STUART ANDERSON @ FORBES WITH SOME COMMON SENSE ADVICE: “Let ‘Em Work!” — “There are labor shortages in many U.S. industries, where employers are prepared to offer training and jobs to individuals who are authorized to work in the United States.”💡

Stuart Anderson
Stuart Anderson
Executive Director
National Foundation for American Policy
PHOTO:Linkedin

Parole programs and other legal pathways reduce illegal entry and are more humane. “Latin American experts say it is wrong to assume immigration enforcement policies can override the human instinct to leave untenable circumstances and seek a better life.” #immigration #asylum #asylumseekers

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7103429953483849728?updateEntityUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afs_updateV2%3A%28urn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7103429953483849728%2CFEED_DETAIL%2CEMPTY%2CDEFAULT%2Cfalse%29&lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_myitems_savedposts%3Bb2bYzbhpTP2VzgwEtxkzqQ%3D%3D

 

New York City business leaders have asked the Biden administration to provide more federal aid and expedite work permits for asylum seekers. If asylum seekers could work, they would likely find their own housing, which would ease the burden on New York and other city governments. Businesses around the country seek more workers to fill positions. Advocates recommend policies that would provide a more comprehensive solution amid an historic refugee crisis that analysts consider unlikely to be addressed through enforcement-only policies.

A Plea From Businesses

“The New York business community is deeply concerned about the humanitarian crisis that has resulted from the continued flow of asylum seekers into our country,” according to an August 28, 2023, letter from the Partnership for New York City to President Biden and Congressional leaders. “We write to support the request made by New York Governor Hochul for federal funding for educational, housing, security and health care services to offset the costs that local and state governments are incurring with limited federal aid.

“In addition, there is a compelling need for expedited processing of asylum applications and work permits for those who meet federal eligibility standards. Immigration policies and control of our country’s border are clearly a federal responsibility; state and local governments have no standing in this matter. There are labor shortages in many U.S. industries, where employers are prepared to offer training and jobs to individuals who are authorized to work in the United States.”

. . . .

*******************

Read the complete article at the link.

For each of my classes in Immigration Law & Policy @ Georgetown Law, the students were required to find and report on an item relating or illustrating the topic for the class. Stuart Anderson was one of the “most reported on” sources! I think it’s because his writing is so clear, understandable, and sensible to all audiences!

Immigration affects everything and is a key to a better future for all. That’s why it’s a shame Dems aren’t willing to tout it, instead basically ceding the issue to GOP restrictionists. Big mistake, in my view!

🇺🇸  Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-03-23

👎🏼9TH CIR. SAYS “NO CHEVRON DEFERENCE FOR YOU BIA!” — Misinterpretation Of Citizenship Removal Ground “Unmoored,” “Unreasonable,” “Untenable,” “Incoherent!” — (But, Evidently “Good Enough For Government Work” @ Garland’s EOIR!)

Chevron
“No Chevron deference for YOU BIA!
Soup Man 55th Street. Raw model for Seinfeld’s Soup Nazi
LittleGun
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA9: BIA’s Application of Richmond Untenable, Unmoored, Unreasonable, Incoherent: Ramírez Muñoz v. Garland

June 26, 2023

(1 min read)

Ramírez Muñoz v. Garland

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/26/21-70431.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-bia-s-application-of-richmond-untenable-unmoored-unreasonable-incoherent-ramirez-munoz-v-garland

“We must decide whether Ramírez’s conduct—lying to local authorities about U.S. citizenship—was for a “purpose or benefit under” a particular law. The BIA, relying on its Richmond decision, concluded that Ramírez lied about his citizenship “for the purpose of avoiding removal proceedings.” See In re Richmond, 26 I. & N. Dec. 779, 788 (B.I.A. 2016) (holding that a “purpose” under a law “includes the avoidance of negative legal consequences— including removal proceedings”). The BIA’s interpretation of § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) is untenable. We agree with our sister circuit that “the BIA’s construction of the ‘purpose or benefit’ language [is] . . . ‘unmoored from the purposes and concerns’ of the statute.” Castro v. Att’y Gen., 671 F.3d 356, 370 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42, 64 (2011)). … We conclude that Richmond’s construction of “under” is unreasonable and do not afford it any deference. Consequently, we reject Richmond’s derivative holding that “[t]he term ‘purpose’ . . . includes the avoidance of negative legal consequences—including removal proceedings.” … We therefore grant the petition for review and remand to the agency to either grant Ramírez’s application for adjustment of status or explain, consistent with this opinion, why not.”

[Hats way off to Marco A. Jimenez!]

 

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

**********************

Trust the BIA under Garland to come up with “teaching examples” of what’s wrong with EOIR!

Just last week we were discussing “Chevron deference” (a/k/a “Article III judicial task avoidance”) in my Immigration Law & Policy class at Georgetown Law. “Unreasonable interpretation” was one of the three ways we discussed for the Article IIIs to avoid giving Chevron deference to the BIA (the other two being “plain meaning” and “not your field of expertise”).

This is a classic (if rather brutal) example of the “unreasonable” exception to Chevron. 

One reason why the “21st Century BIA” has become “unmoored” is that it is basically “tethered” to whatever DHS Enforcement wants and what appears to line up with an Administration’s “immigration enforcement agenda.” In other words, the BIA tends to interpret ambiguous statutes with “career preservation” rather than “best interpretations” in mind. That’s generally bad news for individuals seeking due process and fundamental fairness in life or death matters before EOIR!

As I recently pointed out, there is a BIA Appellate Immigration Judge position open for applications until July 5, 2023. See https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/06/23/🇺🇸⚖️🗽👩🏽⚖️👨🏻⚖️-calling-ndpa-practical-scholars-experts-no/.

That’s a chance for NDPA “practical scholar/experts” to start counteracting what has been a two-decade downward spiral of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices at this oft-ignored “life or death tribunal” with nationwide jurisdiction.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-27-23

⚖️🗽 ATTENTION GEORGETOWN LAW STUDENTS: There’s Still Time To Register For “Immigration Law & Policy,” A “Compressed Semester 2-Credit Course” May 30 – June 1! — Learn About The Law & Reality Behind The Most Important, Most Misunderstood & Mis-portrayed Issue In American Law & Society Today — “The Fastest & Most Action-Packed  2 Credits In Legal Education!” — Your ONLY chance in 2023!

PWS
PWS

This class will cover the constitutional and political framework for the U.S. Immigration System, enforcement and adjudication agencies, immigrants, nonimmigrants, removals and deportations, detention and bond, immigration hearings, judicial review, grounds for removal and inadmissibility, “crimmigration,” immigration reform, “Chevron” deference, refugee and asylum status and other international protections. It will also include analyzing major immigration cases like INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (well-founded fear) and Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996) (female genital mutilation).

Immigration Law and Policy

Meets:

TTh 2:00-5:05p

Instructor:

P. Schmidt

Meets:

TTh 2:00-5:05p

Instructor:

P. Schmidt

Search Criteria

  • Search course, faculty, or keyword: law 037 v02

  • Term: Summer 2023

    ******************************

    🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-25-23

WE NEED MORE WORK VISAS & A LONG-OVERDUE REVISION OF CATEGORIES, SAYS “NEW AMERICAN ECONOMY” STUDY & IMMIGRATION EXPERT PROFESSOR STEPHEN YALE-LOEHR OF CORNELL LAW! — Hannah Miao Reports For CNBC

Hannah Miao
Hannah Miao
Reporter, CNBC
PHOTO: CNBC

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/expert-business-visa-categories-outmoded

From Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Expert: Business Visa Categories Outmoded

Hannah Miao, CNBC, June 10, 2021

“We have not revamped our legal immigration categories, including business immigration, since 1990. Some of those categories are out of alignment with our needs in the United States today,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell Law School, who was not involved with the NAE study.  “The pandemic has exacerbated those inconsistencies because people who are desperately needed to restart various businesses have been unable to enter the United States,” Yale-Loehr said.”

pastedGraphic.png

****************************

We should be expanding legal immigration opportunities in all three categories that currently feed our “green card system:”

  • Family visas;
  • Work visas; and
  • Refugee and asylum admissions.

We have seen during the pandemic that “essential workers” we depend upon and whose presence enriches our society and helps us build for a better future come in all types of statuses, including so-called “undocumented.” Those coming in the family, refugee, and asylum categories contribute valuable job skills, experiences, and enrichment to our society just as much, and in some cases, even more than those whose visas are based on work skills. We need to draw on and expand all three categories.

My Georgetown Law Immigration and Refugee Policy students did their own research and pointed these things out in our class just this week. They “get it!” But, our current Government immigration policy makers, not so much!

Again, to state the obvious, the Biden Administration is “missing the boat” by not restarting our asylum system at the border, running it in an appropriately generous and fair manner with experts, and expanding and getting our refugee programs functioning again. Many of those with skills we need and can use are literally “dying to get in” while we ignore both their humanity and our collective best interests.

Progressive legislative reforms to our legal immigration system are long, long overdue. But, we already have the legal authority to run far more robust and fairer legal refugee and asylum systems that would benefit America and the world, a well as saving lives and ending the ongoing squandering of Government resources on failed, illegal, cruel, and counterproductive “enforcement schemes.” 

Progressive experts with the needed skill sets to fix the migration problems are out here. Obviously, Professor Yale-Loehr is just one of many. Yet, for the most part, the Biden Administration ignores their expertise and turns a deaf ear to their solutions. Doesn’t make sense to me!

Unfortunately, we appear to appear to lack the will, imagination, courage, and most of all progressive expertise in the Executive Branch to use currently available tools and legal authorities to fix migration problems.

My students continually give me hope that the next generations will provide enlightened leadership and build a more just society and a better world for the future. But, in the meantime, my generation continues to squander opportunities for improvement. There will be a cost, of that I’m sure! 

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-11-21

⚖️🗽🛡RECOGNIZING WOMEN REFUGEES: Professor Karen Musalo @ ImmigrationProf Blog — Don’t Add A “6th Protected Ground” To The Statute; Get Some Better-Qualified Judges 🧑🏽‍⚖️ Who Will Respect & Follow Existing Law To Protect Those Already Covered, But Wrongfully Denied Refuge By Bad Judging & Restrictionist Policies!

 

Karen Musalo
Professor Karen Musalo
Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/03/guest-post-the-wrong-answer-to-the-right-question-how-to-address-the-failure-of-protection-for-gende.html

By Immigration Prof

Share

The Wrong Answer to the Right Question:  How to Address the Failure of Protection for Gender-Based Claims?

By Professor Karen Musalo, Bank of America Professor of International Law, Director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, UC Hastings

In 1996 I was honored to litigate the first case at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Matter of Kasinga,[1] that opened the door to protection for women fleeing gender-based harms.  To qualify for recognition as a refugee under U.S. law, an individual must establish “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution” on account of one of five grounds – “race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.”[2]  This definition in the 1980 Refugee Act essentially adopts the standard set forth in the 1951 UN Refugee Convention[3] and its 1967 U.N. Refugee Protocol,[4] which the U.S. ratified in 1968.

The woman seeking asylum in the Kasinga case fled female genital cutting and forced marriage.  In a ground-breaking decision, the BIA ruled that cutting was persecution, and it was “on account of” her membership in a gender-defined social group.  In so ruling, the BIA was following the guidance that UNHCR has issued over a number of years, noting that the absence of gender as a protected ground should not impede protection for women fleeing persecution, because the particular social group ground encompasses gender-defined groups.[5]

The Kasinga decision was a breakthrough for women, and a highwater mark in U.S. adjudicators following international guidance.  It also raised expectations that U.S. law would continue to evolve and extend protection to women fleeing the many forms of gender-based violence to which they are subject.  However, that has not been the case, and there have been retreats from protection across administrations, although undoubtedly we witnessed the most dramatic attempts to end protection in gender claims during the Trump administration, which issued extremely limiting Attorney General decisions, such as Matter of A-B- I,[6] and Matter of A-B- II –[7] as well as regulations[8] – currently enjoined[9]—that explicitly rule out gender-based claims.

The Biden administration has committed itself to reviewing the issue of protection for those fleeing gender-based violence.[10]  As we consider how to remedy the issue, some argue for a legislative amendment to the refugee definition, adding gender as a sixth ground to the statute’s five protected grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinion and membership in a particular social group.  This is the wrong solution.  It would not only repeat the errors of the past (amending the refugee definition in 1996, discussed below), but it would also fail to adequately protect survivors of gender-based violence.  At the same time, it would lead to the quite foreseeable consequence of leaving many deserving asylum seekers outside the ambit of refugee protection.  It is also likely to signal to other Convention State parties that unless they also add a sixth ground, they could deny protection to women and girls without running afoul of the treaty’s obligations.

In order to prescribe a remedy, one first has to diagnose the illness; in order to understand why the sixth ground solution is wrong, we need to examine what occurred after Kasinga that limited protection in subsequent claims involving women fleeing gender-based persecution. . . . .

**********************

Read the rest of Karen’s outstanding analysis at the link.

Here’s a question from last summer’s “Jeopardy style” final exam in Immigration Law & Policy @ Georgetown Law:

A: Judge Schmidt’s favorite case.

Q: What is Matter of Kasinga?

Happy to say that everyone got that one right! Of course, I wrote the decision in Matter of Kasinga!

Karen’s bottom line: “We should be working to bring the U.S. into compliance with UNHCR’s social group interpretation, rather than surrendering to its flawed interpretation, by adding a sixth ground.”

The key is better Federal Judges, from the Immigration Courts all the way up to the Supremes: Judges who are “practical scholars” in human rights and applied due process; judges who have represented asylum seekers, particularly women, and understand their plight.

This week, President Biden announced the creation of the White House Gender Policy Council. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/03/08/executive-order-on-establishment-of-the-white-house-gender-policy-council/

That’s a nice gesture. But, as I always say, actions are what really counts. So here are actions that Judge Garland can take immediately as Attorney General to finally fulfill the promise of Matter of Kasinga:

  • Vacate the atrocious, misogynist, perversion of asylum law (not to mention facts of record) by Sessions in Matter of A-B-;
  • Appoint some female “practical scholars in human rights” to appellate judgeships on the BIA.

That’s how to really honor Women’s History Month!

To understand the human impact of Sessions’s grotesque misconstruction of asylum law and the relevant facts in Matter of A-B-, check out this video short featuring Karen and others along with Ms. A-B-:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRQpXRWlQL0

I generally agree with Karen’s concerns about specific gender-based legislation potentially having an unintended negative effect. That is certainly the fate of past unsuccessful attempts to include gender-based asylum in the regulations.

They essentially were “hijacked” by DOJ litigators and enforcement-oriented policy officials looking for ways to facially appease women’s rights groups, while actually proposing to restrict eligibility and make it easier for OIL and the SG’s Office to defend denials of asylum. They also sought to create hyper-technical requirements that would have effectively made it impossible for any unrepresented individual to properly set forth a “cognizable particular social group.”

These, in and of themselves, are reasons for removing the Immigration Courts from the DOJ and creating an independent Article I structure. The “ultimate insult to injury” was when EOIR enthusiastically participated in Stephen Miller’s currently-enjoined attempt to completely write gender-based asylum out of the law. Absurdly, that came at a time when gender-based persecution has become endemic throughout the world!

Not surprisingly, the DOJ, a prosecutorial agency at heart, is most often interested in “litigation strategies” to make it easier for the Government to successfully defend the burgeoning immigration litigation in Federal Court, rather than guaranteeing justice for asylum seekers and other migrants. Quite ironically, what would really reduce the volume of civil immigration litigation is more practical, expert decision making from better qualified Immigration Judges at the “retail level” of the system.

Gimmicks to “game” the Federal Court system against asylum seekers and other migrants by skirting due process and fundamental fairness have actually contributed to, rather than reduced, the amount of civil immigration litigation the Circuits. It has also generated many avoidable “Circuit conflicts” that require attention on Supremes’ limited docket. The failure of the DOJ, the Immigration Courts, and the Federal Courts to recognize and protect the due process rights of asylum seekers and other migrants has directly carried over into the failure of our justice system to achieve equal justice under law for racial minorities.

“Institutionalized racism” is inextricably linked to “Dred Scottification” of migrants of color in the Immigration Courts! The Biden Administration can’t solve the former without addressing the latter!

Bad judging and skewed policies on the “retail level” create multiple problems that adversely affect the entire Federal Justice system. I guarantee that they will not be solved by more restrictionist gimmicks and and unduly narrow and tone-deaf interpretations by judges and policy officials who lack the necessary expertise in immigration and human rights laws and the real-life understanding and perspective of the human consequences of the choices that judges make on a daily basis.

But, I also think that in addition to better judges, it is important to revise the statutory language to make it more explicitly inclusive and clarify that gender-based asylum, family based asylum, and other protected groups are examples, but not limits, of those covered by “particular social group.” Also, the statute should reverse the BIA’s stilted restrictionist interpretations (all too often incorrectly given “deference” by Circuit Courts shirking their duty) of “nexus” as a vehicle to deny asylum rather than an expansive concept that can and should be used to extend life-saving protections where necessary.

Otherwise, as Trump, Sessions, Barr, and Miller demonstrated, needed protection becomes largely a matter of who is appointing the judges at any particular point in time. Protection must and should be more durable — for all refugees including, but not limited, to those seeking  gender-based protection!

Better Federal Judges are the beginning, but by no means the end, of what is needed to make due process, fundamental fairness, and genuine refugee protections the hallmarks of American law. They are also required to turn institutionalized racism into equal justice for all persons in America, regardless of race, religion, gender, or other defining personal characteristics.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Asylum Laws Must Protect, Not Reject!🧑🏽‍⚖️🛡

PWS

03-10-21

😢VERY SAD NEWS: JEOPARDY’S ALEX TREBEK SUCCUMBS TO CANCER AT 80!

Alex Trebek
Alex Trebek
PHOTO CREDIT: ANDERS KRUSBERG / PEABODY AWARDS
71st Annual Peabody Awards Luncheon Waldorf=Astoria Hotel
May 21, 2012

https://www.nbcwashington.com/entertainment/entertainment-news/jeopardy-host-alex-trebek-dies-at-80/2467238/

From NBC News:

Alex Trebek, who presided over the beloved quiz show “Jeopardy!” for more than 30 years with dapper charm and a touch of school-master strictness, died Sunday. He was 80.

Trebek, who announced in 2019 that he had advanced pancreatic cancer, died at his California home, surrounded by family and friends, “Jeopardy!” studio Sony said.

The Canadian-born host, who made a point of informing fans about his health directly, spoke in a calm, even tone as he revealed his illness and hope for a cure in a video posted March 6, 2019.

In the video, Trebek said he was joining the 50,000 other Americans who receive such a diagnosis each year and that he recognized that the prognosis was not encouraging.

Pancreatic cancer is currently the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the U.S., with an overall five-year survival rate of just 10 percent.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Rep. John Lewis also succumbed to the disease this past year.

But Trebek said he intended to fight it and keep working, even joking that he needed to beat the disease because his “Jeopardy!” contract ran for three more years. Less than a week later, he opened the show with a message acknowledging the outpouring of kind words and prayers he’d received.

“Thanks to the — believe it or not — hundreds of thousands of people who have sent in tweets, texts, emails, cards and letters wishing me well,” Trebek said. “I’m a lucky guy.”

“Jeopardy!” bills itself as “America’s favorite quiz show” and captivated the public with a unique format in which contestants were told the answers and had to provide the questions on a variety of subjects, including movies, politics, history and popular culture.

They would answer by saying “What is … ?” or “Who is …. ?”

Trebek, who became its host in 1984, was a master of the format, engaging in friendly banter with contestants, appearing genuinely pleased when they answered correctly and, at the same time, moving the game along in a brisk no-nonsense fashion whenever people struggled for answers.

He never pretended to know the answers himself if he really didn’t, deferring to the show’s experts to decide whether a somewhat vague answer had come close enough to be counted as correct.

“I try not to take myself too seriously,” he told an interviewer in 2004. “I don’t want to come off as a pompous ass and indicate that I know everything when I don’t.”

The show was the brainstorm of Juann Griffin, wife of the late talk show host-entrepreneur Merv Griffin, who said she suggested to him one day that he create a game show where people were given the answers.

“Jeopardy!” debuted on NBC in 1964 with Art Fleming as emcee and was an immediate hit. It lasted until 1975, then was revived in syndication with Trebek.

Long identified by a full head of hair and trim mustache (though in 2001 he startled viewers by shaving his mustache, “completely on a whim”), Trebek was more than qualified for the job, having started his game show career on “Reach for the Top” in his native country.

Moving to the U.S. in 1973, he appeared on “The Wizard of Odds,” “High Rollers,” “The $128,000 Question” and “Double Dare.” Even during his run on “Jeopardy!”, Trebek worked on other shows. In the early 1990s, he was the host of three — “Jeopardy!”, “To Tell the Truth” and “Classic Concentration.”

“Jeopardy!” made him famous. He won five Emmys as its host, and received stars on both the Hollywood and Canadian walks of fame. In 2012, the show won a prestigious Peabody Award.

He taped his daily “Jeopardy!” shows at a frenetic pace, recording as many as 10 episodes (two weeks’ worth) in just two days. After what was described as a mild heart attack in 2007, he was back at work in just a month.

He posted a video in January 2018 announcing he’d undergone surgery for blood clots on the brain that followed a fall he’d taken. The show was on hiatus during his recovery.

It had yet to bring in a substitute host for Trebek — save once, when he and “Wheel of Fortune” host Pat Sajak swapped their TV jobs as an April’s Fool prank.

In 2012, Trebek acknowledged that he was considering retirement, but had been urged by friends to stay on so he could reach 30 years on the show. He still loved the job, he declared: “What’s not to love? You have the security of a familiar environment, a familiar format, but you have the excitement of new clues and new contestants on every program. You can’t beat that!”

Although many viewers considered him one of the key reasons for the show’s success, Trebek himself insisted he was only there to keep things moving.

“I’m introduced as the host of ‘Jeopardy!,’ not the star,” he said in a 2012 interview. “My job is to provide the atmosphere and assistance to the contestants to get them to perform at their very best,” he explained. “And if I’m successful doing that, I will be perceived as a nice guy and the audience will think of me as being a bit of a star.”

Trebek is survived by his wife Jean and his two adult children, Emily and Matthew.

*****************

Alex has long been a part of our family. Most evenings at our house are NBC Nightly News followed by Jeopardy!

A number of years ago, we were lucky enough to see Alex in person during a live recording of “Celebrity Jeopardy” at DAR Constitution Hall. He spent lots of time chatting with the audience and answering questions during the “off camera” breaks.

In tribute to Alex, the “Zoom Edition of Immigration Law & Policy” at Georgetown Law this summer was “Immigration Jeopardy” — 100 “answers” in the familiar “you supply the questions” Jeopardy format!

Alex has actually been “grooming” his successor Jeopardy G.O.A.T. Ken Jennings over the past months. So the show will carry on the “Alex tradition.” Nevertheless, as Ken and all Jeopardy fans know, there will never be another Alex Trebek!

 

Thanks for all the great entertainment and knowledge over the years! R.I.P. Alex. 

PWS

11-08-20