Что вы думаете про новый иммиграционный закон в Аризоне?

[Натан Мэвэ]

I like when liberals complain about the fact that this law has a "potential for abuse". Especially this is interesting coming from people who haven't even read it. Geniuses like Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder.
HELLO!!!!! Earth to liberals. ANY law has a "potential for abuse".

[Натан Мэвэ]

I like when liberals complain about the fact that this law has a "potential for abuse". Especially this is interesting coming from people who haven't even read it. Geniuses like Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder.
HELLO!!!!! Earth to liberals. ANY law has a "potential for abuse".

[татьяна фкумк]

согласна, натан. например, никто не возмущается когда полиция может запросто остановить дорогую машину с подростком за рулем. и без всяких конкретных поводов.
но самое большое лицемерие, когда возмущается мексиканский президент.

[Мария]

Duh:-|
Нормальный закон, ничего особенного. *70% американцев поддерживает его. *Уже есть такой же федеральный закон.

[Галя]

На днях Президент Мексики по приглашению Обамы прибыл в Вашингтон. Главной темой их беседы стала проблема иммиграции. Отправляясь в США, Кальдерон намеревался добиться пересмотра принятого в Аризоне закона.
Губернатор Аризоны, штата, расположенного на границе с Мексикой, в конце апреля подписал беспрецедентно жесткий закон против нелегальной иммиграции, по которому полицейские смогут проверять документы у людей, которые, по их мнению, могут находиться на территории США нелегально. Отсутствие документов станет поводом к задержанию и последующей депортации.

(sr) *Президент страны, из которой массово сваливают собственные граждане, еще и возмущается тем, что их нелюбезно принимают. Дурдом. Интересно, скоро ли Россия начнет заботиться о своих нелегалах, например, в Нью-Йорке.

[Wagner]

Galya, that is unbelievable!!!

What gets me is that people who oppose the law seem to completely overlook what the word "illegal" means. If you are doing anything at all that is illegal why would you be surprised that you are being stoped by cops?

The thing is that this is not that new of a law, in Florida the cops can stop you and check your residence documents now.

How is the law controlling something that is already illegal can be so controversial?

[Лина]

What gets me is that people who oppose the law seem to completelyoverlook what the word "illegal" means. If you are doing anything atall that is illegal why would you be surprised that you are beingstoped by cops?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
well, what gets me is that those who support the law fail to realise that the original version (not sure about the revised one) doesn't mention illegal conduct, and is intentionally vague about the nature of "lawful contact".

[Лина]

New Jersey also has a law that requires law enforcement officers to inquire about the immigration status of anyone arrested (or suspected) of a serious crime - including drunk driving, I believe. I don't have a problem with that law... just wonder why Arizona chose deliberately vague terminoligy.

[Мария]

***********.youtube.com/watch?v=O6qEQ-KnitQ&feature=player_embedd
This is great. A good message for those who did not read the law.(H)

[Гера Така]

For You!
Lazy "Progressive" thinkers -
Just read it !!!
It is 10 pages long, not 2000!!!

[Khramaya]

" If you are doing anything at all that is illegal why would you be surprised that you are being stoped by cops"
- Renata, the point those people are making is that cops will stop people randomly - you, me, Gera, Lina, Oleg....And we do have accents and do not carry our passports with us, do we? I, for one, might look quite like your average middle class Mexican mamasita , and some overzealous cops might go overboard on a bad day....that's the point. I am actually not opposed to law inquiring about immigration status . It needs to be worded very clearly, though.

[Mihail]

Вот, как перевести, так чтоб и смысл, и колорит сохранились:
Лицо кавказской национальности
или
Бьют по морде, а не по паспорту?
Или это не по теме?

[Mike]

i have been stopped before with a roadblock ( i don't even know how those things are legal ).
this was in the state of NY.
cop inquired about my citizenship status among other things..

[Светлана Гэмм]

- Renata, the point those people are making is that cops will stop people randomly - you, me, Gera, Lina, Oleg....And we do have accents and do not carry our passports with us, do we?
all you need is your driver's license..if anything, those who are legal residents and not citizens are given easier standards, they don't need to show their green card if they have a driver's license, and it'll eliminate the reasonable suspicion they are here illegally..
I was stopped three times in my life.. the last time I didn't even have my driver's license (a really rare occasion).. no one questioned my citizenship status since he was able to pull that info from my car's license plates..he only gave a ticket for not having my driver's license (which I was able to appeal in court by bringing my driver's license there).. the first two times I wasn't even given a ticket for speeding..:-$

[татьяна фкум]

давайте быть честными с собой. мы все всегда носим при себе либо водительские права либо хотя бы карточку мед. страховки. этого достаточно, чтобы определить наш легальный статус. и потом не знаю как в аризоне или в нй, но в калифорнии очень легко невооруженным взглядом отличить нелегалов от легалов. нелегалы делают все,чтобы казаться невидимыми в повседневной жизни. и это заметно.

[Светлана Гэмм]

and btw, there is always legal remedies for those "overzealous" cops who abuse power and exceed their authority.. you can always sue..(ch)

[Мария]

It's not crystal clear only to blind Obamabots: the new Arizona law is perfectly fine, and prohibits racial profiling. Obama is using the ignorance of majority of his supporters to divide and conquer and nation. Obama is evil. He wants to smear the governor of Arizona, the peole of Arizona, and the law for his own political gain.
Obama is evil... So, I said it.

[Лина]

This is great. A good message for those who did not read the law.(H)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
rather than relying on others interpertation of it, I suggest you take your own advice and read the damn law

[Лина]

all you need is your driver's license..
---------------------------------------------------
correction, all you need is an Arizona driver's license - I'm not sure if the local police can verify out of state information.

[Лина]

t's not crystal clear only to blind Obamabots: the new Arizona law is perfectly fine, and prohibits racial profiling.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I repeat:read the damn law!
"A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."
what exactly is this extent?

[Лина]

For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
in other words, you are stopped at a sobriety checkpoint (lawful stop), you say: "good evening officer" -in your thick Russian accent- thus giving the police officer reasonable suspicion to haul you in for questioning.

[Светлана Гэмм]

here - I found something very relevant..
Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005), was a unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows
1. detention of a search subject in handcuffs while a search is being conducted,
2. and that it does not require officers to have an independent reasonable suspicion before questioning a subject about their immigration status.
and the Arizona law DOES require the cops to have reasonable suspicion.. so if anything, it's stricter than the federal law..

[Лина]

Respondent Mena and others were detained in handcuffs during a search of the premises they occupied. Petitioners were lead members of a police detachment executing a search warrant of these premises for, inter alia, deadly weapons and evidence of gang membership.

[Лина]

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows
1. detention of a search subject in handcuffs while a search is being conducted,
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mena’s detention in handcuffs for the length of the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. That detention is consistent with Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705, in which the Court held that officers executing a search warrant for contraband have the authority “to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.” The Court there noted that minimizing the risk of harm to officers is a substantial justification for detaining an occupant during a search,

[Лина]

2. and that it does not require officers to have an independent reasonable suspicion before questioning a subject about their immigration status.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Because Mena’s initial detention was lawful and the Ninth Circuit did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning

[Светлана Гэмм]

the legality of questioning someone's immigration status was in the court decision regardless of the circumstances.. and that's what the Court concluded -

***********.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1423.ZS.html

[Светлана Гэмм]

2. Theofficers’ questioning of Mena about her immigration statusduring her detention did not violate her Fourth Amendmentrights. The Ninth Circuit’s holding to the contraryappears premised on the assumption that the officers wererequired to have independent reasonable suspicion in order toso question Mena. However, this Court has “heldrepeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute aseizure.” Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434. Because Mena’s initial detention was lawful and the NinthCircuit did not hold that the detention was prolonged by thequestioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaningof the FourthAmendment, and, therefore, no additional Fourth Amendmentjustification for inquiring about Mena’s immigrationstatus was required. Cf. Illinois v. Caballes,543 U.S. ___ , ___ (slip op., at 2—4). Pp. 7—8.

[Лина]

the legality of questioning someone's immigration status was in the court decision regardless of the circumstances..
------------------------------------------------------------------
stop interpreting the law. "Because Mena’s initial detention was lawful and the NinthCircuit didnot hold that the detention was prolonged by thequestioning,"

"officers executing a search warrantfor contraband have the authority “to detain the occupants of thepremises while a proper search is conducted.”
meaning they couldn't have detained them withpout a warrant.
and only "Because Mena’s initial detention waslawful and the Ninth Circuit did not hold that the detention wasprolonged by the questioning there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and, therefore, no additional Fourth Amendment justification for inquiring about Mena’s immigration status was required."

[Лина]

3. Because the Ninth Circuit did not address Mena’s alternative argument that her detention extended beyond the time the police completed the tasks incident to the search, this Court declines to address it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
that actually might have been a violation of Mena's Fourth Amendment rights, but since it was never addressed by the Ninth Circuit Court, the Supreme Court declined to address it as well.

[Лина]

and nowhere does is state: "regardless of the circumstances."
if anything, there had to be a warrant, the suspects had to be legally detained, and their detention (including the questions concerning their immigration starus) shouldn't have extended beyond the time it took to search the premises - although it did in this case.

[Светлана Гэмм]

let's try again - when the court says "the questioning of the immigration status didn't violate of the 4th amendment because it was not an independent seizure" - translation: an officer doesn't need a reasonable suspicion to question anyone's immigration status - questioning is not a seizure..

[Лина]

yes, lets try this again. where exactly does the court say that? please reference the actual case, and not someones misinterpretation of it.
the court doesn't say:"the questioning of the immigration status didn't violate of the 4th amendment because it was not an independent seizure", what it does say: "Because Mena’s initial detention was lawful "(they had a warrant to search the property) "and the NinthCircuit did not hold that the detention was prolonged by thequestioning," (the questioning did not extend beyong the time it took to conduct the search) "there was no additional seizure within the meaningof the FourthAmendment, and, therefore, no additional Fourth Amendmentjustification for inquiring about Mena’s immigrationstatus was required."

[Лина]

do yourself a favor, read the case (including Florida v. Bostick, while you're at it), and then try interpretating it.

[Светлана Гэмм]

The Court of Appeals also determined that the officers violated Mena's Fourth Amendment rights by questioning her about her immigration status during the detention. 332 F.3d, at 1264-1266. This holding, it appears, was premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to question Mena concerning her immigration status because the questioning 101*101 constituted a discrete Fourth Amendment event. But the premise is faulty. We have "held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991); see also INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 212 (1984). "[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification;

[Светлана Гэмм]

and request consent to search his or her luggage." Bostick, supra, at 434-435 (citations omitted). As the Court of Appeals did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.
********scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7971847631731056703&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

[Лина]

We have "held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991); see also INS v. Delgado,466 U.S. 210, 212 (1984). "[E]ven when officers have no basis forsuspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions ofthat individual; ask to examine the individual's identification;
--------------------------------------------------------------
yes, but Florida v. Bostick held that even though officers were free to ask, the individual had to feel free to refuse to answer and leave. it was not enough for him to be free to refuse, he also had to feel that he was free to do so.

[Лина]

FLORIDA v. BOSTICK
"The more appropriate inquiry is whether a reasonable passenger wouldfeel free to decline the officers' request or otherwise terminate theencounter. Thus, this case is analytically indistinguishable from INS v. Delgado,supra. There, no seizure occurred when INS agents visited factories atrandom, stationing some agents at exits while others questionedworkers, because, even though workers were not free to leave withoutbeing questioned, the agents' conduct gave them no reason to believethat they would be detained if they answered truthfully or refused toanswer. Such a refusal, alone, does not furnish the minimal level ofobjective justification needed for detention or seizure."

[Светлана Гэмм]

overruled.. argumentative :-) .. the Arizona law REQUIRES reasonable suspicion.. so all the other arguments and cases are irrelevant here..

[Лина]

there was no additionalseizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officersdid not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date andplace of birth, or immigration status.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
because she was already being legally detained. they had a warrant to search the premises, had the right to cuff her to secure their safety, and to ask her questions only because she was already legally "seized. they didn't need reasonable suspicion because she was already being suspected of a crime - hence the warrant.

[Лина]

you are absolutely cluless when it comes to law, take a law class and then we'll talk.

[Лина]

the Arizona law REQUIRES reasonable suspicion..
-----------------------------------------------------------------
reasonable suspicion of what?? not that a crime is being commited - as is the case in NJ law.
so all the other arguments and cases are irrelevant here..
--------------------------------------------------------------------
is that why you kept citing them? or are they now irrelevant because they don't help you prove your point - because you don't have one.

[Светлана Гэмм]

really?? if an officer has a reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of the immigration law, there is no crime that has been committed??(dt) cluelessful, ты наша..:-D where did you take your law classes? just want to know, so I don't mistakenly take them there.. :-) if it was up to you, we would be living in a lawless state where no one can uphold any laws with criminals running around..and only laws that regulate our private lives and increase taxes are passed..

[Лина]

really?? if an officer has a reasonable suspicion to believe the personis in violation of the immigration law, there is no crime that has been committed??
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
a crime in what sense? is it a felony, a misdemeanor or just violation? and what exactly is this reasonable suspicion based on? the fact that one looks Hispanic, or that they look poor, or don't speak English? unless the person is seen crossing the border, I don't see any valid cause for reasonable suspicion to arise.

[Лина]

Many police officers in New Jersey are misusing a 2007 directive by the state’s attorney general by questioning the immigration status of Latino drivers, passengers, pedestrians and even crime victims, reporting them to federal immigration authorities and jailing some for days without criminal charges, according to a Seton Hall Law School study.

“The data suggests a disturbing trend towards racial profiling by the New Jersey police,” said Bassina Farbenblum, a lawyer with the law school’s Center for Social Justice, which gathered details of 68 cases over the past nine months in which people were questioned about their immigration status for no apparent reason, or after minor infractions, like rolling through a stop sign. None involved drunken driving or the use of false documents.

[Лина]

In one case it cited, police officers questioned a man at the Camden train station after asking to see his ticket. Unable to show one, he was arrested and held for seven days before being turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Elsewhere, another man was transferred to immigration agents after being held for four months, cited only for driving without a license. And a woman who showed her Argentine license at a “car checkpoint” was detained, then turned over to federal immigration agents even though a judge told her there were no charges against her.

The New Jersey directive ordered the police to inquire about immigration status when arresting someone for an indictable crime or for driving while intoxicated. The directive is silent on lesser offenses, but forbids the authorities from questioning the victims or witnesses of crime about their immigration status.

[Лина]

It also listed seven incidents in which Latinos who sought police help were questioned about their immigration status, in direct violation of the directive.

One woman told the center that she had called the police to her Plainfield home to protect her from domestic violence, but that they threatened to call the federal enforcement agency.

A man told of going to the Mount Holly police station to report that his passport had been lost, only to be detained for 16 days after police found some unpaid parking tickets, and turned over to immigration agents. The police in Mount Holly did not respond to questions about cases involving the directive.

[Лина]

Ms. Farbenblum said the cases in the report are “the tip of the iceberg,” since many noncitizens are reluctant to come forward or never see a lawyer, and the police are not required to report their questioning of immigrants in such cases. Police resources are being diverted from serious crime prevention, breaking down the trust necessary for effective policing in a state with the nation’s third highest immigrant population, the report contends.




In the first six months after the directive was issued, the police referred 10,000 people to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but only 1,417 of them were charged with immigration violations, government data shows. Many others were legal residents or United States citizens.

[Лина]

***********.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/nyregion/15immigration.html
so you really still don't see the potential for misuse and abuse in Arizona?

[Славик Саж]

Глеб, в Аризоне не дорого и свежий. Прямо с базы
Оh wait, we should be more sympathetic to illegal aliens undocumented foreign nationals

[Мария]

The only solution to Arizona problem, is to built the double fence on the border.

[ГАЛИНА МЮТО]

Arizona Immigration Law will have a "dominoeffect" on all other states. Now Pennsylvania and other states are consideringsimilar judicial act. 70% of Americans are in support of this law. Our Federalgovernment ignored the problem for long enough to make the local government toaddress this issue.

[Khramaya]

"The only solution to Arizona problem, is to built the double fence on the border. "
yep, and Maria will volunteer to guard a designated portion of it.:-D
Oh, you know what they should do: have those little name plates like they have in Opera theaters "This portion of the fence is donated to the USA citizens by Dr and Mrs ...and Maria ( last name)" :-D

[Гера Така]

Julia,
Surely, it is better for everyone to have it wide open for Bob, Dick and Harry... or sorry - Pedro, Diego and Alehandro to just waltz into the old good US of A.

[Khramaya]

Gera - totally agree with you!
My added touch is just those who want to build the fence should just DO it ! And guard it , and have those little name plates commemorate them(H) . Isn't this in total line with the American spirit? Minimum Government involvement, power to the people!:-D
Stop talking, organize the troops, mix the cement....

[Светлана Гэмм]

actually people already are (doing it).. have your heard of Minuteman?.. or you want people from одноглазники to do it? (ch) .. most of us don't simply live on the broken border.. but we are still for a civilized society and want a responsible government that perform its primary function - secure its citizens..
I guess we should say the same things about people who want people to have access to affordable healthcare - just DO it! either pay for it or provide it..

[Mihail]

I don't quite get the point of new law. What? It was legal to stay in US illegally before? The "old" laws were not enforced. How would new law change the situation? States want to fight the illegal immigration themselfs? Are there enough resorces to fight the drug traffic and other crime? No, judging from the result of war on grugs. Result of war on illegals will be the same, for the same reason - there are not enough resources. Sounds like it is purely political move. If this move would force federal goverment to enforce existing laws...

[Светлана Гэмм]

the point of the new law is to fight the crime in the state of Arizona which is contributed to a large degree by illegal immigrants..so they want to give the tools to the local law enforcement give to identify them (illegals) and transfer them to the federal authority.. aslo the new law makes it a misdemanor to stay in the state illegally..
the world capital of kidnappings is Mexico city.. the second place goes to Phoenix..

[Mihail]

Would it be more efficient? To fight the illegal immigration first, then other crimes? The resources are limited. Especially at State level.
If the idea of law is to force federal goverment to act - it is reasonable. But to spend resources on arresting illegals, just because they are illegals - it is not efficient use of resources.
IMHO

[Khramaya]

"- just DO it! either pay for it or provide it.."
-actually, this is a good analogy.
Those of us who know to provide it or help people to get affordable care in many cases actually walk the talk - everyday.

[Wagner]

Actually I am not against opening the borders. But if we do that, then let that be done legally, with required paper work, English classes, taxing the immigrants, making them have the inoculation shots, etc. But as long as we have "illegal" immigrants, we should be able to enforce our laws. There is no other thing that is deemed illegal that anyone would oppose the police enforcement of, perhaps with the exception of some old sexual laws :-D

[Мария]

Oh, you know what they should do: have those little name plates likethey have in Opera theaters "This portion of the fence is donated tothe USA citizens by Dr and Mrs ...and Maria ( last name)
I've already donated to that important cause:-) So, the plate will follow soon(v)

[Мария]

The minutemen use my donations to patrol their border ... which is supposed to be protected by the federal government -one of the few direct responsibilities of the federal government ( rather than controlling what kind of toilet is used in our homes - low flush or normal flush). :-)

[Мария]

The cost of building the double wall along the whole border between Arizona and Mexico is only 5 billion dollars. Its' even less than Obama gave to Acorn.
So, money is not the issue - the big government ( dems or rinos) don't want to deal with the illegal immigration issue. Too hard politically for them, and most of them just want to be reelected.

[Мария]

Obama made a gesture of deciding to send to Arizona border 1200 border patrol agents ( after smearing the Arizona law) and now he demands that Republicans let him pass his amnesty bill swiftly. He is so smug, and repulsive.... I watched his most obnoxious presentation today. He just gets worse and worse in the way he talks. Some kind of incurable malignant narcissism. :-|
For comparison, Bush sent 6000 border patrol agents to the border. And even that is not enough.
The wall is the only real answer. ( with all the troops patroling it).

[гор С ротюк]

Чё это вы расписались по английски?:-D
Гнать их всех этих,мексиканосов в шею откюда вместе с Обамой!
Как суда приэджать они все хотят,а как язык учить и белого человека "Грингом" называть так это они мастера.
таже самая тема с нигерами(белого человека ненавижу),а к белой девушке подмастится и запустить ей мерзавца под хвостик,так это мечта жизни!
Ну що не правда?

[гор С ротюк]

Имел в виду нелегальных мексиканцев!
Я не расист-Обама радикал-что хочу то и делаю,какой умный нашолся я их легализую и они потом за меня голосовать будут.Они и так уже слишком много работ держут (мексиканцы),а коренных жителей увольняют,а то что они не любят Америку так это не секрет.И ещё говорит что это ихняя земля (была когда-то давно) и такое нести это уже не по американски(эму надо провериться,были бы это комунисты уже бы забили),американцы тоже красавцы (народ ничего не делает,називаеться,нам по барабану) с такой политекой можна лишь на короткий час( а страна опускаеться),а потом когда другого изберут,вы люди мастите себе голову.
Было бы такое на Украине,хохлы уже бы повстали, (надоели политики,всего мира,одни пустые люди,после окончания их политической жизни и сказать нечего про них)!(N)

[Лина]

Они и так уже слишком много работ держут (мексиканцы),а коренных жителей увольняют
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ya ne dumau chto korennie zhiteli xotyat viplonyat' rabotu kotorie delaut Mexicans - osobenno za te kopeiki kotorie im platyat.

[Лина]

И ещё говорит что это ихняя земля (была когда-то давно) и такое нести это уже не по американски
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
po-moemu eto nikto ne otretzaet... a svoboda slova eto kak raz po Amerikanski

[гор С ротюк]

svoboda slova,eto tol'ko na slovah!y bednjaka nety slova!
kak raz i po amerikanski,prishol zabral zemlju,pochemy to oni ne izvejanjautsja pered Indeuzami ( za genozud kotoruy ystroili) i zemlu im toze ne otdajut.

[гор С ротюк]

skoro eti korennue zuteli bydyt delat' vse,esli ekonomika ne popravitsja,bezrabotiza ved'

[гор С ротюк]

Много уважаэмая Лина я не ищю с вами спора!
Мне кажеться что американцы не думают в вперёд,свобода слова сейчас у Обамы(только у него),другие политики сегодня одно,завтра другое (со словом дискриминация,не хотят быть связаны)так что слова у них нету и надо быть осторожными.
Мексиканци по численности велики в США,введения второго языка(испанского) и дальнейший навал латиносов! В будущем может превести к конфликту(разпаду США на две части)!
Я точно не знаю,время покажет!