my fellow hispanic community members, that are U.S. citizens as well, will have to wear permanently a badge with the green card on them at all times in order to not be "suspiciouss looking", in Arizona. Specially if they live in other states and they decide to take a trip that passes through Arizona. I guess the same goes if they ever want to visit Grand Canyon National Park.

[Pangloss]

I've indicated several means by which this probable cause could be found without profiling. They revolved around a citizen notifying a law enforcement official that they've become aware of such a person, and the means by which they became aware. Allow me to repeat one of them.

 

All employers in this country -- every single American who owns a business -- is required by federal law to file a W-2 form for tax withholding. That application requires two forms of valid identification (yes, every single illegal immigrant who finds a job in this country is working for an employer who has violated this law).

 

So one example I gave is an employer who asks for this ID and is does not get it from the prospective employee. That's probable cause right there. She calls 911 and reports the name of the person and their address, and local police go there and enforce the new law.

 

QED. And not possible under current law (local police don't enforce federal tax laws).

 

Nor does it even have to be all that complicated. I'm sitting in a bar between a police officer on my left and an illegal immigrant on my right. The guy on my right tells me he's an illegal immigrant. I nudge the cop on my left and tell him what he just told me. The cop enforces the law.

 

A woman gets pissed at her abusive ex-boyfriend and turns him in. Police enforce the law.

[Mr Skeptic]

To me, it is obvious you cannot begin the process of suspecting illegal immigration status until a lawful contact is made. No other law, that I'm aware of, requires a lawful contact to be made before engaging in reasonable suspicion of that law.

 

Well it's obvious you're misreading that law, specifically the portion you keep quoting. It's not like it says you can only suspect people of being illegal immigrants after making lawful contact. No, it says that after making lawful contact, if there is reasonable suspicion that they are illegal, the cop must make a reasonable attempt to determine immigration status. Nowhere does it say you cannot be reasonably suspicious of a person's immigration status at any other time which is what you keep pretending it says.

 

Because of this, you cannot claim to make lawful contact - which requires reasonable suspicion - based on a law that requires lawful contact before engaging in reasonable suspicion. Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

Where in the law does it say that reasonable suspicion requires lawful contact? I'm pretty sure it is the other way around, you can only make lawful contact upon reasonable suspicion of a crime. And nowhere does it make using reasonable suspicion of immigration status an exception to this.

 

I don't know. Because we don't know, does that mean we can make up shit instead?

 

It is a logical deduction. There's a big penalty for A but no penalty for B. Therefore they will chose to do B. Or is there a penalty for making illegal laws?

[ParanoiA]

Well it's obvious you're misreading that law, specifically the portion you keep quoting. It's not like it says you can only suspect people of being illegal immigrants after making lawful contact. No, it says that after making lawful contact, if there is reasonable suspicion that they are illegal, the cop must make a reasonable attempt to determine immigration status. Nowhere does it say you cannot be reasonably suspicious of a person's immigration status at any other time which is what you keep pretending it says.

 

It's not obvious, as others are reading it the exact same way. That's why I provided the link, twice now, just to one such source. They're all over. And the reasoning matches mine identically.

 

I don't think you're absorbing the circular logic you have to accept to read it your way. The key is this: only the Arizona immigration status law requires some kind of lawful contact before initiating reasonable suspicion to query immigration status. Soak that in for a second. That's what creates the one-way street here.

 

"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE.." - that happens first. The rest of the verbiage is held by this condition. I say it has to be any law, but not the status of illegal immigrant. You say it could be for suspicion of being an illegal immigrant.

 

"..WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS.." - happens second. It is dependent and subordinate to the first 5 words about lawful contact. You are not allowed to "reasonably suspect illegal immigration status" until lawful contact is already made.

 

 

Because some kind of lawful contact has to be made *before* you can initiate the process of reasonably suspecting their illegal status and then querying for it, means it cannot be illegal immigration suspicion that initiates lawful contact - some other lawful contact would have had to come before that. And it doesn't matter what it is, that's why they're wording it that way.

 

No other law requires that you already have made lawful contact before you can begin initiating "reasonable suspicion" processing. All other laws are empowered by their own reasonable suspicion excuses to detain a citizen. Not this Arizona piece. They will always be suspected of two crimes, one of them being an illegal citizen.

[Mr Skeptic]

You are not allowed to "reasonably suspect illegal immigration status" until lawful contact is already made.

 

But where in the law does it say that? This law simply give one circumstance under which cops must check immigration status. Nowhere in the law does it say that that is the only time immigration status may be checked.

 

For example, if you have a law that says, if a driver fails a brethalyzer test, then the cop must give him a DUI ticket. However, the existence of such a law does not even suggest that failing a brethalyzer test is the only way to get a DUI.

[CharonY]

Actually they changed the wording (bolded in the quote below).

 

For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town in this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation

 

While changing lawful contact to something more specific it appears to be less rigorous. The second addition

in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town in this state

probably allows background checks after stopping someone for jaywalking (as an example). So from what I understand they need a reason to approach someone (whatever it may be), but it does not need to be a criminal act, for example (which would be covered by federal law, as far as I know).

On the other hand lawful stops could be a simple checkpoint, e.g. to see whether someone is driving with a valid driver's license or under influence. Then the question is what is a reasonable suspicion to trigger a background check. Technically this could be a huge loophole.

Edited May 7, 2010 by CharonY

[Rickdog]

One simple conclussion you can get after they changed the wording, it`s that at least they recognized that the law wasn`t correct afterall.

 

The big problem now, is that the damage by that particular law, has already been done when they aproved it in the first place. Racism and Xenophobics, has already arisen in the area, bigger than what usually existed before. Shame......

[ParanoiA]

Actually they changed the wording (bolded in the quote below).

 

 

 

While changing lawful contact to something more specific it appears to be less rigorous. The second addition probably allows background checks after stopping someone for jaywalking (as an example). So from what I understand they need a reason to approach someone (whatever it may be), but it does not need to be a criminal act, for example (which would be covered by federal law, as far as I know).

On the other hand lawful stops could be a simple checkpoint, e.g. to see whether someone is driving with a valid driver's license or under influence. Then the question is what is a reasonable suspicion to trigger a background check. Technically this could be a huge loophole.

 

Hey CharonY, great update here. Could I trouble you for a source? I'll google it and see what I can find, but I was hoping to see where you got this.

 

 

One simple conclussion you can get after they changed the wording, it`s that at least they recognized that the law wasn`t correct afterall.

 

I don't know if the word "correct" is accurate, but certainly "unclear". Mine and Skeptic's disagreement would seem to demonstrate that. While I disagreed with his take, it's not like it was straight forward enough for either of us. If you can have an argument like this about meaning, then the wording isn't very good.

 

The big problem now, is that the damage by that particular law, has already been done when they aproved it in the first place. Racism and Xenophobics, has already arisen in the area, bigger than what usually existed before. Shame......

 

The accusations of it is quite shameful. People love to conflate illegal and legal immigration to make it all about white people stepping on minorities. It's liberal romance. Liberating the victim is quite powerful and attractive, even if you have to make it up.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

But where in the law does it say that? This law simply give one circumstance under which cops must check immigration status. Nowhere in the law does it say that that is the only time immigration status may be checked.

 

For example' date=' if you have a law that says, if a driver fails a brethalyzer test, then the cop must give him a DUI ticket. However, the existence of such a law does not even suggest that failing a brethalyzer test is the only way to get a DUI.[/quote']

 

If that's true, then again, the reaction to this law is unfounded. For it introduces a method that is more restrictive on the part of law enforcement, and more protective of the citizen. They should have taken to the streets and protested a long time ago. And, we would have examples of abuse if it were abused.

 

None of this has managed to initiate a squeaky wheel, and I know of no possible search mechanism to see what all of their laws relate to immigration status checks. I think it better to actually find this law, in the form you suggest (as you would find in relation to issuing DUI's) rather than accept phantom verbiage.

[swansont]

On the other hand lawful stops could be a simple checkpoint, e.g. to see whether someone is driving with a valid driver's license or under influence. Then the question is what is a reasonable suspicion to trigger a background check. Technically this could be a huge loophole.

 

One of the links ParanoiA provided points out that if one is in possession of a valid driver's license, it is acceptable proof that one is in the country legally.

 

The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html

 

Which implies that traffic stops are not going to be an issue specific to this law. If you're driving, you need to be carrying your license.

[CharonY]

ParanoiA, sorry for not providing it in the first place, but I was on another pc. Here you go http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

 

Swansont, you are right, if the person in question provides a driver's license, then he/she is off the hook.

Question is what about other people in the car, for instance. Or whether Hispanics are now in for a higher amount of driver license checks (though honestly I do not believe that it makes much of a difference to the current situation). To be quite honest for the most parts I am actually not sure whether the bill practically gives the police much more leeway than they had before. But then I would need a side by side comparison to be able to evaluate that.

The only other situation I can think of are (if want to move away from the driver's license issue) situations in which enforcement of other ordinances (as worded in the bill)

may lead to a check. I think someone mentioned things like overgrown lawn or barking dogs. It could be that police is getting more involved in these cases now (which probably would not be handled by the police ordinarily).

 

However, if the bill does not factually expand the power of the police, the question is what the reason for this bill is. Well, except gaining political favor...

[Pangloss]

A Pew poll out today indicates that most Americans support the new law in Arizona.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/05/two-national-polls-show-arizona-immigration-law-very-popular.html

 

[Mr Skeptic]

A Pew poll out today indicates that most Americans support the new law in Arizona.

 

So how come the people are more supportive of the specific provisions of the law, than of the law overall? Weird.

[swansont]

So how come the people are more supportive of the specific provisions of the law, than of the law overall? Weird.

 

Happened with healthcare, too.

 

Turns out we're idiots. (on average)

[ParanoiA]

There seems to be a problem with democrat law makers reading laws, even their own. There was outcry over the democrats not reading their healthcare bill, with Nancy Pelosi even quoted as saying "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy".

 

Now, we have Eric Holder, Attorney General, scolding Arizona about their law that he also hasn't read yet. Wow.

 

This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling." He had earlier called the law's passage "unfortunate," and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.

 

Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn't yet read the legislation.

 

"It's hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven't even read the law," the Texas Republican told the attorney general.

 

Then, yesterday, Janet Napolitano did it too!

 

"That's not the kind of law I would have signed," she declared. "I believe it's a bad law enforcement law. I believe it mandates and requires local enforcement and puts them in a position many do not want to be placed in," Napolitano said. "When I was dealing with laws of that ilk, most of the law enforcement agencies in Arizona at that time were opposed to such legislation," she claimed.

 

What is it with Democrats and reading? For a party that claims the intellectual high ground they sure seem to have problems with the most basic of information skills. What do we have to do, draw pictures and create pop-up paper imagery to keep their attention on the text of law? Maybe read it for them? Like an audio book?

[iNow]

What is it with Democrats and reading? For a party that claims the intellectual high ground they sure seem to have problems with the most basic of information skills.

Your direct implication here is that Republicans DO read all of the bills, and that this issue of non-reading is only with the Democrats. Surely, that's not what you intended to say. Can you clarify?

[ParanoiA]

Your direct implication here is that Republicans DO read all of the bills, and that this issue of non-reading is only with the Democrats. Surely, that's not what you intended to say. Can you clarify?

 

Sure. My direct implication is that democratic politicians are dropping the ball and moving from mere suspicion of incompetence, to outright proof of it. Passing a bill to find out what's in it? Lame excuses to justify not reading their bills? This is astoundingly egregious. No ideological tent should provide cover for this.

 

In addition, they are falling for the media's bait just like most of the public has. If they had read these things for themselves, instead of being lazy and depending on the AP to do it for them and report it truthfully, then they would be more careful with their words and not gloriously make idiots of themselves, day after day.

 

Are the republicans doing it? Is that your question? Do you have anything other than competition psychology to offer here? Maybe there's some republicans in here you can swing that out with, I'm primarily interested in the current crop of scam artists and slithery salesmen you put in office, and they're all democrats.

[iNow]

Are the republicans doing it? Is that your question? Do you have anything other than competition psychology to offer here? Maybe there's some republicans in here you can swing that out with, I'm primarily interested in the current crop of scam artists and slithery salesmen you put in office, and they're all democrats.

 

Sigh. Yes, my question is whether or not your criticism applies to both parties or only one. I would appreciate it if you could avoid the other nonsense which came with your comments above about me engaging in "competition psychology" and wanting to "swing it out with Republicans."

 

Regardless, the bolded part above answers the question I asked, I suppose, and you are pretty robustly off the mark by saying it.

 

I'm not defending democrats. Let's be clear. I'm defending accuracy.

[ParanoiA]

Regardless' date=' the bolded part above answers the question I asked, I suppose, and you are pretty robustly off the mark by saying it.

 

I'm not defending democrats. Let's be clear. I'm defending accuracy. [/quote']

 

Well, defender of accuracy, maybe you'd like to also point out that democrats were pitching a fit about republicans "not reading the bill" when they were criticizing health care and the bits of information trickling down from that bureaucratic mess of at least 4 different bills, all of which were in play in various parts of the field.

 

So far, it seems the republicans haven't duplicated that particular technique yet...

 

And even more concerning, why do democrat law makers not reading laws, not bother you? Not because they're on "your team", certainly not...so please tell us, why is the first question you asked in response to this, about "the other team"?

[CharonY]

I am not too familiar with the the law making process here, however weren't those that were accused of not having read the health care bill actually voting on it, whereas in the case of Arizona's law are not? I do agree that it is cheap to comment on something that one does not know the details of, though.