Immigration Reform Falls Short

What the GOP gets wrong about immigration.

Some Republicans think immigration reform is too lax. Nope; it is not nearly lax enough.

The comprehensive overhaul unveiled by the Senate’s gang of eight has some commendable elements, such as prioritizing merit-based visas and clearing the backlog of legal applicants. But it also calls for another $7 billion in enforcement through drones, more fencing, an additional 3,500 (!) federal border agents, a national employer mandate, and an entire new bureaucracy -- the Bureau of Immigration and Labor Market Research -- most of which would have to be in place before the first undocumented resident could get the first green card.

This might have been necessary to mollify the nation’s immigration hawks, who moderately support legal immigration but fiercely oppose the illegal kind.  Politics is the art of the possible. Yet it’s worth pointing out that the hawks are wrong.

Suppose you grow up poor in Alabama. You decide to move to New York to make a better life for yourself. But when you get to the state line, you’re stopped by armed men who won’t let you in. New York already has enough people, they say, and it doesn’t need you. And since you weren’t born there, you have no right to go there. You would -- quite reasonably -- find this ridiculous. So why is it any less ridiculous to tell a Guatemalan or a Bangladeshi that he cannot move to the U.S.?

Immigration hawks will say moving from Alabama to New York without permission is not against the law, but moving from Guatemala to the U.S. is. Case closed.

But it isn’t. As Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby points out in a piece on Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” the rule of law is an important thing -- but it is not the only thing: “The mindless enforcement of bad laws is not a substitute for decency or justice.”

Decency and justice demand an immigration policy vastly more open and forgiving than either current policy or the senators’ consensus proposal. Go back to the moving-to-New-York scenario above, which is a modified version of the introduction to an essay by Bryan Caplan in the Winter, 2012, issue of Cato Journal. Both scenarios establish what Caplan, a professor of economics at George Mason University, calls a moral presumption in favor of open borders.

Caplan points to research suggesting open borders “would roughly double world GDP, enough to virtually eliminate global poverty.” If so, then the “harm that immigration restrictions prevent has to be at least comparable” to the harm they cause. What’s more, we also need proof “that there is no cheaper or more humane way to mitigate the evils of [unrestricted] immigration.”

Caplan then examines each of the standard reasons for strict immigration limits. For example, do they protect American workers? Not nearly so much as immigration hawks assume. While “low-skilled wages are indeed likely to fall” if the fences come down, “most Americans are not low-skilled” while “most of the world’s would-be immigrants are, at best, substitutes for American high-school drop-outs.”

What’s more, “natives speak much better English,” and “when immigration increases, native workers really do responed by switching to more language-based occupations, escaping lower pay for their physical skills and capturing higher pay for their language skills. . . . [T]his mechanism cuts the estimated effect of immigration on low-skilled natives’ wages by 75 percent.”

But even if you assume otherwise, Caplan says there are much cheaper and more humane ways to protect American workers than forbidding entry to foreigners. For instance, “charge immigrants surtaxes” and then “use the extra revenue to compensate low-skilled Americans.”

Don’t many immigrants come to the U.S. to mooch off our welfare state? Not as much as the hawks would have you think: “Welfare states focus on the old, not the poor.” (If you’re not sure that’s right, compare Medicare’s 2012 budget of $555 billion with the 2012 food-stamp budget of $78 billion.) And “since immigrants tend to be young, they often end up supporting elderly natives rather than milking the system.”

In the rest of the paper, Caplan shows how each objection to immigration either does not have a factual basis, or could be handled through measures short of border quotas. In any event, the human harm from immigration is far less than the human harm imposed by immigration restrictions. He cites philosopher Michael Huemer, who presents the case of an individual -- Marvin -- who is in danger of starvation.

It is one thing, Huemer says, simply to not give Marvin food. In that case you are not killing him, you are letting him starve, and there is a moral difference. But suppose you “actively and forcibly restrain Marvin” from buying food from a willing seller, and Marvin starves. In that case you could be said to have done “something morally comparable to killing him.”

That is just what immigration limits do. Countless impoverished people around the globe want to move to the U.S. and, as Caplan says, “millions of American landlords, employers, and stores would be happy to house, hire, and feed them. For the U.S. government to criminalize these transactions . . . is not merely uncharitable. It is unjust.”

Republicans who genuinely believe in liberty and limited government will have to agree.

This article originally appeared at The Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Question of Auban||

    "But it also calls for another $7 billion in enforcement through drones"

    ANY bill, that is for ANY purpose that would authorize the use of government drones on US soil needs to be defeated. As much as I might support this bill otherwise, that is, for me, a poison pill I am not willing to swallow.

  • some guy||

    Governments already use ground drones in police standoff situations. Are you against those, or just airborne kind?

  • Question of Auban||

    Some Guy,

    Insofar as those ground drones kill bystanders, kill suspects without due process, and infringe upon our privacy and other rights, yes, I am against ground drones as well.

  • ||

    Drones don't kill people, people kill people. I sincerely doubt that the plan is for missile-armed to patrol the border of Arizona raining down hellfire on illegal border jumpers.

  • lilian321||

    what James explained I cannot believe that any one able to make $7375 in a few weeks on the computer. have you read this web site http://kep2.com/

  • Cosmo Punch||

  • ||

    I like how all the already-existing Jews mysteriously vanish in 15 years.

  • Suellington||

    Any bill for any purpose that establishes yet another Federal department or agency should also be defeated.

  • some guy||

    Unless the bill eliminates at least twice as many depts/agencies as it creates.

  • forestgombosi39||

    Peyton. if you, thought Jessica`s comment is super, on thursday I got a new Lotus Elan since I been bringin in $8898 this-past/month and-over, ten/k last month. this is definitely the nicest job I've ever had. I started this 8-months ago and pretty much straight away startad bringin home more than $69, per/hr. I use details from here wow65.com
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

  • entropy||

    Countless impoverished people around the globe want to move to the U.S. and, . . . is not merely uncharitable. It is unjust.”

    That's freakin idiotic.

    What do you think would happen if we tried to absorb 400 million indigents?

    And how do you figure these poor people are going to have cash to pay stores and landlords? Not without government welfare subsidies, which in our system are pretty much automatic.

  • ||

    Right, cause all 400 million can make it here in the first place.

  • entropy||

    What's "all" about 400 million? If they "all" came it would be more like 2 or 3 billion.

  • entropy||

    Mind you I'm not the one making the argument that it's horrible and unjust that "countless" indigents can't all rush onto our welfare roles.

    It is a disaster of a stupid argument no matter whether it's possible or not.

  • GregMax||

    If 400 million indigents migrate to the US, then this will relieve population pressure on the places they emigrated from. Then, logically, the population would increase again to equilibrium and then over time another 400 million would emigrate to the US again. It's simple systems dynamics. Populations grow to the level at which environmental and economic forces restrict population and eventually the entire area open to migration homogenizes (I don't mean turns gay.)

  • entropy||

    And that's it?

    That's a nice little analysis but it's not meant to be all inclusive of the effects of importing 400 million indigents is it?

  • GregMax||

    No. Show me one that is.
    I'm simply pointing out that when people develop judgments about some policy or law they rarely use complexly developed models to make those judgements from. I'm high-lighting what I think is one dynamic that isn't considered - the broader effect. They used to try malaria control programs in Africa that sprayed whole countries, but left other non-cooperating countries un-sprayed. The mosquitoes just bread and spread. Population dynamic are complicated and simplifying the issue into "400 million good" "400 million bad" is mental masturbation.

  • entropy||

    I'm not the one who started it. I started by responding to this article that makes it out to be "400 million good" (not 400 million but "countless").

  • GregMax||

    I was just adding to your original point that it's idiotic to think populations are fixed and that completely unrestricted movement of populations wouldn't be a nightmare. I think we'd reach an equilibrium point that is not something most Americans would like. The third world would become second world and the first world would become second world too.

  • Calidissident||

    Why is unrestricted movement within countries ok, but unrestricted movement between countries is a nightmare? It's not like there aren't a ton of countries that have large differences in standard of living between different regions

  • GregMax||

    Because in theory all the people in a country are members of that country. Why not follow your logic to your home? Why do we restrict access to people's homes? Just let anyone come over whenever and where ever they want. Give us your address and indicate we can send anyone we want to live with you.
    That would be nightmare. Counties are analogous to homes.

  • Calidissident||

    "Counties are analogous to homes."

    No they aren't. The government does not own the country. Nor do the majority of voters.

  • GregMax||

    Yes they are. The people own the country.
    Do you own your apartment? No. But you have a right to expect to control who comes and stays. Look, your mental masturbation is funny, but countries are a perfect analog for individual abodes.

  • ||

    The people own the country.

    Just out of curiosity, is there any limit to rights of this ownership?

  • Calidissident||

    Because poor people never moved anywhere and survived before government welfare

  • entropy||

    Of COURSE they did before welfare.

    We don't live before welfare. We live during welfare.

  • Calidissident||

    If you think welfare is the primary reason people immigrate (and unless you have citizen kids, most immigrants aren't even eligible for most forms of welfare), you're either naive or stupid

  • entropy||

    Are you a fan of static tax revenue analysis?

    When Government changes the incentives, people change their behavior.

    Before welfare was an option, of course everyone had to work for a living.

    Now, when they come here, they will be targeted for welfare. The agencies that dole them out, like foodstamps, already run ads on the radio calling people stupid and stubborn for not wanting to take the 'help'. Welfare agencies want as many people on welfare as possible.

    And when they show up and get offered housing and food stamps they aren't stupid, it will be precious few who turn down free money from the government.

    most immigrants aren't even eligible for most forms of welfare), you're either naive or stupid

    Wait, wait wait... who are you calling naive?

  • Calidissident||

    "Are you a fan of static tax revenue analysis?

    When Government changes the incentives, people change their behavior."

    To an extent yes. But there are usually bigger factors in deciding to immigrate.

    "Before welfare was an option, of course everyone had to work for a living."

    Most immigrants who do get welfare also work.
    The fact that some get it illegally doesn't mean it's the norm. Most immigrant families on the dole have citizen kids.

  • entropy||

    What does it even matter what they're doing now?

    The whole point of this is to legalize them so they can recieve bennies.

    You don't believe that our congress critters are going to create 2nd class citizens, do you? "The likes of which we haven't seen since slavery"?

    If I believed for a second they could disconnect the ability to reside and work from the bennies of citizenship, I wouldn't mind indigent immigration. But there's no way in hell they're going to do that - even if they do do that, it will be transient, on the way to something else. The whole point of the reforms they are pushing is to open up the dole.

  • Calidissident||

    I think it's more about voters than benefits. Democrats get a majority of Hispanic and Asian voters of all income levels. But my argument wasn't regarding this specific bill. I would be ok with a compromise that allowed people currently in the country to attain legal residency but not the right to vote (which is really not all that beneficial to an individual, and is of pretty low concern to them directly).

    One thing I find odd about the people (especially libertarians more so than conservatives) who use the existence of welfare to justify opposition to immigration is that they almost never apply this logic to any other issue. Why not make it legal to sterilize someone who is likely to have kids who will go on welfare? Why are laws aimed at reducing healthcare costs by restricting liberty not ok? The people who make this argument cede to the left the argument that government spending justifies the nanny state.

  • Alex the wolf||

    "Why not make it legal to sterilize someone who is likely to have kids who will go on welfare?"

    Because that would contradict liberty. For a libertarian, liberty is an end, not a mean for something else.

  • $park¥||

    Here's an idea: instead of bringing millions of people into the US from around the world, let's bring the US to them. The US could take control of the land where these potential immigrants live and then start applying our governmental rules to it. How could this not foster good will throughout the world?

  • SusanM||

    In Soviet Russia immigration comes to you!

  • ||

    In Soviet Russia country migrates to you!

  • ||

    In Soviet Russia your ancestors get relocated from Chechnya to Kyrgyzstan and you immigrate to the US but still hold grudges about your ancestors' homeland and so bomb your new home you!

  • JSebastian||

    "Decency and justice demand an immigration policy vastly more open and forgiving than either current policy or the senators’ consensus proposal. "

    Now you're just making stuff up. There is no such demand. The Constitution is silent on this topic. Congress was given control over naturalization, with no strings attached. And really it should not be up to Congress anyway - it should be up to the people themselves, who have to bear the burden of new arrivals. If the people unanimously approve allowing an immigrant in, then it should be allowed, but otherwise, it shouldn't be. Say you lived in an apartment with oh, I don't know, 587K roommates. Should just one of those roommates be allowed to make the decision to bring in thousands of additional roommates? Shouldn't all the roommates agree?

  • ||

    Of course the roommates should agree. Fortunately an apartment is in no useful way analogous to a nation.

  • entropy||

    In an unrestrained Democracy, roommates might be a perfect analogy.

    These are the people who will be voting on what you're allowed to eat.

  • ||

    Wha?

  • Calidissident||

    We're not an unrestrained democracy

  • entropy||

    Oh really? What would you call us then, a social democracy instead?

    Do you think you're living in a constitutional republic? The Constitution is a dead letter.

  • Calidissident||

    I would agree that the republic is mostly dead in practice. Still wouldn't say we're a true democracy. Nor do I think that makes your analogy any better. Since when does democracy require unanimous consent? Are you saying that no one should be allowed to immigrate here because there will always be at least one US citizen who objects to it?

  • ||

    ...Bureau of Immigration and Labor Market Research...

    Ah, this harkens back to those past new bureaucracies that had to be formed here and abroad, from the Bureau of Emancipation and Labor Market Research in the US in 1865 to the Bureau of Ending Apartheid and Labor Market Research in South Africa in 1991.

    Strangely, these Bureaus always arrive at the same conclusion: Free labor and migration is more wealth enhancing than constrained labor and migration. Freedom. What a concept.

  • smiley||

    This article is more proof that the libertarians are just as much nutter ideologues on illegal immigration as the utopian leftists on their various schemes.

    Since the writer claims to be so morally superior and refuse to let borders stop enterprise, he should prove it by allowing said Guatemalan to invade his own property and, say, plant orange trees for his own use, or film a porno on his front lawn. All in the name of free commerce of course.

    Speaking of, I thought "MORALLY SUPERIOR" arguments were only for the leftist demagogues. Apparently not. GG libertarians.

    At least you guys are just now trying to square the circle with the absurd police state the bill calls for contra your own beliefs. Wait till you figure out how to handle the mysterious "background check". You know, the same "background checks" that will require invasive statism to be worth much.

  • ||

    Let me get this straight: To save someone who is not a US citizen and not yet a legal resident of the US an invasive statist background check, you would instead make it illegal for him to be in the US.

    Who is it who is calling for an absurd police state?

  • smiley||

    I'm calling for controlled borders and much, much more legal immigration. That would be the same kind of enforcement of sovereignty the Constitution requires of the fed gov, yes? Or is this one of those leftist-sorta "living document" things?

    What you want has demolished many societies and civilizations over. If you've seen any scope of the chaos at the border over the last 30 years, you'd already know this.

    BTW, still waiting for one of you libertarians to explain how the ill-explained "BACKGROUND CHECK" is supposed to be compatible with your ideas. "Papers pls" is suddenly ok with you all? That doesn't strike me as a very open border.

  • ||

    I assure you that even an anarchist society would police its border to prevent entry of those who intend harm to the society. They just wouldn't prevent entry of people who do not intend harm to the society -- unlike 99% of US immigration prevention today.

  • Calidissident||

    The Constitution does not give the government the power over immigration. Naturalization is not the same thing as immigration. I would agree with you that more legal immigration should be allowed. That's one of the main drivers of illegal immigration. But I'm not going to condemn and demonize people who break unjust laws to move somewhere to make a better life for themselves and their families any more than I would for someone who lights up a joint on weekends.

  • ||

    To presume to know the motivations and intentions of 10-20 million people is the height of stupidity. That's what makes illegal immigration so untenable. It's just as easy for the next Osama bin Laden to jump a border as the next Julio the tomato picker, and there's no way to differentiate the two in the black market.

  • Calidissident||

    "Since the writer claims to be so morally superior and refuse to let borders stop enterprise, he should prove it by allowing said Guatemalan to invade his own property and, say, plant orange trees for his own use, or film a porno on his front lawn. All in the name of free commerce of course."

    A government's claim to the country is in no way analogous to an individual's claim to their property. The writer is under no obligation to let the Guatemalan on his property. However, he has no right to forcibly prevent his neighbor from hiring the Guatemalan to pick oranges or rent an apartment to him.

  • DarrenM||

    A government's claim to the country is in no way analogous to an individual's claim to their property.

    Is there any piece of real estate in the U.S. that *someone* (including a goverment entity) does *not* own? And doesn't the owner have a right to use this this property as he/she sees fit within the confines of the law?

  • Calidissident||

    "Is there any piece of real estate in the U.S. that *someone* (including a goverment entity) does *not* own? And doesn't the owner have a right to use this this property as he/she sees fit within the confines of the law?"

    That's my entire point. If a property owner wants to rent his land to a foreigner, or hire them to work for him, or sell goods and services to them, or to just live with him, then you have no right to interfere any more than you would if he was transacting with an American.

  • smiley||

    Then that's a rather mendacious viewpoint and shortcircuits his whole moral argument, wouldn't you agree?

    "It's totally ok to flood the streets with ceaseless third world poverty. Just not on my lawn, Jose."

  • Calidissident||

    "It's totally ok to flood the streets with ceaseless third world poverty. Just not on my lawn, Jose."

    I'm not sure where I said the government should go abroad and pick up foreigners to dump in the middle of the streets (yes I know you weren't speaking literally)

    But actually yes. If you don't want Jose to cut your lawn, fine, don't hire him. But you have no right to forcibly prevent me from hiring him.

  • DarrenM||

    So why is it any less ridiculous to tell a Guatemalan or a Bangladeshi that he cannot move to the U.S.?

    Because a Guatemalan or Bangladeshi was not born in the U.S. and have no claim to any rights or benefits derived from being a citizen of same. The reverse is also true. Citizens of any country have prvileges non-citizens don't have. That's the way it is. Otherwise, what is the point of having a nation?

  • ||

    Citizens of any country have prvileges non-citizens don't have.

    Indeed. But they all have the same unalienable rights. Or don't you believe the founding document of the United States?

    And of course those rights include the rights of travel, of residence, and of association -- all of which are abrogated by immigration law that cares a whit about quota, duration, or skill.

    Otherwise, what is the point of having a nation?

    Again, from the founding document of the United States, the point of having a nation is to secure the unalienable rights endowed upon everyone equally.

    More specifically, the point of having a nation is to keep other nations' worse leaders and laws from oppressing you.

  • JWatts||

    The US has a vast welfare state. Until that is reduced or eliminated, the US can't afford to have large scale immigration of low skilled immigrants.

  • ||

    ...immigration of low skilled immigrants.

    ...birth of poor people.

    ...illicit drug use.

    ...premarital sex.

    ...dropping out of school.

    ...not signing up for AmeriCorps.

  • stacyedwards590||

    before I looked at the receipt ov $8413, I didn't believe ...that...my sister woz like actualie taking home money parttime from there new laptop.. there friends cousin haz done this for only 8 months and as of now paid for the loans on there house and got a new Ford. this is where I went, http://www.app70.com

  • ||

    No country can survive without borders. While I lean libertarian in most areas, libertarians have this wrong.

  • ||

    Nothing about free migration eliminates borders.

    As I note above, the point of having a nation is to keep other nations' worse leaders and laws from oppressing you. That doesn't change simply because you allow individuals their rights to migrate, reside, labor, and associate.

  • ||

    That doesn't change simply because you allow individuals their rights to migrate, reside, labor, and associate.

    That depends, really. If you allow unrestricted migration of, say, communist revolutionaries armed with tanks and machine guns, you're gonna have a bad time. For the author, you, and the libertarians who rely on the same argument, until those tools are utilized for some sinister purpose, there is no good reason to restrict the immigration of the folks in possession of those tools - to say nothing of the ideology, which is ostensibly irrelevant.

    Even if we don't go the argumentum ad absurdum (which isn't entirely absurd in this case) route, we have invented, in addition to the legitimate named rights you have enumerated, a massive collection of positive rights, which would more properly be understood as privileges, of both residency and citizenship of the United States. The practicalities of that policy is that it would be extremely difficult to extend the full range of those privileges to an unrestricted pool of immigrants, to say nothing of the incentives it creates. Europe learned this a long time ago.

  • zerohour||

    If you think Patrick`s story is impressive..., five weaks-ago my son in law earnt $8989 workin 40 hours a month from their apartment and the're neighbor's mom`s neighbour done this for 3 months and made more than $8989 parttime on there pc. apply the guidelines on this site wow65.com
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

  • sarapaxton755||

    If you think Rachel`s story is nice, , 3 weeks ago my aunties neighbour basically broght in $5518 workin twelve hour's a week from their apartment and the're co-worker's sister`s neighbour has been doing this for three months and got a cheque for more than $5518 in their spare time on their mac. apply the guide on this address, http://www.app70.com

  • ||

    Even accepting the premise of unrestricted immigration (third world infectious diseases and dirty bombs, fuck yea!), unless you deal with the underlying causes of illegal immigration, primarily distortions in the labor market due to government meddling (regulatory compliance and minimum wage chief among them), you will never eliminate illegal immigration even if you granted everyone on earth provisional citizenship. As soon as the illegal immigrant gains legal status and the accompanying rights and privileges his utility is lost. Businesses don't hire illegal immigrants because they are brimming with compassion for the poor Mexican. There's a black market in labor for the same reason there's a black market in anything, and that market is primarily satisfied by illegal immigrants for reasons of practicality. They hire them because it's the only way they can match value to wages and benefits. The presence of illegal immigrants is a symptom, not the disease. This current reform proposal does absolutely nothing to address those issues. In fact, it turns employers into policemen and shifts the entire burden of enforcement to them, just as they've already done with tax enforcement and health care, creating yet another regulatory burden. The immigration system does need reform, and labor regulations even more, but the current proposal has no merit on any grounds besides, I guess, a humanitarian desire to improve the standard of living of poor Enrique the gardener.

  • ||

    The point being, don't be shocked when you're having this exact same debate all over again in about 25 years regarding somewhere around 30 million illegal immigrants, if history is any guide. The "illegal" is the part that makes illegal immigrants attractive under the current system, not the "immigrant" part.

  • TheBurningTimes||

    Great points, and exactly what I'm concerned about.

    This whole charade will do nothing to stop the underlying causes of illegal immigration, especially when promising green cards to everyone who can fake papers.

    Wishcasting gets us nowhere.

  • TheBurningTimes||

    If the deal was to greatly expand worker visas, and eliminate the minimum wage laws(plus no e-verify), I'd pull the trigger.

    Otherwise we are just setting ourselves up for the same damned debate in 25 years.

  • juliana89||

    Juliana. if you think Anita`s st0rry is unbelievable, on monday I got Smart ForTwo from earning $6185 recently and-even more than, 10/k last-munth. with-out a doubt this is the most comfortable work Ive ever had. I actually started 7-months ago and practically straight away began to bring in at least $85 p/h. , hub16.com

  • blak53||

    like Nathan said I am in shock that any one can get paid $8083 in 1 month on the computer. have you read this web page http://www.wow92.com

  • ravengabriel||

    my buddy's mother makes $67/hour on the internet. She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her paycheck was $12974 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site
    go to this site home tab for more detail http://WWW.BIG76.COM

  • J_West||

    That doesn't change simply because you allow individuals their rights to migrate, reside, labor, and associate.

    Say you put up a sign at your business: "Whites Only Need Apply." How far would you get with that? Same with selling your house, or whatever--"Whites Only!" Try it and you'd be hit with any number of civil rights actions.

    The reality is that in the USA, you do not have a right of association. I'm not going to argue if that is right or wrong, it's just a reality.

    The libertarian argument for unrestricted immigration is, I understand, a defense of the right of contract between consenting individuals, i.e., right of association. By the same logic, then pro-unrestricted immigration libertarians ought to be opposed to the various civil rights and open housing laws which forbid discrimination on the basic of race. After all, if you want to hire only people of one race, or sell your house to only members of one race, then what right do third parties have to interfere?

    Yet I do not see this point being made very much in public. I'd really like to see some explanation of the contradiction.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement