in shirtan is had this question and said it is, at that time, permissible to consider an immigrant unlawfully in the kupts as an employee under the labor relations act. in part 2b of the opinion, you have to read part 2b of the opinion of the supreme court's opinion. if you read part 2b, the court then goes on to say, and because the immigration laws do not prohibit employment of people unlawfully in the country. it makes clear, the supreme court makes clear this is when it's being considered in congress in '84. the court makes clear as i read part 2b, and i think i'm correct on this, that if the immigration laws did prohibit employment of someone here unlawfully in the country, then that would also mean that they can't vote in the union election. so what i was doing there, senator, all about precedent. i read that and my opinion, if you look at the dissenting opinion. i really parsed this carefully