Alex Alexiev — National Review

Catching up to Mexico

California’s financial unraveling has prompted a long-overdue debate about taxes, regulation, and government spending, but the state’s media and government continue to ignore what could be an even greater problem: the irreparable damage to California’s human capital that nearly 30 years of unrestrained illegal immigration has achieved…

“…In short, we are witnessing a highly advanced and prosperous state, long endowed with superior human capital, turning into the exact opposite in just one generation. What can be done to stop this race to the bottom? The answer is simple: California and Washington need to enforce existing immigration law. Unfortunately, it is difficult to convince the public that this is necessary, so deeply entrenched are myths about illegal immigration. ..”

HERE

What states CAN DO to address illegal immigration

Mandate the use of the Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system to verify entitlement to all state and local government benefits;

Mandate use of E-Verify for all employers in state

Make it a felony to falsely claim legal presence in the United States;

Make it a felony and a predicate racketeering crime to smuggle aliens;

Outlaw sanctuary cities, including day-labor sites;

Institute a withholding tax for all electronic funds wire transfers to foreign parties or on negotiable bank drafts and international money orders without a valid Social Security Number;

Ban the use of foreign identification documents to establish identity or to obtain state identification cards unless accompanied by a U.S. document that demonstrates legal presence in the United States;

Restrict the use of taxpayer identification numbers for purposes not authorized by the Internal Revenue Service, including identification, unless accompanied by a U.S. document that demonstrates legal presence in the United States.

CNS news

Inspired by Saul Alinsky, FCC ‘Diversity’ Chief Calls for ‘Confrontational Movement’ to Give Public Broadcasting Dominant Role in Communications
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
By Matt Cover

CNSNews.com) – Mark Lloyd, chief diversity officer of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), called for a “confrontational movement” to combat what he claimed was control of the media by international corporations and to re-establish the regulatory power of government through robust public broadcasting and a more powerful FCC.

Lloyd expressed his regulatory call to arms in his 2006 book, “Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America” (University of Illinois Press).

In the book, Lloyd also said that public broadcasting should be funded through new license fees charged to the nation’s private radio and television broadcasters, and that new regulatory fees should be used to fund eight new regional FCC offices.

These offices would be responsible for monitoring political advertising and commentary, children’s educational programs, number of commercials, and content ratings of the programs.

Frequently referencing one of his heroes, left-wing activist Saul Alinsky, Lloyd claims in his book that the history of American communications policy has been one of continued corporate control of every form of communication from the telegraph to the Internet.

“Citizen access to popular information has been undermined by bad political decisions,” Lloyd wrote. “These decisions date back to the Jacksonian Democrats’ refusal to allow the Post Office to continue to operate the telegraph service.”

Lloyd claimed that neither technology nor liberal reforms have been able to overcome the damage caused when government fails to give everyone an equal voice.

Throughout history, Lloyd said, “[t]he most powerful communications tool was deliberately placed in the hands of one faction in our republic: commercial industry.”

“Neither Progressive era reforms nor new communications technologies have been able to correct the problems resulting from government abdication of a responsibility to advance the equal capability of citizen discourse,” Lloyd added.

“Corporate liberty has overwhelmed citizen equality,” he wrote.

Government, Lloyd said in his book, is the “only” institution that can manage the communications of the public, arguing that Washington must “ensure” that everyone has an equal ability to communicate.

“The American republic requires the active deliberation of a diverse citizenry, and this, I argue, can be ensured only by our government,” he says. “Put another way, providing for the equal capability of citizens to participate effectively in democratic deliberation is our collective responsibility.”

FCC sealLessons for Radicals

Lloyd relies heavily on the left-wing radical Saul Alinsky in explaining his strategy.

Alinsky (1909-1972) was a community organizer and activist from Chicago and the author of the book, Rules for Radicals, which opens with an acknowledgment “to the very first radical … Lucifer.” As for political tactics, Alinsky said, “The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away. In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people. This means revolution.”

With Alinsky as the political guide, Lloyd outlines nine “lessons” that people can draw on when trying to combat international businesses.

1. “Organizing people must be a priority. In order to counter effectively the power of major corporations we understood that we had to be able to demonstrate the support of hundreds of thousands of people. As Alinksy wrote: ‘Change comes from power, and power comes from organization. In order to act, people must get together.’”

2. “Understand where people stand on your issue. Once we were clear that we needed to drum up the support of people, we needed to understand what people knew about our issues. As Alinksy wrote, ‘if people feel they don’t have the power to change a bad situation, then they do not think about it.’”

3. “Connect with groups that have already organized the community. Our means of reaching local communities was through existing national organizations. We reached out to groups that had large constituencies and articulated our message by identifying how our goals fit their core interests.”

4. “The strategy must have an inside and an outside game. For media reform, this means we needed to embrace the necessity of operating both in and outside Washington [D.C.].”

5. “Don’t wait for events to unfold on their own. Pressure, pressure, pressure. If we wanted events to work in a direction that would benefit us, we knew we needed to push. We needed to apply pressure and to direct that pressure not at the government, but through the government at our true opposition – the broadcasters. Alinsky again: ‘The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain constant pressure upon the opposition.’”

6. “Communications is a priority. Again drawing from Alinksy, we understood that ‘one can lack any of the qualities of an organizer – with one exception – and still be effective. That exception is the art of communication.’ It is not just a matter of getting media to cover your campaign. That is, undoubtedly, a part of it, but it is also about getting the sort of attention you want, so the public and your opposition see you and your issues the way you want to be seen.”

7. “Research is key. We took not only message and public opinion research seriously, we took seriously our obligation to research the activity of our opposition. Our research entailed not only public opinion polling, but academic papers presenting economic and social analysis, legal research…and grassroots research involving the inspections of dozens of televisions station’s public files.”

8. “Establish a broad base of funding and never stop raising money. Alinksy is right that people are a source of power, but without adequate funds organizing people effectively cannot be accomplished.”

9. “Find allies in power. If civil rights leaders such as King had the Kennedys and Johnson, and the anti-Bork campaign had Ted Kennedy, our main ally was [FCC Chairman] Bill Kennard.”

The solution

To combat the control of international business and restore government to what he sees as its rightful place in managing public communications, Lloyd calls for a “confrontational movement” to protest the present order and organize a political movement that could force government to rein the businesses in.

“If our republican form of government is perishing because communications – the infrastructure of that republic – is under the yoke of international business how, at last, do we save it?” he asks. “We must build a confrontational movement to reclaim our democracy, a movement committed to active and sustained protest against the present order.”

To do this, Lloyd draws on his experience lobbying the FCC during the Clinton administration, counseling would-be revolutionaries to follow the tactics used by other left-wing movements, such as the followers of Saul Alinsky and the people who ran the campaign to block Republican Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.

“We understood at the beginning, and were certainly reminded in the course of the campaign,” wrote Lloyd, “that our work was not simply convincing policy makers of the logic or morality of our arguments. We understood that we were in a struggle for power against an oppenent, the commercial broadcasters ….”

“We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork,” wrote Lloyd. “From those sources we drew inspiration and guidance.”

Lloyd proposes six initial goals for wresting control of communications from the corporate interests he claims control it. As his book details: … HERE

Numbers USA

Federal court rules in favor of mandatory E-Verify for federal contractors

The U.S. District Court in Maryland ruled in favor of an executive order first issued during the Bush Administration that would require all federal government contractors to use E-Verify. The order was delayed once by Pres. Bush and three times by Pres. Obama while they were awaiting the outcome of lawsuits…

HERE

Calling illegals ‘illegals’ does not ‘dehumanize’ them
August 27, 2009

DEAR EDITOR:

Including my wife, who is a legal immigrant, at our house we grow weary of the despicable habit of those on the left who associate nearly every victimized group in history with the illegal aliens who have no respect for American laws. Except, of course those laws that give them free medical care, education, translation and virtual immunity from punishment for invading our nation. They, along with those who employ them should be punished so severely that they stop their crime spree.

Mark Webb’s Friday letter (“Don’t muddy health fix with anti-illegals hysteria) aimed at D.A. King and “ObamaCare” is quite similar to many others I have read from people who will stop at nothing when attacking those who pay attention, have the courage to speak up and want illegal immigration to end by securing the border and enforcing the law instead of by opening our borders and granting amnesty.

No matter what they say I don’t trust the liberals in Congress or Obama as far as I could toss them on a windy day. Especially not on immigration or health care. Particularly not when I can see that they will not allow any meaningful check of who may end up with taxpayer funded public health insurance as proposed by Obama. Illegals are scammers and have massive support from the left. With that help, they would soon learn how to scam the national health care system to get even more medical benefits than they are now.

I am grateful for King’s insightful and useful columns. They provide me with news and facts that seem to be missing from the daily media reports. I need only to look around Cobb County to see that he is correct.

Another thing about Webb’s letter: he says that the Dustin Inman Society was a group that was “successful in scuttling President Bush’s 2004 plans for reform of our immigration laws and continue to demonize the undocumented today.”

“Comprehensive Immigration Reform” is code for legalization and constantly increased immigration until we have open borders and everyone knows it.

I agree that the Dustin Inman Society helped stop the Bush amnesty plans. Good for them. I am grateful for that great work and King should be proud.

Stopping Bush in “2004” was admirable – even if the Dustin Inman Society wasn’t formed until 2005. I hope they stop Obama-amnesty too. I will help them.

Pointing out, as King often does, that illegals are illegal, that no group should be above the law and that Mexico deports nearly as many illegals each year as we do is not “dehumanizing” to most of us. Don’t be hysterical.

Webb’s letter was a template from the La Raza/ACLU crowd. We should expect to see many more of them.

John Litland
Marietta

HERE

Matt A. Mayer — Heritage Foundation

Controlling Illegal Immigration: State and local governments must do more

In 1980, illegal immigration in the United States was far from the overwhelming challenge it is today. It was only after the 1986 immigration reform bill, which provided amnesty to more than three million illegal aliens, that an ever increasing surge of people entering the U.S. illegally began. As the federal government failed to address the growing crisis, state governments began to take action. As early as 1994, Californians tried to deal with the financial burden of illegal immigration by passing Proposition 187, which would have limited financial benefits for illegal aliens in California. Although stopped by a judge and a new governor, Gray Davis, unwilling to defend the people’s vote, California’s actions foreshadowed what was to occur across the United States 10 years later, when the federal government failed its people once again.

At the same time, political leaders in Washington, D.C., began to feel pressure to be more aggressive in enforcing existing laws to secure America’s borders and to deport those here illegally. The budgets of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) skyrocketed. ICE moved from a policy of capturing and releasing illegal aliens to detaining and deporting them. The number of raids at work sites and of criminal aliens captured substantially increased. Unfortunately, having done so little for so long, ICE ran up against a basic mathematical problem: 12,000,000 illegal immigrants versus 6,000 ICE agents who were stretched thin with other pressing responsibilities.

To help overcome the numbers problem, ICE launched several programs to work with state and local law enforcement that would increase the penalties to illegal immigrants and those engaged in human trafficking. ICE launched the section 287(g) program in 2002, which deputized state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal immigration law. ICE also started the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), aimed at identifying criminals in state and local jails and prisons. Although good programs, the section 287(g) and CAP programs involved only a small number of jurisdictions, so their successes barely made a dent in the illegal alien population. The mathematical problem remained.

Starting in 2004, state legislatures began to assert themselves in the area of illegal immigration as the numbers problem equated to busted budgets and increasing societal burdens. Although the activity level in 2004 seems low today, at the time, the increase in bills passed that dealt with one of six aspects of illegal immigration caused a stir. By 2008, the increase in activity at the state level had jumped to 1,305 bills introduced and 209 bills passed. The primary areas of action were (1) driver’s licenses and identification, (2) public benefits, (3) higher education benefits, (4) voting security, (5) criminal sanctions, and (6) employment. As states began to reclaim their historical roles and authorities under the Constitution, interest groups supportive of illegal immigration began their assaults in the courtrooms…

THE REST HERE

Numbers USA

Obamacare: Rep. Lamar Smith challenges Obama’s bogus claims

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Representative Lamar Smith challenged President Barack Obama’s radio address from the weekend where the President said that the proposed health care legislation won’t cover illegal aliens. Smith released a statement with information from the Congressional Research Service, identifying several loopholes…

HERE

John Stossel — ABC News

Every Obama critic a racist

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama’s supporters promised that his election would allow America to “transcend race.” Among the headlines: The Boston Globe: “Obama shows an ability to transcend race” — The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: “Obama’s success suggests we can transcend race”…

HERE

The 1965 Immigration Act: Anatomy of a Disaster
By: Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, December 10, 2002

America’s current mass immigration mess is the result of a change in the laws in 1965. Prior to 1965, despite some changes in the 50’s, America was a low-immigration country basically living under immigration laws written in 1924. Thanks to low immigration, the swamp of cheap labor was largely drained during this period, America became a fundamentally middle-class society, and our many European ethnic groups were brought together into a common national culture. In some ways, this achievement was so complete that we started to take for granted what we had achieved and forgot why it happened. So in a spasm of sentimentality on the Right and lies on the Left, we opened the borders.

Born of liberal ideology, the 1965 bill abolished the national origins quota system that had regulated the ethnic composition of immigration in fair proportion to each group’s existing presence in the population. In a misguided application spirit of the civil rights era, the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations saw these ethnic quotas as an archaic form of chauvinism. Moreover, as Cold Warriors facing charges of “racism” and “imperialism,” they found the system rhetorically embarrassing. The record of debate over this seismic change in immigration policy reveals that left-wingers, in their visceral flight to attack “discrimination,” did not reveal the consequences of their convictions. Instead, their spokesmen set out to assuage concerned traditionalists with a litany of lies and wishful thinking.

Chief among national concerns was total numeric immigration. Senate floor manager and Camelot knight-errant Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, assured jittery senators that “our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.” Senator Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, further calmed that august body, insisting “the total number of potential immigrants would not be changed very much.” Time has proven otherwise. Average immigration levels before the 1965 amendments took effect hovered around 300,000 per annum. Yet 1,045,000 legal immigrants flooded our cities in 1996 alone.

The 1965 “reform” reoriented policy away from European ethnic groups, yet implemented numbers similar to 1950’s rates in an attempt to keep immigration under control. However, Congressmen managed to miss a loophole large enough to allow a 300 percent in immigration, because they did not take into account two “sentimental” provisions within the bill. Immediate family members of U.S. citizens and political refugees face no quotas. Their likely impact on the nation was ignored, presumably because aiding families and the dispossessed cast the right emotive glow.

Yet leftists could sound like hard-nosed defenders of the national interest when necessary. In urging passage of the 1965 bill, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, D-New York, wrote in a letter to the New York Times, “The time has come for us to insist that the quota system be replaced by the merit system.” As if merit is the operative principle along the Rio Grande today! Similarly, Representative Robert Sweeney, D-Ohio, insisted the bill was “more beneficial to us.” In fact, the 1965 bill made “family reunification” – including extended family members – the key criterion for eligibility. These new citizens may in turn send for their families, creating an endless cycle known to sociologists as the immigration chain. The qualifications of immigrants have predictably fallen. Hispanic immigrants, by far the largest contingent, are eight times more likely than natives to lack a ninth-grade education, and less than half as likely to have a college degree.

The bill did not end discrimination based on what President John F. Kennedy called “the accident of birth.” (This of course begs the question of whether birth within the nation, the basis of common national community, is just an accident, but let that pass for now.) It de facto grossly discriminates in favor of Mexicans and certain other groups.

Not only has the bill failed in its stated purpose, it has realized many of its critics’ worst nightmares. Concern mounted that this bill would radically change the ethnic composition of the United States. Such things were still considered legitimate concerns in 1965, in the same Congress that had just passed the key civil rights legislation of the 1960’s.

Specific influx predictions that were made seem tragicomic today. Senator Robert Kennedy predicted a total of 5,000 immigrants from India; his successor as Attorney General, Nicholas Katzenbach, foresaw a meager 8,000. Actual immigration from India has exceeded by 1,000-times Robert Kennedy’s prediction.

Senator Hiram Fong, R-Hawaii, calculated that “the people from [Asia] will never reach 1 percent of the population.” Even in 1965, people were willing to admit that we have a reasonable interest in not being inundated by culturally alien foreigners, and it was considered acceptable to say so on the floor of the Senate. Try that today, even as a supposed conservative! (Asians currently account for three percent of the population, and will swell to near 10 percent by 2050 if present trends continue.)

The only remaining Congressman who had voted on the 1920s quotas, Representative Emanuel Celler, D-New York, insisted, “There will not be, comparatively speaking, many Asians or Africans entering this country.” Today, the number of Asians and Africans entering this country each year exceeds the annual average total number of immigrants during the 1960s.

Yet the largest ethnic shift has occurred within the ranks of Hispanics. Despite Robert Kennedy’s promise that, “Immigration from any single country would be limited to 10 percent of the total,” Mexico sent 20 percent of last year’s immigrants. Hispanics have made up nearly half of all immigrants since 1968. After a 30-year experiment with open borders, whites no longer constitute a majority of Californians or residents of New York City.

As immigrants pour in, native Americans feel themselves pushed out. In 1965, Senator Hugh Scott, R-Pennsylvania, opined, “I doubt if this bill will really be the cause of crowding the present Americans out of the 50 states.” Yet half-a-million native Californians fled the state in the last decade, while its total population increased by three million, mostly immigrants. This phenomenon also holds true in microcosm. In tiny Ligonier, Indiana, (population 4,357) 914 Hispanics moved in and 216 native Americans departed during the 1990s. Hispanics now outnumber the Amish as the area’s dominant minority.

Thirty-plus years of immigration at historic levels have also had an economic impact on America. In 1965, Ted Kennedy confidently predicted, “No immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge.” However, political refugees qualify for public assistance upon setting foot on U.S. soil. The exploding Somali refugee population of Lewiston, Maine, (pop. 36,000) is largely welfare-dependent. Likewise, 2,900 of Wausau, Wisconsin’s 4,200 Hmong refugees receive public assistance. In all, 21 percent of immigrants receive public assistance, whereas 14 percent of natives do so. Immigrants are 50 percent more likely than natives to live in poverty.

Ted Kennedy also claimed the 1965 amendments “will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” Teddy cannot have it both ways: either the immigrant will remain unemployed and become a public charge, or he will take a job that otherwise could have gone to a native American. What is presently undisputed – except by the same economic analysts at Wired magazine and the Wall Street Journal who gave us dot-com stocks – is that immigrant participation lowers wages.

Despite the overwhelming assurances of the bill’s supporters, the 1965 Immigration Reform Act has remade society into the image its critics most feared. Immigration levels topping a million a year will increase U.S. population to 400 million within 50 years. Meanwhile, exponents of multiculturalism insist new arrivals make no effort to assimilate; to do so would be “genocidal,” a notion that makes a mockery of real genocides. Instead, long-forgotten grudges are nursed against the white populace. Native citizens take to flight as the neighborhoods around them, the norms in their hometowns, are debased for the convenience of low-paid immigrants and well-heeled businessmen. All the while, indigenous paychecks drop through lower wages and higher taxes collected to provide social services for immigrants. And this only takes into account legal immigration.

These results were unforeseen by liberals easily led about by their emotions. Others were not so blind. Jewish organizations had labored since 1924 to unweave national origins quotas by admitting family members on non-quota visas. The B’nai B’rith Women and the American Council for Judaism Philanthropic Fund, among other Jewish organizations, supported this reform legislation while it was yet in subcommittee in the winter of 1965. Roman Catholics had the twin motivations of still-evolving social justice doctrine and the potential windfall of a mass influx of co-religionists from Latin America. Other organized minorities pressured for increased immigration to benefit relatives in their homelands. The ultra-liberal Americans for Democratic Action, the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild joined the chorus. Further, the Communist Party USA supported higher immigration on the grounds that it destabilizes working Americans.

Americans must realize demographic trends are not inevitable, the product of mysterious forces beyond their control. Today’s population is the result of yesterday’s immigration policy, and that policy is as clearly broken as its backers’ assurances were facetious. A rational policy will only come about when native Americans place the national interest above liberal howls of “prejudice” and “tribalism.”

——————————————————————————–
Ben Johnson is Managing Editor of FrontPage Magazine and co-author, with David Horowitz, of the book Party of Defeat. He is also the author of the books Teresa Heinz Kerry’s Radical Gifts (2009) and 57 Varieties of Radical Causes: Teresa Heinz Kerry’s Charitable Giving (2004). HERE

——————————————————————————–

FAIR PRESS RELEASE

Congressional Research Service:

Illegal Aliens Can Receive Benefits Under House Health Care Bill

August 26, 2009

(Washington, DC) Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the “research arm” for the United States Congress, issued a report validating an analysis by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), that illegal aliens would be able to receive benefits under the House health care reform bill, America’s Affordable Health Care Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200).

The report, Treatment of Noncitizens in H.R. 3200, states definitively, “H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens – whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently – participating in the Exchange.” H.R. 3200 establishes a Health Insurance Exchange which would provide individuals and small businesses with access to health care plans, including the “public option” to be managed by the government.

CRS also confirms FAIR’s assessment that the House bill does not include a mechanism to prevent illegal aliens from receiving “affordability credits” that would subsidize the purchase of private health insurance. CRS specifically noted the absence “of a provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure.” Because the language is ambiguous, all CRS could reasonably conclude is that any eligibility determination would be the responsibility of the Health Choices Commissioner.

The CRS analysis comes after weeks of denials by Members of Congress that illegal aliens could receive benefits under the House bill. These denials were echoed by countless media and health care “experts” who dismissed public concerns as myths, or as politically orchestrated attacks.

“Case closed. Illegal aliens will be eligible to participate in the health care program offered by the House bill unless Congress acts to amend the bill,” stated Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “The loopholes and omissions in the House bill are not there by accident,” continued Stein. “These loopholes were intended to extend benefits to illegal aliens while allowing Members of Congress to deny those facts to the American people.”

The House Ways & Means Committee had the opportunity to include language that would have barred illegal aliens from enrolling in the proposed public option or receiving the affordability credits, but chose not to. An amendment offered by Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) would have applied the same eligibility verification procedures for coverage under H.R. 3200 that have been used for years to prove eligibility for Medicaid. That amendment was rejected by a party-line vote.

Based on its own findings and those of CRS, FAIR is calling on Congress to:

Adopt clear language that makes illegal aliens (and nonimmigrants) ineligible for enrollment in publicly funded or subsidized health insurance programs.
Require electronic eligibility verification for any health care reform proposal through the existing Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system.
Maintain a five-year eligibility waiting period for legal immigrants to ensure that individuals don’t come to the U.S. and immediately tap the system.

“For the past month, irate citizens, concerned that their tax dollars will be used to fund health care for illegal aliens, have been unfairly portrayed as uninformed rabble by their elected representatives and a host of media organizations,” said Stein. “It is time for the politicians to close the loopholes, and for the media establishment to acknowledge that they got it wrong.”

About FAIR

Founded in 1979, FAIR is the country’s largest immigration reform group. With over 250,000 members nationwide, FAIR fights for immigration policies that serve national interests, not special interests. FAIR believes that immigration reform must enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs, preserve our environment, and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced.

Contact Ira Mehlman at 206-420-7733

Dustin Carnevale

Communications Assistant

Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

http://www.fairus.org

Phone: (202)-328-7004

Fax: (202)-387-3447

http://twitter.com/FAIRImmigration

——————————————————————-