 This is Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce. He LITERALLY hates babies. I’m really not sure if this is pure political saber-rattling or a genuine debate the GOP is looking to engage in, but earlier this week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joined other top Republicans in raising the question of birthright citizenship.
The whole debate stems from the Arizona illegal immigration debate, which has focused on punitive legislation to make life in the United States so heinous to undocumented immigrants from Mexico as to discourage border-crossing. SB 1070, of course, was intended to use the state and local police force to track down, detain and deport illegal immigrants by institutionalizing racial profiling of Arizona residents; according to federal judge Susan Bolton, the law had the unintended consequence of also legalizing harassment of the state’s legal immigrants.
Arizona Republicans have bandied about other ideas that would use state laws to harass illegal immigrants in order to drive them out of the country. Former state legislator running for re-election to the Arizona Corporation Commission, Barry Wong, has proposed that the Commission (which oversees the state’s utility policies) require electricity providers to check the immigration status of customers, and to cut power to any customer who cannot demonstrate that he or she is legally in the country. HB 2281 has banned the teaching of ethnic studies in the state’s public schools; current school superintendent and Republican candidate for state attorney general Tom Horne was quoted as saying that the bill was intended to wipe out “ethnic chauvinism” he believed was being taught in a Southern Arizona Chicano studies program. The program offered optional classes to students that encouraged reading of Chicano authors and teaching of Mexican-American history. SB 1097, a bill that is currently being considered in the State House, would — in essence — deputize school administrator as immigrations officers empowered to request and verify the immigration documents of public school students, and to report the enrollment of illegal immigrant children in their schools. Failure to do so would result in loss of state money to the school.
Not surprisingly, State Senator Russell Pearce has sponsored many of the state bills targeting illegal immigrants. Pearce has annointed himself the state’s primary champion against illegal immigrants since the shooting of his son, a Maricopa county sherriff, by men who turned out to be illegally in the country.
Along with SB 1070 and SB 1097, Pearce has now turned his attention to an issue described by a pejorative term popularized by anti-illegal immigrant activists in Arizona: “anchor babies”. Pearce and his cadre of nativist politicians believe that America’s Fourteenth Amendment, which grants American citizenship to any child born within the United States or its territories, provides an incentive for pregnant mothers to illegally enter the country so that they can give birth to their child. The child is granted American citizenship, so the theory goes, and than sponsors re-entry of its parents into the country or stays deportation proceedings.
The problem with the ”anchor baby” argument is two-fold.
First of all, Pearce’s hysteria over “anchor babies” is, frankly, preposterous. Children cannot sponsor the immigration of family members until they are 21 years of age. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement can refuse to stay a deportation on account of an underage child with American citizenship. While statistics on how many children are born to illegal immigrants are hard to come by (I spent about half an hour on the CDC’s National Vital Statistics System trying to figure out how to find the appropriate data), ABC reports that approximately 7,500 children are born to non-resident mothers nationwide (compared to 4.2 million total births). We’re not talking about a pandemic, here.
Yet, Pearce would have us imagine that pregnant mothers are crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in droves. Considering that thousands of able-bodied people (i.e. people who are not seven months pregnant) die in the deserts along the U.S.-Mexico border, it’s hard for me to imagine scores of pregnant women deciding to embark on a two-week long hike through the harsh Arizona deserts with nothing more than a bottle of water, all in the vain hope that their children could eventually sponsor their re-entry into the United States… in twenty-one years.
Between the morning sickness, the bladder pressure, and the swollen ankles, most pregnant women I know have a rough time walking 50 feet, let alone 50 miles.
 Russell Pearce believes this woman is capable of embarking on a two-week long backpacking trip through the Arizona desert in 100+ degree heat. Having actually hiked that wilderness, I call "bullshit". But, on a more serious note, Pearce’s attack on “birthright citizenship” is also alarming for the effect that it has on our basic understanding of citizenship in America. Citizenship by circumstance of birth was introduced as a means of granting citizenship rights to all children in America, regardless of race or ethnic background; it’s no coincidence that birthright citizenship is included in the same amendment that established political equality for people of colour.
In truth, Pearce’s proposal — that citizenship be conferred to children based on the citizenship status of its parents — is not new. Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the status of parents influenced the rights granted to their child. Although America adopted the tradition of birthright citizenship from Britain, America did not historically grant citizenship to the children of black slaves regardless of birthplace. This practice was upheld in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which found that Scott was not a citizen of the United States by virtue of his race, despite having been born in Virginia. The race of a child’s parents determined the race of a child (re: one-drop rules), which in turn determined whether the child could be granted political rights and American citizenship.
Yet, even in the mid-nineteenth century, America recognized the injustice of such a practice. With the Fourteenth Amendment, White men could no longer deny the citizenship of the children of Black slaves by being empowered to decide whether or not they qualify for protection under American federal law; simply by circumstance of birth, these children were rendered politically equal regardless of their parentage. We reiterated the importance of this basic understanding of American citizenship back in 1898 with Wong Kim Ark vs. United States.
Pearce is operating under a basic — and inflammatory — belief that illegal immigrants are not deserving of constitutional rights. But Pearce’s interpretation of the Constitution attacks legal and illegal immigrants alike, regardless of race or national origin. By virtue of not having American citizenship, Pearce apparently believes that non-citizens (legal or illegal) should not be awarded due process or protected from unwarranted searches and seizures (which, actually, explains a lot of his reasoning for sponsoring SB 1070). Pearce’s suggestion that the federal government once more be allowed to decide who can, and who cannot, be awarded American citizenship hearkens back to a time when certain groups in this country were not protected by the law, and were considered three-fifths of a man.
In essence, Pearce doesn’t believe that the rights awarded by the U.S. Constitution are actually rights. Rather, he sees the Bill of Rights as a ”Bill of Privileges” — or, more accurately, a “Bill of White Privileges”.
Frankly, I believe that’s not an America that I — or anyone — should want to be a part of.
Cross-posted: Blog for Arizona
Posted in Arizona, Blogging at Blog for Arizona, Local, Politics, Politics of Race, SB 1070 | 1 Comment »
With all the buzz surrounding K-Town on the blogosphere, Jen over at Disagrasian warns us to tone down the joking. And she’s right — this is serious, folks. Jen warns that K-Town could invoke a new, very harmful, stereotype against Asian Men…
… that Asian Men hate shirts.
I applaud Jen for being vigilant in this matter. As she describes in her post, the consequences of this stereotype to hard-working, honest Asian American men is profound. We could be talking about scores of Asian men turned away by employers who require shirts be worn every day of the week — even Casual Friday! Thousands of Asian men might find themselves applying for jobs in fields where they won’t be unfairly penalized due to the anti-shirt stereotype. Do we really want our Asian brothers forced to work as strippers, cabana boys, and life guards?
Think about the self-hate and shame that will be invoked amongst decent, well-meaning Asian men when they hear phrases like, “Hey, dude, chill out! Keep your shirt on!” or “What are you, a nudist who lacks commitment?” Think of the pain Asian men will have to endure when they become targeted by new racial slurs, like “shirt-hater”, “Chippendale”, or ”nipple-flasher”. And will Asian men who take their shirts off — even while performing reasonably no-shirt activities like swimming or taking a shower – be accused of being sellouts for perpetuating the shirt-hating stereotype?
But, I do disagree with Jen on one thing: let’s put the blame where it belongs. The “shirt allergy” stereotype against Asian men did not begin with Peter Le, Young Lee or Joe Cha. No, these boys are mere symptoms of an institutional stereotype that just hasn’t received sufficient media attention until now, when K-Town finally exposed the stereotype’s full impact on our Asian brothers. These poor souls are only acting as they think they’re supposed to, because the “Asian men hate shirts” stereotype has been so deeply internalized into their self-identity. In a way, these men are heroes, for bravely shedding light on a silent oppression.
Consider how many other innocent Asian men have fallen victim to this syndrome:
So, you ask – whom should we really be blaming?
Well, I think the answer is clear — the blame lies squarely on the man who first brought this dastardly stereotype to American audiences.
That’s right: Bruce. Effin’. Lee. That frickin’ nipple-flasher.
Act Now! I’m declaring August 1st to be National Asian Male Shirt Solidarity Day. Wear a shirt and show your support. Spread the word.
Posted in Act Now!, Asian Americans, K Town, TV | No Comments »
I posted, not four hours ago, about Andrew Thomas’ latest efforts to smear Tom Horne, a fellow Republican running in the primary for the attorney general race. Thomas’ campaign has apparently funded a slew of campaign posters and a website that pretty much charge Horne with being the worst person in the world.
 Don't vote for Tom Horne -- he turns smiles upside down. I was able to get Tom Horne on the phone and by email this afternoon for a comment on Thomas’ underhanded tactics to paint Horne as “too liberal” for conservative voters.
The sign pictured above accuses Horne of supporting taxpayer funding of abortion. Horne responds: “That is a lie. I have never been for taxpayer funded abortions. I am pledged to enforce all abortion laws. As a legislator I voted to restrict abortion, such as to ban partial birth abortion and to require parental consent.”
When I called to ask for a clarification on his vote on HB 2708, Horne responded that taxpayer funding of abortion was “already banned” when HB 2708 came up for a vote. Horne further explains that he voted “no” on HB 2708 because he “had technical problems with the bill, which itself made technical changes to a ban [against publicly-funded abortions] that was already in effect” but that he had no problems with the spirit of the bill itself. Horne reiterated his pledge to support all anti-abortion laws in the state of Arizona.
Which is, if you think about it, kind of ironic since he’s telling all this to a progressive, feminist, pro-choice blogger. But, y’know, whatever.
As far as Thomas’ attempts to smear Horne’s conservative street cred, Horne recognized that negative campaigning is part of politics, but he said, “even if a campaign goes negative, it should be truthful. [Thomas] made all this up.”
In response to the attack campaign launched by Thomas against Horne, Horne cited a letter from the Republican National Commitee that documents a history of Thomas using attack ads to smear his political opponents (read the .pdf here). Horne has put up a counterattack website at TheAndyThomasTruth.com. According to the website, Thomas is described as still being under federal investigation, and that a court remarked that Thomas’ actions as a prosecutor have the “appearance of evil.” Thomas also apparently hates women.
This looks like we’re gearing up for an all-out war on the Republican side for the position of attorney general. Clearly, there’s no love lost between Thomas and Horne. It remains to be determined whether or not the Arizona Illustrated debate scheduled between these two candidates next week will touch on these negative attacks.
Negative campaigning is part of politics, and it can be a useful tactic in distinguishing oneself from one’s opponent: but there’s also a danger that the hateful back-and-forth will drive independent voters away from either candidate (particularly in the general election), and towards the candidate of the other political party.
Oh, hey — on a completely unrelated note — did you know that there are three Democrats running in the primary for attorney general? They are, in no particular order: Vince Rabago, Felicia Rotellini, and David Lujan. And there’s been very little sniping between these candidates on the Democratic side; these folks are so friendly towards each other, their debates have been practically boring. Wow, how about that?
Cross-posted: Blog for Arizona
Posted in Arizona, Blogging at Blog for Arizona, Elections, Local, Politics | 4 Comments »
Last night, while chatting with some friends, I predicted that a federal injunction would block SB 1070 some time today. I should’ve gotten a pool going — maybe I could’ve won some big bucks?
This morning, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton granted a partial injunction against SB 1070, preventing most of the nastier parts of SB 1070 from going into effect tomorrow. Saying that the federal government is likely to be able to demonstrate that SB 1070 pre-empts existing federal immigration laws, Bolton blocked the following provisions in her ruling:
- state and local police officers will be able to determine immigration status of detained suspects based on reasonable suspicion that the suspect is an illegal immigrant.
- legal immigrants or resident aliens will be charged with a crime under state laws for violating federal laws that they have their immigration documents on their person at all times.
- illegal immigrants can be charged with a state crime for applying for, or performing, work.
- stateand local police officers may make a warrantless arrest of any person suspected of a crime that would result in deportation of that person.
As a resident alien, I am particularly delighted that I won’t be charged with a state crime if I am found without my passport tomorrow. In fact, I’m hard-pressed to figure out if I even really oppose the neutered version of SB 1070 that will go into effect, which are:
- motor vehicles picking up day labourers — legally or illegally in this country — cannot block or impede the normal flow of traffic.
- people knowingly transporting an illegal immigrant in their vehicle can be charged with smuggling, if it can be shown they are doing so for profit.
- employers face charges if they knowingly employ an illegal immigrant.
Can I really say I’m against charging a vehicle with a traffic violation for blocking traffic? Not really, no — blocking traffic shouldn’t be allowable under any circumstance. How about charging employers with a crime for knowingly employing an illegal immigrant? Employers should not be allowed to hire illegal immigrants, and thereby skirt existing labour laws and avoid paying a fair wage. Furthemore, an existing Arizona state law requires that all employers use the federal government’s E-Verify system. SB1070, in essence, duplicates that state law, which has been on the books for two years.
As for the smuggling stuff — this part always sounded a little toothless to me. I mean, how would a court of law demonstrate that anyone, other than the members of a human trafficking ring who received payment from someone to illegally cross the border, knows a passenger’s immigration status? I always doubted that the average Joe, who drives his friend to the neighbourhood Boston Market, could be charged with smuggling if his friend turned out to be undocumented.
Now, I understand that the federal injunction is temporary, and that it’s possible (if unlikely) that the courts will allow SB 1070 to come into effect in its full form. And yes, I’m pissed that SB 1070 ever passed in Arizona in the first place.
But, I also think that there’s room here for tempering some of our outrage. SB 1070 is a terrible law, but there are some elements in the bill that need to be reasonably considered. To me, what sometimes gets lost in the anti-SB 1070 side of the argument is the fact that illegal immigrants are illegally in the country.
Illegal immigrants should not be harassed or mistreated (as Barry Wong suggested by cutting their utilities) or racially profiled or warrantlessly detained, but neither do they have a right to work in this country without paying income taxes. They do not have a right to federally-subsidized healthcare and education. They do not have the right to cross this country’s borders without abiding by this country’s immigration laws. Activists against SB 1070 sometimes seem to lose sight of this in their zeal to rail against the law.
So, I really can’t say that I’m terribly pissed off about the parts of SB 1070 that will become law tomorrow. I still have questions as to whether or not these portions still preempt federal law, but in spirit, I don’t find them particularly noxious. In fact, I’m remarkably optimistic that we’re well on our way to finding a good compromise on this whole matter. Perhaps we might even build some political momentum behind wholesale immigration reform.
And maybe even with a minimum of rioting?
Posted in Arizona, Immigration, Local, Politics, SB 1070 | 8 Comments »
Another recent post over at Change.org:
Why Pop Culture Matters to Race Bloggers
Prince of Persia, Twilight, The Last Airbender, Karate Kid, Red Dawn — this summer’s blockbusters seem to have gotten the blogosphere humming more than usual, with many writers examining Hollywood’s relationship with race.In my experience, sardonic or critical posts focusing on the latest pop culture icons fare far better among readers than dry, data-heavy sociological analyses (which take about 23 times as long to prepare). Pop culture diatribes tend to be easy to write, widely read and more likely to go viral. For bloggers who live and die by pageviews and ad-clicks, this is our bread and butter.
Read More
Posted in Blogging at Change.org, Movies, Racism | No Comments »
As if elections in Arizona weren’t exciting enough, we can always count on the ambitious to cross the line and go negative. And for our part, all we can do is sit back and try to avoid being caught in the crossfire of muckflinging.
In the Republican primary for attorney general, Tom Horne is squaring off against Andrew Thomas next month in a contentious, and hard to predict, race.
The following signs were spotted around Tucson this week:
Don't vote for Tom Horne -- he turns smiles upside down. Just on a purely graphical note, these signs certainly do the right job in attacking Horne. Red triggers emotions of fear and anger. The text is large enough to read from any distance or lighting. And, really, who would vote for a guy who could make the bouncing Wal-mart happy face mascot cry?
The signs link to StopTom.com, a website that is saturated with righteous indignation against Tom Horne. The banner of the site accuses Horne of being a “RINO” – a Republican in name only. “Tom Horne is no conservative,” screams the header in stark blacks and greys, ”he is a confessed con artist.”
The website than proceeds on a long litany of accusations against Tom Horne, that supposedly demonstrate that Horne isn’t a true conservative — including the fact that Horne has received several speeding tickets. Because we all know that conservatives always abide by speeding laws. Reports are still pending as to whether or not Tom Horne also kicks puppies and steals candy from babies.
But the most inflammatory charge made by StopTom.com is the one also referred to in the campaign sign pictured above: that Tom Horne supposedly supports tax-payer funded abortions. And, it is true that while in the State Legislature, Horne voted “No” on HB 2708, which explicitly banned use of public funds to pay for abortions, in all or in part. The bill also required underage women to receive parental consent, and failed in the House by a vote of 28-28.
Interestingly, StopTom.com includes footer information revealing that it is paid for the “Thomas for AG Committee”. Horne is running as a traditional candidate, but Andrew Thomas is participating in Arizona’s Clean Elections Commission, which begs the question as to whether or not a potentially slanderous (or at least a clearly distasteful) negative campaign can be conducted on Clean Elections money.
Turns out it can. I called up the Clean Elections office today and found out that the Commission allows candidates to conduct negative campaigning with its funds. “We don’t regulate speech [in campaign materials],” said a representative of the Clean Elections office. Furthermore, a financial disclosure (which the sign pictured above lacks) is not required on small campaign materials, including campaign signs (regardless of the dimensions of the sign). So, as long as the expense is documented in the candidate’s financial reports, Clean Elections candidates are free to pay for attack ads out of their campaign funds – while hiding the fact that they’re paying for the ad on the materials themselves. Talk about loopholes.
Either way, while I’m no fan of Tom Horne (aka, the guy who spear-headed Arizona’s recent ban on ethnic studies programs), I’m really put off by the shameful muckflinging demonstrated by the sign above.
Tom Horne may (or may not) support tax-payer funded abortions, but Andrew Thomas clearly supports tax-payer funded character assasination.
Note: I am awaiting a comment from the Horne campaign on this story. If I hear back, I will update this article accordingly.
UPDATE: I have written about Tom Horne’s responses to this negative ad campaign here.
Cross-posted: Blog for Arizona
Posted in Arizona, Blogging at Blog for Arizona, Elections, Local, Politics | 1 Comment »
 Book cover to "Angel Island: Immigrant Gateway to America" There’s a book coming out late next month that is definitely on my wish-list — Angel Island: Immigrant Gateway to America. Written by Erika Lee and Judy Yung, the book is a comprehensive history of Angel Island, the West Coast immigration station that housed and detained predominantly Chinese immigrants into the country.
While Angel Island was operational (between 1910 and 1949), it received substantial political pressure to reduce the number of incoming Chinese to the States by any means necessary. Consequently, prospective Chinese immigrants were detained for periods of months or even years in holding cells, awaiting approval of their entry. Some were even turned away, despite having spent weeks at sea to journey to the United States.
This year marks the 100th anniversary of Angel Island Immigration Station, which minority groups have lobbied to protect as a historical landmark since the 1970’s. Angel Island holds a storied position in the history of Asian Americans, particularly after poems were found engraved in Chinese in the Island’s holding cells. These poems are remarkable because they document the experiences of Chinese immigrants, in their own words.
But Lee and Yung’s book is unique because it uncovers a relatively unknown fact about Angel Island: non-Asians also found their way to this immigration station. In an article for the San Francisco Chronicle, Lee and Yung talk about their findings:
“For a long time I thought this was just a Chinese American story,” says Lee, a professor of U.S. history at the University of Minnesota who also traces her ancestry back to Angel Island.
“But from time to time in my research, I’d come across a file that dealt with a Japanese picture bride, or an Italian, or someone from a totally different country. That sparked my interest in telling a much larger story.”
And a large story it is. “Angel Island” explains how seven diverse ethnic and national groups ended up at the immigration station, which was segregated by race and gender.
In addition to the story of the Edelstein women (who were detained for only three days), the authors tell of figures such as Kanta Chandra Gupta, an 11-year-old South Asian girl who arrived with her four brothers and sister, or Nadia Shapiro, a young Russian journalist who stepped onto the island seeking sanctuary from Bolshevik revolutionaries.
“Even though Angel Island did process much smaller numbers of immigrants than Ellis Island, its diversity of immigrants really helps us understand a much more realistic, complicated and complex story of immigration,” Lee says.
A couple of months ago, I was chatting with some friends when the topic turned to immigration. One of my friends remarked that Angel Island and Ellis Island were the same, just on two different coasts. That statement is flat-out untrue: whereas immigrants from Europe who were processed at Ellis Island spent hours or days waiting entry, Chinese immigrants faced weeks, months or years of immigrant limbo.
While some might argue that the different processing time was due to the swollen number of immigrants traveling through Ellis Island or due to different administrative policies, the story of the Edelsteins (recounted in the excerpt above) effectively counters that argument. Processed through Angel Island, the Edelsteins — two Jeweish women – were only detained for three days.
To me, Angel Island serves as a silent reminder of an unjust and discriminatory era during America’s history, when Americans did everything in their power to tell Asian immigrants that they were unwelcome. To remember what life was like for the Chinese immigrant in 1943 is to see how far we have (or haven’t) come now. And we should never forget that.
You can pre-order Angel Island: Immigrant Gateway to America here on Amazon.com.
Posted in APA History, Asian Americans, Immigration, Politics | 1 Comment »
My latest post over at Change.org, which addresses Fox News’ recent quest in search of black racism:
Fox News Would Really Like to See Evidence of Black Racism
Since the NAACP passed a resolution denouncing racist elements within the Tea Party (the details of which NAACP chairman Ben Jealous explained on Change.org last week), Fox News has been spinning its wheels trying to expose what it sees as racism among the black community.For example, as Prerna Lal recently reported, Fox has lately been up in arms over the New Black Panther Party, a group that allegedly engaged in voter intimidation in 2008. In her post, Prerna cited video footage of Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, in which he pointedly declares: “The evidence clearly shows the [members of the New Black Panther Party] breaking the law. Why were they given a pass [from the White House]?”
Forget about the fact that Obama isn’t the one that chose not to file a criminal case against the New Black Panther Party (that decision rested with Bush). O’Reilly’s choice of the phrase “get a pass” is a deliberate effort to suggest that certain minorities (specifically African-Americans) are getting preferential treatment in the Obama administration. He’s suggesting that whites are the real victim of racism here — a theme we also saw in the Shirley Sherrod case.
Across Fox’s coverage, we see the same message. It’s no coincidence that within days of the NAACP’s announcement, Fox devoted several segments to the New Black Panther Party — highlighting their supposed efforts to disenfranchise white voters. FoxNews.com also ran an opinion piece by Congressman Lamar Smith that explicitly accused the Department of Justice of racism in its failure to file a lawsuit against the group. In it, Smith writes, “Had the defendants been members of the Ku Klux Klan, I doubt the Justice Department would have dropped the charges. This appears to be a case of reverse discrimination.”
Read More
Posted in Blogging at Change.org, Politics, Politics of Race, Racism | No Comments »
A recent post I wrote for Change.org, examining why the Shirley Sherrod controversy was intended to resonate amongst White viewers:
Shirley Sherrod: A Lesson in White Victimhood
Back in March, the speech Shirley Sherrod gave before the NAACP seemed innocuous enough. In it, the Obama appointee urged her audience to heed the words of Toni Morrison, declaring, “we have to get to the point where race exists, but it doesn’t matter.” Sherrod — the current state director of rural development — also movingly recounted how her attitudes toward race have shifted since growing up in the South, at a time when lynchings were still commonplace.
Yesterday, though, Fox News managed to twist Sherrod’s words. The network aired a video that was edited to suggest Sherrod currently discriminates against white farmers. (View the edited video here.). As edited, the video suggests Sherrod has previously tried to avoid having to actually help a white farmer keep his land — and that she made this decision based on the color of his skin.
Actually, what Sherrod discussed was how her views on race changed after witnessing how a white farmer whose land was being foreclosed suffered the same apathy and mistreatment at the hands of wealthy whites that she’d seen black farmers experience. Ultimately, she encouraged her audience to view the world not just in terms of black and white, but in terms of “haves” and “have nots.” (Full speech here — the relevant anecdote is around minute 17.)
But so much for “fair and balanced.” Instead, Fox News chose to insinuate that Sherrod actively discriminates against whites in her current job with the administration. Fox News also went a step further to argue that the NAACP was backing Sherrod’s supposed discrimination against whites.
Sherrod holds a fairly obscure position within the Obama administration, and it’s plain that the edited video that surfaced was just that — edited, and heavily so. So why the sudden controversy?
Read More
Posted in Blogging at Change.org, Politics, Politics of Race, Racism | 1 Comment »
|
|
