Immigration Debate Groundwork

One of the difficulties in having a national debate over immigration issues is the confusing nature of our immigration policy. So to help solve part of that problem, here is some foundational information about our immigration system.

• Immigration is a distinctly different process than naturalization. The former gives legal permanent resident (LPR) status (also known as a green-card). The latter bestows citizenship. With very few exceptions (such children adopted by US citizens), an alien must first be a legal resident for a set number of years before he can apply for citizenship. Bestowing legal residence is not the same as bestowing citizenship. Popular discussions often confuse the two.

• The Constitution nowhere gives the federal government power to establish or enforce an immigration policy. It only addresses naturalization. (Article 1, Section 8, clause 4.) When faced with this issue, the Supreme Court upheld the power of the Federal Government to exclude and remove aliens as part of inherent sovereignty. See Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889) and Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893). For a bit of interesting historical trivia, Justice Field, who authored the 1889 opinion finding authority to exclude aliens dissented from the 1893 opinion finding authority to deport them.

• The United States had virtually open borders for almost its first hundred years. The first substantive immigration restrictions, excluding criminals and prostitutes, were adopted in 1875. The first categorical restrictions, excluding Chinese, were adopted in 1882 (these were the ones challenged on Constitutional grounds). The first numerical limitations on immigration were adopted in 1921.

• Most immigration violations are administrative matters, not criminal violations. The only “sentence” an immigration judge can impose is deportation. Consequently, illegal immigrants, by and large, are not “criminals” and cannot be treated as such. See Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896). However, because these are not criminal proceedings, the aliens involved do not benefit from criminal due process protections (such as the right to state-paid attorney or innocent until proven guilty, among others). Instead, it is a much more streamlined setting; and the burden of proof is always on the alien.

• With very few exceptions (asylum, lottery, and those with special skills being some of the larger ones), aliens cannot petition to enter the United States. Instead, they need either a relative or an employer to make the petition on their  behalf. Aliens who have neither here legally are out of luck. This means that for many, there is no line to get into.

• For those who can get a petition filed on their behalf by a family member, the type of relationship determines which line they go into:

• Spouses and children of US Citizens: no cap/no wait
• Unmarried sons or daughters (over 21) of US citizens: 7 year wait
• Spouses and children of permanent residents: 3 year wait
• Unmarried sons and daughters (over 21) of permanent residents: 8 year wait
• Married sons and daughters of US citizens: 11 year wait
• Brothers and sisters of US citizens: 12 year wait

If a child ages out of a category or otherwise loses qualification (gets married) prior to the application being processed, they lose their place. Notice that there are no sponsorships available for married children or siblings of LPRs. Also, because we still have some country limitations, the wait can be longer for those from China, India, Mexico, or the Philippines. For example, right now, applications filed in 1989 on behalf of US Citizen siblings in the Philippines are just being processed. Yes, that is a 24 year wait list.

• Those sponsoring immigrant family members must fill out an affidavit of support, demonstrating sufficient income so that the immigrant will not resort to public assistance. This is a legally binding contract, and the sponsor can be required to pay back any public assistance the immigrant does use. Additionally, the likelihood of being a public charge is grounds for exclusion, and actually becoming a public charge after entry can result in deportation.

• For those taking the employment route, unless they have exceptional abilities or advanced degrees, the wait is 6 years.

• Employers sponsoring immigrant employees must first go through a labor certification process with the Department of Labor, certifying that there are no US workers who can or will do the job.

• For those over eighteen who have been here illegally for over a year, there is a 10 year bar on applying. This is added to the above wait times. For those who have crossed the border without inspection twice, even if they were minors accompanying their parents, there is a lifetime bar. Absent a waiver, they can never be admitted legally.

• President Obama’s “amnesty” (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA) merely uses prosecutorial discretion to not pursue or deport immigrants who entered illegally as minors (provided certain other criteria are met). This administrative procedure predates Obama. It was brought into the limelight in the 1970's by none other the Beatle John Lennon, who used it to avoid deportation on drug charges.

Immigration policy debate has been lurking under the headlines ever since the election, when the Republicans discovered that for some reason, their anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric didn’t resonate well with those whose friends and relatives are illegal. This week a bipartisan group of Senators outlined their reforms. It will be exciting to see where this goes next.

Why the Christians?

Lately I have been confronted multiple times by a simple truth: in some of the darkest places of the world, it is the Christians who are refusing to give up on their fellow man.

In Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables, It is the bishop’s kindness and forgiveness that brings Valjean to repentance—and  sets the stage for the remainder of the story. But it is a bishop, a man of God, and not the innkeeper, or the policeman, or the mayor, or any other secular figure that, by that one act of kindness, changes this man’s life. That, I think, is significant.

Being fiction, that story is easy enough to dismiss. What I have kept finding, though, is similar examples that are not fiction. And those examples shed even additional light on Hugo's story.

For my Immigration Law Clinic this semester I was assigned the book Enrique’s Journey, which tells of a sixteen year old boy’s harrowing journey from Honduras to the United States. Along the way he rode on top of cargo trains, avoiding both Mexican authorities and the gangs. He was beaten, robbed, and deported out of Mexico numerous times. Many like him are murdered.

Virtually the only help he received along his journey was in towns where the local priest had impressed into the church the importance of helping the train people. And the priests themselves take a lead role. In one town:

Perhaps the greatest gift has come from the church’s priest. Over his lifetime, he has saved $37,500 to live on during his retirement. He told the church members, “These people will keep on coming, more and more. We must build.” Then, when he was sixty-three years old, he quietly donated the entire amount to buy the land to build the migrant shelter.

There was also a recent article in The Atlantic about Christian surgeons in Africa, going to help those in areas where there is little to no medical infrastructure. The entire article is excellent, but this part about the program's expansion stood out:

"About three or four years ago we were tying to get a program in Ethiopia, and one of the government ministers was very much against this," Steffes told me, explaining that the minister's objection centered on the organization's unwillingness to accept non-Christian trainees. "He said, 'tell me what you're doing here.' And I said, 'the truth is that we've put out a number of graduates and they're all serving in rural Africa or in the cities where no one wants to work, and I'm willing to share everything I've got, from academics to teaching to testing. You can have them.' And I paused, and said, 'But it won't do any good.' I said, 'the only reason I can get these people going out in these rural areas and serve in places where they have trouble getting a decent education for their kids, not have all the amenities of a city, not get paid well, is because they're doing what they think Jesus wants them to do. Without that, it doesn't work. You can't convince other people to do this.'" The minister, Steffes said, removed the roadblocks impeding the program. "He just looked at me for a few seconds, and said, 'You're right,' and he finished the conversation."

Only the Christians stay to help. “You can't convince other people to do this.”

This is no coincidence. Tim Chester, in his excellent book A Meal With Jesus, explains:

Involvement with people, especially the marginalized, must begin with a sense of God’s grace. But not just God’s grace to them, but his grace to me. I need to be melted and broken by grace. When I speak with someone who’s an alcoholic or a single mother, or someone who’s depressed or unemployed or unemployable, I must do so as a fellow sinner. We’re all broken people in a broken world. If I do not understand this, then my good intentions will be patronizing. Anything I say will be heard as “become like me.” Only as I’m daily struck by God’s amazing grace to me, Tim Chester, will my life and words point to Jesus as the Savior.

Christians have that sense of grace, which is why they are so often the ones stepping up to help the ex-convicts, the travelers, and the otherwise unreached.

I’ll close, as I opened, with Victor Hugo. Javert did not grasp this grace, and when it chased him down, “An entire new world appeared to his soul . . . the possibility of a tear in the eye of the law, a mysterious justice according to God going counter to justice according to men.” Grace undid his worldview, and by extension, undid him.

The humble bishop, in contrast (and in a description that continues to haunt me), “had no systems; but many deeds. … Certainly these tremendous reveries have their moral use; and by those arduous routes there is an approach to ideal perfection. But for his part, he took the straight road, which is short—the Gospel. … His humble soul loved; that was all.”

Friday miscellaneous (1/25)

Last week we linked to the Notre Dame football player with the fake girlfriend. Before that, there was the fake football team.

Jeffrey Polet examines some evidence that President Obama may be a socialist. What he finds is that Obama is more likely a late-stage capitalist (of the sort Marx warned against).

Back in 2009, one businessman put on an inaugural ball for DC’s homeless. It changed their lives.

And Anthony Esolen continues his critique of our educational methods:

Every encounter with what is good – the chivalry of General Lee, the willing poverty of Mother Teresa, the shy greathearted youth of Alyosha Karamazov – can expand the soul, if we will allow it; which means that it helps to set us free from the compulsions of false goods, which Christians have long grouped under the headings of the seven deadly sins.  Every encounter with beauty – the glint of a simple word in a poem by Herbert, the meditative subtleties of the late Shakespeare, the sweet charm of a ballad by Burns – can expand the soul, if we will allow it; which means that it helps to set us free from the heavy accretions of the drab, the dull, the mean, the spiritually sluggish, the smog of contemporary workaweek life.  Every encounter, not with facticity, but with human truth – Jane Austen deftly revealing how little we know our own motives, Dickens revealing the meaning of “economy” in the cheerful and charitable housekeeping of Esther Summerson, his finest heroine, or the foolish Lear, who is mad and childish and yet “every inch a king” – can expand the soul, if we will allow it; which means that it helps to set us free from the common delusions of our time, the lies we believe and the lies we tell. 

But the Common Core Standards in English Language Et Cetera know nothing of all this.  For the archons, reading is a “skill,” and that is that.  What you read is of no import; only how complex the text is, judged according to various quantitative algorithms and a few subjective check lists that do not touch upon goodness, beauty, or truth.

This week’s cold snap (plus a really bad fire) left some amazing ice sculptures in Chicago.

In an age of disenchantment with political leaders, here’s an encouraging story. In 2011 a reluctant mayor took over San Francisco--and then balanced the budget. If nothing else, it shows the importance of having working relationships with political opponents.

And finally, cats may rule the internet, but this one isn’t quite sure what to do with snow.

Undermining Political Opponents (Blair’s Lessons, part V)

Continuing our series on lessons, from Tony Blair’s memoirs, today we focus on undermining political opposition.

The charge of being an opportunist may seem a bit of a low-key attack. And in that also lies a lesson. With each successive Tory leader, I would develop a line of attack, but I only did so after a lot of thought. Usually I did it based on close observation at PMQs. I never made it overly harsh. I always tried to make it telling. The aim was to get the non-politician nodding. I would wonder not what appealed to a Labor Party Conference in full throttle, but would appeal to my old mates at the Bar, who wanted a reasonable case to be made; and who, if it were made, would rally. 

So I defined Major as weak; Hague as better at jokes than judgment; Howard as an opportunist; Camron as a flip-flop, not knowing where he wanted to go. (The Tories did my work for me in undermining Ian Duncan Smith.) Expressed like that, these attacks seem flat, rather mundane almost, and not exactly inspiring—but that’s their appeal. Any one of these charges, if it comes to be believed, is actually fatal. Yes, it’s not like calling your opponent a liar, or a fraud, or a villain or a hypocrite, but the middle-ground floating voter kind of shrugs their shoulders that those claims. They don’t chime. They’re too over the top, to heavy, and they represent an insult, not an argument. Whereas the lesser charge, because it’s more accurate and precisely because it’s more low-key, can stick. And if it does, that’s that. Because in each case, it means they’re not a good leader. So game over.

This is a lesson today’s political right could benefit from. During the Bush presidency, much was made by commentators on the right of Bush Derangement Syndrome (which became Palin Derangement Syndrome). Now I’m afraid the political right is falling into the same trap with regards to President Obama. The problem, as Blair explains, is that the over-the-top responses actually do more damage to one’s own cause than they do the the targeted opponent.

_________

Also in this series:

Reforming Political Parties (Blair's Lessons, part I)

Racing to the Common Good (Blair's Lessons, part II)

The Right Question (Blair's Lessons, part III)

Debate Prelude (Blair's Lessons, part IV)

The Politics of Immigration Reform (Blair's Lessons, part VI)

Presidential Leadership (Blair's Lessons, part VII)

Losing A Popular Issue (Blair's Lessons, part VIII)

Undemocratic Opposition (Blair's Lessons, part IX)

International Leadership (Blair's Lessons, part X)

Friday miscellaneous (1/18)

Alright, first the serious.

Greg Weiner takes a step back from the gun debate to examine what it says about our idea of rights.

And Darryl Hart reflects on what happens to scholars libraries after they die.

Here is a more detailed account on C.S. Lewis’ conversion to Christianity.

It is possible that part of our obesity problem is the lack of walkable neighborhoods.

And this is a touching story on forgiveness.

There are early reports that Sen. Rubio and President Obama may be thinking along similar lines for immigration reform.

Now the fun.

For all you single guys concerned about your facebook profiles, worry no more. You can purchase fake Facebook girlfriends. (Maybe that’s what happened at Notre Dame?)

Ok, so I know this was a tragedy. But there is still something bizarre about Boston being buried under a fifteen foot wave of … molasses.

And if you lose your cell phone, Wayne Dobson has already assured the world: he doesn’t have it (regardless of what your GPS tracking says).

Update: immediately after posting this I discovered that New York’s new gun laws banning high-capacity magazines neglected to exclude law enforcement. Oops.

And then, there’s the downright frivolous.

The White House has responded to the online petition to build a death star, explaining “The Administration does not support blowing up planets.” and “Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?”

We know that Captain America took on Hitler. Well, so did Dr. Seuss.

And finally, in a fitting conclusion to this post, we present the answer to that age old question (asked by none other than Darth Vader himself): what would happen if you gave a yo-yo to a flock of flamingos?

.

Friday miscellaneous (1/11)

It’s been awhile since we shared articles on finds in unexpected places. Like Hoth in Greenland, Egypt in California, and hell in Turkmenistan. This week’s is bigger: the eye of Sauron in outer space.

After relying on lots of promises that only the rich were going to see tax increases, many Obama supporters were surprised this week to see their withholding taxes spike. I guess the economy is recovering after all--there’s so many more rich people than we realized.

There’s a cliche that it's possible to escape prison with knotted bedsheets out the window. Well, two Chicago prisoners demonstrated that it’s true, escaping down over fifteen stories with only sheets and towels.

For all the complaints of unenforced immigration laws, the federal government spends more on immigration enforcement than all other types of law enforcement combined.

Sam Harris has a long--yet one of the most sensible--articles on gun regulation that I’ve seen.

The Atlantic has a good article positing the question of whether we’re addicted to political crisis:

A vibrant, outspoken and self-critical citizenry is a necessary and vital element of a thriving democracy. But when the public conversation becomes so relentlessly fixated on the disaster porn of political and economic challenges, an invisible but significant line has been crossed. Myopic focus on the next crisis and the battles that loom ahead with nary a sense of balance isn't a recipe for collective action; it's a formula for collective paralysis.

But a very real problem (I won’t use the word crisis in light of that prior article) is uncontrolled federal spending. And it remains a problem despite what the President believes.

On that note, House Republicans may require a budget in exchange for raising the debt ceiling again. It doesn’t seem like too much to ask.

And finally, enjoy this elevator prank.

Let’s Not Give Up on the Constitution Quite Yet

Conservatives often suspect that deep down, liberals are anti-constitution and anti-American. So the reaction of outrage that I’ve seen to Louis Seidman’s New York Times piece Let’s Give Up on the Constitution is no surprise — Seidman has just tipped the liberal hand.

But does Seidman have a point?

No, not really (ha, you thought I was going to triangulate or something). But since this sentiment does exist, it is worth examining so that we know how to calmly and sensibly respond to Seidman’s criticisms. He is, after all, a professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown, which gives him both status and knowledge.

Seidman opens with the broad assertion that the Constitution contains “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.” Archaic and idiosyncratic I’ll give him. The Senate representing states and budget bills starting in the House are much less significant after the 17th Amendment switched the selection process of the Senate from appointment to election. It should be noted, though, that this is an oddity not with the original document, but with the document as amended. As Alexis de Tocquevolle noted: “It is therefore only at the birth of societies that one can be completely logical in the laws. When you see a people enjoying this advantage, do not hasten to conclude that it is wise; think rather that it is young.” And whatever idiosyncrasies one finds in the Constitution, they pale in comparison to what our federal government gives us today.

But evil? Seidman fails to identify a part of our current Constitution that fits that category. The closest he comes is slavery, which was corrected by the 13th Amendment.

Nonetheless, he would toss most of it (headline aside, a close reading shows he would keep parts, such as the various governmental chambers). What he is particularly upset about is the fact that the Constitution prohibits governmental action by both not delegating all powers to the federal government and ensuring that citizens have rights that can be asserted against exercise of power.

The error in Seidman’s analysis, which I find surprising for someone who teaches law, is his dismissal of the rule of law. This becomes evident in his proposed thought experiment:

Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

Yes, it is rational (after wading through the loaded language and irrelevant content contained in the question itself), provided that those long-dead people passed a law that prohibited the action in question. (See this article for a response to the argument that the Constitution was illegally adopted.)

This answer becomes more obvious when the thought experiment is recrafted.

Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action, such as the prohibition of abortion, is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white men who have been dead for decades, knew nothing of our present situation, and whose predecessors in office thought it was fine to own slaves, might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

Or imagine that after careful study a governmental official — say the Secretary of a Department  — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action, such as declining to enforce antitrust rules, is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of mainly white wealthy men long dead who were more interested in grandstanding than in protecting the country or understanding the problem at issue, and whose successors will take full credit for any successful program while scapegoating the Secretary for any failure, might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

Or imagine that after careful study a corporate board reaches a considered judgement that a particular course of action — say, that X level of health care should be offered to its employees — is best for the company. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: an appointed bureaucrat thousands of miles away with no knowledge of business has interpreted a poorly worded provision of text which had been adopted by a group of overpaid egoists (also with no knowledge of business), who for three years hasn’t even been able to pass a budget for its own operations, but has ensured that it gets pay increases, might disagree with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the board should change its mind because of this divination?

Finally, imagine that after careful study I reach a considered judgement that a particular course of action — say, that I shouldn’t have to pay taxes — is best for me. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a legislative body that can’t manage it’s own budgets and whose members routinely have difficulty paying their own taxes, who claim to represent me even though I didn’t vote for them, and who know nothing of my situation might disagree with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the I should change my mind because of this divination?

Yes, yes, and yes. It is rational that (conscious issues aside) the actor would change their mind. In fact, it’s expected. That’s how laws work.

Which is where Seidman’s hypothetical reveals its own slant (and he is not the first one to make this straw-man argument). He complains that “Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.”

Not quite. What we argue about is whether a proposed course of action is legal. What James Madison thought — or any of the other founders thought — has only indirect bearing into the interpretation of the text. By itself, it carries no more than persuasive authority. And if the question is one implicating the 14th Amendment, we argue about what the post-Civil War Congress intended, ignoring James Madison altogether.

My own Constitutional Law professor, at a rather liberal school no less, opened the first class talking about Machiavelli’s Prince. He said that we follow the Constitution, not necessarily because its perfect (27 amendments discredit that claim), but because we are a nation of laws and not of men. As the law, it must be followed by Congress and the President, just as agencies, companies, and individuals have to follow the law passed by Congress and signed by the President. The Constitution reminds us, and more importantly reminds Congress and the President, that there is still a higher law above them.

Seidman’s political check solution misses the entire point. Yes, there is a political check on Congress by which the people can exercise their voting rights to influence decisions. This is true, and vitally important within those areas where Congress has authority to legislate (Constitutional ability, after all, does not equate to prudent policy). But, important as it is, this democratic solution cannot be relied upon to protect the rights of minorities. For that, we rely on the Constitution itself.

Seidman’s critique, at its heart, is that the Constitution is difficult to interpret and well meaning people can disagree on what it means in particular situations. That, as he should know, is the nature of law itself.

As I heard time and time again during my first year of law school, if you want clear answers go study mathematics.

Friday miscellaneous (1/4)

Despite all the rhetoric and denunciations, the policies of George W. Bush live on.

And it’s a little late, but this is an excellent piece on Mitt Romney.

Time magazine declares that the pro-life movement is gaining ground.

Have you ever wondered what old black and white photographs would look like in color? This incredible project answers just that question.

Mike Shanahan, formerly head coach of the Denver Broncos and now at the Washington Redskins, hardly ever smiles (seriously, watch him on the sidelines sometimes). Yet he had to when his own quarterback started asking him questions at a recent press conference. That rookie quarterback, Robert Griffin III, has turned into quite the impressive leader for the Redskins because of his own humility.

The political right often derides the left for its utopian dreams. But lately it has been falling prey to the same problem.

You’ve probably heard the accusation that the Bible got the issue of slavery wrong. Tim Keller and Don Carson have both responded to this issue.

Anthony Esolen discusses, and deconstructs, today’s mathematics teaching (and a whole lot more).

Mark Steyn, as only he can, discusses the unintentional legal point that David Gregory made when he allegedly illegally showed a high-capacity magazine on national TV.

And Dave Barry reviews the year as only he can.

January: Meanwhile the race for the Republican presidential nomination, which began in approximately 2003, continues to be a spicy political gumbo of excitement. The emerging front runner is Mitt Romney, who combines a strong résumé of executive experience with the easygoing natural human warmth of a parking meter. Still in contention, however, is Newt Gingrich, whose popularity surges briefly, only to wane when voters begin to grasp the fact that he is Newt Gingrich. This opens the door for Rick Santorum, whose strong suit is that he has a normal first name, and who apparently at one point was a senator or governor of Pennsylvania or possibly Vermont.

Fans of The Hobbit will appreciate this transcript of the Dwarves (very one sided) contract with the Bilbo:

8. Burglar shall devise means and methods to circumvent any difficulties arising from any illegal or illicit occupation or guardianship of Company’s rightful home and property. Successful disposal of any such guardian, creature or squatter in said home shall not necessarily earn any additional monetary or fiscal reward, but will definitely guarantee Burglar (if he survives) and Burglar’s family the undying gratitude and promise of service in perpetuity and forever of the Company and its successors. 

{fine print}: A plaque shall be erected and dedicated in Burglar’s honor if he meets an untimely end in attempting this feat. 

{fine print}: Material size and location of such a plaque is to be decided at Director’s sole whim and desire. 

{fine print}: Present Company is not obliged to assist Burglar in this so called ‘pest control’ phase of the Adventure.

And finally, AT-AT walkers like you’ve never seen them before.

My Year in Ticket Stubs

So, as I was cleaning my room tonight this is what I found:

Tickets to: 

• Gettysburg Battlefield (12/10/11)
• the Nutcracker (12/11) 
• The Hunger Games (3/25/12)
• Midsummer Night's Dream play (3/30/12)
• The Avengers (5/4/12) 
• Avengers (5/10/12) 
• Avengers (5/20/12) 
• The Avengers (5/29/12)
• Brave (6/23/12) 
• Bourne Legacy (8/11/12)
• Amazing Spiderman (8/21/12)
• Colonial Williamsberg (9/12) 
• Dark Knight Rises (9/12/12) 
• Values Voter Summit Gala (9/15/12) 
• Disney World (9/28/12) 
• Ryan Rally VIP ticket 
• Argo (10/27/12) 
• Romney Rally VIP ticket  
• Wreck-It-Ralph (11/9/12) 
• Skyfall (11/18/12)
• The Hobbit (12/15/12)
• Les Miserables the play (12/15/12) 
• The Hobbit 48 FPS (12/24/12) 
• Les Miserables (12/26/12)

There is a reviewer who ranks movies as the year goes on. Do you all think I should do that too? This is what it would look like. 

I guess I can make a chronicle of my life based on my messy room. Did you see any of these things? What was your favorite? 

Posted by Jeremiah Lorrig

Click here for more movie reviews.