Mr. Howler is famous for bellowing at me from another room. Today he hollered out from the kitchen, “Moon, do you know Jerry Erickson?” I said yes. Then I couldn’t remember where I knew him from. Then the normal spousal questions fired back and forth…who is he…I can’t remember…..why do you want to know…those kinds of things.


Finally, he told me why he asked.  There was a column in the paper by Jerry Erickson, who  is a Woodbridge attorney. We used him many years ago when our daughter was in a serious automobile accident. What I did NOT know is that he has a column in the News and Messenger and that he now specializes in immigration law.

Mr. Howler and I do not see eye to eye on the immimgration issue. However, he did call my attention to this opinion piece by Mr. Erickson. He puts forth some interesting facts that often are not discussed. I am posting it in its entirety. There is no way to consolidate and summarize.

Jerry Erickson
Published: March 25, 2009

In order to have a meaningful debate on the topic of comprehensive immigration reform, it’s important to discuss the issues using understood terms and definitions. First, we need to have a common understanding of the term at the center of the immigration debate, “illegal alien”. Ironically, this term, which is thrown about by nearly everyone involved in the immigration debate, is not used in immigration regulations or formally defined by the federal government. For debate purposes, an illegal alien can be considered a person who is in the U.S. without any legal paperwork or immigration status. This would include an individual who enters the U.S. without proper documentation or permission as well as an individual who enters with proper documentation or permission but does not abide by the terms of his or her stay in the U.S. Of the approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., it’s estimated that almost half entered the U.S. on a visa that allowed them to visit the U.S.  temporarily, but then stayed beyond the time permitted in their visa.

MYTH: Illegal aliens shouldn’t receive special treatment for being here illegally.

FACT: For the vast majority of illegal aliens, there is no legal way under the current immigration law to obtain legal status while in the United States.


There’s a common misconception that by illegally entering the U.S., illegal aliens are able to apply for permanent resident status sooner than had they remained in their home country and applied from abroad. The reality is that, for the vast majority of illegal aliens, there is simply no process that would allow for them to be considered for permanent resident status. This is why so many continue to live in the shadows and fringes.

While most illegal aliens in the U.S. want nothing more than to have legal status, there is just no option for most. The reality is that the immigration laws actually encourage an illegal alien to remain in the U.S., because leaving would likely mean it would be years before he or she would be eligible to return. Under current law, an illegal alien who leaves the U.S. will be unable to return for 3 years if he or she has been in the country illegally for more than six months, and a bar of 10 years would apply if he or she has been in the U.S. illegally for more than one year.

The relevant immigration laws, which unfortunately have not been updated in nearly 20 years, provide limited avenues for securing legal immigration status for any applicant who is here illegally. For those who are in the U.S. illegally, the limited options for obtaining permanent residency in the U.S., and the consequences of leaving the country, mean that most will choose to stay.

Family situations also contribute to the dilemma. Children who are illegally brought into the U.S. by their non-citizen parents grow to be adults and remain in the U.S. as illegal aliens. These individuals, who as children were brought here by no choice of their own, are now adults forced to live and operate in a sub-culture of illegal aliens within our society.

Another common family scenario that encourages illegal aliens to stay in the U.S. arises when illegal aliens have children that are born in the U.S. The children born within our borders are U.S. citizens by law, but the parents are still here illegally. Additionally, the parent(s), if ever deported, are faced with the option of either taking their U.S. citizen children, who only know the U.S. culture, to a foreign country or leaving their children in the U.S. in hopes of giving them the opportunity for a better life. A Morton’s Fork, to be sure.

The children of illegal aliens will be one of the issues at the heart of the immigration debate. On March 14, the New York Times featured a lengthy article discussing the difficulties faced by non-English speaking students at Cecil D. Hylton High School in Woodbridge. This article noted that “(i)nside schools, which are required to enroll students regardless of their immigration status and are prohibited from even asking about it, the debate has turned to how best to educate them.” The immigration debate and its resulting plan will affect Prince William County significantly. Our current U.S. immigration laws make it impossible for most illegal aliens to obtain any form of legal status and assimilate into U.S. culture. It doesn’t matter that a person may have U.S. family members or that he or she has lived in the U.S. for his or her entire life.

The issue of immigration reform will be debated soon. The reality is that the argument requiring the deportation of all illegal aliens is not a realistic proposal given the enormous costs combined with the issue of family displacement. It will be necessary for immigration reform to take a multi-faceted approach. It’s a given that our borders must be secured. The real hurdle is that we need to develop a strategy to deal with the millions of people in the U.S. who currently live here without valid status. Real change occurs when people come together with an open mind to all sides of the argument. Let’s put this myth to rest and push forward in developing a solution.

Jerry Erickson is the managing partner of Szabo, Zelnick, & Erickson, P.C., in Woodbridge. He is the senior attorney in the firm’s Immigration Section.

36 Thoughts to “ERICKSON COLUMN: The myth of special treatment for illegals”

  1. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    Here are a few more myths.

    Myth: Illegal Aliens will have to learn English in order to gain citizenship.
    Fact: Yeah, right. This is one of Maximum Leader’s favorite lines. Who decides when English has been learned? And why in the first place? Are they going to magically get rid of “press 1 for English”? Anyone who can hear this line without bursting into laughter needs medication.

    Myth: Illegals will have to pay a fine.
    Fact: Right, make that check out to “Maximum Leader”, right? If they’re standing at 7-11 trying to get a day-job, they’ll be able to pony up lots of lettuce for a fine. Where does this fine go? Who does it benefit? Who decides what size fine is appropriate? I’m going to guess that this fine won’t go to the victims of illegal immigrant violence and sexual crimes. Landsdowne, anyone? (I’ll hear it for that!)

    That’s enough for now. Let’s hear it Shelly! Hate! Hate! Racist! Racist!

  2. A PW County Resident

    I will not comment on this thread. But thanks for posting it. I didn’t understand his point that there was some myth and he answered it by saying that they can’t apply if they are here. So the next step is not be here and then apply?

  3. Elena

    First MH, I don’t have time for indepth commentary, bed time for kids and all. However, THAT, was some of the most entertaining spousal communication dialogue run up to an immigration topic I’ve seen!



    Seriously, you are bringing up the Lansdowne case when they haven’t even been able to speak to the woman yet? There is no evidence whatsoever so far that indicates what the immigration status or race of the perps is. You know, when Lexie Glover went missing, I bet lots of people “blamed it on the ‘illegals'”. After all, she went missing near the Central Library, heart of the illegal district if you listen to some people. It turned out to be a lot worse. So why don’t you just hold off on the assumptions until there is some real evidence one way or the other. Disgusting.

  5. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    Told ya.

  6. Moon-howler

    Elena, I think I was trying to improve my mood. That article didn’t just arrive here by normal means. It has history. grin 😉

  7. Lucky Duck

    Keep in mind that Mr. Erickson’s occupation is working with illegal aliens trying to stay in the country and working through the immigration system. He gets paid by illegal immigrants to oppose the governmental system trying to deport them.

    By the way, check the DHS website, it lists their lastest enforcement actions using the term “illegal alien”. So, his slant, in the following quote from the article “While most illegal aliens in the U.S. want nothing more than to have legal status” should be considered when reading his words.

  8. Moon-howler

    Lucky Duck, do you disagree with that statement? I always assumed that is what they wanted but were unable to attain because of our immigration laws.

    I don’t know how much of Mr. Erickson’s practice is devoted to immigration practice. That is obviously not what I used him for. I found him to be an excellent lawyer.

    He did bring up some issues that aren’t usually part of the immigration rhetoric.

  9. Starryflights

    What jumps out at me is the fact that about half of all illegal aliens are here because they arrived legally and then overstayed their visas; not because they croosed the border illegally.

    That pretty much means that building a wall on the border will do very little to curb illegal immigration. In fact, we could build two walls 20 feet high and put a million troops on the border, and the effect would be marginal. Half the illegal migrants would simply fly over it all in an airplane!

  10. Second-Alamo

    So some stranger walks into my house uninvited, and I kick them out, but now it’s my fault that they have no place to sleep. Never mind the fact that they shouldn’t have been in my home to begin with! If I accept the blame, then before you know it my home would be full of strangers. Sound familiar?

  11. Lucky Duck :
    Keep in mind that Mr. Erickson’s occupation is working with illegal aliens trying to stay in the country and working through the immigration system. He gets paid by illegal immigrants to oppose the governmental system trying to deport them.

    That’s pretty low. It’s a sharp punch below the belt. You should apologize for that.

    Debate the issue instead of attacking someone’s integrity.

  12. Second-Alamo

    How so Mackie? If the lawyer was working to support our laws, then he would be reporting the illegals instead of working with them. If the people he works with were legal, then they are already allowed to stay in this country and so don’t need his assistance to do so.

  13. Starryflights

    Second-Alamo :So some stranger walks into my house uninvited, and I kick them out, but now it’s my fault that they have no place to sleep. Never mind the fact that they shouldn’t have been in my home to begin with! If I accept the blame, then before you know it my home would be full of strangers. Sound familiar?

    A better analogy would be that you invited somebody into your home, and then that person doesn’t leave. That is how half the illegal aliens arrive here, according to the immigration attorney.

  14. Moon-howler

    Lucky Duck is expressing his opinion. He did not attack Mr. Erickson’s character. He expressed a statement of fact. That is what immigration attorneys do. Why should Lucky Duck apologize for stating a fact? He simply reminded us to look at the point of view. Fair enough.

  15. Lucky Duck

    Mr. Erickson may be an excellent lawyer, however, a part of his practice is to defend those here illegally from being deported. He is, according to the article, “the senior attorney in the firms Immigration Section”. What do you think he does there? That is his job.

    Naturally he has a perspective on the debate and much to Mackie’s dismay, his perspective IS part of the debate, just as this blog states that anything from FAIR is impacted by their perspective – you can’t have it both ways.

  16. Alanna

    Granted everyone has a perspective. But, here, on one hand, we have an immigration attorney who practices law, and, then, on the other a group that has been declared a ‘Hate Group’ by Southern Poverty Law Center.

  17. Lucky Duck

    Alanna, I am not defending one perspective over another, I am stating that a person’s or organization’s perspective should be considered when reading a column based upon an opinion. And his column is an opinion, no statistical analysis, no indept critique, just his observations.

    Substitute any organization besides FAIR putting forth an opinion and, absent any facts, their perspective is part of the equation and must be considered.

  18. Alanna

    Big business essentially invited the people in. The federal government is the gatekeeper. In my view, ‘illegals’ have not been hiding in a closet somewhere. They have been knowingly allowed to purchase homes. The Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration have willingly accepted their money without taking any punitive action like turning the individuals into INS or ICE. One could argue, that by their action and inaction, the feds have given permission for these people to be here.

  19. Lucky Duck

    Alanna, by law, the Social Security Administration cannot contact the Internal Revenue Service with information about Social Security numbers and payments. The Social Security Administration is a closed agency, it cannot share with the IRS. So the SS Administration has its hand legally tied. Can you imagine the outcry if we all of a sudden permitted the SS Administration to share information?

    Also, the Taxpayer Identification number was, in its original form, designed for those non-citizen’s here working on visa’s to pay taxes. It has been bastardized into its present form by those not legally here with the acceptance of banks and other businesses.

  20. michael

    Alanna, the “feds” that gave permission and looked the other way are people who have primarily come into the US in the past 25 years, got into our government and have “changed” the government policies to favor “illegal” immigrants while ignoring the law.

    There are a number of reasons why this must be stopped.

    My question to Obama today on his “ask the Whitehouse: site. is reason number one,

    1. A significant number of Americans are pro-ethnic, pro-gender, pro-racial and pro-religious in thier government policies. When this happens significant numbers of “individuals” are “discrimminated against and become left behind” because they have no racial, religious, ethnic or gender advocacy group to look out for their political special interests.

    To President Obama:
    “I am very supportive so far of your efforts to undo what the Bush Administration created. I could not ask this question on your open question sight because it is closed, but I believe it is an important one regarding your entire social and economic policy. Why do you continue to use the concept and language that people who are classified as “left behind” only belong to specific races, religions, genders and ethnicities? Such language indicates that you will only help specific races, religions, genders and ethnicities rather than help individuals on a case by case basis. Why do you not believe that your new economic and social policy should only help “individuals” who are “classified” as “low income” instead of helping specific races, religions, genders and ethnicities who as “protected” classes are the only people in this great nation of ours that deserve your attention, your support and your assistance. Along the same line why do you support “illegal” immigration, when it increases our overall poverty, reduces our wealth, divides our nation into diverse races and competing religious groups and ethnicities, instead of declaring that all Americans are either abiding by law or breaking law, and that all Americans are either law abiding or law breaking individuals to be treated equally ONLY as individuals and not protected classes? Why do you support policies, language and programs that promote the racial balancing of ethnic numbers, and diversity quotas based on race, religion, gender and ethnicity? What about the “low income” people who are not members of protected classes and identified groups but are “low income” and deserve your support? How will your social and economic policy help them without such racial, gender, religion and ethnicity group protected classificatiuon, job and policy discrimmination and equal opportunity prejudice?

  21. michael

    It is true we cannot deport all 12 million of them in one year. What we CAN do is simply refuse to give them green cards, forever, until they go back home and get in line. In five-ten years of patience and steadfast refusal to grant special privilige, people will understand they have no other choice but to legally apply for, enter lawfully, and remain legally under a governbment define quota that is set BASED on our ECONOMY and population growth control needs.

    This will prevent ALL future “illegal” immigration, will eleminate the need to such huge amounts of money being spent on the border, ELIMINATE the drug traffic by “illegal” immigrants, and let us concentrate on drug trafficking cuased by “legal” people, who are MUCH EASIER TO TRACK and identify.

  22. michael

    Here is another reason you do not want “illegal” immigrants.
    They create a two-tiered wage system. As long as you have incentives for people who are desperate for work to remain (hoping to someday get a green card), they WILL REMAIN, and will ALWAYS cross the border or overstay existing visas AS LONG AS YOU LET THEM, FOREVER. Ultimately a two-tiered wage system, undermines wages for ALL legal people, creates exploitationn by business who will ALSO continue to ignore law IF YOU LET THEM (i.e this is why AIG failed, no law enforcement). If you give unlimited numbers of people unlimited opportunity to enter illegally, you will always have UNLIMITED illegal immigrant population growth (100 million of 350 million people in the US in 10 years will be former illegal immigrants of very divisive, hostile and agressive ethnicities). They will eventually dominate your political parties, and they will pursue the nasty habit of remaining segregated, remaining an ethnic backed political party, an ultimately (around the world), declare an ethnically separate countrey and new border (As in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Georgia, Serbia, Russia, Canada, etc.)

  23. michael

    Almost 50 million formerly “illegal” immigrants in the US today have segregated themselves into political classes based on “ethnicity, race, religion and gender. In 10 years they will be able to control the vote, control the congress, and control the law. When that happens you will see a resurgence of racism, discrimmnation and “entire classes” of people put into “social classes” based on ethnicity and language spoken. The US may very likely break up. The “New American” government will help and favor those “elite social ethnic classes”, and will create an Aparthide (seperate but equal society of different languages) that is based on what color skin you have, what language you speak, what religion and ethnicity you belong to and what social structure and financial compensation you are entitled to, ALL SUPPORTED BY NEWLY ENACTED RACIAL LAWS THAT WILL SUPPORT ONLY “ILLEGAL” IMMIGRANT ETHNICITIES in control of the Congress and state governments.

    Welcome back to social class slavery, and social class serfdom in 20 years.

  24. Elena

    History teaches us that every immigrant group, including my ancestors, segregated themselves initially. In time, neighborhoods change and evolve. However, we still have “china towns”, “little Italys”, etc etc. I think that is what is so great about America, we are all different and yet at heart,believe in the American dream.

  25. michael

    The difference Elena that you hold up as a high ideal is that these “segregations” are recreational and entertainment oriented. WE have not had political group ethnic segregation and ethnic based laws created by those segregated groups since 1950. The immigrants of the past took over the police and fire departments and mayorships, but that was before 1950…I hear you proudly proclaiming to everyone you want us to return to that kind of society.

  26. michael

    That is NOT the Ameriucan dream Elena, it is the ignorance of the “New American” dream, that is ultimately very destructive, and which promotes and perpetuates racism and ethnic class political segregation.

    A country cannot remain intact an unified in this political state. What you think you want and are so pround to claim as an American only happended in the last 50 years of racial “de-segregation”. Whay you are naively supporting is a return to ethnic class “policital segregation”, something you vehemently denounce when a “white pride” group does exactly what you say above “segregate themselves” and we still have “little ethnicities regions” that are all politically in conflict.

  27. Michael, even though I disagree with the thrust of your argument, and, even though I am at times uncomfortable with your virulence, I have come to respect you as a thoughtful and diligent contributor to this blog. That said, I need to respond to the policy solution you offered above:

    It is true we cannot deport all 12 million of them in one year. What we CAN do is simply refuse to give them green cards, forever, until they go back home and get in line.

    As Michael figures, in 5 or 10 years time, immigrant families with one parent out of status and children in high school soon to go to college will opt to return to a life of poverty, political unrest, and possible starvation because they don’t fit into any existing category for documentation status. So if we can hobble along with a broken immigration system until 2019, the problem will just go away by itself.

    Well … count me among the majority of conservatives who certainly do NOT want the United States to “fail.” But unless we see a complete collapse of our economy AND our government, the United States will never become less attractive than a third world country. Even if that were a possibility, I just don’t understand how any American could want that … let alone a majority.

    Although Michael’s solution is actually more possible than mass deportation, it is no more practical and no less destructive to our economy and the future of this country. I say it is more possible because you never know how shortsighted and cowardly the United States Congress can be in the face of lobbyists and demagogues. If they will not move forward, they might indeed maintain the status quo.

    Michael is correct to realize that we will never become a police state that deports 12 million people for letting their paperwork lapse instead of enforcing most other laws. But the “let’s do nothing and hope they all leave if and when the United States becomes less attractive than the Third World” is not the next stop on the trip to realistic and practical immigration policy.

    For those Americans and those leaders who are prepared for a fact-based and proactive approach to securing America’s future, Comprehensive Immigration Reform is every bit as essential to our nation’s economic future as education reform and new energy technology. Immigration creates jobs. Immigration improves GNP. Immigration adds to our tax base. Immigration will help us pay entitlement benefits for the Baby Boomers soon to retire. Without continued immigration, our country will go bankrupt. The vast majority of our leaders see that, and so does the majority of the American public. Not only do we need the immigrants that are here now, we need more of them to come.

    During the last election, anti-immigrant Congressmen were sent home in droves. The time of shortsighted and cowardly government has passed. We simply can’t afford it anymore, and I don’t expect we’ll get it on the immigration issue. The Dream Act is a done deal. I give Comprehensive Immigration Reform a 75 percent chance.

  28. NoVA Scout

    I take issue with the idea that an immigration attorney is someone who undermines “our laws” Lawyers are part of the legal system and I have never known one in any specialty who is not doing his/her part to support the system of laws that we live under. I don’t know how anyone could discern that any immigration lawyer is primarily representing “illegals.” Most immigration lawyers I know represent more legals than illegals. But even if there are immigration lawyers who only represent illegal immigrants, they are doing a job that very much supports our legal system.

  29. kelly3406

    After reading his column (and poor logic), I can tell you that I will never hire Erickson as my own lawyer. Let me offer a rebuttal (even though the discussion as moved quickly on to other topics).

    Myth #1: Illegal immigrants do NOT already receive special treatment. In fact, illegal immigrants already receive special treatment that no other country would dream of providing (read: Mexico). Here are several examples: free medical care in any hospital emergency room; acceptance into many colleges; access to the American economy including employment; automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S.

    Fact #1: Erickson whined that current laws do not allow illegal immigrants to benefit from their crimes. He wants us to be “open minded” to new laws that will allow illegal immigrants to benefit from their crimes.

    Elena makes the point that children should not be held accountable for crimes of their parents. Moon-howler says that high-achieving off-spring of illegal immigrants are just the type of people that should be rewarded by progressive new laws such as the Dream Act. Both of you have the wrong interpretation.

    Consider the following analogy from recent headlines about a stolen painting. Suppose a married couple steal a valuable painting that they keep for many years and then will it to a child after their deaths. Even if the adult off-spring had no knowledge of the crime, he STILL must return the painting if it is proven to be stolen. Even if he leads a stellar life and solves world hunger, he still must return the painting. The child is not held accountable for his parents’ crime (i.e. he is not prosecuted and does not go to jail). But he still may not BENEFIT from the crime, so he has to return the painting.

    You may think that this analogy to illegal immigration is silly (and it is, because it oversimplifies a complex problem), but it does serve to clarify the issues and cut through emotional arguments. Even though children of illegal immigrants did not commit the crime, they should not be allowed to benefit from the crime. Even if children are high performers academically, it would be a mistake to provide a back-door amnesty for them. I argue that many illegal immigrants come to America more for the benefit of their children than for themselves. A path to citizenship for children of illegal aliens allows the criminals to achieve their primary goal and therefore to benefit directly from their crimes.

    I do agree with Erickson that deporting all illegal aliens to their native countries is not a realistic option. We must deport some of them, however, especially those guilty of other crimes. But during this economic downturn, there is anecdotal evidence of illegals leaving on their own — unemployment presumably reduced the benefit of staying. If we remove any path to citizenship for children of illegal aliens, the attractiveness of staying in America illegally will similarly be reduced. Many of the illegals will therefore leave voluntarily and hopefully apply later for legal immigration to our country.

  30. Moon-howler

    Kelly, I agree that criminal illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes should be deported. I will not discuss calling illegal immigrants criminals simply because they are here. I would prefer to incarcerate criminals for the duration of their sentence before deportation because I do not want them back. Perhaps I will feel differently when and if the border is more secure.

    Please quote me correctly if you quote me. I do not like to see any student cut off from a higher education if they have worked hard and have done the right thing. I don’t like glass ceilings and that is exactly what has happened to many illegal immigrant kids who want higher education.

    I disagree with your assessment of the special privileges illegal immigrants get. Until you figure out a way to amend the 14th amendment, it looks like their children born here will continue to be considered citizens. Its been that way for a long time, almost 150 years. I am sort of used to it.

  31. kelly3406


    Moon-Howle: I did not quote you, I paraphrased you. And in re-reading your second paragraph, I believe that I got it right. You do support the Dream Act, do you not?

    As for the 14th Amendment, it is subject to interpretation, just as all the amendments are. As you may recall, the Supreme Court recently interpreted the 2nd Amendment to the chagrin of D.C. gun control advocates. I do not recall a similar challenge of the 14th Amendment in regard to illegal immigrants. Just because it has not been challenged does not mean that what is happening (i.e. citizenship for children born to illegal aliens) is constitutional.

  32. Elena

    But Kelly, you don’t put the child in jail for his/her parents crime. Denying education, a way to reach ones full potential may not be a jail made of steel, but it is a “jail” still the same to me.

  33. Kelly, I know that someone else fed you that argument, but you do realize:

    If illegal entry into this country is passed on through genealogy, then Americans whose ancestors came here in the 1700’s are illegal aliens and thus subject to immediate deportation. That includes me. I’m 10th generation American. How about you?

  34. kelly3406


    WhyHereWhy: You are the one regurgitating an old, silly argument. As you must know, immigration was not regulated by quotas in the 1700s, so by definition there was no illegal immigration. However, a sovereign nation has the right to change its laws for the benefit of its citizens, regardless of historical precedent. There are justifiable, legal reasons for controlling the border that did not exist in the 1700s, not the least of which are security and cost. The current unrest along the Mexican border is a perfect example. No matter how it is dressed up — U.S. citizenship for children of illegal aliens allows benefit from a criminal act and therefore encourages illegal migration across the border.

  35. michael

    Kelly is more correct than the rest of you. That is why we have law.

  36. michael

    WHWN I try hard not to be virulent in any way, just persistant and consistant in my beliefs.

    I am all for legal immigration. It is the “illegal” kind and the financial ruin it has caused this nation and the concept of “diversity” that will financially ruin this nation to the tune of $3.3 trillion dollars, just to racially balance an imaginary “average” population income, regardless of the individual’s skills or talent that has me so upset. I believe in law and fairness to all individuals regardless of race, gender, religion or ethnicity. Obama will lose his current popularity because he is not paying any attention to the concept I just argued that is fair to ALL LOW INCOME individuals. He favors races and ethnic groups over others of “low income”… and like some of you want to ignore “illegal” immigration law, regardless of how much it has cost the nation in wealth and future growth. The only good thing I see him doing is reducing the wealth of the top 1% of the nation, but he is wrong to put a PALTRY amount of the 780 Billion ARRA into innovative science, R&D and competitive product development in non-8A small business that does NOT FAVOR “protected classes”. It will be his downfall within a year.

Comments are closed.