7 ms·

There is no reasonable method to have a travel ban within the United States short of isolating regions by military force. At the individual level the only guara

There is no reasonable method to have a travel ban within the United States short of isolating regions by military force. At the individual level the only guarantee is imprisonment which is the not so nice way of saying you cannot leave this facility. This still requires people to volunteer to be tested! Voluntary travel bans are only as good as the person applied to, especially in an age where self entitlement is near an all time high. Then throw in the malcontents who will just expose people for whatever irrational reason they want. Even if we could test at point of departure what does that gain us? Say you could test at the Airport, you are positive, does the tester get taken off the line, how many people before and after? Everyone on that concourse?

jbay808 7y ago
If they closed airports and put up some checkpoints on the interstate to only allow select traffic through, I imagine that would cut travel pretty dramatically. In fact, all you really need to do to bring all car traffic to a halt is start a traffic jam. Of course, then healthy people couldn't travel either. But that was the case in Wuhan.
- protomyth 7y ago
  If they closed airports and put up some checkpoints on the interstate to only allow select traffic through, I imagine that would cut travel pretty dramatically. Courts tend to believe that the Privileges and Immunities Clause gives a constitutional right to travel between states. It would be a big hairy mess. In fiction, Tom Clancy explored it in Executive Orders.
  - the-pigeon 7y ago
    But Commerce Clause let's the Federal Government lock down travel between states. This hasn't been tested in the courts but it is what the Federal Government believes. source: https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin...
    - SllX 7y ago
      The Commerce Clause is essentially the catch-all for Congressional authority within the enumerated powers for doing the thing they want to do which has not been enumerated to them. This kind of law would have to be tested.
    - MockObject 7y ago
      Given that the Commerce Clause "allows" the Congress to regulate even intrastate (or intrahousehold[0] !!) commerce, I'm sure it can be found to allow regulation of intrastate travel. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
  - Seenso 7y ago
    > If they closed airports and put up some checkpoints on the interstate to only allow select traffic through, I imagine that would cut travel pretty dramatically. > Courts tend to believe that the Privileges and Immunities Clause gives a constitutional right to travel between states. Interstate closures happen all the time for all kinds of reasons. If someone wants to unconditionally exercise their "constitutional right to travel between states" when epidemic control measures are in place, they can walk or swim.
    - SllX 7y ago
      Or just reroute off an interstate onto a different road between states, which is a lot more likely. Then somebody takes the whole thing to the courts, and the courts tell the Feds to knock it off and let people through because they are violating the law of the land.
      - Seenso 7y ago
        > Or just reroute off an interstate onto a different road between states, which is a lot more likely. If you're implementing a lockdown, you'd close more than just the interstates for that exact reason. At a minimum, you'd probably want manned checkpoints on the interstates, state highways, major county roads, and obvious choke points like bridges; and unmanned barriers on the minor roads. > Then somebody takes the whole thing to the courts, and the courts tell the Feds to knock it off and let people through because they are violating the law of the land. I'm skeptical that the courts would act as you assume when "the public Safety may require it." Also, who says "the feds" have to implement it? It's my understanding that state authorities have broad powers to combat epidemics, too. They're also the ones with the manpower to implement lockdowns.
        chimeracoder 7y ago
        > Also, who says "the feds" have to implement it? It's my understanding that state authorities have broad powers to combat epidemics, too. They're also the ones with the manpower to implement lockdowns. The authority to restrict travel into a state (from an adjacent state) unambiguously lies with the federal government, under even the narrowest possible interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    I don't see how closing airports and highways would be a Constitutional issue. Of course curtailing travel wouldn't stop travel, but it would sure slow it down.
    - brewdad 7y ago
      If you want to travel, you can do so the way our Founding Fathers did. On horseback.
      - protomyth 7y ago
        If you want to communicate with others, you can do so the way our Founding Fathers did. In person or by written letter. The fundamental rights of a citizen are ideas above their implementation.
        maxerickson 7y ago
        Airports and highways are both heavily regulated, so just asserting that you have fundamental rights to them is a pretty weak argument.
        protomyth 7y ago
        The US is based on the idea of fundamental rights being the first consideration. Regulation does not give the government the ability to violate those rights. I expect the only consideration for the court is the severity of the situation that would allow the government to temporarily suspend those rights on a massive scale.
    - jandrewrogers 7y ago
      It is a Constitutional issue because the court has consistently upheld that, as part of a right to freely travel, Americans cannot be deprived of use of the common means of travel of the day without due process. The kind of de facto prohibition on travel you are proposing has been attempted by the government several times in the past in a variety of contexts and the courts have never looked kindly upon it. The court views these "you can still freely travel, but you'll have to walk" style arguments from the government as a transparent attempt to deprive individuals of a well-established Constitutional right absent due process.
  - rsynnott 7y ago
    A right to travel between states, sure. But a right to do so on a particular road? Roads are closed all the time. As I understand it, the Italy "lockdown" isn't actually a case of "we will shoot you if you go there"; it's just making travel incredibly inconvenient. Given that we're probably too late for absolute containment, simply slowing the spread by 90% would be a huge gain, and might be possible through deliberately breaking the transport network.
    - C19is20 7y ago
      N italy resident: you are correct. I am free to move, i am not as free to go to milan (2hrs by car). I can walk where i want. Apparently, i am absolutely not able to travel to austria .
    - alasdair_ 7y ago
      The Italy lovkdown requires you to self-certify that the reason you need to move between regions is because of work, medical reasons or an “emergency”. You have to fill out a form to do so. Technically if you lie you can be fined or imprisoned for up to three months. There was a case yesterday of some girls lying about an emergency to go to Sardinia, then they bragged about lying on Instagram and, i believe, the police later arrested them for lying on the form.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    We also allow exceptional measures during bona fide emergencies, which this is. For example, the first amendment guarantees freedom of the press, but the press was heavily censored during WWII. Similarly, epidemics allow governments to do things they cannot otherwise do. It's all academic anyway. Once there are police checkpoints on major roads shutting them down, what are you gonna do? It could take years for a case to wind through the courts, by which time the epidemic is long over.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Indeed, that's fiction. Tom Clancy isn't on the supreme court. You can bet that if the Federal Government decides it they could stop interstate travel pdq no matter what the outrage. Fortunately fiction writers are not going to decide whether a continent suffers in some massive way or not.
    - protomyth 7y ago
      It is fiction, but the actual court cases its based on happened and I think the court will have a very tough decision if someone tries to shutdown interstate travel. There is a lot of case law already decided. I doubt its actually possible on a practical level in the US.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        I don't think that will fly. Emergencies trump the law. Hence the term 'emergency powers'. It is an illusion to think that given the choice of upholding old law that was not made with those circumstances in mind or letting a bunch of people die needlessly that the law would prevail unchanged. What will happen is that the law will pending the emergency be rescinded and re-instated afterwards. Judges aren't stupid, nor are they robots.
        jandrewrogers 7y ago
        It absolutely will fly. There are centuries of Supreme Court precedent on this very topic in the US, sometimes under difficult circumstances. Some rights cannot be circumscribed under any circumstances regardless of consequences except in very narrow ways, there are no exceptions for emergencies. The right to travel freely within the US is recognized as one such right. That's like telling Americans that we'll temporarily ban free speech or ban guns -- it isn't negotiable to a large portion of the population and, furthermore, States have considerable power to make any such bans unenforceable. The few historical examples where the courts let enforcement of elementary rights slide for a bit due to "emergency" are almost universally national embarrassments because of the abuses that followed. Judges aren't keen to be named and shamed as one of those people that let that happen for the sake of expediency. Maybe in other countries but not in the US. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of how individual rights work in the US.
  - OJFord 7y ago
    I'm not American, so forgive a question informed only by Hollywood - it seems circumstances can relieve you of constitutional rights, such as someone on parole being required to stay in the state, or age or criminal history precluding you from the right to bear arms?
    - cafard 7y ago
      In general, conviction of a felony will deprive you of the right to bear arms. In many states, it will deprive you of the right to vote, though this is changing. And, yes, age makes a difference--for voting, for signing contracts.
grey-area 7y ago
Travel bans stop the health services from being overwhelmed with cases by an exponential spread within the population. The aim is not to stop infections, it is to slow the rate of infection, and there are several stages to the response so at some point tracing and containment isn't practical, but it's useful initially.
- kmonsen 7y ago
  All true, it is also to buy time to develop medicine. Every month we can push the worst cases into the future the more likely we have an efficient response.
  - makmanalp 7y ago
    Also to spread out over time the amount of people needing medical help. Perhaps a city can't handle 10k new patients in a day but it could handle it over the course of 2 weeks.
- asjw 7y ago
  This is true in theory, but in Italy the virus arrived from a single German, and has spread through family contacts in a small province near Milan In theory Milan should be the city with more infected people (in proportion) due to the high number of travelers and residents, it is not Infection has spread brevi manu, travel bans have been implemented only starting from last Sunday (8th of March)
- munificent 7y ago
  Social distancing and sanitary practices are hugely important for this. It's not clear to me that large-scale travel bans are particularly helpful. A travel ban is about containment — keeping the number of cases in a region at absolute zero. Social distancing and other local behavior changes are about lowering the rate of infection and slowing the spread of disease in an area where it exists. The latter is clearly important because it lowers the number of people who simultaneously need medical services in any particular area. A travel ban can help that if successful and it medical resources are easily shunted from a region with zero infections to a region that has them. But once you've got a single patient zero in a region, the travel ban is fairly close to pointless. The disease is going to start spreading locally anyway. At the same time, the economic effects of a travel ban do affect the daily lives of lots of people. So I think it's reasonable to focus mostly on local measures and slowing the spread.
steelframe 7y ago
> There is no reasonable method to have a travel ban within the United States short of isolating regions by military force. Then until we are able to develop and distribute a vaccine, perhaps this is the right course of action on a temporary basis. What is happening right now truly is extraordinary.
- alasdair_ 7y ago
  There is no way in hell I would trust Trump to use military force on US citizens due to an “emergency” And what do you do the first time someone drives around the checkpoint? Machine gun their car?
  - steelframe 7y ago
    Relax, it won't happen. Americans would rather see every single one of their relatives over the age of 80 die before they allow the government to forcibly lock down travel.
wayoutthere 7y ago
> Then throw in the malcontents who will just expose people for whatever irrational reason they want. I've heard some younger folks saying they want to spread coronavirus because it will kill off some of the old people who vote republican. So yeah, even if it's not happening some people do feel this way.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 7y ago
  Just curious - where have you heard this? In real life or online? If irl, would you mind sharing your locale? If only so that older folk can avoid it...
  - zaarn 7y ago
    Might be in a somewhat jokey fashion, at work I've already heard some jokes in the region of "corona will take care of the last-time voters" (Letztwähler, German word that inverts 'first-time voter')
  - grimjack00 7y ago
    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/candi-cdebaca-tweet-coronavirus/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/candi-cdebaca-tweet-corona...
- lukev 7y ago
  Sounds like you are mistaking gallows humor for sincere intent. I've heard the same jokes but I'm 100% sure none of the people making them actually intend to spread disease.
  - Natsu 7y ago
    I have heard the same things. I want to believe it's all internet bluster, but when I hear an angry group on r/politics talking about how they hope certain people will die, it doesn't sound very much like a joke, especially when you can go into the comment history of some of the people and find out that they have a long history of angry political comments.
  - 7y ago
CydeWeys 7y ago
It's easy enough to shut down all planes, trains, and busses, and then beyond that you just need to start putting checkpoints on the largest roads/highways/bridges. You can effectively shut down most long distance travel relatively easily.
dang 7y ago
(This subthread was originally a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22535953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22535953)
cafard 7y ago
Travel bans: In the days when I traveled for work, I would occasionally catch a train back to Washington, DC, from New York. I would see a bunch of guys in suits get off in Wilmington, Delaware. Had you asked me, I was traveling. Had you asked them, they were commuting. The commuter rail lines to Washington extend to Havre de Grace in the northeast and Spotsylvania in the south. Those are getting pretty close to Wilmington and Richmond commuter territory.
mzs 7y ago
Halt the sale of gasoline and public transit.
m0zg 7y ago
>> short of isolating regions by military force There are more guns in this country than there are people. The use of large scale "military force" against the population for any reason is, therefore, not a realistic proposition, by design.

jbay808 7y ago

If they closed airports and put up some checkpoints on the interstate to only allow select traffic through, I imagine that would cut travel pretty dramatically. In fact, all you really need to do to bring all car traffic to a halt is start a traffic jam. Of course, then healthy people couldn't travel either. But that was the case in Wuhan.

protomyth 7y ago
If they closed airports and put up some checkpoints on the interstate to only allow select traffic through, I imagine that would cut travel pretty dramatically. Courts tend to believe that the Privileges and Immunities Clause gives a constitutional right to travel between states. It would be a big hairy mess. In fiction, Tom Clancy explored it in Executive Orders.
- the-pigeon 7y ago
  But Commerce Clause let's the Federal Government lock down travel between states. This hasn't been tested in the courts but it is what the Federal Government believes. source: https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin...
  - SllX 7y ago
    The Commerce Clause is essentially the catch-all for Congressional authority within the enumerated powers for doing the thing they want to do which has not been enumerated to them. This kind of law would have to be tested.
  - MockObject 7y ago
    Given that the Commerce Clause "allows" the Congress to regulate even intrastate (or intrahousehold[0] !!) commerce, I'm sure it can be found to allow regulation of intrastate travel. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- Seenso 7y ago
  > If they closed airports and put up some checkpoints on the interstate to only allow select traffic through, I imagine that would cut travel pretty dramatically. > Courts tend to believe that the Privileges and Immunities Clause gives a constitutional right to travel between states. Interstate closures happen all the time for all kinds of reasons. If someone wants to unconditionally exercise their "constitutional right to travel between states" when epidemic control measures are in place, they can walk or swim.
  - SllX 7y ago
    Or just reroute off an interstate onto a different road between states, which is a lot more likely. Then somebody takes the whole thing to the courts, and the courts tell the Feds to knock it off and let people through because they are violating the law of the land.
    - Seenso 7y ago
      > Or just reroute off an interstate onto a different road between states, which is a lot more likely. If you're implementing a lockdown, you'd close more than just the interstates for that exact reason. At a minimum, you'd probably want manned checkpoints on the interstates, state highways, major county roads, and obvious choke points like bridges; and unmanned barriers on the minor roads. > Then somebody takes the whole thing to the courts, and the courts tell the Feds to knock it off and let people through because they are violating the law of the land. I'm skeptical that the courts would act as you assume when "the public Safety may require it." Also, who says "the feds" have to implement it? It's my understanding that state authorities have broad powers to combat epidemics, too. They're also the ones with the manpower to implement lockdowns.
      - chimeracoder 7y ago
        > Also, who says "the feds" have to implement it? It's my understanding that state authorities have broad powers to combat epidemics, too. They're also the ones with the manpower to implement lockdowns. The authority to restrict travel into a state (from an adjacent state) unambiguously lies with the federal government, under even the narrowest possible interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  I don't see how closing airports and highways would be a Constitutional issue. Of course curtailing travel wouldn't stop travel, but it would sure slow it down.
  - brewdad 7y ago
    If you want to travel, you can do so the way our Founding Fathers did. On horseback.
    - protomyth 7y ago
      If you want to communicate with others, you can do so the way our Founding Fathers did. In person or by written letter. The fundamental rights of a citizen are ideas above their implementation.
      - maxerickson 7y ago
        Airports and highways are both heavily regulated, so just asserting that you have fundamental rights to them is a pretty weak argument.
        protomyth 7y ago
        The US is based on the idea of fundamental rights being the first consideration. Regulation does not give the government the ability to violate those rights. I expect the only consideration for the court is the severity of the situation that would allow the government to temporarily suspend those rights on a massive scale.
  - jandrewrogers 7y ago
    It is a Constitutional issue because the court has consistently upheld that, as part of a right to freely travel, Americans cannot be deprived of use of the common means of travel of the day without due process. The kind of de facto prohibition on travel you are proposing has been attempted by the government several times in the past in a variety of contexts and the courts have never looked kindly upon it. The court views these "you can still freely travel, but you'll have to walk" style arguments from the government as a transparent attempt to deprive individuals of a well-established Constitutional right absent due process.
- rsynnott 7y ago
  A right to travel between states, sure. But a right to do so on a particular road? Roads are closed all the time. As I understand it, the Italy "lockdown" isn't actually a case of "we will shoot you if you go there"; it's just making travel incredibly inconvenient. Given that we're probably too late for absolute containment, simply slowing the spread by 90% would be a huge gain, and might be possible through deliberately breaking the transport network.
  - C19is20 7y ago
    N italy resident: you are correct. I am free to move, i am not as free to go to milan (2hrs by car). I can walk where i want. Apparently, i am absolutely not able to travel to austria .
  - alasdair_ 7y ago
    The Italy lovkdown requires you to self-certify that the reason you need to move between regions is because of work, medical reasons or an “emergency”. You have to fill out a form to do so. Technically if you lie you can be fined or imprisoned for up to three months. There was a case yesterday of some girls lying about an emergency to go to Sardinia, then they bragged about lying on Instagram and, i believe, the police later arrested them for lying on the form.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  We also allow exceptional measures during bona fide emergencies, which this is. For example, the first amendment guarantees freedom of the press, but the press was heavily censored during WWII. Similarly, epidemics allow governments to do things they cannot otherwise do. It's all academic anyway. Once there are police checkpoints on major roads shutting them down, what are you gonna do? It could take years for a case to wind through the courts, by which time the epidemic is long over.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Indeed, that's fiction. Tom Clancy isn't on the supreme court. You can bet that if the Federal Government decides it they could stop interstate travel pdq no matter what the outrage. Fortunately fiction writers are not going to decide whether a continent suffers in some massive way or not.
  - protomyth 7y ago
    It is fiction, but the actual court cases its based on happened and I think the court will have a very tough decision if someone tries to shutdown interstate travel. There is a lot of case law already decided. I doubt its actually possible on a practical level in the US.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      I don't think that will fly. Emergencies trump the law. Hence the term 'emergency powers'. It is an illusion to think that given the choice of upholding old law that was not made with those circumstances in mind or letting a bunch of people die needlessly that the law would prevail unchanged. What will happen is that the law will pending the emergency be rescinded and re-instated afterwards. Judges aren't stupid, nor are they robots.
      - jandrewrogers 7y ago
        It absolutely will fly. There are centuries of Supreme Court precedent on this very topic in the US, sometimes under difficult circumstances. Some rights cannot be circumscribed under any circumstances regardless of consequences except in very narrow ways, there are no exceptions for emergencies. The right to travel freely within the US is recognized as one such right. That's like telling Americans that we'll temporarily ban free speech or ban guns -- it isn't negotiable to a large portion of the population and, furthermore, States have considerable power to make any such bans unenforceable. The few historical examples where the courts let enforcement of elementary rights slide for a bit due to "emergency" are almost universally national embarrassments because of the abuses that followed. Judges aren't keen to be named and shamed as one of those people that let that happen for the sake of expediency. Maybe in other countries but not in the US. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of how individual rights work in the US.
- OJFord 7y ago
  I'm not American, so forgive a question informed only by Hollywood - it seems circumstances can relieve you of constitutional rights, such as someone on parole being required to stay in the state, or age or criminal history precluding you from the right to bear arms?
  - cafard 7y ago
    In general, conviction of a felony will deprive you of the right to bear arms. In many states, it will deprive you of the right to vote, though this is changing. And, yes, age makes a difference--for voting, for signing contracts.

grey-area 7y ago

Travel bans stop the health services from being overwhelmed with cases by an exponential spread within the population. The aim is not to stop infections, it is to slow the rate of infection, and there are several stages to the response so at some point tracing and containment isn't practical, but it's useful initially.

kmonsen 7y ago
All true, it is also to buy time to develop medicine. Every month we can push the worst cases into the future the more likely we have an efficient response.
- makmanalp 7y ago
  Also to spread out over time the amount of people needing medical help. Perhaps a city can't handle 10k new patients in a day but it could handle it over the course of 2 weeks.
asjw 7y ago
This is true in theory, but in Italy the virus arrived from a single German, and has spread through family contacts in a small province near Milan In theory Milan should be the city with more infected people (in proportion) due to the high number of travelers and residents, it is not Infection has spread brevi manu, travel bans have been implemented only starting from last Sunday (8th of March)
munificent 7y ago
Social distancing and sanitary practices are hugely important for this. It's not clear to me that large-scale travel bans are particularly helpful. A travel ban is about containment — keeping the number of cases in a region at absolute zero. Social distancing and other local behavior changes are about lowering the rate of infection and slowing the spread of disease in an area where it exists. The latter is clearly important because it lowers the number of people who simultaneously need medical services in any particular area. A travel ban can help that if successful and it medical resources are easily shunted from a region with zero infections to a region that has them. But once you've got a single patient zero in a region, the travel ban is fairly close to pointless. The disease is going to start spreading locally anyway. At the same time, the economic effects of a travel ban do affect the daily lives of lots of people. So I think it's reasonable to focus mostly on local measures and slowing the spread.

steelframe 7y ago

> There is no reasonable method to have a travel ban within the United States short of isolating regions by military force. Then until we are able to develop and distribute a vaccine, perhaps this is the right course of action on a temporary basis. What is happening right now truly is extraordinary.

alasdair_ 7y ago
There is no way in hell I would trust Trump to use military force on US citizens due to an “emergency” And what do you do the first time someone drives around the checkpoint? Machine gun their car?
- steelframe 7y ago
  Relax, it won't happen. Americans would rather see every single one of their relatives over the age of 80 die before they allow the government to forcibly lock down travel.

wayoutthere 7y ago

> Then throw in the malcontents who will just expose people for whatever irrational reason they want. I've heard some younger folks saying they want to spread coronavirus because it will kill off some of the old people who vote republican. So yeah, even if it's not happening some people do feel this way.

bitxbitxbitcoin 7y ago
Just curious - where have you heard this? In real life or online? If irl, would you mind sharing your locale? If only so that older folk can avoid it...
- zaarn 7y ago
  Might be in a somewhat jokey fashion, at work I've already heard some jokes in the region of "corona will take care of the last-time voters" (Letztwähler, German word that inverts 'first-time voter')
- grimjack00 7y ago
  https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/candi-cdebaca-tweet-coronavirus/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/candi-cdebaca-tweet-corona...
lukev 7y ago
Sounds like you are mistaking gallows humor for sincere intent. I've heard the same jokes but I'm 100% sure none of the people making them actually intend to spread disease.
- Natsu 7y ago
  I have heard the same things. I want to believe it's all internet bluster, but when I hear an angry group on r/politics talking about how they hope certain people will die, it doesn't sound very much like a joke, especially when you can go into the comment history of some of the people and find out that they have a long history of angry political comments.
- 7y ago

CydeWeys 7y ago

It's easy enough to shut down all planes, trains, and busses, and then beyond that you just need to start putting checkpoints on the largest roads/highways/bridges. You can effectively shut down most long distance travel relatively easily.

dang 7y ago

(This subthread was originally a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22535953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22535953)

cafard 7y ago

Travel bans: In the days when I traveled for work, I would occasionally catch a train back to Washington, DC, from New York. I would see a bunch of guys in suits get off in Wilmington, Delaware. Had you asked me, I was traveling. Had you asked them, they were commuting. The commuter rail lines to Washington extend to Havre de Grace in the northeast and Spotsylvania in the south. Those are getting pretty close to Wilmington and Richmond commuter territory.

mzs 7y ago

Halt the sale of gasoline and public transit.

m0zg 7y ago

>> short of isolating regions by military force There are more guns in this country than there are people. The use of large scale "military force" against the population for any reason is, therefore, not a realistic proposition, by design.