Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US Supreme Court) NewsFlash Supreme Court says asking "Papers, please" is perfectly okay, but overturns rest of Arizona immigration law   (supremecourt.gov) divider line 392
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

14007 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2012 at 11:29 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

392 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-25 04:04:13 PM  

Nabb1: And Roberts was the key vote. How about that.


Given how many 5-4 votes there have been lately, I think that what happens is that the flavor of the decision is decided by the most centrist judge in the case.

Take a random SC case with something like 4 facets. Let's say it's a gun control case. You have multiple potential positions:

State/Fed are/are not allowed to confiscate
State/Fed are/are not allowed to ban whatever they like
State/Fed are/are not allowed to require registration
State/Fed are/are not allowed to require training

I listed 4 potential facets, each with the SC capable of declaring anything between 'Feds&state can do that' and 'Fed&state are prohibited from doing that'. They can decide that the feds can do it, but the states cannot, or that the states can do it and the feds cannot.

So what happens is some wheeling/dealing where the position falls somewhere in the middle, where you can get 5 of the 4 judges to vote for it. In cases of firearms, it's pretty much 'registration can be required; banning and confiscation are not allowed'.

If the issue had JUST been federal confiscation, the decision might have been 8-1 against. Banning 6-3, etc...
 
2012-06-25 04:04:57 PM  

sokalis: VGA Hole: In Mexico, do they stop white people and ask them for proof of citizenship?

In arizona will they stop white people and ask for papers?, after all they could be here illigally from Finland... If I was a deputy in arizona that's what i would do...lol


they did that in Alabama
 
2012-06-25 04:08:24 PM  

Dogfacedgod: So my burrito making Mexicans remain safe to continue to make me burritos? I'm fine with that!


America thought twice.
 
2012-06-25 04:14:38 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: As I understand it, Arizona police can't ask random people for their immigration papers. They can verify whether someone they arrested for other reasons is a citizen, then share information with ICE about illegal immigrants they catch doing other things. That's about it.


I hated everything about the new AZ laws but even I can't object to LEOs running all manner of background checks on you if they arrest you on something else.

Funny that even before these new laws it was generally legal to check an arrestee's citizenship status and to share this info with ICE/their equivalents if the local PD felt so inclined.
 
2012-06-25 04:18:49 PM  

Cyclometh: jigger: kevinatilusa: Interesting quote from the decision (as pointed out on the CNN Live Blog):

"As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States

Huh?

You mean you didn't know that? You see, there's a lot of us who have known that for years.

Because we're actually informed about the issues instead of just whargaarbling about things.


This. It has been stated repeatedly that entering illegally is a crime, but being here after such entry is not a crime in and of itself (excepting for certain circumstances, such as having been removed and then re-enterring).

But for some reason every time one of us points this out (even with citations) we get jumped on.
 
2012-06-25 04:19:55 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Sock Ruh Tease: As I understand it, Arizona police can't ask random people for their immigration papers. They can verify whether someone they arrested for other reasons is a citizen, then share information with ICE about illegal immigrants they catch doing other things. That's about it.

I hated everything about the new AZ laws but even I can't object to LEOs running all manner of background checks on you if they arrest you on something else.

Funny that even before these new laws it was generally legal to check an arrestee's citizenship status and to share this info with ICE/their equivalents if the local PD felt so inclined.


So my question is: What has actually changed now? Cops could previously check immigration status after arrests and call up ICE. What's new when this law goes into effect?

I'm mostly happy with the ruling. The one part I was most concerned about was being able to ask for papers for anybody who looks like they might be illegal, regardless of whether they did anything wrong. I'm nowhere near Arizona, but the idea of the precedent that would set made me very uneasy.
 
2012-06-25 04:26:35 PM  

GentDirkly: CNN says they can only ask for your papers if you've already done something else illegal, like driving recklessly.


Oh thank god. Cops never stop people for reasons they make up later.
 
2012-06-25 04:30:26 PM  

erveek: GentDirkly: CNN says they can only ask for your papers if you've already done something else illegal, like driving recklessly.

Oh thank god. Cops never stop people for reasons they make up later.


Please tell me you don't use the Communist News Network for your only source of information...

/That's like using Faux News as your only source for news
//Total misinformation requires many many sources
 
2012-06-25 04:30:41 PM  

erveek: GentDirkly: CNN says they can only ask for your papers if you've already done something else illegal, like driving recklessly.

Oh thank god. Cops never stop people for reasons they make up later.


Yep. My tea-partier step-father (an ex-cop) was thrilled at the court ruling since it allows the cops to finally round up all them immigrants. I told him the part of the law about asking random people for papers got nixed and the cops need to actually have a reason to stop or arrest someone in order to ask for papers. His response: "Well they can just pull them over if they go 1mph over the speed limit. Every goes at least 1 mph over the limit at some point."

It's going to suck for legal immigrants in Arizona since I'm sure a lot of the cops out that way probably feel the same way. I'm sure this part of the law will eventually get tossed as well once the racial profiling cases start happening.
 
2012-06-25 04:32:04 PM  

BillCo: VGA Hole: In Mexico, do they stop white people and ask them for proof of citizenship?

No, they just kill you with a gun provided by the ATF.


It's odd that Republicans are suddenly against selling guns to anyone without asking questions. I wonder why.
 
2012-06-25 04:33:56 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Joe Blowme: If the feds would just do their damn job non of this would be called for and we might even have to see less of this kind of crap... Link

Deportations are at record highs. What do you mean by not doing their job?


2 things:

If you believe anything that Janet Napolitano says, you are being decieved. The woman does not have the ability to tell the truth.

There is a huge caveat in the 392K figure. The growth in deportations were criminals that were already slated for deportation during the bush and clintonyears, that were still serving their jail sentence
 
2012-06-25 04:35:09 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: VGA Hole: In Mexico, do they stop white people and ask them for proof of citizenship?

You don't want to get pulled over in Mexico for anything. Rarely does it end well without giving the cop all 400 pesos you keep in your spare wallet .


ftfy
 
2012-06-25 04:38:38 PM  

what_now: RobertBruce: They didn't enter legally, there is no jurisdiction.

That is completely wrong. What you're saying is that if an illegal immigrant murders someone, we can't charge him, because we don't have jurisdiction over that person. Try again.


You're wasting your time. He doesn't even know what a basic word like "jurisdiction" means.

Protip: anyone outside of the jurisdiction of US law, is not subject to it. An "illegal immigrant" has not done anything illegal by definition until they have entered US jurisdiction in an manner disapproved by US law.
 
2012-06-25 04:40:55 PM  

NeoCortex42: Crotchrocket Slim: Sock Ruh Tease: As I understand it, Arizona police can't ask random people for their immigration papers. They can verify whether someone they arrested for other reasons is a citizen, then share information with ICE about illegal immigrants they catch doing other things. That's about it.

I hated everything about the new AZ laws but even I can't object to LEOs running all manner of background checks on you if they arrest you on something else.

Funny that even before these new laws it was generally legal to check an arrestee's citizenship status and to share this info with ICE/their equivalents if the local PD felt so inclined.

So my question is: What has actually changed now? Cops could previously check immigration status after arrests and call up ICE. What's new when this law goes into effect?

I'm mostly happy with the ruling. The one part I was most concerned about was being able to ask for papers for anybody who looks like they might be illegal, regardless of whether they did anything wrong. I'm nowhere near Arizona, but the idea of the precedent that would set made me very uneasy.


You know, I'd say "very little has changed except how the lawyers play the game here". Bear in mind I also thought before we started passing retarded laws after 9/11 that many of the already extant RICO etc. anti-organized crime laws were more than plenty to combat terrorism, if the authorities were smart enough about applying and enforcing them.
 
2012-06-25 04:41:25 PM  

pxsteel: Mrtraveler01: Joe Blowme: If the feds would just do their damn job non of this would be called for and we might even have to see less of this kind of crap... Link

Deportations are at record highs. What do you mean by not doing their job?

2 things:

If you believe anything that Janet Napolitano says, you are being decieved. The woman does not have the ability to tell the truth.

There is a huge caveat in the 392K figure. The growth in deportations were criminals that were already slated for deportation during the bush and clintonyears, that were still serving their jail sentence


So you have a citation that fewer people are being deported.
 
2012-06-25 04:43:52 PM  
So the most unconstitutional and unpopular part of the law is kept and the rest is thrown away despite being constitutional.

Are the Supremes just trolling us now? Seriously.
 
2012-06-25 04:50:52 PM  
i.imgur.com


i.imgur.com



America.
 
2012-06-25 04:51:19 PM  

runin800m: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: VGA Hole: In Mexico, do they stop white people and ask them for proof of citizenship?

You don't want to get pulled over in Mexico for anything. Rarely does it end well.

In my experience, it usually ends with a bribe...


I'm ready to go to Mexico.

I've got my spending money, my kids are going to pickpocket this money, my bribing money, and my backup bribing money.

/And my emergency money
 
2012-06-25 04:57:14 PM  

Rincewind53: Mell of a Hess: Yes, these are important decisions, but the one I want to know is:

"U.S. Supreme Court Set to Issue Health Care Decision on June 28"

SCOTUSblog says that the opinion is almost certainly going to be written by Roberts, with Kennedy possibly concurring. Which maaaay be a very good thing, according to a good theory I've heard, which says that of the court is going to uphold the law then Roberts will absolutely assign himself the lead opinion so that he can limit it as much as possible. And by the same token, if they overturn it he'll give it to Scalia or Alito so that they take the political fallout and not him.


This gives me hope. Kennedy's objections during oral arguments had to do with determining whether or not there is any limit on government authority to enforce a mandate. In other words, if they can mandate that you purchase insurance is there anything they can't mandate?

It seems clear to me that their is a limit to the government's power and it's based on the economics of the product in question. Health insurance (and risk pooling in general) doesn't work on a standard supply and demand formula. Your decision not to purchase insurance directly increases my prices, whereas greater demand for insurance lowers costs. If you establish that only this type of purchase is eligible for mandatory participation then you limit its scope significantly (and reaffirm the validity of mandatory participation in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid).

If Kennedy has come to this reasoning, and Roberts chooses to be consistent with stare decisis for Wickard v Fillburn, then it stands to reason that they would co-author for the majority so that the ruling is seen as bipartisan and a nod to the significance of the ruling.
 
2012-06-25 04:58:54 PM  

TheBigJerk: So the most unconstitutional and unpopular part of the law is kept and the rest is thrown away despite being constitutional.


Not really true. The Supreme Court said, in effect, "This part here hasn't been proven to be bad yet. When it does, which it looks like it will, bring it back."
 
2012-06-25 05:00:15 PM  
PDF download? Not reading it. Link to executive summary?
 
2012-06-25 05:03:33 PM  

what_now: hdhale: but because the Feds refuse to enforce the law, we're basically right back where we started.

You have any citations on this? Because the Feds have deported a RECORD number of people during the Obama administration. Link


Black Muslin deportations don't count in freeeeeeeeeeeeeemerica.
 
2012-06-25 05:04:18 PM  
Jesus, an unmarked direct-to-a-PDF link?

And the other SCOTUS thread a link to some unreadable "live blog"?

WTF, tardmins?
 
2012-06-25 05:06:11 PM  

Blowmonkey: Geotpf: pxsteel: jigger: So were the parts they struck down simply clashing with federal law? Is that the reason they gave? Or did they say they were unconstitutional for some reason?

This scenario is what this ruling creates:

Patrol officer pulls over a car with a broken light
Driver has no DL or Insurance
Driver admits he is an illegal alien
Patrol officer calls ICE
ICE refuses to show up to collect driver (this is what is happening now)
The parts of the law struck down means that the patrol officer cannot detain the driver
Patrol officer issues tickets for no DL or Insurance and a broken light
And sends the driver on his way.

The tickets never get paid because the name and address given by the driver were bogus.

A police officier would never let somebody drive away that had no driver's license and probably not if they didn't have insurance (even with no immigration issue). The car would be impounded at the very least.

This is completely untrue. I've done it several times. It depends on the cop and YOU. If you suck, well - then you can guess how it's going to turn out. Handle yourself correctly and you can get out of almost anything.


I know for a fact that you are not black.

/ Fact
// Wish i knew what it was like to not be black when the cops showed up, must be nice.
 
2012-06-25 05:07:00 PM  

BuckTurgidson: Jesus, an unmarked direct-to-a-PDF link?

And the other SCOTUS thread a link to some unreadable "live blog"?

WTF, tardmins?


You got something against reading the decision itself?
 
2012-06-25 05:10:46 PM  

sonorangal: I wonder how Kris Kobach is taking this loss? He is the one who has been writing these anti immigration bill for the states that want them.


Pretty good I guess, other states are preparing to crack down on illegals now that this ruling came down.
 
2012-06-25 05:17:06 PM  

RexTalionis: BuckTurgidson: Jesus, an unmarked direct-to-a-PDF link?

And the other SCOTUS thread a link to some unreadable "live blog"?

WTF, tardmins?

You got something against reading the decision itself?


I even said "LGT opinion"!
 
2012-06-25 05:18:15 PM  

Rincewind53: RexTalionis: BuckTurgidson: Jesus, an unmarked direct-to-a-PDF link?

And the other SCOTUS thread a link to some unreadable "live blog"?

WTF, tardmins?

You got something against reading the decision itself?

I even said "LGT opinion"!


I mean, all things considered, this isn't even a particularly difficult opinion to parse through.
 
2012-06-25 05:21:36 PM  

RexTalionis: BuckTurgidson: Jesus, an unmarked direct-to-a-PDF link?

And the other SCOTUS thread a link to some unreadable "live blog"?

WTF, tardmins?

You got something against reading the decision itself?


Not at all. But a nicely-summarizing article with a LINK to the PDF in it would have been much more useful, as in at least a couple of the environments from which I read Fark, PDFs happen to be a pain in the ass. But I'm sure it works for you just fine and you're a lawyer who reads legal decisions every day so why should you care, other than to take a moment to gratuitously condescend?

Thanks for your kind comments and have a spiffy day, sir.
 
2012-06-25 05:24:40 PM  

Benni K Rok: I'm ready to go to Mexico.

I've got my spending money, my kids are going to pickpocket this money, my bribing money, and my backup bribing money.

/And my emergency money



Don't forget kidnapping money
 
2012-06-25 05:24:44 PM  

BuckTurgidson: RexTalionis: BuckTurgidson: Jesus, an unmarked direct-to-a-PDF link?

And the other SCOTUS thread a link to some unreadable "live blog"?

WTF, tardmins?

You got something against reading the decision itself?

Not at all. But a nicely-summarizing article with a LINK to the PDF in it would have been much more useful, as in at least a couple of the environments from which I read Fark, PDFs happen to be a pain in the ass. But I'm sure it works for you just fine and you're a lawyer who reads legal decisions every day so why should you care, other than to take a moment to gratuitously condescend?

Thanks for your kind comments and have a spiffy day, sir.


If you're really curious, I linked to a PDF because the opinion had just been delivered and at the time there was no other source.
 
2012-06-25 05:28:26 PM  

RobertBruce: Cyclometh: FTOpinion:

Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.


You hear that, authoritarian douchebags?

Consider it a national security issue. Stemming a goddamn invasion. It's economic war they are waging.


Interesting, isn't it? More Asians coming than Latinos, now. Latin immigration is way down, and deportations are way up under this administration. You're blaming the libtards? Funny.
 
2012-06-25 05:30:47 PM  

Rincewind53: I even said "LGT opinion"!


The entire current headline: Supreme Court says asking "Papers, please" is perfectly okay, but overturns rest of Arizona immigration law

No such qualification, perhaps it was removed by the Farkmins.

It used to be a conventional courtesy not to link directly to PDFs, or at least to provide a warning. No longer, I guess.

/ off to see if I can get some greenlights to autoplay videos with obnoxious soundtracks or maybe to the PDF version of the Affordable Care Act, it's only 2 1/5 MB.
 
2012-06-25 05:30:59 PM  

diaphoresis: Oh thank god. Cops never stop people for reasons they make up later.

Please tell me you don't use the Communist News Network for your only source of information...


So you're claiming it doesn't happen? If I told you I was pulled over going 5 over the limit, but the officer claimed it was 19 over*, so he could try to force me into a drug search, would you say I was lying?

* the proof it was a bogus stop is that I wasn't ticketed. No cop passes on writing up for 19 over the limit if it's legit.
 
2012-06-25 05:34:06 PM  
Fark made me download a .pdf that's probably a virus file from the SCOTUS website.

/that's it, Drew; this is your last warning!
//shakes tiny fist
 
2012-06-25 05:34:31 PM  

tonygotskilz: Blowmonkey: Geotpf: pxsteel: jigger: So were the parts they struck down simply clashing with federal law? Is that the reason they gave? Or did they say they were unconstitutional for some reason?

This scenario is what this ruling creates:

Patrol officer pulls over a car with a broken light
Driver has no DL or Insurance
Driver admits he is an illegal alien
Patrol officer calls ICE
ICE refuses to show up to collect driver (this is what is happening now)
The parts of the law struck down means that the patrol officer cannot detain the driver
Patrol officer issues tickets for no DL or Insurance and a broken light
And sends the driver on his way.

The tickets never get paid because the name and address given by the driver were bogus.

A police officier would never let somebody drive away that had no driver's license and probably not if they didn't have insurance (even with no immigration issue). The car would be impounded at the very least.

This is completely untrue. I've done it several times. It depends on the cop and YOU. If you suck, well - then you can guess how it's going to turn out. Handle yourself correctly and you can get out of almost anything.

I know for a fact that you are not black.

/ Fact
// Wish i knew what it was like to not be black when the cops showed up, must be nice.


You are correct. And technically, you DO know what it's like not be black when the cops show up, you just won't ever experience it. God that's depressing isn't it.
 
2012-06-25 05:36:21 PM  

Rincewind53: If you're really curious, I linked to a PDF because the opinion had just been delivered and at the time there was no other source.


Never mind, sorry for the threadjack. Carry on.
 
2012-06-25 05:38:24 PM  

RobertBruce: what_now: RobertBruce: They didn't enter legally, there is no jurisdiction.

That is completely wrong. What you're saying is that if an illegal immigrant murders someone, we can't charge him, because we don't have jurisdiction over that person. Try again.


True but they could be summarily executed as a good warning against other illegals committing crimes here.


Oh, I get it now. You're trolling and you caught me. My bad.
 
2012-06-25 05:39:58 PM  
The section that was upheld states (LINK)

1) "FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT... WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS... A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON". Any legal stop or contact... an arrest or even a traffic ticket is not necessary.

2) "ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED." If you are arrested, law enforcement is required to check immigration status.

3) The following counts as proof of citizenship. Basically, a driver's license is good unless you are from Washington, New Mexico or Utah.
"1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION."
 
2012-06-25 05:44:06 PM  
Could Obama have possibly come up with a reponse to make him look any MORE like a sore loser pussy whiny baby?

Along with usual logic and effectiveness we've come to expect....

States: Please enforce the immigration laws.
Obama: No
States: Ok then, we will.
Obama: No you won't.
SCOTUS: Yes they will.
Obama (throwing tantrum): Then we won't help!
States (laughing): Um yeah, that's what got us here in the first place....
 
2012-06-25 05:44:45 PM  

tonygotskilz: // Wish i knew what it was like to not be black when the cops showed up, must be nice.


i47.tinypic.com

Foolproof!
 
2012-06-25 05:53:44 PM  
Oops, you forgot to use your turn signal.

Can I see your papers


Oh you left them at home

well, we better hold you for 24 hours just to check up on everything.
 
2012-06-25 06:07:46 PM  

cchris_39: Could Obama have possibly come up with a reponse to make him look any MORE like a sore loser pussy whiny baby?

Along with usual logic and effectiveness we've come to expect....

States: Please enforce the immigration laws.
Obama: No
States: Ok then, we will.
Obama: No you won't.
SCOTUS: Yes they will.
Obama (throwing tantrum): Then we won't help!
States (laughing): Um yeah, that's what got us here in the first place....


How many illegals has Obama deported? How many has your heroes Bush Jr., Daddy Bush and Raygun deported?
 
2012-06-25 06:12:37 PM  

RexTalionis: I mean, all things considered, this isn't even a particularly difficult opinion to parse through.


I like that show on NPR.
 
2012-06-25 06:12:56 PM  

mrshowrules: cchris_39: Could Obama have possibly come up with a reponse to make him look any MORE like a sore loser pussy whiny baby?

Along with usual logic and effectiveness we've come to expect....

States: Please enforce the immigration laws.
Obama: No
States: Ok then, we will.
Obama: No you won't.
SCOTUS: Yes they will.
Obama (throwing tantrum): Then we won't help!
States (laughing): Um yeah, that's what got us here in the first place....

How many illegals has Obamba deported? How many has your heroes Bush Jr., Daddy Bush and Raygun deported?


Not enough?
 
2012-06-25 06:17:26 PM  
The racists in the state government are going to have a field day with this. Joe Arpaio just nutted in his drawers.
 
2012-06-25 06:20:34 PM  

cmb53208:
What's to stop one of Sheriff Joe's goons from pulling me over in Phoenix, looking at the last name on my Wisconsin DL, and then deciding I'm an illegal alien from Poland?


Because the pic is of you fu(king your dog?
 
2012-06-25 06:28:08 PM  

jim32rr: mrshowrules: cchris_39: Could Obama have possibly come up with a reponse to make him look any MORE like a sore loser pussy whiny baby?

Along with usual logic and effectiveness we've come to expect....

States: Please enforce the immigration laws.
Obama: No
States: Ok then, we will.
Obama: No you won't.
SCOTUS: Yes they will.
Obama (throwing tantrum): Then we won't help!
States (laughing): Um yeah, that's what got us here in the first place....

How many illegals has Obamba deported? How many has your heroes Bush Jr., Daddy Bush and Raygun deported?

Not enough?


Seeing as Obama keeps increase the rate of deportation, I think he's your man then.
 
2012-06-25 06:29:05 PM  

Phineas: It smells like hippies in here. Unwashed, uneducated, un-American hippies.


Forgot your deodorant again, did you?
 
2012-06-25 06:42:11 PM  

AllUpInYa: cmb53208:
What's to stop one of Sheriff Joe's goons from pulling me over in Phoenix, looking at the last name on my Wisconsin DL, and then deciding I'm an illegal alien from Poland?

Because the pic is of you fu(king your dog?


I think that would imply a German origin. But, porn is another subject.

The truth is: if you have a name with a lot of consonants, are white and have ancestors that have played for either Minnesota or Green Bay, you're gonna get a pass in Arizona,
 
Displayed 50 of 392 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report