Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts

Friday, August 28, 2015

The Children of Illegal Immigrants Are Not Born American Citizens

Once again, Donald Trump has managed to open up a robust national discussion about an issue that up to this point had been largely ignored by the political class. This time, the discussion is about so-called “birthright citizenship,” the idea that whenever a foreign national (regardless of legal status and with a very few exceptions) has a child on American soil, this child automatically becomes an American citizen from birth. This approach to citizenship has been thede facto (though not de jure) approach to the issue of “anchor babies,” the children of illegal aliens who come to the United States so that they can have their children here, thus allowing the parents to remain as well, usually helping themselves to generous American benefit monies.

Defenders of unrestricted birthright citizenship - primarily found among liberals, establishment GOP types, and the more uninformed types of libertarians—adamantly argue from the 14thamendment’s Citizenship Clause that birthright citizenship is not only legal, but is in fact constitutionally protected, and is what the 14thamendment has meant all along. They often try to buttress their arguments by appealing to English common law with its historical provisions for birthright citizenship. However, is this sort of “swim a river, fill our quiver” approach really what the 14th amendment meant? Is it really what English common law, which forms the basis for much of our own law and constitutional interpretation, historically upheld? The answer to these questions is, “No.”

The crux about which the discussion revolves is the Citizenship Clause found in the 14thamendment, Section 1,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

More specifically, what is at issue is the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Clearly, the clause was not intended to convey American citizenship to an unlimited pool of children born to aliens on American soil. If this had been the case, then the phrase under discussion would not have been included. Obviously, some limits were intended, those circumscribed by the intent of being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

So what were these limits? Typically, it will be pointed out that the limits due to this jurisdictional issue were that citizenship was not being conveyed to children born of ambassadors and others aliens employed by their foreign governments, nor was it being conveyed to members of various Indian tribes which exercised sovereign powers within their own territories (this latter was rescinded by an act of 1924 which granted Indian tribes full American citizenship). Were these the only restrictions on birthright citizenship intended by the author and debaters of the 14th amendment?

No, actually. Let’s understand what the original intention of the 14th amendment was, which was to grant American citizenship to former black slaves and their children, and to prevent these newly freed citizens from being denied citizenship rights by certain of the southern states. That’s it. This was made clear by Sen. Jacob Howard, who authored the amendment in 1866, who clearly provided the intent for this section of the amendment,

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” 

Can Trump Round Up 20 Million Illegals?

Donald Trump recently appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s show and was presented with an emotive scenario intended to bring Trump into the quandary of the establishment.

In context of rounding up illegals for deportation, Mr. Trump was asked about the families.  What about the undocumented people living in our country, working hard and raising children?  Is Trump going to bust into every home Janet Reno-style and drag families, kids and all, to the southern border?

This scenario creates quite the image and will be used repeatedly by the press to show just how unworkableunfair, and heartless Trump’s idea really is.

Trump’s response to the scenario was: if we are to have a country, we have to enforce our laws, and the “good” people will be fast-tracked back into our country with legal status.

The first half of Trump’s response is great – we have to enforce our laws.  But for Trump and the GOP candidates who are taking a “hardline” stance on those who have broken our laws and disregarded our sovereignty, I would like to take the emotion out of this scenario and present a laconic response for the candidates.

First, under O’Reilly’s lachrymose scenario, the issue of anchor baby citizenship comes to the fore.

It’s axiomatic that the insane policy of granting U.S. citizenship to the offspring of illegal alien parents must be ended (and the 14th Amendment doesn’t need to be amended to stop it – but that’s another article).

So the unasked and unanswered question is: if the policy of indiscriminate birthright citizenship is ended, should children already afforded citizenship be allowed to keep their status?  In other words, should they be grandfathered in?  Should United States law state that going forward, citizenship will not be awarded to the offspring of illegal resident parents?

Inasmuch as certain individuals were given U.S. citizenship, I tend to think they should be grandfathered in (although the U.S. is not obligated, and an argument can be made to send them all back).
If they are grandfathered in, then the emotive scenario of the press falls flat.

It falls flat because U.S. policy is such that the parents of anchor babies are not deported and become the beneficiaries of de facto legal status.  If grandfathered in, O’Reilly’s tearjerker scenario becomes moot.
Once the new law goes into effect (prohibiting anchor baby citizenship), residents south of the U.S. border will be on notice that if they somehow get past the expected border wall, they will face arrest instead of taxpayer benefits (irrespective of hardship stories).

Now a quick word about rounding up millions of illegals for deportation.

The best way to handle this question is to point out the obvious.  No one is proposing going door-to-door and collecting and dropping off hundreds of thousands of people at a time at the border.

Deportation will happen naturally, and many will leave voluntarily.  As illegal aliens come into contact with the police and other government agencies, they will be arrested and deported.  This means that once birthright citizenship for illegals ends, not many new illegals are going to be applying for taxpayer-funded welfare benefits.  If they do show up, they will be arrested and deported.  Any benefits currently granted irrespective of anchor baby citizenship will not be dispersed – illegals will scarcely apply with the guarantee of arrest and deportation.

About the morality of deporting those who trampled our laws and sovereignty underfoot.

Trump is right.  If we are to have a country, we have to enforce our sovereignty, borders, and laws.

[OPINION] On immigration, Kasich just as extreme as Trump

A resident of Summit County, Isabel Framer is a Latina community activist whose expertise springs from her work in language access in the justice system.
It’s a sad state of affairs in the Republican Party today when the candidates are falling all over themselves to out-Trump one another on the issue of immigration. The GOP’s anti-immigrant xenophobia has gone so far, the candidates are now attacking families and innocent children. The Republican outrage du jour concerns “birthright citizenship,” which is a right guaranteed under the 14th Amendment to “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States.”
Donald Trump, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Ben Carson, Lindsey Graham ... nearly half of the GOP field have come out recently in favor of amending the U.S. Constitution or passing legislation to take away citizenship rights from children who are born in America. Early last week Scott Walker voiced his support for ending birthright citizenship, then seemed to reverse course and now is claiming he won’t take a position on the issue. Meanwhile, Jeb Bush says folks should “chill out a little bit” with criticism of his use of the derogatory term “anchor babies.”
One of those who has seemed slightly less offensive with his comments has been John Kasich. However, a quick look at Kasich’s record reveals he has been just as extreme as Trump and the rest of the GOP. In the early 1990s, Kasich was on the leading edge of anti-immigrant fever as a co-sponsor of legislation to end birthright citizenship. The former Fox News host continued his support for this policy during his 2010 run for governor.
Now that Kasich is running for president – against a field that offers him no room to maneuver on the right – he’s trying to sing a different tune on immigration. While Kasich says he wouldn’t take a path to citizenship off the table, he has also said he opposes it. Kasich added, “I don’t favor citizenship because, as I teach my kids, you don’t jump the line to get into a Taylor Swift concert.”
Many immigrant families have been working for decades, waiting to come out of the shadows as Republicans have failed to act, but Kasich thinks that’s somehow equivalent to teenagers cutting the line for a concert.
Now let’s take a look at Kasich’s actual record as governor on the issue of immigration. Ohio is one of the states challenging President Obama’s executive actions that have deferred action for young people who arrived in America as children and parents of U.S. citizens. To date, Kasich has stood on the sidelines while Attorney General Mike DeWine joined a lawsuit against Obama’s executive orders.
Kasich loves to talk about balancing budgets, but he’s ignoring a real benefit for Ohio taxpayers from deferred action. This process, which requires undocumented immigrants that qualify for the program to register, undergo background checks and pay taxes, would bring in an additional $41 million in revenue for the state of Ohio. Add to that the fact that earlier this year a study by UCLA found Ohio was the worst state in the country for promoting the health and well-being of undocumented immigrants.
So ultimately, actions speak louder than words, and Kasich’s actions shouldn’t fool anyone that he’s suddenly a moderate on immigration. If Kasich wanted to do something about immigration, he could pick up the phone and tell DeWine to drop his ridiculous lawsuit. He could make it easier for immigrants in Ohio to access health care and higher education and obtain legal documents. Until then, I’ll view Kasich as a flip-flopping opportunist who can’t be trusted.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Don’t Like ‘Anchor Babies’? Try ‘Products of Deception’

The term ‘anchor babies’ isn’t the problem. The practice of granting birthright citizenship to illegal aliens is.

The overlords of political correctness have struck again. Evidently, it’s now a “hateful slur” to call the children of illegal immigrants “anchor babies,” a long-held designation to describe how automatic citizenship bestowed on the children of illegal immigrants becomes a powerful magnet for people entering and staying in the United States illegally.
Last week, Hillary Clinton attacked Jeb Bush for using the term, saying it’s offensive and that anchor babies are simply “babies.” Donald Trump scoffed at that and refused to give in to the easily offended speech police. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal had the best response, tying Clinton’s comment to the abortion industry’s harvesting of organs from aborted babies.
“You know what I find offensive is Hillary Clinton, the Left, when you look at those Planned Parenthood videos—they refuse to call them babies, they call it fetal tissue, they call them specimens,” Jindal said. “That’s what’s offensive.”
After the Center of Medical Progress released the videos, defenders of abortion came out swinging, saying they aren’t “babies” but“products of conception“—a nice, clean, politically correct term that dehumanizes unborn children so the consciences of abortionists can be dulled as they chop up and crush the arms, legs, bodies, and heads of human babies.

Let’s Call Them Products of Deception

So, here’s a suggestion—for the sake of consistency among those on the Left. Let’s start calling anchor babies “products of deception,” because that’s exactly what they are—they’re children used by their parents to deceive American citizens in order to abuse and take advantage of our generosity.
It’s not meant to judge the character or value of the children themselves, but only to describe their role in illegal immigration practices.
Illegal immigrants, and even tourists who come to the United States for the fraudulent purpose of delivering their children on American soil, use their babies as tools to remain in our country and often to get freebies from our welfare system and to bring in more family members through chain migration. They do this despite the Fourteenth Amendment offering no legal support for this practice and no court in American history ever holding that the children of illegal immigrants have the right to automatic citizenship. Yet, somehow, this practice has administratively slipped into our system. Now, illegal aliens are taking advantage of it in droves.

Note that the emphasis here is on illegal aliens—a point often lost in the debate over birthright citizenship. When advocates for immigration reform say the United States must end “birthright citizenship,” they are talking about citizenship for the children ofillegal immigrants and those committing fraud on the American system, not for children of legal immigrants, and certainly not for people who have already been granted citizenship (see the grandfather clause in the Birthright Citizenship bill HR 140). They are talking about the practice of giving automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States but are citizens of another country.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

[VIDEO] Donald Trump calls out Mark Zuckerberg on immigration

Donald Trump has a new target for his criticism of the nation's immigration policies - Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

Trump said he wants to require employers to pay H-1B workers much more money, which he said would discourage companies from hiring them and boost job prospects for Americans. He also wants to have tech jobs offered to unemployed Americans before they can be filled by workers with H-1B visas.
"This will improve the number of black, Hispanic and female workers in Silicon Valley who have been passed over in favor of the H-1B program. Mark Zuckerberg's personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities," Trump wrote in his immigration plan. Rubio is also seeking the Republican nomination for president.
Zuckerberg started a public interest group called to push for immigration and lobbying reform along with Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer. Neither Facebook(FBTech30) nor had an immediate comment on Trump's criticism of Zuckerberg.
Trump says that there are plenty of graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering and math, known as STEM, to fill tech jobs. That means that employers don't need H-1B visas to fill jobs, and are using them instead to keep wages low.
Employers are supposed to pay a typical wage to anyone hired under a H-1B visa. But in reality, employees on these visas are typically paid 20 to 45% less than U.S. workers who they are are often replacing, said Ron Hira, a Howard University public policy professor who has studied the visa's pay scale.
"I don't think you should eliminate the H1-B program. The problem is it's being abused and it's a source of very cheap labor," said Hira.

Sunday, August 16, 2015

[VIDEO] Donald Trump Releases Immigration Plan, Including Ending Birthright Citizenship

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump Sunday released his campaign’s immigration plan, which includes ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
“This remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration,” Trump says in the plan posted on his website.
“We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own,” Trump also said. “That must change.”
Here is how Trump describes the three principles of his plan:
A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.
A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.
A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.
Trump’s plan includes his frequent call to make Mexico pay for a wall across the southern border. “For many years, Mexico’s leaders have been taking advantage of the United States by using illegal immigration to export the crime and poverty in their own country (as well is in other Latin American countries),” Trump says.
Says Trump: “We will not be taken advantage of anymore.”
Trump is also calling for the government to triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, mandate nationwide e-verify systems for employers, deport criminal illegal immigrants, end catch-and-release of people caught trying to enter the country illegaly, defund sanctuary cities and implement harsher penalties for immigrants overstaying visas.

Coulter: I Don’t Care If Donald Trump Performs Abortions in the White House

Conservative author Ann Coulter tweeted Sunday that Donald Trump’s immigration policy is so awesome, she doesn’t care if he performs abortions in the White House.
The tweet comes after Trump admitted in a Meet the Press interview that it’s possible he donated to Planned Parenthood in the past. Coulter has said that she believes abortion is murder.
She continued to praise Trump’s new policy paper, even comparing him to Ronald Reagan and his plan to the Magna Carta.
I don't care if wants to perform abortions in White House after this immigration policy paper.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

What Washington Has Wrought on Illegal Immigration

About five hours south of San Francisco, where Kate Steinle was murdered in broad daylight by an illegal immigrant, another illegal immigrant has been charged with raping and savagely beating an Air Force veteran to death with a hammer.  According to police, Marilyn Pharis, 64, was sleeping in her Santa Maria, California home in the late morning — after having worked the night shift as a satellite tracker at nearby Vandenberg Air Force Base — when an illegal immigrant named Victor Aureliano Martinez and his accomplice Jose Fernando Villagomez broke into her house, raped her, strangled her, and bludgeoned her “mercilessly” with a hammer.  She died eight days later. 
The commander of the Air Force’s 50th Space Wing, where Pharis worked, called her death a “tragic loss.”
Martinez — originally from Durango, Mexico — had been arrested six times in the past 15 months.  But he was roaming free, thanks in part to the Obama administration’s lax view of deportation, its refusal to enforce federal drug laws, and its determination to reduce prison sentences for nonviolent crimes.  California’s parallel efforts contributed as well.
Santa Maria police chief Ralph Martin says, “I believe there’s a blood trail from Washington, D.C. to Sacramento into the bedroom of Marilyn.” 
Santa Maria, population 102,000, is exactly the sort of place where the I-95 open-borders crowd ought to spend some time before they continue to conspire, Gang of Eight-like, to make our immigration problems even worse.  Perhaps they would then finally start to appreciate the ill-effects of illegal immigration (much of which starts out as legal) and the lack of assimilation that inevitably results when immigration is both lawless and excessive. 
Steve LeBard is a business owner in Santa Maria who lives in the town of Orcutt, which borders Santa Maria to the south.  With some help from THE WEEKLY STANDARD, he fought and won a battle against the California Department of Transportation to hang an American flag near the entrance to charming Old Town Orcutt, but he has yet to prevail in his effort to build a privately funded memorial to veterans on that same site.  LeBard emailed a few thoughts in the wake of this brutal murder of an innocent Air Force veteran:
“Most people that live in the Santa Maria area believe that Santa Maria is an unofficial ‘sanctuary city.’  I disagree.  I believe Santa Maria is a Mexican city — of sorts.  A large part of the city speaks Spanish and has no interest in learning English — with many businesses advertising in Spanish only.  These people speak of returning to Mexico someday — bringing their new-found prosperity with them — they don’t want to be Americans….
“What does this have to do with this vicious murder?  It’s simple — if you’re here illegally you don't rock the panga — you don’t cooperate with the police and you don’t report crime.  You create a haven for criminals — gangs that prey on the mostly good people that are here working the farms….
“Santa Maria is the perfect storm when it comes to illegal immigration.  It is a community that has it resources overwhelmed by people coming here with knowledge of how to work the system.  They have it down pat, from taxes to social services to free buses to the fields.  They use the local hospital emergency room as their primary-care physician.  (I'm a Vietnam veteran; if I go to the VA Clinic and there is something wrong with me, they put me on a four-hour bus to Los Angeles.  If I'm a Mexican (as in Mexican citizen), I go to the emergency room and the hospital negates the bill — passes it on to me...a U.S. taxpayer.)

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Beacon Hill forces line up for fight over sanctuary protections for illegal immigrants

Beacon Hill forces line up for fight over sanctuary protections for illegal immigrants | Boston Herald
Beacon Hill lawmakers are quietly pushing legislation that could offer sanctuary protections to illegal immigrants across the state, the Herald has learned.
The new legislation, filed by state Rep. Byron Rushing (D-Boston), would ban public agencies from giving or sharing information on illegals with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement unless forced to do so by a court or a federal order.
The bill also would ensure illegal immigrants have access to state benefits — such as welfare and driver’s licenses — and it would prohibit Bay State employees from denying “assistance, benefit, payment, service or participation in any program or activity” on the basis of immigration status, except as required by federal law.
State Rep. Shaunna O’Connell (R-Taunton) immediately decried the bill, saying, “This will make Massachusetts a sanctuary state that harbors illegal aliens and makes available to them every benefit under the sun.”
“I think this would be devastating to Massachusetts in many ways,” O’Connell said.
The sanctuary aspects of the bill mirror rules in San Francisco, where the July 4 random shooting death of Kathryn Steinle — allegedly at the hands of an illegal immigrant deported five times — brought the city’s lax practices into question.
Several Republican presidential candidates now back “Kate’s Law,” named after the slain 32-year-old San Francisco woman, which would hand out five-year prison sentences to any deportee who returns.
The legislation is before the Committee on Children and Families, where O’Connell is a member. The panel was scheduled to hear the legislation last week, but the controversial bill was pushed back to September as sanctuary city policies sparked national headlines.
“This is a bill that just popped up,” O’Connell said. “Nobody knew about it.”
But Rushing responded to the outcry over his bill, saying it doesn’t ask anyone to break federal laws and that he simply wants to encourage immigrants to move to the Bay State.
“It prohibits barring people on the basis of immigration status,” said Rushing, adding that hot-under-the-collar politicians should “calm down.”
“We want to make sure all people of Massachusetts are here legally, and we do that by helping them become legal citizens,” 
he said.
Rushing admitted that there is nothing in his legislation to ensure that illegal immigrants are on a path to citizenship before they receive state services, but said he’d be open to adding that language.
The Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, a pro-immigrant group, has highlighted Rushing’s bill on their website as “priority legislation.”
They write that it “would provide clear guidance that inquiries into immigration status by state agencies and recipients of state funds are not permissible unless 
required by law.”
Word of the bill came on the day Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal appeared on Boston Herald Radio saying top officials in sanctuary cities should be held “criminally liable as accessories” for any crimes committed 
by illegals.
Somerville Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone quickly challenged the GOP presidential candidate to “come and get me.” Curtatone, the mayor of a sanctuary city, said Jindal’s plan is an attempt to push him “beyond the 1 percent right now” in presidential polls.

Saturday, August 1, 2015

[VIDEO] Rep. Gutierrez LOSES IT in venomous meltdown after HIS words are used against him during testimony

Democrat Rep. Luis Gutierrez, an illegal-immigration activist,  proved he can’t handle the truth as he became completely unhinged when confronted with his own words by an immigration expert.
Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday about the dangers of “sanctuary city” policies.
When Gutierrez took the floor he accused Vaughan of not being informed and said she was “exploiting” the murder of Kate Steinle, the young woman who was murdered by a 5-time-deported illegal criminal, to make a buck.
Vaughan had angered Gutierrez by repeatedly referencing a remark he had made about Steinle’s murder.  Gutierrez had told Telemundo during an interview on July 16 (emphasis added), “Every time a little thing like this happens, [Republicans] use the most extreme example to say it must be eliminated.”
Gutierrez’s testimony offered the Steinle family a few platitudes about his “sympathies,” but he was only able to keep it together for a short while.
“Apparently people have decided to besmirch people’s reputation, and take their words, and exploit the death of a beautiful young American woman… But don’t exploit a young woman’s death in order to receive a paycheck to put food on your table,” Gutierrez said.
“You should find a more decent and practical way about going about your living,” he shouted.
What an ironic thing to hear from the mouth of a career politician from Illinois.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Did ICE Violate Its Own Deportation Guidelines in Arresting Chicago-Area Unionized Meatpackers?

On Friday, June 26, workers from the Ruprecht Company’s meatpacking factory in Mundelein, Illinois, walked off the job in a spontaneous strike against a pending immigration audit. Several weeks later, eight Ruprecht workers, three of whom are members of UNITE HERE Local 1, have been apprehended by immigration authorities.
In a statement, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said the eight workers were picked up after the department discovered the workers had records that fall within its priorities for arrest during a routine immigration audit. ICE claims the workers’ past charges include drunk driving, theft and felony fraud. But organizers argue that the audit and subsequent arrests, which took place while a group of Ruprecht workers were in union negotiations and followed the filing of two unfair labor practices (ULPs) could violate ICE’s own rules against interfering in workplaces that are in the midst of labor disputes.  
(Garrett Wilber/ Flickr)  According to a December 2011 memorandum between ICE and the Department of Labor, “ICE agrees to refrain from engaging in civil work site enforcement activities at a worksite that is the subject of an existing DOL investigation of a labor dispute.” The memorandum opens the door to several exceptions to this pledge, including national security issues, but primarily creates a space for ICE and the DOL to consider individual cases. 
Dan Abraham, organizing director for UNITE HERE Local 1, says the department should heed its own edict. “ICE should stay out of the workforce when there is collective bargaining, and immigration audits should not be conducted in workplaces where there are unfair labor practice charges pending,” he says.
ICE contends that it “plays no role in any ongoing labor disputes when conducting investigations involving an employee’s eligibility to work lawfully in the United States.” But an immigration audit can have consequences that weaken a unionized workplace. Tim Bell, an organizer with the Chicago Workers’ Collaborative who is not involved with the Ruprecht case but is a longtime organizer with immigrant workers, says he has seen several cases where an audit has caused unionized employees to either quit their jobs for fear of deportation or be apprehended as a result of the audit.
The result, says Bell, is “the union loses its members and the company figures out ways to replace those workers,” often with temp workers.
Whether the eight workers are eligible for relief under some of the Obama administration’s prosecutorial discretion or deferred action programs is unclear. In November 2014, immigration authorities divided ICE priorities for deportation into three categories, with individuals who had felonies at level one, the “highest priority” for apprehension and removal for the department. Some immigrants who are in deportation proceedings may qualify for asylum under the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) plan, but the order has been stalled amidst a legal battle around its constitutionality.
By the estimation of the detained immigrants, however, the enforcement priorities don’t appear to make a significant difference, says Hena Mansori, supervising attorney of the National Immigrant Justice Center’s Adult Detention Project.

Popular Posts