History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
I like Ron Paul and think he's done a great service by bringing his sensible views on the Iraq war and the 9/11 attacks to the public's attention. That is the most important thing that has happened in the presidential campaign so far, and it will be tough to beat. I've long known that Ron Paul takes an unlibertarian position on immigration. Still I am deeply disappointed to learn, from an article in the latest Liberty magazine, that he calls the illegal entry of Mexicans into the United States an"invasion." This description, given in a fundraising letter, is outrageous. These are human beings, with rights, seeking better lives in an environment more free than the one they are in. For the overwhelming majority of them, complying with U.S. law, an immoral law that violates all our rights, means never getting here--ever. They mean us no harm; on the contrary, they seek a place in the division of labor.
Therefore, they are not invaders and their entry in no way constitutes an invasion. This is belligerent Pat Buchanan-talk, and it is unworthy of Ron Paul. I hope he will rethink his position.
One may expect that given their demographic characteristics, immigrants are likely to be a high-crime group. Turns out this ain't so. See this post from Bryan Caplan: http://tinyurl.com/2nutcq
Steve Jackson -
7/18/2007
Mr. Woolsey,
Sorry I misrepresented your views.
Otto M. Kerner -
7/18/2007
You're right, I did forget to quote your policy proposal. I also didn't realise what your proposal was. I don't think it's at all practical to restrict only Sharia supporters. Most of them who want to move to the U.S. probably care more about getting a job in the U.S. economy than they do about having to lie to an INS official about their political beliefs.
Also, not only are Muslims much more likely to support imposing Sharia than other people are*, their children are also much likely to support it than other people's children are. Granted, if person X is a Muslim who does not support imposing Sharia, then person X's children are probably less likely than other Muslims are to support it; however, it's unclear how strong this effect will be, especially after multiple generations.
*Of course, other people have their own sets of religious or secular laws they might want to oppose, but this assumes we are stipulating that Sharia is the particular problem at the moment.
Bill Woolsey -
7/18/2007
You forgot to quote a policy proposal. I suppose restricting all immigration because immigrants are more likely to support sharia law would involve comparing immigrants as a group to the native population. My preference would be to restrict immigration of advocates of imposing sharia law. I wouldn't like imposing restrictions on all Muslims or people from one country because of their greater tendency to have those views.
Otto M. Kerner -
7/18/2007
"I don't believe that public policy should be based upon group differences."
"If the Muslim community in the U.S. was growing large, and was commited to imposing Sharia law on the entire society"
This seems a contradiction, but perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by group differences. Isn't the proclivity to support or reject the imposition of Sharia an example of a group difference?
Bill Woolsey -
7/17/2007
I don't believe that public policy should be based upon group differences.
That isn't simply some rhetorical ploy aimed at defending open borders.
For example, if one accepts the arguments of "The Bell Curve," or
rejects them, what does it have to do with the value of freedom of contract?
I don't support "open borders," but quoting statistics about "whites and mexicans" doesn't shore up my support for restrictions on immigration. On the contrary, it makes me feel uncomfortable about those I do support.
I already oppose open borders, but I would count an explanation of how open borders would further entrench to welfare state as being a further reason to oppose them.
I don't believe that new immigrants should be free to impose legal schemes (like Sharia law) that restrict individual rights. If the Muslim community in the U.S. was growing large, and was commited to imposing Sharia law on the entire society, and immigrants supporting such a view were a key reason for the group support in our society, then that would be a reason to restrict immigration.
I believe that the U.S. should have a a more liberal temporary worker program. I don't believe that the U.S. should open U.S. social services to temporary workers or their families. The workers should be encouraged to leave their families at home and visit home often.
I think that this would greatly reduce illegal immigration. My guess is that poor people from Mexico, Central America, and the Carribean would serve as temporary workers in the U.S., making immigration less attractive to unskilled workers. And so, illegal immigration less attractive.
I don't believe temporary workers should be able to vote.
I also favor a more open immigration policy for skilled, educated, and wealthy people. Mexicans who are like that would be just fine. That is, people like that should be encouraged to settle and become Americans.
So, I don't favor more restrictions on immigration than the status quo. Rather, I favor fewer restrictions. But it stops far short of "open borders."
While I share the ideal of open borders, I don't see it as a reasonable goal for a long time.
I hope one day, that the foreigners will be more or less libertarian, and more or less as prosperous as we are, and there is no welfare state or notion that the majority can vote in whatever policy it likes...
And, in a more or less libertarian world, open borders would be great.
Bill Woolsey -
7/17/2007
A "group" isn't people who are all perfect substitutes.
There is variation within a group, of course.
Sudha Shenoy -
7/17/2007
Do we mean people who are perfectly interchangeable with one another -- perfect substitutes, in economists' jargon?
Steve Jackson -
7/17/2007
Mr. Woolsey,
Assume for the sake of argument that open borders further entrenches the welfare state, would you still support it?
Or, what if Mexico were an Islamicist nation and open borders resulted in a flood of Moslems to the Southwest and imposition of Sharia there, would the US have the right to restrict immigration from Mexico?
Bill Woolsey -
7/16/2007
I don't see how purported group differences reduce the benefits of freedom of contract, which involve the gains from allocating labor to its most valued uses. While I have a strong committment to individual rights (in a rule consequentialist way), immigration restrictions look very bad using a simple act utilitarian calculus as well.
Steven Horwitz -
7/16/2007
I am so committed to individual rights that I don't think any supposed reality of group differences overrides the right to free movement and the right to freely contract for labor.
Sheldon Richman -
7/16/2007
"Are you so committed to egalitarianism that you are unable to see the reality of group differences?"
As a matter of fact I am, in the sense Rodrick Long describes here.
Mark Brady -
7/16/2007
Craig, what makes you think that the two people above who argue for immigration restrictions claim to be libertarians ("purported libertarians")?
Craig J. Bolton -
7/16/2007
I find it very peculiar that purported libertarians, when faced with an issue on which they want to take a nonlibertarian position, immediately fall back on social utilitarianism.
I know that you guys don't like to hear this, but that's exactly what the Nazis did. The reasoning is entirely symetrical: Disabled people are a leach on our economy. Jews are unproductive vermin who live off the productive Aryan workers of the Reich. Homosexuals are inherently immoral and are weakening the Aryan ethos. THEREFORE they should all be expelled or "liquidated."
Sound familiar? If it doesn't, look above in this thread.
Steve Jackson -
7/16/2007
Mr. Richman,
You know full well what my point is. Are you so committed to egalitarianism that you are unable to see the reality of group differences?
Sheldon Richman -
7/16/2007
What's your point? Collective guilt and preventive "detention" in Mexico? Nice.
Sheldon Richman -
7/16/2007
Re the welfare state, the order of reform is more likely to be: free immigration, then abolition of the welfare state. If we save the welfare state from the natural stresses and strains, we will never get rid of it.
Mark Brady -
7/16/2007
My first link did not come through. Thisshould work.
Mark Brady -
7/16/2007
"For instance, I'd be surprised to learn that common law ever held that people from Poland or Turkey or Japan could freely settle in England."
But that's not how the common law ever worked. I don't think the English common law ever had anything to say about the rights of foreign residents to immigrate to, and permanently reside in, England. All restrictions on the immigration of particular groups were parliamentary statutes or royal proclamations. Go here. Definitions of citizenship and rights of permanent residence have been established by parliament since 1793.
According to this website, the first migration laws in Britain date from 1793. This was a time when many refugees were escaping from revolutionary France and a law that year provided for the registration of all foreigners coming to Britain.
Before 1962 there was an 'open door' tradition for Commonwealth immigrants. In fact the British Nationality Act of 1948 uses the terms 'Commonwealth citizen' and 'British subject' as one and the same thing. British passports designated their bearers as citizens of 'the United Kingdom and Colonies', with the implication that every Commonwealth citizen was also a British subject, and, therefore, guaranteed the right of entry to the United Kingdom.
Mass immigration to the UK only became an issue after the Second World War when the right of any Commonwealth citizen/British subject to enter the UK encouraged significant numbers of Afro-Caribbeans and, latterly, Asians and Africans, to take advantage of cheap oceanic and, subsequently, air travel to seek employment in the UK, mainly England, during the economic boom of the late 1950s and early 1960s.
This unconditional right of entry was abolished by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962, which made temporary provisions for controlling the immigration into the UK of Commonwealth citizens, authorised the deportation from the UK of certain Commonwealth citizens convicted of offences and recommended by the courts for deportation, and amended the qualifications for citizenship required by Commonwealth citizens applying under the British Nationality Act of 1948. Since 1962 there have been several further enactments of a more restrictive character.
All that apart, Otto Kerner has raised serious points that deserve consideration. I suggest the abolition of the welfare state and the complete privatization of land would go a long way to accommodate the concern of Americans who "really don't want to associate with various people from random other countries en masse" if that is indeed the case.
Sudha Shenoy -
7/16/2007
Under common law, anyone could settle freely anywhere. It was royal or municipal regulation which kept them out, or limited where they could stay.
Before 1914, no passports were required -- people could move freely anywhere they wanted. Passports etc came in only as a 'war measure' to restrict the influx of 'aliens' who might be 'spies'.
In the late 1950s, an Indian workingclass 'visitor' to England 'overstayed' & was finally captured by the police. It was impossible to deport him under common law. The magistrates had to go back to the rules governing medieval serfdom. They said that a serf had to be captured within a year and a day. If, not, he was free. But this Indian had _not_ been caught within 366 days. So he ws allowed to remain. _Legislation_ had to be brought in to keep people out of Britain.
Otto M. Kerner -
7/15/2007
I've become somewhat agnostic on the moral argument against immigration restriction, because it necessitates going into the basis of where morality comes from, i.e. it's a fundamentally religious argument (yes, this is true for any moral argument, except where both sides agree to stipulate that a particular activity is immoral).
From the perspective of established norms of human social behaviour, there is no precedent for the idea that people can move freely in significant numbers across national boundaries. For instance, I'd be surprised to learn that common law ever held that people from Poland or Turkey or Japan could freely settle in England.
On the other hand, from the perspective of natural-and-inherent individual rights theory, I don't know how one can justify restricting population movement.
If nothing else, it is highly impractical (from the perspective of people in developed countries) to not have some kind of restrictions on immigration. One could argue that they should be somewhat looser, but, if there were no restrictions at all, North America's population would quickly double and its people would become a minority in the place they had gotten used to as thinking of as their country.
I think it's obvious that Americans in general really don't want to associate with various people from random other countries en masse. So, "freedom of association" hardly seems like the best selling point.
Sudha Shenoy -
7/15/2007
This is worth investigating: What percent of _total divorces_ are granted to 2nd generation Hispanic immigrants? (50%?) What percent of the _total_, to native-born Americans (black and white)? (?5%?)
What percent of _all_ violent crimes are committed by 2nd generation Hispanics (? 75% of the _total_)? & what percent by the native-born? (10-15% of the _total_?)
What percent of _total_ illegitimate births are to 2nd generation Hispanic mothers? (? 65%?) what percent to native-born unwed mothers (black & white)? (?5-6% of the _total_?)
What percent of _total_ high-school dropouts are 2nd generation Hispanics? (?80%?) And what percent are nativeborn Americans (black & white)? (?10% of the _total_?)
It would be useful to find out _how much_ 2nd generation Hispanics contributed to _total_ divorces, illegitimacy, high-school dropout rates; & how much of the _total_ came from native-born Americans (black & white.)
Steve Jackson -
7/15/2007
Mr. Halderman,
Even when you adjust for that, you still get a crime rate that is significantly higher for Mexican Americans (at least double).
Keith Halderman -
7/15/2007
Apparently it is not Chavez but her critic who wrote the lines I quoted, my apologizes to her.
Keith Halderman -
7/15/2007
Chavez writes "unless we can prevent immigrants from having children, a high level of immigration translates to increased levels of crime. Between the foreign-born generation and their American children, the incarceration rate of Mexican-Americans jumps more than eightfold, resulting in an incarceration rate that is 3.45 times higher than that of whites, according to an analysis of 2000 census data by the pro-immigrant Migration Policy Institute." Well of course the incarceration rate jumps because she is comparing younger people to older people and crime rates are very age sensitive. If you compare teenage Mexican-American crime rates to the crime rate of the entire white population including the 80 year olds it will be higher just as the crime rate of white teenagers will be higher than the entire Mexican-American population with their 80 year olds.
William J. Stepp -
7/15/2007
Mr. Jackson,
Do you deny that immigrants (or non-immigrants) have a right to drop out of school? Do you favor compulsory education?
In a libertarian world there would be no national borders or state borders, so the legal realtionship between Mexico and the U.S. would be the same as that between California and Nevada.
All property that was ever homesteaded would be private, and would have property titles. That would go a long way toward solving the crime problem that you complain about. It would also reduce the bias against ethnic groups, and encourage them to become more productive, which in turn would further their assimilation and reduce the number of crimes they commit.
William J. Stepp -
7/15/2007
A list of crimes from Michelle Malkin's article, which is linked to in the article cited by Mr. Jackson:
"murder, firearms trafficking, drug trafficking, money laundering, racketeering, fraud, false statements, receipt of stolen property, producing false identity documents, copyright infringement and other federal felonies."
Copyright infringement! Now there's a real crime. Hey, they've gotta have some P2P produced music playing while they produce all those false identity docs.
Firearms trafficking! Call out Mayor Mike, who, according to one report, might have violated Federal racketeering statutes by butting into the rights of gun salesmen, er traffickers, in other states.
I wonder why they left out patent infringement, another non-crime.
Money laundering is another non-crime.
Are there any crimes on this list?
Well, murder is a crime. How many of the murders are drug-related?
As libertarians, we know what the answer is to that problem, but don't tell Mayor Mike and his other nanny statists.
I think the so-called social pathology of the Hispanic community is really a reflection of the pathology of the State, which is far worse in Mexico and other parts of Latin America.
Steve Jackson -
7/15/2007
Mr. Richman,
Yes, I support laws against employers hiring illegals. As far as restricting travel within the US, etc. I do not think the relationship of the US vis-a-vis Mexico is the same as California vis-a-vis Nevada.
Do you deny that Mexican-Americans commit violent crime at rate higher than whites? Do you deny that they have a higher school dropout rate?
Sheldon Richman -
7/15/2007
Such data have long been disputed. The mayor of Hazelton, Pa., who passed a horrible anti-migrant law, spoke all the time about migrant crime in his city. It turned out to be nonsense. But as I said earlier, what does one person's possible crime have to do with the next person coming across the border? Why not keep high-crime Americans from migrating state to state? How about a little consistency? And how about a little concern with liberty? Preventive detention (which in effect is what border control is) is unlibertarian. That was my original point.
Do you support harsh punishment of employers who hire "illegalsl"?
Steve Jackson -
7/15/2007
Mr. Richman,
I have presented evidence. I pointed to the critiques of Linda Chavez' article, which contain abundant evidence of the social pathology of Hispanic immigrants. Here is another article on Hispanic crime and dropout rates --
Yes, recent immigrants and their children didn't create the welfare state, the war on drugs, our permissive culture, etc.
Sudha Shenoy -
7/15/2007
2nd generation 'immigrants' have been raised in the US. They are responding to what they find in their American environment. How far are they held down by minimum-wage legislation, & other regulations that _limit_ opportunities at the lower levels? Did 2nd generation immigrants create the drug environment they live in?
Sheldon Richman -
7/15/2007
You've offered nothing to substantiate your charges.
Bill Woolsey -
7/14/2007
An interesting and important point about second generation Americans. While the foreigners come here to work and appreciate the great opportunity and improved living standards relative to Mexico (or India or China?) their children supposedly join the underclass rather than move up the economic ladder or continue as their parents.
There is evidence (I have heard this claimed anyway) that many immigrants do not want to stay in the U.S. but just want to work here. They want to make and save money, and buy a house or something back home. The great difficult and expense of being smuggled in, however, means that those here cannot make visits home. If it were legal to work in the U.S. for these foreigners, perhaps more of them would keep their families at home.
Steve Jackson -
7/14/2007
Mr. Richman,
You claim it's "nonsense," but do you have any evidence to refute my statistics?
Sheldon Richman -
7/14/2007
The same stuff was said about earlier immigrant groups -- without exception. It's all nonsense.
Steve Jackson -
7/14/2007
Prof. Skoble,
Your understanding is wrong. Second and third generation Mexican-Americans have higher rates of welfare dependency than white Americans. They commit crime at higher rates (including violent crime). And, as I pointed out, they have higher rates of divorce, illegitimacy, drug abuse and domestic violence than whites.
I'm sure they come here to work, but if you are poor and (often) illiterate, then welfare looks pretty good.
I would also mention that cities tend to be high in immigration. Do you think Hispanics in leftist and union dominated LA are anti-welfare?
William J. Stepp -
7/14/2007
What are the crimes that got the Mexicans arrested? Dealing illegal drugs?
Consuming them? Illegally crossing the border? Not paying their taxes? Insulting a cop?
These are not crimes, if by a crime you mean something that is bad in and of itself and that violates someone else's rights.
Also how many of the arrests were frameups and petty harrassment of members of a disfavored group?
Aeon J. Skoble -
7/14/2007
How are immigrants natural clients of the welfare state? They come here to work, and often take jobs that native-born Americans won't take. And they're as much potential voters who'd support it as native-born liberals. As I understand it, second-generation immigrants tend to be more hostile to welfarism, because they worked hard for what they got etc. As far as I can tell, welfare is supported primarly not by immigrants but by indigenous poor and by wealthy liberals.
Steve Jackson -
7/14/2007
If you want to see the proof for the higher rates of social pathology among Hispanics, one might google the recent Linda Chavez dispute with her comments on National Review.
For example:
_____________________
unless we can prevent immigrants from having children, a high level of immigration translates to increased levels of crime. Between the foreign-born generation and their American children, the incarceration rate of Mexican-Americans jumps more than eightfold, resulting in an incarceration rate that is 3.45 times higher than that of whites, according to an analysis of 2000 census data by the pro-immigrant Migration Policy Institute.
The Hispanic crime problem has also been documented by sociologists Alejandro Portes of Princeton and Rubén G. Rumbaut of the University of California, Irvine (presumably, they must be anti-Latino, too), in their Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study. A whopping 28 percent of Mexican-American males between the ages of 18 and 24 reported having been arrested since 1995, and 20 percent reported having been incarcerated — a rate twice that of other immigrant groups.
________________________
I am, of course, in favor if dismantling the welfare state. The problem that Mr. Skoble ignores is that not only are immigrants natural clients of the welfare state, they are potential voters who will support it. Thus immigration makes it less likely that the welfare state will be abolished.
Aeon J. Skoble -
7/14/2007
Accusing Sheldon Richman of having a socialistic or welfare state mindset is pretty hilarious. But to get serious: I see what Ron Paul is getting at -- the syllogism seems to go this way: if there's a welfare state, then allowing unrestricted immigration might expand the number of people on the welfare roles, ergo restrict immigration. But on that reasoning, you'd have to restrict reproduction among citizens! (I mean that as a reduction ad absurdum.) So the answer is to dismantle the welfare state, not restrict immigration -- especially seeing as immigrants are a net plus for the economy, adding, not subtracting, value. I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul, but disagree on this issue. Of course, it goes without saying that Ron Paul would approximately a million times preferable to anyone else running.
Sheldon Richman -
7/14/2007
I seriously doubt that you could prove even one of your assertions, but if you could, so what? That's a law-enforcement matter. (The drug laws and welfare -- for all -- should go, of course.) What does any of it have to do with the next person coming across the border? He, like many others, might start up a business and live peacefully. I might invite him onto my property to live and work. As for unemployment, the studies do not support your claim. Immigrants also consume, which means they demand the labor of others. But again, why is this a matter for public policy anyway? No one owns his job. As someone said recently, if your job is threatened by someone coming here who doesn't speak English, doesn't know the culture, and doesn't have any money, you have more important problems than immigration to address.
William J. Stepp -
7/14/2007
Immigrants (in particular Mexicans) have higher rates or welfare dependency, drug abuse, crime, illegitimacy, school drop out, etc.
Where are your stats to back this up?
Julian Simon and Ken Schoolland did research showing that immigrants have lower rates of welfare parasitism. Schoolland ("Are Illegal Immigrants Criminals? Not!")
pointed out that immigrants tend to migrate more toward states with lower levels of welfare because they come to the U.S. to work. They certainly do not entrench the welfare state.
Are you aware that upwards of 40% of black unemployement is caused by Illegal immigration? Are you aware that more people die per year by illegals via murder/crime/drunk driving than we loose in Iraq? Are you aware that hospitals are closing by the dozens, the rate of illeteracy is up and the list goes on and on...
Unemployment is not caused by immigration, legal or illegal. It's caused by the voluntary decisions of some people to elect not to work, or by the failure of the price system to adjust the supply and demand of workers due to price controls or some other government intervention, such as the Nazi diktat not to employ Jews.
Illegals cause a small fraction of deaths due to murder, crime, and drunk driving. I'm sure morgues have more business because of crimes commited by citizens than by illegal immigrants.
Lots of hospitals are closing and they should, because they are government-funded statist disasters.
james emanon -
7/14/2007
As usual, you didn't even address the key points that the original poster posted. This is a common ploy by persons who really have no argument so they throw up a smoke screen, and then move onto their own flawed justification.
Are you aware that upwards of 40% of black unemployement is caused by Illegal immigration? Are you aware that more people die per year by illegals via murder/crime/drunk driving than we loose in Iraq? Are you aware that hospitals are closing by the dozens, the rate of illeteracy is up and the list goes on and on...
I had a discussion with another like you that suggests that "culture" resides within an individual, nothing more. Well, when you are invaded by 20million people who do not share your culture, your vision, your laws and then uses your system to their benefit much to your detriment, and all you can say is 'well, black people have a high drop out rate...' is very disenquine and lacks real depth to the problem.
james emanon -
7/14/2007
I am actually MORE into Ron Paul because of his ILLEGAL immigration stance with his liberty message. How can I know true liberty in MY country when others who are not of here are using, abusing and dismissing our laws and taking advantage of our system - so much so, that my quality of life and those of my family/friends is reduced. I do not know what world you live in, but when you have to get up and move 2x because the neighborhoods and school systems are horrid and the closest hospital is 30 minutes away because the two that were closest closed due to illegal immigrants, well come talk to me.
You are right, illegal immigrants are human beings but they will not, should not and cannot get benefits and treatment that then TRAMPLE on the American citizens rights, and take away from american mouths.
I would advise you to get informed. I mean 'really' get informed. Put away any socialistic or welfare state mindset and consider the American nation as a whole. This IS an invasion.
Get informed... visit alipac.us, numbersusa.com etc... ask questions and open to learning and giving information.
seriously. If 80% of the AMERICAN LEGAL CITIZEN population DO NOT WANT AMNESTY AND WANT the current laws enforced, then one of two things are happening... The overwhelming majority are ignorant and are not really living in this real world, or perhaps you have a incorrect view.
It would behoove you to really take some time and get educated on it.
Otherwise, appreciate your writing.
Christopher Rasch -
7/14/2007
Immigrants (in particular Mexicans) have higher rates or welfare dependency, drug abuse, crime, illegitimacy, school drop out, etc.
Yes, and? Black people exhibit similar group characteristics. Does anyone think that it would be moral to allow states to restrict black mobility ( aka apartheid )? And if it's immoral to prevent black people from crossing state borders, how does it become ethical to prevent them from crossing national borders?
Keep in mind that in the absence of national movement restrictions, we would still have borders: the borders of our own private property. "National border control" is another name for "border communism." Immigration restrictions are a subversion of our individual property and association rights to the whims of bureaucrats at the INS.
And just as it's naive to think that government bureaucrats would make a better decision than you about what you can read, which religion you follow, and what job you can do, it's equally naive to believe that they can do a better job of deciding who you can associate with.
Our border law should follow the same principles that the rest of our laws follow -- that you are innocent until proven guilty, that you should be judged for the crimes you actually commit (not for crimes you might commit), that you should be judged as an individual not as a member of collective, and that people should be free to associate with whom they wish, regardless of their race, religion, or place of birth.
Steve Jackson -
7/14/2007
Restricting immigration may be unlibertarian, but the idea that immigrants are simple people "seeking better lives in an environment more free than the one they are in . . . . they mean us no harm; on the contrary, they seek a place in the division of labor" is a myth. Immigrants (in particular Mexicans) have higher rates or welfare dependency, drug abuse, crime, illegitimacy, school drop out, etc.
Most immigrants may "mean us no harm" (although they are happy to receive welfare, government jobs, and affirmative action perks) but let's not take a naive view of them. They are making the welfare state more entrenched.
