ReviewJournal.com has an interesting quote from Sen. Hillary Clinton (Dingbat-NY) that just begs to be explained.

A man shouted through an opening in the wall that his wife was illegal.

“No woman is illegal,” Clinton said, to cheers.

I have to believe that the man was saying that his wife was an illegal alien, so this then makes me ask if Hillary meant what it appears she meant. As I read it, she’s saying that by virtue of their sex, women cannot possibly be illegal aliens.

Huh?

How can this comment be interpreted in any way that doesn’t make Hillary sound like a idiot?

Apparently Elvira Arellano has kept busy after being deported for breaking U.S. laws multiple times. USA Today quotes Arellano:

“For me it is very important that our government take a strong stand to defend all of us who decide to migrate to another country,” she said.

I could agree with this statement 100% if it had one extra word: “who decide to legally migrate to another country.” Omitting that one word makes a critical difference, since a government is to protect the legitimate and legal actions of the people.

But omitting the fact that she broke the law multiple times, Arellano is now trying to excuse her actions by telling people that the United States broke the law first.

“The United States is the one who broke the law first. By letting people cross over without documents. By letting people pay taxes.”

Ah. Let’s examine this logic. So if there isn’t a guard stationed at the back door of a bank, then it’s the bank’s fault, not the robber’s, that he broke through the door and got into the vault. One word summarizes this logic: mierda. While I certainly agree that the U.S. should do much more to lock down our borders, an unguarded border does not grant permission to people to pass over unlawfully.

As for paying taxes, it can certainly feel like a crime at times, but Arellano has it exactly backwards. Not paying taxes is breaking the law. If you work in the U.S., legally or not, the government wants and demands its take from your wages. Paying your taxes does not grant you any legitimacy if you broke the law getting here. And don’t forget that Arellano was arrested for using a Social Security number that was not her own. So how can Arellano say that the U.S. broke the law first, when it was she who stole a Social Security number first?

Frankly, I don’t accept the “they did it first” argument when it comes to breaking the law. Someone else breaking the law doesn’t grant you permission to break the law yourself. In any case, I don’t accept Arellano’s premise that it is the U.S. who broke the law first. But I suspect Arellano will continue with this nonsense claim in her attempt to play the victim card. And yet I find it ironic that Arellano went to the Mexican Senate to plead her case when Mexico’s immigration laws are harsher than ours, and they have their own problems on their southern border.

There is big news in the arena of illegal immigrants. Elvira Arellano, an illegal alien and vocal advocate for illegal immigration, was arrested and deported from the U.S. The article I read bore the title, “Immigration activist deported to Mexico,” but it could have read “Law-breaking illegal alien deported to Mexico” and would have been just as correct and valid. Here is the first part of the article about Arellano:

An illegal immigrant who took refuge in a Chicago church for a year to avoid being separated from her U.S.-born son has been deported to Mexico, the church’s pastor said.

Elvira Arellano became an activist and a national symbol for illegal immigrant parents as she defied her deportation order and spoke out from her religious sanctuary. She held a news conference last week to announce that she would finally leave the church to try to lobby U.S. lawmakers for change.

She had just spoken at a Los Angeles rally when she was arrested Sunday outside Our Lady Queen of Angels church and deported, said the Rev. Walter Coleman, pastor of Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago, where Arellano had been living.

“She has been deported. She is free and in Tijuana,” said Coleman, who said he spoke to her on the phone. “She is in good spirits. She is ready to continue the struggle against the separation of families from the other side of the border.”

Her 8-year-old son, Saul, is now living with Coleman’s family. During a news conference in Los Angeles after Arellano’s arrest, the boy hid behind the pastor’s wife and wiped away tears.

Arellano first entered the U.S. illegally in 1997, and was deported when caught. She returned shortly after that, again illegally. In 2002, she was arrested and convicted of working under a falsified Social Security number. Instead of being deported on the spot, she was part of the “catch and release” idiocy that our immigration officers work under. She was to surrender to the authorities in August 2006, but instead she fled to a church in Chicago and requested sanctuary. She then spent a year living in the church, but was arrested and deported when she left her sanctuary to attend a rally for illegal aliens in Los Angeles. This act has enraged the supporters of illegal aliens:

“We are sad, but at the same time we are angry,” said Javier Rodriguez, a Chicago immigration activist who worked with Arellano. “How dare they arrest this woman?”

How dare they? Well, how dare she break the law at least thrice — twice crossing the border into the U.S. illegally, and using a Social Security number that was not her own illegally? I have no idea how many other laws Arellano may have broken during her illegal stay here in the U.S.

“But Captain, how can you separate a child from his mother?” But I didn’t separate her from her son, Saul — she did. When people choose to commit crimes, they accept the consequences of their lawless actions. If Arellano didn’t want to be separated from her son, she shouldn’t have broken the law. The same separation occurs when people are imprisoned for breaking the law. It was their choice to break the law that separated them from their families. But Arellano doesn’t have to be separated from Saul — he can join her in Mexico whenever she wants.

“But her son was born here! He is a U.S. citizen!” Well, he will remain an American citizen even if he lives in Mexico with his mother. If he chooses to return to the U.S. as an adult, that is certainly his right.

Lest we forget, consider the well-publicized case of Elian Gonzalez, whose mother died trying to bring him to the United States, whose extended family were working to make him a legal resident, and who was forcibly deported to Cuba. Under then-President Clinton, the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government deemed it more important for Elian to live with his father in the hell-hole that is Castro’s Cuba than to stay with relatives in the U.S. In all fairness, Elian was not born in the U.S. and thus did not enjoy the same rights as a native-born American–but then again, Mexico isn’t half the hell-hole that Cuba is.

“Anchor babies” is the term used to describe children like Saul who are born in the U.S. to illegal alien parent(s). These anchor babies are used as an excuse to allow their illegal alien parent(s) to stay in the U.S. But are children of illegal aliens automatically U.S. citizens as soon as Mom gives birth a few feet over the border? What exactly is the law that makes any child born in the U.S. a de facto American?

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution explains what makes a citizen: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

There is a key part of that sentence, and it is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This means that the children born of people who legally enter the U.S. and are subject to the jurisdiction of these United States are citizens. As I read it, the children of illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. (the whole sneaking in bit) and thus are not born U.S. citizens. Here is what Rep. John A. Bingham, the author of the 14th Amendment, said regarding the first sentence:

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

Illegal aliens who sneak across the U.S. border and have babies on U.S. soil still owe allegiance to their native land. (Indeed, if the evidence is to be believed, many illegal aliens consider themselves loyal citizens of the nations they left. This becomes painfully visible during illegal alien rallies, where one is far more likely to see flags of other nations on display than one is to see the American flag in evidence.) They have not petitioned the U.S. for entry, nor have they begun the process of becoming Americans by renouncing their former citizenship. They are therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., since they have flouted America’s laws upon entry.

It might be worthwhile for the U.S. immigration officials to give illegal alien parents a choice when they are deported: take your American-born children with you, or leave them in the care of a guardian who is a fully legal American citizen (born or naturalized). Let these parents decide where their true loyalties lie.

(One of the best analyses I’ve read of the 14th Amendment, as it relates to citizenship, can be found at The Federalist Blog. The article clocks in at over two thousand words, but it is well worth the time to read it.)

Oh, what fun! Over the weekend a water pipe broke in the basement, and gallons of water started to pour into the house. I made a quick call to a plumber, and he explained to me that based on current government guidelines, we would need to take care of the water already in the house before the plumber would fix the broken pipe. He suggested that we fine the water in the house, give it a “Z card” for temporary residency with an option for permanent residency, and I would need to pay for any doctor bills the water incurred.

OK, so I’m being silly, as you might have guessed, and I didn’t have a pipe break this weekend. It really happened several months ago during a bitter cold spell. I was sitting at my computer, and I thought I heard the shower running, but the sound was coming from the garage. When I took a look out there, water was pouring from the light fixtures on the ceiling. My first priority was to find the water main, shut it off, and cut off the flow of water pouring into the attic space above the garage. Once the water was shut off, it was time to start sweeping the water out of the garage — and to start wondering why anyone would put a bare water pipe in the attic over an unheated garage in the first place.

I could have focused on the water pouring out of the ceiling instead of cutting off the flow to the house. If I had done that, I would have spent all my time placing buckets under the streams of water draining out of the ceiling and mopping around where it splashed. Depending on how fast I worked and the number of buckets available to me, I could have kept up with the flow indefinitely, but who wants to live with a broken pipe?

Apparently, we do. We have a broken pipe of illegal aliens pouring into our nation. And in its infinite wisdom, the government is more concerned with putting out buckets and mopping up rather than first shutting off the flow. I have to wonder whether members of the House and Senate have ever had a broken pipe in their homes, and whether they were just as illogical in fixing that as they have been in fixing illegal immigration.

Our first priority should be to turn off the flow. Our second priority should be to clean up the mess and patch the pipe. “But Captain, are you saying we need to deport the 12 million illegals already here?” I’ve often heard that question, and I’ll answer it with another — once you have fixed the broken water pipe, do you leave the water standing where it poured in, or do you clean it out? I believe the analogy holds.

Can we stop the flow of illegal aliens completely? I wouldn’t bet on it, but we certainly can reduce the flow to a small trickle rather than a torrential flow, and a secure border is the best way to do it. I’m not guessing that a secure border would greatly reduce the flow because it has already been proved:

The San Diego Border Fence works:

  • Illegal alien apprehensions along the fenced region were reduced from over 202,000 in 1992 to approximately 9,000 in 2004. Further, it is estimated that the apprehensions vs. attempts ratio increased to over 90%;
  • Following the establishment of the San Diego Border Fence, crime rates in San Diego have fallen dramatically. According to the FBI Crime Index, crime in San Diego County dropped 47.3% between 1989 to 2000;
  • Vehicle drive-throughs in the region have fallen from between 6 to 10 per day before the construction of border infrastructure to only four drive-throughs in 2004, all of which were isolated in locations where secondary fencing is incomplete;
  • The fence has forced drug smugglers, who once crossed the San Diego border without contest, to focus their efforts of access through America’s ports of entry, significantly increasing the likelihood of discovery and seizure of illegal narcotics entering the U.S.

We have a broken pipe flowing into the U.S. Do you want to stop the flow first, or would you rather spend all your time, money and energy mopping up?

Both Republican and Democrat Senators have been working with White House Cabinet members on a new bill. As you read or hear about this bill, I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that it will almost universally be called an “immigration bill” by the mainstream media. Let’s admit here what it truly is — an illegal immigration bill.

Key senators in both parties announced agreement with the White House Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border.

The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S. A separate program would cover agricultural workers. New high-tech enforcement measures also would be instituted to verify that workers are here legally.

The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush’s Cabinet officers to produce a highly complex measure that carries heavy political consequences.

Interestingly enough, Republican Senator Arlen Specter stepped up to defend the bill — “It is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law.” In related news, the Senate Industrial Tools Committee defended their reclassification of shovels. “It is not a spade. This is a multi-use bladed implement.” The Senate then broke into subcommittees to prove black was white and white was black.

Here’s how the news report explains this non-amnesty:

The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a “Z visa” and–after paying fees and a $5,000 fine–ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.

They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.

“Hola! I’m here in the U.S. illegally. Where can I get my amnesty?”

“It’s not amnesty. But here is your non-amnesty probationary card. And remember, this is not amnesty.”

“Ah, si! Of course this is not an amnesty card. The word amnesty has been crossed out and probationary written over it. Gracias for clearing that up.”

Try this on for size — how about we actually put real border security in place? And while that is happening, announce that anyone found in the U.S. illegally after a certain date will be deported to the nearest border and never granted a visa to return. On a second offense, they get to spend some quality time in a pink jumpsuit with that sheriff in Arizona.

If you still think that this amnesty bill is a great idea, how about placing it in context? This bill is currently about 400 pages long. Here’s a picture showing how that stacks up next to the Holy Bible.

Have you noticed that there are some rude people in this world? I’m sure you have. Just interacting with people means you will occasionally run into folks who are less than nice. If we judge manners solely by comments made online, the Internet is full of very rude people indeed. The question then is, why are they so rude? Are anonymous people just plain rude because they feel divorced from the other person, or are they just jerks?

As I see it, the more we feel removed from others, the fewer social pressures exist to be nice. I’ve been playing Lord of the Rings Online, and while most people are nice to each other, there have been the occasional jerks. I prefer to believe they are nicer in person.

But not everyone is nice in person. While we were standing in line to enter the Haunted Mansion at Disneyland last year, about a dozen preteen kids rudely pushed their way past us in line. Each one was wearing a T-shirt announcing that they were part of the Colegio Americano de Mexicali. I can understand how anxious kids are to get in fast, but the really surprising rudeness came a few seconds letter when, I assume, a teacher from the Colegio elbowed her way past us. She didn’t say “Excuse me” or even “Con permiso“. She just muscled her way past us to join the rest of the kids who had cut ahead in line. And she wasn’t there to haul their line-cutting butts back to the end of the line, either; she simply moved along with them. Perhaps this group thought everyone in the crowd would give them a pass because they were visitors from out of the country, or perhaps they believed their rudeness didn’t matter because they were just a few more anonymous faces in a crowd, but their T-shirts proclaimed who they were, and so they demonstrated to everyone in that line the rudeness and boorish behavior of everyone from the Colegio Americano de Mexicali. I wonder, was that the message they really wanted to give people in Disneyland?

Cultures have different ideas about forming lines to wait for something. The U.S. is pretty good about forming lines, and the Brits do a great job of queuing up in an orderly fashion. But Russians and Indians tend to just push their way forward. If I were a psychologist, I’d suggest they push their way forward because they lack faith that anything will be there for them when they get to the front of the line, or perhaps they view themselves as being entitled to anything they want just because of who they are. Such people might consider themselves too important to have to wait in line. But how does that affect the people who wait patiently in line? They’re probably about as happy as I was when the obnoxious Colegio kids pushed past me in Disneyland.

Incidentally, how do you think our legal immigrants view the illegal immigrants who are rudely pushing their way into the country?

The Dallas suburb voters of Farmers Branch have voted by a super majority to crack down on illegal immigrants renting in their town. Based on the AP News article, exceptions are made for “minors, seniors and some families with a mix of legal residents and illegal immigrants.”

And of course there is opposition to this ban.

The city was already facing four lawsuits brought by civil rights groups, residents, property owners and businesses who contend the ordinance discriminates and that it places landlords in the precarious position of acting as federal immigration officers. Their attorneys say the ordinance attempts to regulate immigration, a duty that is exclusively the federal government’s. One lawsuit also alleges the council violated the state open meetings act when deciding on the ordinance.

It’s true that it discriminates — it discriminates against people here illegally, just like anti-murder laws discriminate against murderers. The attorneys who say the ordinance is regulating immigration should be given a dictionary with the entry for illegal highlighted so the attorneys can remember to use it in the phrase “illegal immigration.” I can agree that the ordinance would put a burden on landlords, but companies already work under the same requirement of determining their employees’ citizenship or immigrant status.

And here’s a lovely picture and caption that goes along with the AP News article.

Protesting for Illegal Immigration

Natalie Villafranca, 6, left, holds a flag as her mother, Elizabeth Villafranca, holds a sign in front of city hall in Farmers Branch, Texas in this Aug. 26, 2006 file photo. Residents of Farmers Branch cast ballots Saturday, May 12, 2007 on whether to repeal or approve a ban on landlords renting apartments to most illegal immigrants in their Dallas suburb, the nation’s first municipality to put the matter to a vote.

I can answer Elizabeth Villafranca easily — the city is racist only if the ordinance applies just to illegal immigrants from one race. But if the ordinance addresses illegal immigrants only, then it is color-blind, and Farmers Branch is not racist.

I applaud the efforts of the people and city council of Farmers Branch, and I would like to see more cities to work against illegal immigration rather than being sactuary cities. And while we are working to clean up inside the nation, how about we actually secure our borders?

Today is May 1st, 2007, commonly called “May Day.” Socialists and Communists celebrate the day as “Labor Day” and mouth platitudes about the working class, but gone are the days of of Soviet soldiers and war machines parading through Red Square in Moscow, and good riddance. But neither May Day nor Labor Day are official American celebrations on this day. Here it is “Loyalty Day,” and it is an appropriate day for Americans to fly the flag as a show of loyalty to these United States.

And how are people showing their loyalty? Why, by marching for illegal aliens, of course!

Thomas Rodriguez, of Aurora, stood in Union Park wearing a shirt that said: “We are hard workers. We’re not criminals.”

The 38-year-old has had no legal status since he came to the United States from Mexico in 1989 and is an employee at a Japanese restaurant in Chicago.

“Recent raids have worried me,” he said. “We worry deportations are leaving too many young people without parents.”

Oh, where to begin? Well, first, if you come to the States illegally, then that–by definition–makes you a criminal. The phrase I’m looking for here is “Duh!” Rodriguez is worried about being deported, which is nice and all, but that’s a bit like a habitual speeder worrying about getting a speeding ticket. Every job where I’ve ever worked has required me to provide either proof of U.S. citizenship or a valid green card. Since Rodriguez came to the U.S. illegally, he does not and cannot have valid documentation to work here or to remain here. Either he has obtained fake documents–which is illegal–or he is being paid “under the table” in cash and not paying any taxes on his earnings–which is, all together now, illegal. But he’s no criminal! His T-shirt says so.

“Most of the undocumented people come here as a necessity of survival,” said Rosendo Delgado, of Latinos United, one of the groups organizing the march. “For them, it’s the only choice.”

It’s funny, but during the years I lived in Mexico, I don’t recall stepping over the bodies of people who just couldn’t survive there. There are many wonderful, hard-working people in Mexico who are surviving just fine, regardless of what Delgado says. As I see it, it’s not the promise of America that draws illegal aliens as much as it is the promise of American dollars. A minimum wage job in the U.S. offers about ten times the salary of a similar minimum wage job in Mexico. If an illegal alien obtains such a job and sends back to Mexico only half of his or her yearly earnings, that sum is the equivalent of five years’ worth of wages in Mexico. And they can send even more money home if they have better-paying jobs, such as construction or working in a Japanese restaurant in Chicago. The Mexican government has no impetus to stop its citizens from heading to the U.S. illegally, because so much money comes back to them. I remember hearing that money sent from the States has surpassed even oil revenues as the top source of income for Mexico, but whether it’s in first or second place, that’s a pile of money.

But Delgado is wrong in his assertion that heading for the States is a Mexican national’s only choice. As I see it, there are at least four choices, but people like Rodriguez and Delgado, and millions like them, want all the benefits of being legal residents without messing with that annoying requirement of actually obeying the law.

You’ll hear people talk about “May Day” today, but every time I hear that, I think of “mayday,” the call of distress, because our nation is being invaded by people who don’t bother to obey the law.

I believe that a good strong fence between both the U.S./Canada and U.S./Mexico borders would be a good thing. I see this as being the same, but on a grander scale, as putting a fence around your own yard. I don’t hate my neighbors, but I do like my privacy, and I don’t want people wandering around my yard just for the fun of it. I recently noticed that wasps had created some paper nests under the eaves of my roof, so I picked up a can of Wasp-Be-Dead and sprayed them. And since there was plenty left in the can, I wandered over to my neighbor, an elderly lady, and asked if I could check for wasp nests around her home. Yes, I’m just that nice. Besides, I like doing whatever I can to help her, and she has no problem with asking me for help when she needs heavy or tall things moved. But even though I have a good relationship with my neighbor, I would not consider wandering through her yard without asking permission first. That’s just being polite.

But illegal immigrants who cross over our borders are being worse than impolite, and they know it. That is why there are problems on the southern border. As part of a plan to stem the flood of illegal aliens crossing our southern border, Congress has passed a bill calling for 700 miles of fence to be built. This bill is waiting for President Bush to sign it, and I hope he does. But not everyone wants President Bush to sign the bill and start the building of the wall. Specifically, Mexico doesn’t want the wall to be built:

Mexico’s foreign secretary said Monday the country may take a dispute over U.S. plans to build a fence on the Mexican border to the United Nations.

Luis Ernesto Derbez told reporters in Paris, his first stop on a European tour, that a legal investigation was under way to determine whether Mexico has a case.

The Mexican government last week sent a diplomatic note to Washington criticizing the plan for 700 miles of new fencing along the border. President-elect Felipe Calderon also denounced the plan, but said it was a bilateral issue that should not be put before the international community.

A legal investigation to see whether Mexico has a case to stop our fence? The hell?!? This isn’t a matter of someone violating a mutually-signed community homeowners’ covenant banning fences, this is a matter of the United States limiting the illegal entrance of lawbreakers into its own country, and the United Nations be damned.

While I like much of what Warren Meyer of Coyote Blog writes, I have to disagree with his view that there is no difference between the Berlin Wall and a fence on our southern border. There is a difference — the one is designed to keep people in, while the other is to keep people out. The Berlin Wall kept people in East Germany against their will, much as a prison fence does to the inmates inside. But the proposed border fence is designed to keep people out, much like the fence around your property. And other than a difference of scale, is there any other difference between the border fence and the fence around your own home? I can’t think of one.

Drudge linked to a very interesting article in The Washington Times today talking about how the House has passed a bill requiring that voters show photo ID to vote by 2008 and provide proof of citizenship by 2010. Ignoring the eight House members who didn’t vote, only four Democrats supported this bill. All the rest of the Democrats, plus 3 Republicans and the lone “independent” (read Socialist), Bernie Sanders, voted against the bill.

The so-called “Voter ID” bill, aimed at stamping out voter fraud, would require voters in federal elections to provide picture identification by 2008 and provide proof of U.S. citizenship by 2010. It was among the recommendations made last year by the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, a Republican.

“Effective voter registration and voter identification are bedrocks of a modern election system,” they wrote in their final report.

But Democrats, siding with groups that work on behalf of minorities and illegal aliens, called the bill a “modern-day poll tax” and said it would place an insurmountable burden on voters and infringe upon their voting rights.

Did you catch the part I bolded? Democrats are siding with people who work on behalf of illegal aliens, saying that this bill will infringe on their voting rights. Let me make this abundantly clear: Illegal aliens do NOT have voting rights! What part of “ILLEGAL” do these Democrats have a problem comprehending? It’s clear that all but three of the Republicans understand this concept.

Rep. Brian Bilbray, California Republican, countered that the real infringement upon voting rights would be allowing fraudulent votes by the dead or illegal “to cancel out legitimate votes.”

Need more proof that Democrats are unwilling to accept that voter fraud is a problem? Glad you asked.

Democrats, who have long demanded reforms to the federal voting process, [But are completely unwilling to actually do anything about it - CM] yesterday dismissed Republican concerns about voter fraud.

“Show me the examples of the problem you’re trying to solve,” demanded Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat who accused Republicans of trying to appeal to the “fear and — yes, perhaps — the prejudices of people.”

A Republican cited a study by Johns Hopkins University that found 1,500 dead people who had voted in recent elections. Mr. Hoyer belittled the study, saying no criminal convictions for voter fraud had been won in any of those cases.

Mr. Bilbray pointed out that such convictions might be obtained if proper identification were required.

“Voter fraud is not something you can come back to after the fraud is committed,” he said. “The person who voted for those dead people is long gone by the time it comes up on the record.”

I’ve written before about voter fraud and what I’d like to see done to combat it. Photo ID is a good step, and proof of U.S. citizenship is absolutely necessary, but there are other steps we can take to protect our votes and the voting process. Yet Democrats are opposing even the most basic steps. But the reason why they oppose it is not hard to understand.

Democrats are clearly in favor of illegal aliens voting and other forms of voter fraud, because they believe it serves their interests.