Over 500,000 Rally for Illegal Immigration in L.A.
The L.A. Times says that more than 500,000 people rallied in downtown L.A. today in protest of federal initiatives to crack down on illegal immigration. Click on the link and look at the picture. That’s a lot of people.
And you wonder why there is little political will to do anything about illegal immigration.
We’ve already lost the battle, folks.
UPDATE: A commenter chides me for accepting the L.A. Times estimate, but it claimed to be based on police estimates. Meanwhile, the San Jose Mercury News says it was over 200,000 people. Mickey Kaus agrees.
Why the left wants 12-15 million more criminals (and they are criminals, not illegals) in the U.S. is a mystery. Maybe when some of their family members need emergency care and die because the E.R. is overrun with criminals some will change their minds. It’s happening everyday across the country, but just not to the right people ‘yet’. Even ambulances delivering critical patients are being diverted for miles because the local ER is overrun and ‘Citizens’ are dying because of it. The criminals are not here to work or become a part of society, they are here for the welfare programs and are now costing you Billions of dollars per year.
scrapiron (71415b) — 3/25/2006 @ 5:03 pmYeah, they are criminals . . . but I would do the same thing in their situation. And, aside from breaking our immigration laws, most are not *otherwise* criminals. So I think it’s a tough issue.
But what I think doesn’t matter. The numbers don’t lie.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/25/2006 @ 5:05 pmEither we impose some form of control on the border, or we kiss any concept of a sovereign country good-bye. 12-15M now, how many more in ten years?
Another Drew (8018ee) — 3/25/2006 @ 5:46 pmWho’s “we” white man?
When my great grandmother Bridget Gannon and millions of others came to the US in the 1840s from Ireland via Canada, there were apparently no restrictions on immigration. If there had been, all those immigrants would have been “illegal.” Lots of people were hostile to the new immigrants. The nativists were correct in their concern that it would destroy the existing culture. It forever changed the American culture and subsequent waves of immigration have continued to change it. Not for the worse, in my opinion. America and the world will continue to change in ways that we cannot imagine. And that’s good. It makes life interesting.
Patrick Moran (4cdf3a) — 3/25/2006 @ 6:11 pmEveryone who’s here should be able to stay and become citizens. But:
build a fence between the US and Mexico;
fine the hell out of employers who hire illegal aliens, and give a portion of the proceeds to the whistle-blowers who report the employers; and
treat landlords the same way as employers.
Very simple.
Andrew (08ba2c) — 3/25/2006 @ 6:22 pmWhen my great grandmother Bridget Gannon and millions of others came to the US in the 1840s from Ireland via Canada, there were apparently no restrictions on immigration. If there had been, all those immigrants would have been “illegal.”
Pat:
As I understand your point, if your forebears’ immigration had been illegal, it would have been illegal.
But it wasn’t.
So — your point is what, exactly?
I didn’t say I was against immigration. I am against illegal immigration.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/25/2006 @ 6:40 pmWhile I too can’t understand why more aggressive enforcement of immigration laws isn’t a slam dunk, all might not be lost, for as Mickey Kaus and the good professor point out, there might be a backlash against “illegal immigrants as a mass movement making demands on the polity”, especially when those making demands are waving the Mexican flag.
steve sturm (d3e296) — 3/25/2006 @ 7:33 pmOnly In America: Illegal Immigrants And Their Allies Rally To Protest Law Enforcement
Thousands of people stream into downtown Los Angeles for what was expected to be one of the city’s largest pro-immigrant rallies, Saturday, March 25, 2006. Many of the marchers wore white shirts to symbolize peace and also waved U.S. flags. Some…
California Conservative (53ecd1) — 3/25/2006 @ 7:38 pmPatterico —
You ought to know by now never to believe the LAT. CNN reports 25,000; and it’s probably less than that.
I’ve seen newsfeed pics on CNN of plenty of Mexican Flags, Viva Mexico signs, not a single American Flag.
Prop 187 anyone? Passed with 67% of the vote. Democratic legend has that it destroyed the Republican Party because of … well someone Kathleen Brown lost to Pete Wilson for Gov, and 67% of voters approved it. California is solidly Dem today because the Clinton Defense cuts priced the average working guy out of high-cost California (into AZ, TX, CO, UT, NV, and ID).
Illegal Immigration means low-end workers lose wages (because of increased competition). Identity politics (we’re Latino and you’re not) just means White Block Voting except for Liberals who’s politics are conspicous consumption (“see, I’m not threatened by 12 million people competing for my wage.”)
As a practical matter if we have no border, well we have no border. Thus no reason whatsoever not to do whatever we want in Mexico, by force, for whatever reason. No borders cuts both ways, and leads inexorably to annexation and Anglicization of Mexico. If we are obliged to employ all of Mexico (40% of Mexicans according to polls want to work here) we should at least order Mexico properly prior to annexing it as dependend territories.
Meanwhile, the economic and identity politics (“we illegal immigrants deny your nation and exclude all non-Mexicans”) work to increase chances of making illegal immigration a felony. Georgia is taking the lead here. We will likely get a fence, employer penalties, and illegal immigrant penalties.
Jim Rockford (e09923) — 3/25/2006 @ 7:41 pmWhat part of illegal don’t you understand?
Joe (d6f550) — 3/25/2006 @ 8:03 pmThere are many legal Mexican immigrants. I know several who are prosperous business owners and pay their taxes, own very nice homes and have intelligent kids who graduated high school and are now attending colleges.
The American Dream?
But they did things the correct way and applied to come here and then became citizens. They brought up many of their relatives who also came here legally and are now prosperous legal citizens.
But the ones who cross our borders illegally need to be dealt with severely.
This country is a great country. California is a great state. We don’t need to become a Mexican posession again.
Support this legislation.
Folks who are otherwise neutral on illegal immigrants will be alarmed by the size and passion of such demonstrations. That many illegals feel comfortable freely assembling–and let’s be honest, professing allegiance to their homeland–will not play well in Peoria.
Passage of the bill just became more likely.
Jal (71415b) — 3/25/2006 @ 8:17 pm[…] Others: Patterico Michelle Malkin posted by: The Editors @ 7:57 pm March 25, 2006 […]
The Unalienable Right » 500,000 march in support of illegal immigration in L.A. (7a057a) — 3/25/2006 @ 8:49 pm>Why the left wants 12-15 million more criminals (and they
>are criminals, not illegals) in the U.S. is a mystery
Not really. They may somebody become citizens, their children are citizens, and they are very reliable Democrat votes.
Bob Smith (d57802) — 3/25/2006 @ 8:50 pmSince when did illegal aliens become undocumented workers? Why do we need to be politically correct about this?
The immigration law our nation is trying to pass is pretty much law in almost every other country in the industrialized (& even developing) world. Try going to one of these countries to work “undocumented”. You would be considered a criminal and your employer would be too.
Wasn’t the 1980’s amnesty supposed to be one time? Looks like the illegals are now just waiting for the next one.
I’m all in favor of legal immigration…adamantly opposed to illegal immigration.
NE Liberal (6d7f9f) — 3/25/2006 @ 8:56 pmThe huge problem of illegal and undocumented immigration and its attendant societal impacts is the perfect issue for the Democrats and Repubs in Congress to come together for once to demonstrate to the world that they are indeed capable of nonpartisan solidarity for the good of the future of this country. The voters and citizens of the United States should demand it of their legislators. The bloggers on the right and left should demand it. The newspaper editorial staffs should demand it. This has to be dealt with now, not two years from now or a decade from now. Our country is lucky to have so many sucessful, loyal, contributing, legally naturalized immigrants who respect the law and consider America to be their home country in every respect now. It is a slap in the face to every one of them that other people can just slip across the border and then demand the rights and services of this country while waving the flag of another.
I am very curious as to how these nationwide “protest rallies” are being organized and executed and who is actually funding them. They are definitely not grassroots or spur of the moment events. Too bad our great media machines can’t spend some resources investigating that!
Li (62e354) — 3/25/2006 @ 9:18 pmMy point was that there was a time when there were no immigration restrictions in this country. (I think. Someone can correct me on that if I am wrong.) If we wanted, we could make it that way again. Probably not much support for that position in this group.
What if the NAFTA countries removed barriers to immigration as well as barriers to trade? I would be interested to know if there are restrictions on movement between EU countries and, if so, how difficult it is. I have the impression that Brits can work in Germany and Irish can work in the Chech Republic if they want.
Patrick Moran (4cdf3a) — 3/25/2006 @ 10:40 pmMy point was that there was a time when there were no immigration restrictions in this country. (I think. Someone can correct me on that if I am wrong.) If we wanted, we could make it that way again. Probably not much support for that position in this group.
I wouldn’t support it, but then we have a few more folks here today than when your forebears came.
My point is: illegal is illegal. I have a lot of sympathy for the people who come here illegally to better their lives, and (as I have said) I would probably do the same myself — but on the other hand, we can’t accommodate all of Mexico here in Southern California, and we do (in theory) have laws designed to prevent exactly that.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/25/2006 @ 10:45 pm“Who’s “we” white man?”
Everybody that broke the law to get where they are.
actus (6234ee) — 3/25/2006 @ 11:21 pmLegal immigration does indeed make the US better. That’s why we should allow some more to come in legally, while totally shutting down the 500,000 who run into the US without authorization, every year. Enough is enough. I’m sick of Bush’s crap.
Wesson (c20d28) — 3/25/2006 @ 11:32 pmIllegal is (of course) illegal. The law is the law. But one can suggest changes to the law. If the object of immigration law is to decide how much immigration will result in optimum growth of the economy, one might ask whether this could most efficiently be decided by the government or by the invisible hand of the marketplace. I would vote for the marketplace.
It would seem that an economy that is attracting lots of immigrants is a healthy and growing one. And the invisible hand is attracting the resources, including immigrants, that can make still stronger.
Patrick Moran (4cdf3a) — 3/26/2006 @ 12:00 amThe “we” I was referring to was in Patterico’s original post, as in “We’ve already lost the battle, folks”
I assume he didn’t mean to refer to people who broke the law.
Patrick Moran (4cdf3a) — 3/26/2006 @ 12:05 amMaybe the reference was a bit obscure to people under sixty. “What do you mean `we’, white man?” was allegedly Tonto’s response when the Lone Ranger said: “Tonto, we’re surrounded by Indians!”
Patrick Moran (4cdf3a) — 3/26/2006 @ 12:10 amWhen did it become fashionable to insource US labor? There was a time when people used to give a sh** about the American working poor. Now, it seems, there is a war against hard working Americans.
mkultra (8231d7) — 3/26/2006 @ 12:39 amDo you have proof of this, Patterico, or is it just a wish? I think the opposite is, unfortunately, closer to the mark. Since illegals are, generally speaking, ineligible for drivers’ licenses and insurance, they’re breaking those laws, too. The percentage of illegal immigrants filling up our prisons exceeds their (estimated) percentage in the general community. Two-thirds of the crystal meth in this country is brought here using the same routes that are used by illegal migrants.
The entire picture is one of a population that is indifferent to the laws of the United States when they interfere with their own wishes.
I’m not nativist enough to believe that we should completely close our borders. I think we should continue to have large legal immigration (as we have had for our entire history). But I think that placing limits on immigration is completely within our rights and enforcing those limits with the means required to do so derives naturally from that right.
Besides, why are illegal migrants worthy of a pass on breaking the law? What about thieves, counterfeiters, murderers, or rapists? I’m sure they all believe that they have good reasons for their crimes, too.
Dave Schuler (0fc1c9) — 3/26/2006 @ 6:43 am“I assume he didn’t mean to refer to people who broke the law.”
I am. I ran some stop signs on my bike on my way to school the other day. I was an “illegal student.”
actus (6234ee) — 3/26/2006 @ 7:30 amHmmm … I was under the impression that illegal immigration was a civil offense, not a criminal offense. Certainly one is not entitled to a jury trial for illegal immigration. I’m pretty sure that one cannot be sent to jail (other than for detention) for “illegal immigration.” At least not yet.
So, calling illegal immigrants “criminals” is the flip side of calling them “undocumented.” Both seem distortions.
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 3/26/2006 @ 7:55 amAn alien found in the US after having been previously deported or granted voluntary return to his country of origin is subject to criminal prosecution. He can be sentenced to 2 years in prison. See 8USC1326.
Stu707 (18fdc8) — 3/26/2006 @ 8:29 amYes, Stu — and a felon in possession of a gun can be jailed for that, too. Doesn’t criminalize guns, though.
The felony you mention regards defying a specific order to leave, not “illegal immigration” per se. BOT the same thing.
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 3/26/2006 @ 8:34 amWhat a silly comment. Part of this marketplace mechanism would be that millions and millions of illegals would keep flooding into California, until our hospitals and schools declined to match the quality of Mexico hospitals and schools. And the migration would only stop once California’s economy and quality of life drops to a level matching that of Mexico. No thanks.
government or by the invisible hand of the marketplace. I would vote for the marketplace.
Wesson (c20d28) — 3/26/2006 @ 8:41 amKevin Murphy says:
Hmmm … I was under the impression that illegal immigration was a civil offense, not a criminal offense. Certainly one is not entitled to a jury trial for illegal immigration. I’m pretty sure that one cannot be sent to jail (other than for detention) for “illegal immigration.” At least not yet.
You were under an incorrect impression. One can be sent to jail for 6 months. See this post of mine for details. You must be reading the L.A. Times to get such an impression.
Actus says:
I ran some stop signs on my bike on my way to school the other day. I was an “illegal student.”
Can you be sent to jail for running stop signs where you live? If so, give me your bike route and I’ll let the authorities know.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/26/2006 @ 8:44 am“Can you be sent to jail for running stop signs where you live?”
If you run enough of them, I’m sure. Red lights too. I often stray outside of the bike lane, sometimes on the oncoming lane. Thankfully I registered my bike. It’s illegal to ride without it being registered. They can supposedly take it away. I heard its mostly used for harassing kids on bikes.
I run down new hampshire ave, to 19th st, then on down to GW campus. I’m sure the DC pd will be deploying an officer to enforce bike laws now. Critical mass notwithstanding.
actus (6234ee) — 3/26/2006 @ 9:04 amI’m sure the DC pd will be deploying an officer to enforce bike laws now. Critical mass notwithstanding.
I bet . . . if they read this blog, or Goldstein’s, or any other one where you regularly comment.
All we need now is a description of your bike and the time you run your route, and we’re all set.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/26/2006 @ 9:13 am“All we need now is a description of your bike and the time you run your route, and were all set. ”
Ask the cops I run stop signs in front of.
[They let you do that because they don’t know who you are. — Patterico]
actus (6234ee) — 3/26/2006 @ 9:14 am“[They let you do that because they don’t know who you are. — Patterico] ”
Either they find me or chandra levy.
actus (6234ee) — 3/26/2006 @ 9:37 amDuh. Of course I say that after she’s been found. Looks like i’m next. Damn it feels good to be a gangsta.
actus (6234ee) — 3/26/2006 @ 9:38 amFrom the Union-Tribune:
Wesson (c20d28) — 3/26/2006 @ 9:47 amIn full-page advertisements published Monday in three U.S. newspapers, Mexico endorsed “a far-reaching guest workers scheme,” but said that in order for it to work “Mexico should participate in its design, management, supervision and evaluation.”
We haven’t lost the battle. We are fighting the battle with the wrong weapon. No not guns, HISTORY.
When Michelle Malkin states we are “Not a nation of immigrants” and cites that nearly 85% of us were born here, she denigrates our nation’s history as well as most of our own hiSTORIES.
As an Italian American,(my parents was born here too) my ethics, morals, and will to succeed are born in those 3 people who had the guts to come here and build a life. (One grandmother was born here of Italian parents) Their’s were not an easy lot. Their children’s lives were tough too, but my life was the one that they wanted to preserve. They could have gone back to Italy, (originally the plan was to make a living here to go back and enjoy it in Italy. Opportunity changed the plan.)It would have been easier there in many ways, but they could see that America held promise.
I do not favor illegal immigration, it is a threat to our nation’s security. I do however realize that our present immigration policy is horrible. It is unjust and it continues to make America unsafe. We must hold our a carrot along with a stick. We need to make it a benefit to be countable. We need to give promise and opportunity to people who want to come here legally but cannot.
My children do not want the jobs that our immigrant neighbors hold. immiggrant kids do not want the jobs that my children want either. They rarely dream that big. They want the chance. We need them to do the jobs we will not do. It is a simple equation. I rarely agree with the President in actualization, (though more often in policy) but here he is right on. If we want to win the war against illegal immigration, conservatives are going to have to acknowledge the history of most Americans or risk being marginalized on the issue.
Patterico, would you be here, but for a liberal immigration policy?
That Lawyer Dude (59ab87) — 3/26/2006 @ 12:36 pm[…] Over 500,000 Rally for Illegal Immigration in L.A. 3/25/06 […]
Traction Control » Blog Archive » Headline Summaries: Border Security (9f9139) — 3/26/2006 @ 1:18 pmThe good perfesser had a point: The illegal community in California may be feeling their Wheaties, but there are 49 other states in the Union, and immigration law is a Federal responsibility. Marching through downtown LA waving Mexican flags and chanting in Spanish is NOT the way to convince that 49 of the illegals benign intentions to become good US citizens.
bud (46e4bf) — 3/26/2006 @ 4:50 pmAs the immediately preceeding poster to the snark “Who’s ‘we’ White Man?”, I wish to respond as a matter of personal privilege. When I said “we” it was as the people of the US, who are the ultimate government under the Constitution (We the People,…does it ring a bell?).
As to personal history: I can trace my family back to the Central European immigration of the 1840-50’s period. My German forebearers settled in Kansas, and (according to family history) members fought on both sides of the Civil War. My Irish and Italian sides of the family came to America following that conflict, with my maternal grandmother arriving at Ellis Island as a 6-year old.
Ellis Island! Ever hear of it Mr. Moran? It was the entry point for countless millions of LEGAL immigrants, where they were screened for communicable diseases and criminal history. And then they were released to their sponsors who were financially responsible for them.
If the United States of America (I won’t use “we” so as not to confuse Mr Moran) is a sovereign nation, with the responsibilities and privileges that go along with that designation, it has no excuse not to control access to, and passage through its’ borders. Failure to control the borders and point of entry, demonstrates a lack of sovereignty, and we might as well just haul down the flag and say “Come on In.”
I would have responded earlier, but thankfully, I have a life.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 3/26/2006 @ 5:35 pmI ordinarily would favor a non-amnesty guest worker program, if that were possible. Together with serious (very serious) enforcement.
But now I’m not so sure. They are protesting against sovereignty. That’s just not acceptable. If these people won’t respect our laws, exclude them for life. They could have waited in line. They chose not to. There are many more where they came from. Let them in – legally.
So maybe we are winning in spite of it all.
Amphipolis (346a88) — 3/26/2006 @ 6:52 pm“Marching through downtown LA waving Mexican flags and chanting in Spanish is NOT the way to convince that 49 of the illegals benign intentions to become good US citizens.”
They should stick to waving irish flags on march 17th.
actus (6234ee) — 3/26/2006 @ 8:25 pmYeah, that’s pretty much *exactly* the same thing.
If you live in Washington D.C., maybe.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/26/2006 @ 8:52 pm“If you live in Washington D.C., maybe.”
Because of our huge Irish population. In Washington DC.
actus (6234ee) — 3/26/2006 @ 8:59 pmResponding to #29 Wesson: My proposal was to open the borders thereby making unlimited immigration legal, as it was in the 1840s. So there wouldn’t be “millions of illegals” – they would all be legal. Secondly, you assume that the addition of millions on new workers will impoverish California. There is no reason to think this would happen. Most of the new immigrants would be employed and paying taxes, thereby paying for the necessary expansion and improvement of the hospitals and schools. The overall increased economic activity would improve the quality of life over what it is now rather than decrease it.
Patrick Moran (4cdf3a) — 3/26/2006 @ 9:33 pmTo #40 Another Drew: Well, if “we” refers to “We the People” then I guess I am part of the “we” after all, although I don’t feel like that really separates me from either the legal or the illegal immigrants – we’re all people. So if “We the People” have decisions to make about immigration, I guess I’d better make my views known in order to exercise my small individual part of the decision making processs.
My vote is to let in anyone who wants to come and to grant citizenship to anyone who wants to be an American. America, being the last best hope for the world, the shining example, should set the example of inclusiveness. We owe it to ourselves to live up to the best possibility of who we can be.
(Would the sky fall if the whole world decides to come? Wouldn’t that rather just mean that America would then become the whole world?)
Patrick Moran (4cdf3a) — 3/26/2006 @ 9:55 pmBecause of our huge Irish population. In Washington DC.
I think you missed the point.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/26/2006 @ 10:01 pm“I think you missed the point”
Oh I got the point. I live right next to el salvador, and far from ireland. Here in DC.
actus (6234ee) — 3/26/2006 @ 10:20 pmIf I have to spell it out for you, Actus, I think we have a little bit bigger problem with illegal immigrants from Mexico here in L.A. than you have with *any* illegal immigrants — including Irish ones — in D.C.
Hence, the SARCASM.
Get it yet?
Patterico (de0616) — 3/26/2006 @ 10:57 pmI get it. I don’t have much of a problem with illegal immigrants, other than their illegalness, which seems to me an easy fix.
actus (6234ee) — 3/26/2006 @ 11:03 pmHey, it’s easy to fix any illegal conduct that way. You murdered someone? Well, we can’t bring back the victim, but we *can* decriminalize homicides. Problem solved!
Of course, if there is any concern behind the law making certain activity criminal to begin with, then it turns out to be not such an “easy fix.”
But, of course, to actus there are no such concerns behind the laws criminalizing illegal immigration. It’s all just a conspiracy to oppress Latinos, with no legitimate reason behind it.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/26/2006 @ 11:08 pmThat side effect of illegal immigration wouldn’t be a problem if the hospitals and schools didn’t need to, or were required not to, serve illegal immigrants. California Democrats, being the party of “compassion”, have squashed every attempt to pass legislation doing just that. They are rewarded with a very reliable Democrat hispanic voting bloc.
Bob Smith (d57802) — 3/27/2006 @ 12:33 am“Hey, its easy to fix any illegal conduct that way”
Right. I don’t see murder and illegal immigration the same way. And my problem with murder isn’t just that its illegal and those who commit it are lawbreakers.
[And my problem with illegal immigration isn’t just that it’s illegal. — P]
“Its all just a conspiracy to oppress Latinos, with no legitimate reason behind it.”
I think business likes it. Nice to have this sort of workforce out there.
[One that you don’t have to pay minimum wage to. But you want them to be paid minimum wage. Business won’t like them then. In the meantime, try going to the emergency room in L.A. — P]
actus (6234ee) — 3/27/2006 @ 8:13 am“But you want them to be paid minimum wage”
Much more than that.
“In the meantime, try going to the emergency room in L.A. — P”
business won’t like my ideas for health care reform either.
actus (6234ee) — 3/27/2006 @ 9:29 amPatterico–
You were under an incorrect impression. One can be sent to jail for 6 months. See this post of mine for details. You must be reading the L.A. Times to get such an impression.
As you point out, the act of crossing the border illegally is a crime. Being present without leave is not. There are many ways to accomplish the second without violating the first, such as overstaying a visa.
I suspect that there are zero prosecutions of illegals outside of border areas under that statute, given that it is hard to prove the method of entry, and generally not worth the State’s time.
Do you really expect that the Frist criminalization will lead to us filling prisons with illegal immigrants? Hardly — again not worth it. We’ll simply fall back on the present mechanisms, which still don’t work.
Frist is just pandering.
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 3/27/2006 @ 9:36 amFor those who whine about businesses employing illegals (and I say this having experience as an applicant for a job and as an employer), after the 1987 changes, you have to sign a form attesting to your being a citizen (by birth here), naturalized citizen, or legally allowed to work here. You have to supply a tax ID number (SSN or FEIN). The form says that you are subject to prosecution for perjury if you provide false information (and I wonder if anyone has been so prosecuted). There is no easy (rapid response feedback) way to check this though larger businesses may pay for background checks to confirm your attestations. Plus, you may find yourself subject to EEOC actions if you are not careful (ie, you must subject every applicant to the same procedure, which radically increases the expense if you do pay for background checks, so which would you like to face as an employer … EEOC actions or ICE actions). I, therefore, suspect that many very small businesses simply will accept whatever paperwork that their employees give them even if it looks potentially fraudulent and not do the background checks. This is one impetus behind the REAL ID Act, which I have some reservations over since it smacks of the Beast from the Book of Revelations.
Charles D. Quarles (df82ab) — 4/3/2006 @ 11:43 pm