Anarchic update news all over the world - 9.08.2017

Today's Topics:

   
1.  US, St. Paul, MN, Unicorn RiotLike Page: justice for
      Philando Castile (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
  
 2.  Surrey and Hampshire Anarchist Federation: Daddy, why do you
      hate me? (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
  
 3.  awsm.nz: IMMIGRATION: FACTS & MYTHS By Pink Panther
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1




Last week an anarchist marching band and fifty plus community members demanded county 
attorney's Drop the Charges. This week, felony riot charges against Louis Hunter, Philando 
Castile's cousin, were dropped. He was the only one facing felonies out of more than a 
hundred arrested during last summer's protests seeking justice for Philando Castile.[CC] 
---- St. Paul, MN - Louis Hunter, Philando Castile's cousin, had two second-degree felony 
riot charges dismissed on August 2nd, 2017, less than two months before his trial was to 
begin. Hunter was alleged to have thrown rocks and construction debris at police during a 
protest that shut down Interstate 94 in St. Paul on July 9, 2016. The protest was three 
days after Philando Castile was killed by police officer Jeronimo Yanez.

For more info: www.unicornriot.ninja/?p=17746
Watch video in HD: https://vimeo.com/228135665
To help support our work: www.unicornriot.ninja/?page_id=211

Last week, an action organized by the all-volunteer Support Louis Hunter group (which has 
done months of organizing and held fundraising events for Louis), called on the Ramsey 
County Attorney's Office to drop the charges against Louis Hunter. An anarchist marching 
band provided many different songs for beats and several dozen community members 
participated. They turned in over 1100 signed postcards from citizens throughout Minnesota 
and even internationally, to the county attorney's office, demanding the charges be 
dropped against Hunter.

The Carver County Attorney's Office said that there was insufficient evidence to continue 
with the their second-degree charges against Hunter. Carver County Attorney's Office had 
taken over the prosecution of Louis Hunter after Ramsey County labeled their own 
involvement as a conflict of interest while they were also handling the Yanez case.

During the action last week, we spoke to Jesse Mortensen, who is one of dozens of 
community members facing misdemeanor charges from their involvement in last summer's 
protests seeking justice for Philando Castile. He spoke about how dozens have banded 
together and have refused to take plea deals until Louis Hunter's charges are dropped.

Many people still face charges from a summer full of protests following Castile's killing 
that rocked St. Paul and led to an occupation of the space outside the gates of the 
Minnesota Governor's Mansion in St. Paul for over three weeks. This dismissal will 
potentially lead to more dropped protest-related cases; as Unicorn Riot has consistently 
observed, serious charges are often leveled for a while but dropped after defendants 
refuse plea deals.

------------------------------

Message: 2




The Article below is taken from the website Commonware. ---- A Sarah Jones contribution on 
the UK general election and the situation in the country ---- "Oh simple thing, where have 
you gone? ---- I'm tired and I need someone to rely on" ---- Lily Allen, �Somewhere Only 
We Know' from Labour Party Campaign Video, 2017 ---- The fire at Grenfell Tower in London 
is a reminder of the current state of the UK, in which the ruling class rides roughshod 
over a greatly weakened working class. Despite repeated warnings by the residents about 
the safety of the building, they didn't have the strength to make themselves heard. In 
November they wrote: ---- "Unfortunately, the Grenfell Action Group have reached the 
conclusion that only an incident that results in serious loss of life of KCTMO residents 
will allow the external scrutiny to occur that will shine a light on the practices that 
characterise the malign governance of this non-functioning organisation."

This serious loss of life has happened, and has indeed exposed malign governance. A 
privately financed refurbishment of the building to make it more appealing to the wealthy 
neighbours had spread the fire from the fourth floor to the top floor in a matter of 
minutes, the fire alarms didn't work, and the official advice for people to remain inside 
their flats was wrong. The Conservative council had ignored fire regulations and 
residents' complaints. The Conservative government had made huge cuts to the fire service 
and had not followed the recommendations of a report commissioned after six people died in 
a tower block fire in South London in 2009, which included warnings about flammable 
cladding, used in over sixty tower blocks in the UK. Given the clear role of her party in 
the disaster, it is unsurprising that Theresa May was scared to meet the survivors.

But it was a Labour government that rolled out private partnerships in the public sector 
in the name of efficiency savings, and weakened fire safety procedures in the name of 
deregulation. And many Labour run councils have used the same company to install the same 
flammable cladding in their own tower blocks: indeed, it was in a Labour borough that the 
2009 fire happened. And it is Labour run councils that are currently destroying some of 
the largest council estates in Europe to make way for luxury housing. This fire could just 
have easily happened in a Labour borough or under a Labour government - so why aren't 
Labour scared?

Because, despite their own best efforts to get rid of him, it has Jeremy Corbyn. Having 
always voted against the worst of Labour's excesses, he is the party's Jiminy Cricket, its 
good conscience. His leadership undoes the party's past sins in the mind of the 
electorate, giving them hope that there is an alternative to years of privatization and 
welfare cuts. The Labour Party's final campaign video, set to Lily Allen's �Somewhere only 
we know' paints a picture of a lost and tired working class, longing for a father figure 
to lead them to a better place. Although this is one of the few Labour campaign videos 
that Ken Loach didn't make, there is still something of Daniel Blake about it - good, 
honest working people simply asking to be given back that which they have lost. They are 
not a threatening, collective and fighting subject, but a series of isolated individuals 
wanting nothing more than that disappeared �simple thing': the welfare state. And indeed, 
Labour's message is that this would be as simple as increasing taxes on the richest 5% of 
earners and returning corporation tax to 2010 levels. With this move, Jeremy Corbyn, or 
JC, as he is often called, could produce loaves and fishes for all. So it is no surprise 
when a resident local to Grenfell Tower says: "People need a revolution in this country, 
and nothing short of that!", and then goes on to suggest that this revolution is Corbyn.

Theresa May had called the election because she was twenty points ahead in the polls - 
from the Guardian to the Daily Mail, everyone agreed that Corbyn was �unelectable'. In a 
weak and unstable post-Brexit Britain the people wanted a �strong and stable' Conservative 
government. And so the election was to be a replay of 1983, when Margaret Thatcher 
thrashed Michael Foot, wiping out the Labour Party for more than a decade. Dubbed �the 
longest suicide note in history', Foot's openly socialist manifesto had called for taxes 
on wealth, the renationalization of industries privatized by Thatcher, an emergency 
programme of infrastructure and house building and immediate withdrawal from Europe. If no 
one wanted to return to seventies style socialism in the 80s, they certainly wouldn't want 
to now. May was so confident of her position that she thought she had a free hand to do 
what she pleased. She proposed that elderly care should be paid for by selling peoples 
houses when they died and questioned the Tories' previous generous pension commitments 
(attacking her key voter base, property owning over-65s), wanted to re-legalise fox 
hunting (a sport enjoyed only by aristocrats and farmers and hugely unpopular in the 
country as a whole) and refused to engage in televised debates with other leaders (because 
she needed to �get on with the job').

She did in fact get the highest share of the vote since Thatcher's landslide in 1983, but 
unfortunately for her, Corbyn got the highest share of the vote since Blair's landslide in 
1997, and the biggest vote increase since 1945. In some ways this election can be seen as 
a victory for the establishment, a re-engagement with politics post-Brexit and 
post-Scottish independence referendum: it saw the highest turnout in 25 years and the 
return of a strong two party system. The two recent referendums seem to have had a major 
effect: the Conservative and Labour gains in Scotland were considered a protest against 
the SNP's call for another independence referendum, and the swings between Labour and 
Conservatives were clearly influenced by voter positions on Brexit. The swing to the 
Conservatives was particularly marked in traditional Labour seats which voted to leave the 
European Union, and most notably amongst the skilled working class. Conservatives made 
most gains in seats where in the last five years average incomes had dropped most, and 
made no gains where incomes had risen most: perhaps people weren't voting according to 
their pay-packets, but according to their different expectations about what a hard Brexit 
might do to their pay-packets. Conversely, Labour gained most ground in Remain voting 
areas, with the biggest swings from the Conservatives in areas with large numbers of 
wealthy middle class professionals. It increased votes across the political spectrum, 
picking up support not just from the Conservatives, but in equal numbers from people who 
had last voted for the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and UKIP.

Corbyn's popularity increased considerably after the publication of his manifesto.  Much 
as some on the left hailed it as Labour's return to socialism, the only proposal it had in 
common with Foot's was withdrawal from Europe. In fact, it was more like Labour's 2015 
manifesto: where Ed Miliband had wanted state run companies on the railways, Corbyn wanted 
to nationalize them; where Miliband wanted to cut tuition fees, Corbyn would abolish them; 
where Miliband wanted to increase taxes on incomes over �150,000, Corbyn would increase 
them on incomes over �80,000 and so on. And although Corbyn proposed renationalization of 
the railways, water industry and the country's postal service as well as the setting up of 
a state energy company, he did not touch on the programme of full privatization in other 
sectors. His corporation tax rise would still leave the country with some of the lowest 
corporation tax in the OECD. In theory this is only the first step towards a system of 
workers cooperatives, locally led ownership, and re-nationalisation of �natural 
monopolies' set out in the party's research document �Alternative Models of Ownership'. 
One need only see that Legacoop in Italy1 is cited as an exemplary workers' cooperative to 
understand the limits of this vision. His manifesto did little more than undo some of the 
most brutal benefit and tax-cuts of the last ten years, and nationalize industries where 
privatization has been widely perceived as damaging to the consumer. Of course 
implementing even this programme would be difficult in the absence of struggle, but it was 
hardly a socialist suicide note.

Not only was Corbyn's manifesto comfortingly moderate, but as the campaign wore on he 
proved he could be tough when he needed to be. Against expectations, Corbyn's support rose 
as he responded to the terrorist attacks in Manchester and London, arguing that cuts in 
policing and British foreign policy had made the country less safe. He also explicitly 
changed his position on a number of security issues, agreeing to work with NATO and 
supporting the police's right to shoot to kill (both of which he had previously openly 
criticized), accepting the renewal of Britain's nuclear arms system, and pledging to 
increase the number of border guards.

But this didn't stop first time voters, and those who had abandoned Labour under Blair, 
seeing him as a fresh, anti-establishment alternative, an image that was only reinforced 
by his vilification in the mainstream media. Manifesto pledges aimed at the young, such as 
scrapping tuition fees and reintroducing education maintenance allowance were of course 
fundamental to the youth vote, and helped to engage young people from the early stages. 
The campaign group Momentum, set up during Corbyn's leadership bid, brought in activists 
from the Bernie Sanders campaign to teach its army of young people how to produce and 
disseminate viral videos aimed at �mobilising' more youth. Against electoral wisdom, 
Corbyn held his first rallies in areas with a strong Labour tradition, to ensure they 
would be packed out. These were then broadcast across social media2 and self-designated a 
social movement. Much was done to make 68 year old Corbyn  -  historical fighter against 
apartheid and unjust wars -seem youthful, fresh and forward looking. He hung out with 
grime artists, talked about football and spoke at rock concerts. The incongruence of this 
is beautifully demonstrated in a video in which Corbyn's head is superimposed onto grime 
artist Stormzy. In contrast, the Conservatives were portrayed as kid hating bastards: 
"Daddy, why do you hate me?". If Corbyn wasn't convincingly young, then at least he looked 
like a daddy that loved us. And the kids loved him back. Labour led 35 points over the 
Conservatives amongst 18-24 year olds, with all of the swing towards them being among 
under 44s, and the biggest swing coming from 25-34 year olds. Young people not only put 
their crosses in the Labour box, but knocked on doors in their tens of thousands. Despite 
Conservative attacks on the old, this election saw age replacing class as the key 
determinant of party support.

Although Blairites' repeatedly insist that only they are youthful and electable, any hopes 
Blairism seemed to provide have burnt up in a post-crisis Britain  - we can no more go 
back to the 1990s than we can go back to the 1970s. Meanwhile, Corbyn is offering a third 
way between Blair and Foot. If you are a young radical he is an anti-establishment 
firebrand, who challenges everything you know and hate. If you are an affluent Remain 
voter he is a buffer against a hard Brexit - a process which threatens everything you know 
and love. He has something for everyone; in this sense he really is �for the many, not the 
few'. Of course young people and affluent people are not mutually exclusive, in fact the 
main swing to Labour was amongst young affluent voters, well off but afraid for their 
future. Corbyn's contradictions can reflect our own, and so are rather comforting: the 
same voter can simultaneously have a clear conscience voting for a man who was against 
nuclear arms, while sleeping safe in the knowledge that he would never actually get rid of 
them. And 95% of the electorate can vote for his kinder politics knowing that he would not 
raise their taxes. He was a win-win candidate.

He didn't win. However, the prospect of a Corbyn government is at least no longer 
impossible. If Corbyn becomes Prime Minister the immediate consequences would relieve, at 
least for a time, some of the greatest burdens of those living most on the edge. But he is 
likely to find that a manifesto that tries to please everyone, ultimately pleases no one. 
And unlike other recent left wing victories Corbyn is not riding on the back of a 
movement, and is leading what was recently a greatly hostile establishment party (and 
could quite easily be so again). Such contradictions might be helpful for winning votes 
from a broad electorate, but they will become real obstacles if Corbyn ever gains power. 
And the block of his party will be only the first front of battle against the structural 
constraints of capitalism.

The response from the left seems to be to insist that �the movement' will support him. For 
instance, author and activist Alex Nunns, interviewed in Jacobin argues:

"If we got into government the movement behind the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn would 
have to step up and exert itself in society. You can't just leave someone in number ten to 
implement your program, that's not going to work. There has to be a broad expression of 
social power behind the left government or it would get crushed."

There are a number of problems with this:

Attendance at rallies, sharing videosand knocking on doors is not a movement, indeed it is 
only the fact that no-one in the UK remembers what a movement is that allows the Labour 
Party to make the ludicrous claim that it has created one;
Corbyn's program is not �our' program, but the program of the LabourParty (see above);
Getting�behind the left government' sounds suspiciously like stamping out dissent.
What happens when people realize Corbyn's government doesn't make all that much difference 
to their lives? What if they start demanding more? Will they be asked to get "behind the 
left government", or will the government make more concessions? And what happens if 
companies do start pulling out investment or attacking the currency? What happens if the 
pound, which has already suffered post-Brexit, is devalued even further, hitting both the 
government's tax revenue and workers' real wages? Could Corbyn end up being sandwiched 
between attacks from capital and from the working class? What would he do? Would he borrow 
more? Would he seize assets and nationalize industries? Would he lock down the borders and 
declare social democracy in one country? Or would he capitulate to the demands of capital? 
A Corbyn government would be no simple thing. Luckily for him, he managed to look like he 
won without actually winning - and so for the time being these questions will not need to 
be answered, and he will not be faced with his own contradictions.

But in the meantime the continuing focus amongst much of the left on getting Corbyn into 
power can only channel energy and material support away from struggles that could actually 
challenge the structure of the system. There are few major struggles in the UK at the 
moment, and strikes are at historic lows3. But people are angry and small cracks of 
resistance are emerging. Not least in the streets around Grenfell Tower. Local residents 
see the fire not as an isolated disaster, but as only the last in a series of attacks - 
indeed, some actually think it was done on purpose. In the immediate aftermath, the 
council was absent. It was the people themselves who organized provisions and support for 
the survivors, and opened up their houses for those who had been left without water and 
electricity. And their anger has been bolstered into strength: they have stormed the 
council offices, marched on Downing Street and told the media where to go. There is even 
talk of holding rent strikes. This is presently only one small struggle amongst many micro 
struggles in workplaces, neighbourhoods and institutions happening across the country. But 
they all represent a widespread anger brewing against a malignant system. Although things 
look bleak for the time being, or perhaps precisely because they do look bleak, we need to 
put our energies into supporting, making connections between and widening these struggles. 
This is not a simple thing either, but it is a lot more simple than finding a daddy who 
doesn't hate us.

http://www.commonware.org/index.php/cartografia/774-uk-election-2017

------------------------------

Message: 3




Immigration was a major issue in the United States in the 2016 elections. It became a 
pivotal issue in the British and French elections earlier this year and now it's an 
important factor here in the lead up to September's power circus. ---- Concerns about 
immigrants driving up both the availability and affordability of housing, taking low 
paying jobs from local people and that some immigrants pose a threat on a cultural level, 
have resurfaced. ---- These claims are neither new nor valid. At best they are half-truths 
but mostly they are blatantly untrue. They're just the same old xenophobic arguments that 
have been updated for the second decade of the 21st Century so that the real causes of 
many of these issues don't have to be addressed.

Although Labour's ham-fisted and disgusting attempts to blame Asian immigrants for the 
housing crisis by revealing the number of "Asian sounding" names of house buyers in 
Auckland blew up in its face ("Labour's �half-baked' property data turns Chinese buyers 
into �scapegoats'", Stuff, July 11th, 2015) some have bought into the myth.

In reality it is difficult to prove conclusively who is responsible for driving up house 
prices. That is because such information has not been made available for commercial and 
privacy reasons. Depending on who you choose to believe, it would seem to be New 
Zealanders, particularly those who are returning from Australia, who are the largest 
buyers of housing in Auckland and elsewhere. ("Revealed: The truth about foreign buyers", 
NZ Herald, May 10th, 2016.)

When the housing market has a large speculative motivation behind it, as it has in recent 
times, supply and demand isn't that relevant. What matters is the ability to buy and sell 
houses at a price that will deliver large profits to the speculators. Rents are going up 
not because there is a shortage of housing as the result of the number of immigrants 
increasing but because property speculators are leaving the houses they buy sit empty 
while the value of the property increases. In real estate circles this is called "land 
banking": an utterly repugnant practice at a time of record levels of homelessness. 
("Martin Hawes: Why is Auckland property so hot?" Stuff, June 12th, 2016.)

Even if immigrants were not buying or renting housing it is unlikely that local people 
would earn enough to be able to do so themselves. Few landlords show willingness to rent 
to people who are most severely affected by the homelessness crisis: beneficiaries, Maori, 
Pacific Islanders and single mothers. Thus, despite NZ First and the Labour Party 
embracing anti-immigration policies to various degrees, they are fooling themselves (or 
more accurately trying to fool us) if they believe that restricting immigration will 
meaningfully address the housing crisis.

Another claim being made is that immigrants are �stealing' jobs from local unemployed 
people: a claim made not only by NZ First and Labour but also by churches like the 
Salvation Army. ("Too many jobs going to migrants - Sallies", Radio New Zealand, October 
19th, 2016.) In reality, while it is true that low skilled immigrants have arrived in 
larger numbers in recent years - a fact confirmed by the NZ Immigration Service - it has 
not resulted in fewer jobs for people already here.

In part this is because low-skilled immigrants end up in jobs that have either been 
created specifically to take advantage of low-skilled migrant workers, such as seasonal 
farm jobs, or in jobs where the employers are of the same ethnicity or nationality as the 
immigrants, such as in the retail sector. In the Wellington region it has long been common 
practice among Chinese, Indian and Turkish people to set up small businesses then hire 
family and friends of the same ethnicity or nationality to work in them. If you don't like 
this, it's worth noting it is also common practice in small to medium sized businesses 
owned by locally born New Zealanders.

Even if New Zealand follows the practice of the United States and starts deporting large 
groups of immigrants, it is almost certain the jobs they have will go with them: a fact 
New Zealand should've learned back in the late 1970s and 1980s when the government 
deported thousands of Pacific Island "over stayers". Very few of the jobs those who were 
deported were doing, went to New Zealanders. Instead the jobs simply ceased to exist.

If low skilled immigrants were deported the economy in many parts of the country would 
face serious problems and unemployment could increase considerably. Business New Zealand, 
the organisation that represents employers, and many media commentators have been amongst 
the staunchest opponents to curbs on immigrants. This is because they view immigrants as 
more desirable than the unemployed, whom they see as lazy drug abusers who don't want to 
do the sort of work immigrants are doing. ("Our approach to immigration is a disgrace", 
Stuff, April 21 2017.) This is despite the Ministry of Social Development's figures 
showing that less than 0.2% of job seekers have tested positive or refused drug tests and 
that most beneficiaries want to work. ("Bill English claims about Kiwi jobseekers using 
drugs �not backed by data'", February 28th, 2017.) It's really about bosses being able to 
exploit whoever they feel is easier to use to make profits out of and a classic �divide 
and conquer' tactic.

Finally, there's the hoary old chestnut of "they want to impose their way of life upon 
us". This tired argument was used to justify anti-Chinese immigration policies in the late 
19th and early 20th Century and to rationalise not admitting Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi 
Germany prior to World War Two. It was even used to excuse the racist Dawn Raids against 
Pacific Islanders in which thousands were deported. It's also deeply ironic when you look 
at the history of this country in terms of colonization and who imposed themselves on others.

In the many discussions with recent immigrants I've had, I have discovered that most have 
come here because they're looking for somewhere safe and secure for themselves and their 
families. They want to earn a livelihood, take advantage of any opportunities that come 
their way and generally do what most people around the world want to do. The last thing 
they want is to somehow impose their own culture, faith and beliefs upon the majority. 
Again, considering the colonial past of this country, that's a refreshing change.

If these immigrants are guilty of anything it is the depressing lack of any desire other 
than to pursue the petit-bourgeoisie �Kiwi dream' of a nice house in the suburbs, a steady 
and secure white-collar job and a pleasant retirement once they reach a certain age.

To some extent there is a certain logic behind this type of thinking. A sizeable 
proportion of people who came here recently have come to escape religious fundamentalism, 
political persecution and conflict. It's to be expected that people who have lost 
everything and put their very lives on the line to escape from the likes of Bashir Assad, 
Saddam Hussein or any number of other dictators or from groups like Islamic State, 
wouldn't seek to impose despotic or religious fundamentalist rule here- or seek any 
revolutionary changes. Sure, as with any group there will always be a few who really are 
the sort that the far right and NZ First love to terrify old white people with. In the 
real world these types of immigrants are extraordinarily rare though.

Despite the scaremongering surrounding immigrants, particularly Muslims, I would argue 
that most who come here contribute out of all proportion to their numbers. In the United 
States it is estimated that Hispanic migrants alone contribute an estimated $1.3 trillion 
dollars a year to the economy. Indeed immigrants have made such a huge contribution to the 
economies of many major American cities, they actually want more immigrants. ("Why 
American Cities Are Fighting to Attract Immigrants", The Atlantic, July 21st, 2015)

The free market think tank, New Zealand Initiative has argued "Of those who do choose to 
move to New Zealand permanently, analysis of the New Zealand General Social Survey show 
immigrants integrate well. They are less likely to claim a benefit, more likely to be 
employed, and their children have better education outcomes than native born New 
Zealanders. There is relatively little ethnic or migrant clustering, and where 
concentrations do occur there is no indication of high unemployment. 87% of migrants say 
they feel they belong to New Zealand. Surveys show New Zealanders too have a generally 
positive view of migrants, and value the contribution that make to the economy and the 
cultural diversity they bring." Of course, the people behind the NZI have their own agenda 
in presenting these points. They implicitly view immigrants as useful cogs for bosses to 
slot into the capitalist economy. Nevertheless, it shows how more sensible they are in 
understanding the nature of immigration than the supposedly �progressive' Labour Party.

Immigration is not something to be feared under the misguided notion that immigrants are 
somehow a threat to those of us who already live here. Granted my Maori ancestors arrived 
here sometime in the 13th Century and the first of my pakeha ancestors arrived here in 
1840 but, like today's immigrants, they all arrived from elsewhere in search of something 
better. It's also why many people born here move overseas. Which in passing brings up the 
point that the current government can't boast that the recent increase in immigration 
somehow shows how wonderful things are here. Yes, compared to war torn countries, it is 
better to live in a quiet part of the southern hemisphere or just about anywhere else for 
that matter. However, if you are more interested in comparing upwards rather than against 
the worst case scenario, you have to factor in the �seventeenth region' a.k.a the 600,000+ 
people from here who prefer living elsewhere. In addition to the million people who didn't 
vote at the last election, the politicians should be aware of this sizeable number who 
have voted with their feet.

If it is acceptable to let the rich elites travel with few or no restrictions then surely 
that should extend to ALL peoples? I would rather have an Afghani working class labourer 
who understands about losing everything, making sacrifices for themselves and their 
families and who knows what hard work is as a neighbour, than an American businessman who 
bought his way in by waving $20 million under the noses of immigration officials.

So to conclude, immigration is not a problem. It's an issue being exploited by politicians 
who know better, but are trying to play on people's fears and emotions. Being able to 
decide who you live around is a natural thing. However, we really can't afford to put 
those decisions in the hands of power merchants who only use its importance to suit their 
own ends every three years.

http://www.awsm.nz/2017/08/06/immigration-facts-myths/

------------------------------