thirteen two thousand and two constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude  it's i don't see how you can take that as a springboard to say that all of our other cases are the said that intention defraud is moral turpitude i don't see how we can just a race based upon one case involving another statute which clearly dell with trying to give a break to people who are illegally in the country working and using their phony card to get the job  relevant to that statute because it wasn't sent to i'm going prosecution and my point with all due respect runner is that that's not a point of advantage because right after that sentence that core literally said whether the  to the exemption from prosecution for past use of social security numbers if that amendment doesn't apply to beltran but it's rationale illuminates the view of congress concerning the lack of moral  in beltran toronto congress had created a specific exemption from prosecution for this particular type of conduct this put into forward a social security card to get employment and we don't have a similar exemption here in this particular statute congress terms of when when she did it right well with us so she committed a crime no question about that yes and the court sort of inferred from but the court inferred from the exemption that congress had put forward with respect to prosecution and through legislative history was using a false or security card in order to obtain employment so congress i guess is just told me that using a forged document to obtain employment is not morally turpitude now so why is it here what i would say to that is that i don't know that necessarily because there's no security card with some other document i'm well it's not it's not clear that congress necessarily said that this wasn't turpitude it's kind of what they said is that they want to exempt this  word exclude and they make otherwise illegal activity such as bank fraud or drug trafficking then they make the exclusion and they indicate it's a specific exclusion for a specific purpose and i assume your argument is that based upon that we can't go any further on the train bell trial then the exclusion exactly because there's no similar exclusion for this written it's just it doesn't even apply the the planet and your are pointed out that to follow this rationale would be to wipe out all the case president with respect to these crimes involving the intent to defraud again i wouldn't go so far as that here's the here's the language that gives me pause with respect to your argument this is the language quoted by a judge can be an deltron toronto coming from the committee report where and i'll just read it to you or what importance we attach to a committee report but assuming that i can attach real importance to that the committee report has just told us that someone who engaged uses a false another document used for precisely that purpose so how do i deal with that question and this language i would note that congress though it may be in the legislative history did not inscribe that into the statute what they did in the statute was they created censure they didn't say anything about it but how do i but i that it doesn't there is no similar such abuse exclusion or exemption with respect to this particular statute that we're dealing with here today sorry if i didn't make that clear but ago congress is intent that this kind of conduct not be morally turpitude this was for that day and train only the dissent in that case sort of talks about if they were cutting the break was a sympathetic circumstances congress essentially cutting a break for these feelings that have been in the country for a long time with under this amnesty president i don't mean this suggest that it isn't but it seems to fly in the face of all the case law afterwards which is specifically which is directly on point with the case that we have here which involves this turpitude an element of intent to defraud so unless there a misconduct it's the willingness to defraud somebody that is the turpitude misconduct i mean that's again that's sort of getting back to you run into a problem where you say oh this person committed a crime but they didn't they meant well you know they this they still committed the crime