Catholics and Immigration

[meeshy]

Verisimilitude, the USCCB still doesn’t advocate breaking laws. But as Father Trigilio said, neither the Bishops nor we are obligated to conform to unjust laws.

My personal position (the question of whether or not I would break any civil laws to aid illegal immigrants) was probably always the same in the back of my mind, although through the course of these discussions it has moved from the back of my mind to the front of my mind, and has solidified into a strong conviction.

Touché for finding these posts! Now, please come up with the posts I challenged you to find: me comparing Mexicans to Jews.

You won’t have any luck.

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Once again, I ask my three questions:

1. Is it morally permissable to hire an illegal imigrant?

from a moral stand point no one is illegal

1. If it is morally permissible, are we morally obligated to pay him the same wage and benefits necessary to attract an American citizen to that job?

both parties acting as buyers and sellers of services are free to negotiate wage freely. By making this action illegal we reduce the strength of some parties. This decision to make these actions illegal instead of free market may well be contributing to the problem. See if the yard mowing is $45 by any normal payment method, then we may be forcing a condition in which the “illegal” works for $35 cash only because he fears checks, credit cards, or any traceable payment

1. If we pay the same wage and benefits necessary to attract an American citizen to that job, is it morally permissible not to give the job to an American citizen?

We are under no obligation to pay any amount, either we agree or the service never occurs. Once the buyer is forced up in price through legal actions the market and buyer are no longer FREE, they are regulated. The regulation replaces their freedom.

 

[vern_humphrey]

from a moral stand point no one is illegal

But from a legal point, many are. So once again, is it morally permissible for me to hire a person who is in this country in violation of our laws?

both parties acting as buyers and sellers of services are free to negotiate wage freely. By making this action illegal we reduce the strength of some parties. This decision to make these actions illegal instead of free market may well be contributing to the problem. See if the yard mowing is $45 by any normal payment method, then we may be forcing a condition in which the “illegal” works for $35 cash only because he fears checks, credit cards, or any traceable payment

That does not constitute an answer (nor does your previous comment.)

We are under no obligation to pay any amount, either we agree or the service never occurs. Once the buyer is forced up in price through legal actions the market and buyer are no longer FREE, they are regulated. The regulation replaces their freedom.

That part is true – but let me point out, many Catholics supported raising the minimum wage. And many support laws that require making contrbutions to Social Security, medical benefits and so on.

So, once again, let me ask the three questions no one dares answer:

1. Is it morally permissable to hire an illegal imigrant?
2. If it is morally permissible, are we morally obligated to pay him the same wage and benefits necessary to attract an American citizen to that job?
3. If we pay the same wage and benefits necessary to attract an American citizen to that job, is it morally permissible not to give the job to an American citizen?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

But from a legal point, many are. So once again, is it morally permissible for me to hire a person who is in this country in violation of our laws?

Vern no man made law should violate Natural Moral Law, since there is little to no base for designating these people as illegal, Moral law applies no man made law. If the man made law had a Moral based then denial would be inline with Moral Law.

That does not constitute an answer (nor does your previous comment.)

Exactly what wage is that today?, and what was that wage yesterday? 2 years ago? If one is the 14 year old son, and the other is the 42 year old dad does the wage change? Please reconsider the earlier answer, as you nor I know the correct wage.

That part is true – but let me point out, many Catholics supported raising the minimum wage. And many support laws that require making contrbutions to Social Security, medical benefits and so on.

I support a raise in the minimum wage. Because some people in our society can not compete well. We should work to both assure avenues of reasonable care for them and prevent the others for overly taking advantage of them. An immigrant may offer to work for $3/hour in New York City because he is ignorant of cost of living there. An employer in New York City knows there is a big knowledge problem with this immigrant yet you know many would take advantage of him.

So, once again, let me ask the three questions no one dares answer:

1. Is it morally permissable to hire an illegal imigrant?

the people you refer to are not illegal under moral law

1. If it is morally permissible, are we morally obligated to pay him the same wage and benefits necessary to attract an American citizen to that job?

Only if you are perfect then you and you alone know the exact wage

1. If we pay the same wage and benefits necessary to attract an American citizen to that job, is it morally permissible not to give the job to an American citizen?

Yes under Moral Law being born in America grants you no privilege, you are equal not superior

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern no man made law should violate Natural Moral Law, since there is little to no base for designating these people as illegal, Moral law applies no man made law.

So in order to make your point you have to get me to agree ahead of time the United States has no right or obligation to control its borders or determine citizenship?

If the man made law had a Moral based then denial would be inline with Moral Law. Exactly what wage is that today?, and what was that wage yesterday? 2 years ago? If one is the 14 year old son, and the other is the 42 year old dad does the wage change? Please reconsider the earlier answer, as you nor I know the correct wage.

Actually, if it were up to me, I’d say, “A thing is worth what a willing buyer will offer and a willing seller will accept.”

But it isn’t up to me. The law – supported by many Catholics under the rubric of “Social Justice” – establishes a minimum wage. Other laws establish other benefits that an employer must pay – whether he and the employee want them or not.

And note wording of the question:

1. If it is morally permissible, are we morally obligated to pay him the same wage and benefits necessary to attract an American citizen to that job?

I support a raise in the minimum wage.

Bingo!!

Because some people in our society can not compete well. We should work to both assure avenues of reasonable care for them and prevent the others for overly taking advantage of them. An immigrant may offer to work for $3/hour in New York City because he is ignorant of cost of living there. An employer in New York City knows there is a big knowledge problem with this immigrant yet you know many would take advantage of him. the people you refer to are not illegal under moral law Only if you are perfect then you and you alone know the exact wage Yes under Moral Law being born in America grants you no privilege, you are equal not superior

So what’s your answer? Yes, or no?

 

[mary_bobo]

Religious leaders govern the Catholics of the United States.

Peace,
Meeshy/QUOT

I’ve been a Catholic for all LONG time and this is the first time I have ever heard that one.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

So in order to make your point you have to get me to agree ahead of time the United States has no right or obligation to control its borders or determine citizenship?

It is better to realize when the US makes a law that violates Natural Moral Law it separates control of people from the desires of people. So the right to make laws is impaired by the preexistence of Natural Moral Law. Hint if you make illegal to breathe you have a national of criminals.

Actually, if it were up to me, I’d say, “A thing is worth what a willing buyer will offer and a willing seller will accept.”

But it isn’t up to me. The law – supported by many Catholics under the rubric of “Social Justice” – establishes a minimum wage. Other laws establish other benefits that an employer must pay – whether he and the employee want them or not.

I think you are going a bit far. Minimum wage is a floor for certain types of agreements not a required standard for all transactions. In fact minimum wage applies to only a small percentage of transaction. Same is true for worker compensation, SS, and medicare. We have the options to offer contract services or employment. The items you mention only occur under employment, and even then not all items all the time.

And note wording of the question:

This continues to be a real bad question. Maybe the question should be reworded? Why does Armando have to be paid a wage Larry agreed to??? The idea Larry is a SUPERIOR American is so poor, so very, very poor. Or is it Armando is to stupid for making an agreement?

Bingo!!

So what’s your answer? Yes, or no?

My answer is: this is another bad question. There is no known perfect wage for any job. So if you give anyone person the authority to decide you just made a King, eliminated freedom, and reduced the quality of live for everyone accept the King. The Church teaching does not require this control. The Church teaches taking advantage of people is bad, to take advantage you must have a system of control. A required wage is a system of control so be careful of what you ask. The best path to achieve the Church’s teaching is to allow both parties control to say No, or Yes.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is better to realize when the US makes a law that violates Natural Moral Law it separates control of people from the desires of people. So the right to make laws is impaired by the preexistence of Natural Moral Law. Hint if you make illegal to breathe you have a national of criminals.

Hint: There is no law making it illegal to breathe.

However, if I pursue your argument to the ultimate, I see that essentially you claim the Nation State violates Natural Law. That, of course, is nonsensical.

People have a right to form communities, and to bond communities into nations. Within nations, they have a right to defend their national interests.

I think you are going a bit far. Minimum wage is a floor for certain types of agreements not a required standard for all transactions. In fact minimum wage applies to only a small percentage of transaction.

So when is it both legal and moral to pay less than the minimum wage?

Same is true for worker compensation, SS, and medicare. We have the options to offer contract services or employment.

Actually, that’s a misconception – when we contract for services, the contractor is responsible for the taxes, Social Security and so on.

The items you mention only occur under employment,

You will note the first question was:

1. Is it morally permissable to hire an illegal imigrant?

“Hire” is generally considered a synonym for “employ.”

and even then not all items all the time.

Better check the law again – if you “hire” or “employ” people for less than minimum wage, and fail to provide other benefits required by law, you can be in serious trouble.

This continues to be a real bad question. Maybe the question should be reworded? Why does Armando have to be paid a wage Larry agreed to??? The idea Larry is a SUPERIOR American is so poor, so very, very poor. Or is it Armando is to stupid for making an agreement?

So your answer to

1. If it is morally permissible, are we morally obligated to pay him the same wage and benefits necessary to attract an American citizen to that job?

is “No. It is morally permissible to pay Armando less than the law would require you to pay Larry, and less than Larry would want for the same job.”

My answer is: this is another bad question. There is no known perfect wage for any job. So if you give anyone person the authority to decide you just made a King, eliminated freedom, and reduced the quality of live for everyone accept the King.

Ah, the old Post-Modernist argument, "No one can really **know **. . . "

But the fact is, in any market one can know what it will take to hire workers for a particular job – it is goverened by what Adam Smith called “the invisible hand.”

The Church teaching does not require this control. The Church teaches taking advantage of people is bad, to take advantage you must have a system of control. A required wage is a system of control so be careful of what you ask. The best path to achieve the Church’s teaching is to allow both parties control to say No, or Yes.

You’ve used a lot of words to avoid answering these three simple questions.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Are these all forms of:
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Is your daughter finally off drugs?
How is rehab going for your son?
A simple Yes or No will be fine

Hint: There is no law making it illegal to breathe.

However, if I pursue your argument to the ultimate, I see that essentially you claim the Nation State violates Natural Law. That, of course, is nonsensical.

People have a right to form communities, and to bond communities into nations. Within nations, they have a right to defend their national interests.

So when is it both legal and moral to pay less than the minimum wage?

Actually, that’s a misconception – when we contract for services, the contractor is responsible for the taxes, Social Security and so on.

You will note the first question was:

“Hire” is generally considered a synonym for “employ.”

Better check the law again – if you “hire” or “employ” people for less than minimum wage, and fail to provide other benefits required by law, you can be in serious trouble.

So your answer to

is “No. It is morally permissible to pay Armando less than the law would require you to pay Larry, and less than Larry would want for the same job.”

Ah, the old Post-Modernist argument, "No one can really **know **. . . "

But the fact is, in any market one can know what it will take to hire workers for a particular job – it is goverened by what Adam Smith called “the invisible hand.”

You’ve used a lot of words to avoid answering these three simple questions.

Moral law remains at all times superior to the laws of man. Twisted words do not change that. Moral law must be based on God’s plan, no so for man’s law. Man’s laws can be inline with Moral Law or morally neutral in which case we are instructed to follow man’s law. If man’s law opposes Natural Moral Law the Catholic is to uphold the moral law. When a man is refused the right to provide for his family Moral Law requires us to threat him as our brother. Would you call the police if your brother was hunting a job? So why would you act different for a man with a dark complexion?

I am told in Thailand a man can live well on about $5-10 per day, if that is true, and a Taiwanese person offers to provide phone service, letter writing, and secretary services for me at a rate of $2 per hour it would not be immoral for me to purchase that service. I would not be required to pay the fees others claim are necessary. To explain even great the extent look up “job exempt from minimum wage” there are many, and a few service jobs have a different minimum wage check the minimum wage for waitress.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Verisimilitude, the USCCB still doesn’t advocate breaking laws. … to the front of my mind, and has solidified into a strong conviction.

I thought of you (and Texas Roofer, Ituyu) at Mass this morning.

I imagined the young attractive woman in front of me was you, and the Hispanic family behind me was Texas, and the older Asian woman sitting next to my Asian wife was Ituyu. I was on the isle.

As we greeted them hello before the procession, and again during Mass I tried to feel the unity of our faith as the Mass was about the Feast of the Trinity. Both issues share a deep complexity.

As Texas Roofers wife was singing the hymns loudly, slightly of key, but pleasant none the less behind me, I thought of the idealism expressed here by you that a moral right of employment, food, and shelter is being denied to millions of humans because they are poor, but also by the sovereignty of a nation’s identity and borders.

The position that this (illegal immigration*) is a human right of Natural Moral Law; subsequently making morally unjust established Constitutional Law (therefore morally and justifiably disobeyed) does not appear to be supported by the USCCB, but yet you convince yourself that it is. I agree with all but the underlined. What do you agree with?

**Does the Catholic Church believe in “open borders?” **
No, Church teaching supports the right sovereign nations to control their borders. Enforcement of our borders, however, should include the protection of the basic human rights and dignity of the migrant and not place lives at risk.

**Does the Catholic Church support illegal immigration? **
No. The Catholic Church does not support or encourage illegal immigration because 1) it is contrary to federal law and 2) it is not good either for society because of the presence of a large population living outside the legal structures or the migrant, who is subjected to abuse, exploitation, and death in the desert. Instead, the Church is advocating changing a broken law so that undocumented persons can obtain legal status in our country and enter the United States legally to work and support their families.

usccb.org/sdwp/cirqasdwp.shtml

The law that allowed many in legally on visa’s was broken by those who overstayed them. They too have an obligation to Natural Moral Law to abide be reasonable civil law as time limited visa’a are. As we went for Communion, standing behind you, I had in my mind if I was acting contrary USCCB quote to:

Jesus calls upon us to “welcome the stranger,” for “what you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto me” (Mt: 25-35, 40). The Church also is involved in the issue because many of the Catholic faithful are immigrants who need the support and assistance of the Church.

Is the illegal migrant and/or Muslim terrorist a stranger or brother in the sense of that Scripture?
John 10:5 5 But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice."
Mark3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

How does the will of God apply here?

**USCCB Position **
In January, 2003, the U.S. Catholic bishops outlined principles for comprehensive immigration reform in their pastoral statement, Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope. They stated that any just immigration reform proposal should address the root causes of migration, such as global poverty, and should include the following elements: 1). a broad-based legalization of the undocumented; 2). a temporary worker program with appropriate protections for both U.S. and foreign workers; 3). changes to the family-based immigration system to reduce waiting times for family reunification; and 4). restoration of due process for immigrants.
usccb.org/sdwp/immigrationreform.shtml

I am not in opposition to these positions. Broad based legalization is not automatic citizenship or even a path to it, and due process can include a mandatory return to their home country which is not unreasonable. Is denial of US citizenship against the Natural Moral Law?

As I was leaving Mass I had a final thought. Can you agree on:

=illegal immigrant= economic refugee because anything else is clearly criminal and should not be covered by any new legislation- hence no change is needed to the current law. Would you enforce a expanded guest worker program by hiring only legal guest workers and turning away the newly undocumented, or would you continue to hold to your growing conviction and defy the law and the USCCB?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

That is a good post

I am not in opposition to these positions. Broad based legalization is not automatic citizenship or even a path to it, and due process can include a mandatory return to their home country which is not unreasonable. Is denial of US citizenship against the Natural Moral Law?

I do not recall asking for citizenship? Crossing the border to work benefits everybody. I suspect must Mexican/Guatemalans would gladly work here as legal workers, while remaining citizens of the original country. Even with knowledge they would have to return eventually to their country*. Consider this if the family were free to cross the border by reasonable means his need to bring his family is greatly reduced! He can go home at will, send money home, and his family could visit here. Currently this is a big problem because he and his entire family need to stay away from the border, because they can be arrest.

• remember the USCCB says it has to be reasonable standards of living there (not comfortable but reasonable)

As I was leaving Mass I had a final thought. Can you agree on:

=illegal immigrant= economic refugee because anything else is clearly criminal and should not be covered by any new legislation- hence no change is needed to the current law. Would you enforce a expanded guest worker program by hiring only legal guest workers and turning away the newly undocumented, or would you continue to hold to your growing conviction and defy the law and the USCCB?

I do not believe we are denying the USCCB at all, in both posts they list “basic human rights”. This includes reasonable opportunity to provide and receive medical care, etc. There is no need for the “illegal” or “undocumented” status. There would simply be another guest worker applying for a job. Whether we hire a second guest worker is not relevant, our decision is business based, and his decision to offer employment services was business based.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I do not recall asking for citizenship? Crossing the border to work benefits everybody. I suspect must Mexican/Guatemalans would gladly work here as legal workers, while remaining citizens of the original country. Even with knowledge they would have to return eventually to their country*. Consider this if the family were free to cross the border by reasonable means his need to bring his family is greatly reduced! He can go home at will, send money home, and his family could visit here. Currently this is a big problem because he and his entire family need to stay away from the border, because they can be arrest.

• remember the USCCB says it has to be reasonable standards of living there (not comfortable but reasonable)

The tens (hundreds) of thousands in the streets recently demanded it and more. US Senator Ken Salazar decries the current proposed amendments to the Senate Bill (to deny citizenship) as not allowing the future legal residents to vote- which requires citizenship. Reasonable standards of living are relative. The poor in Mexico might be considered well off by the poor in Darfur.

I do not believe we are denying the USCCB at all, in both posts they list “basic human rights”. This includes reasonable opportunity to provide and receive medical care, etc. There is no need for the “illegal” or “undocumented” status. There would simply be another guest worker applying for a job. Whether we hire a second guest worker is not relevant, our decision is business based, and his decision to offer employment services was business based.

You didn’t answer the direct question- again. But be that as it may basic human rights are not being denied by the US to include medical care- when they are here (and we export our care generously as well), but the US has no obligation no matter how noble the goal to allow unrestricted access to our public services by illegal non-residents. You may not see the “need” to be legally documented, but it is a reality. It is one thing to realize there are legal residents and US citizens that have bad intentions be it Islamic terrorism, or Uni-bomber type nutjobs that endanger the general public. By being a legal resident and US citizen it makes it harder to act on such bad intentions than if they slide into the darkness of illegality and obscurity permitted by those who harbor them.

It is totally relevant to the current issue as well as the future issue. If new procedures are put in place to raise the guest worker limit; do you think that will alleviate the needs of the poor in those countries now that desire to escape their poverty? Is the total burden placed on the US alone? Doesn’t Mexico and Guatemala (largely Catholic) have an obligation to change their political way of life instead of trying to change America’s? There are simply not enough jobs, public services, or housing to accommodate the world’s poor in the US.

If one million people are permitted to cross the border legally looking for work, but another million enter illegally along with them, would you or would you not make a distinction between them? If you do not, then you perpetuate the shadow society which carries many ills of its own which the USCCB and common decency opposes, and the problem continues unabated. If you do, then you are acting contrary to the current laws as well as the future laws proposed.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Well, if someone uses your name and identification to get government benefits illegally, you may forgive them, but you would not want to encourage them to steal your (or other people’s) identification or their money.

Are you willing to take other peoples’ money (by doubling or tripling their Social Security taxes) to pay for benefits to people breaking the law (stealing)?

 

[meeshy]

I thought of you (and Texas Roofer, Ituyu) at Mass this morning.

I imagined the young attractive woman in front of me was you, and the Hispanic family behind me was Texas, and the older Asian woman sitting next to my Asian wife was Ituyu. I was on the isle.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL and wowwww!!! Verisimilitude you sly dog, compliments will get you everything.

I’ll have to save my comments on the rest of your post for later. For now I’m too amused to think straight.

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Just because somebody asked for …citizenship, free medical, etc… does not mean they speak for me.

There seems to be a perception if we open our border, 6 billion people would migrate to the US and the rest of the world would be completely 100% void of people. Similarly, these same folks assume the US will then give free Social Security, Medicare, and Health Care? How silly. Free markets use equilibrium to regulate verses the almighty human leader. Foreigners would work and pay their own bills. They would stop immigrating when the overall package is better elsewhere.

Other governments would actually change more after we open our borders. The closed borders help them continue their problems. Open borders put real pressure on bad governments because the citizens know better options are available, and the best of their country will leave rather than live oppressed.

BTW Al if you did not encourage making working for a living illegal, the fellow would not have to consider stealing an id to use. He could simply use his real name.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Are these all forms of:
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Is your daughter finally off drugs?
How is rehab going for your son?
A simple Yes or No will be fine

No, they’re not – those “questions” are characterized by forcing an admission of guilt (for example, to say “yes” to the first means you have beaten your wife in the past, to say “no” means you are beating her.)

My questions carry no such double stigma. They are simple and straightforward.

Moral law remains at all times superior to the laws of man. Twisted words do not change that.

The only “twisted words” here are those posted in an attempt to avoid answering those questions.

Moral law must be based on God’s plan, no so for man’s law. Man’s laws can be inline with Moral Law or morally neutral in which case we are instructed to follow man’s law. If man’s law opposes Natural Moral Law the Catholic is to uphold the moral law. When a man is refused the right to provide for his family Moral Law requires us to threat him as our brother. Would you call the police if your brother was hunting a job? So why would you act different for a man with a dark complexion?

What has all this got to do with the issue?

I am told in Thailand a man can live well on about $5-10 per day, if that is true, and a Taiwanese person offers to provide phone service, letter writing, and secretary services for me at a rate of $2 per hour it would not be immoral for me to purchase that service. I would not be required to pay the fees others claim are
necessary.

We’re talking about illegal or undocumented aliens in the United
States, not in Thailand or Taiwan.

To explain even great the extent look up “job exempt from minimum wage” there are many, and a few service jobs have a different minimum wage check the minimum wage for waitress.

Red herring – the exemption is based on the waiter making up the difference in tips (on which he is taxed.)

A lot of bandwith has been wasted in avoiding those three simple questions. We’ve been from the US to Thailand to Taiwan – and sill no answer.

 

[meeshy]

Texas, Ituyu, I’m proud and honored to be at Mass with y’all in Versimilitude’s fantasies.

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Once again, I ask my three questions:

1. Is it morally permissable to hire an illegal imigrant?
2. If it is morally permissible, are we morally obligated to pay him the same wage and benefits necessary to attract an American citizen to that job?
3. If we pay the same wage and benefits necessary to attract an American citizen to that job, is it morally permissible not to give the job to an American citizen?

No, they’re not – those “questions” are characterized by forcing an admission of guilt (for example, to say “yes” to the first means you have beaten your wife in the past, to say “no” means you are beating her.)

My questions carry no such double stigma. They are simple and straightforward.

I dissagree to answer Q#1 Yes will be falsely interpreted as the civil laws being without authority, while answering Q#1 No will be falsely interpreted as admission of comitting an immoral action. Neither is correct so yes the question has a double stigma

The only “twisted words” here are those posted in an attempt to avoid answering those questions.

What has all this got to do with the issue?

We’re talking about illegal or undocumented aliens in the United
States, not in Thailand or Taiwan.

Morals do not change, there is no perfect wage. Some walk away from jobs paying over $100,000 while others work for free, low wages, or unsecured wages. Minimum wage does not apply to all jobs all people.

Red herring – the exemption is based on the waiter making up the difference in tips (on which he is taxed.)

A lot of bandwith has been wasted in avoiding those three simple questions. We’ve been from the US to Thailand to Taiwan – and sill no answer.

Maybe a lot of waste is running from the actual answers?

 

[meeshy]

Keep up the good posts, Texas. You raise good points and you do not get swept up in the heat of the argument. I am behind you 100%.

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[mary_bobo]

Well, if someone uses your name and identification to get government benefits illegally, you may forgive them, but you would not want to encourage them to steal your (or other people’s) identification or their money.

Are you willing to take other peoples’ money (by doubling or tripling their Social Security taxes) to pay for benefits to people breaking the law (stealing)?

Al, I have given up on this thread. There is no way to have a discussion with folks who want what they want and don’t care how they get it. Every law is worth breaking, sovereign borders are worth crossing, demands can be made, etc. When laws break down, anarchy follows. Apparently that’s what our fellow posters want. We do not owe illegals a job, a place to live, hospitalization, or other benefits that accrue to a citizen. And no manner of arguments will make a wrong a right.