Julia Preston’s piece in Foreign Affairs was a damning indictment of Trump’s migration rhetoric and a warning of what would come with his election. It was written in October as a plea to not underestimate the danger of a Trump presidency or to discount his nativist rhetoric. It’s a bit surreal reading it now, two weeks after he was elected. It feels like we’re marching towards an abyss of fear, chaos and uncertainty. How are we meant to be, as journalists and as people, in a society where truth seems to make no difference?

Preston’s piece was one of countless pieces outlining the blatant mistruths spread about migrants and about Kamala Harris’ record. “In a relentless barrage of mistruths, Trump insists that the influx of undocumented migrants under Biden is on the order of 21 million people, a wholly made-up figure,” Preston wrote. But none of it pierced through or seemed to make a difference. I admit to feeling pretty lost – how do we move forward if the truth doesn’t matter? What is the role of journalism if calling out blatant lies and hatred doesn’t seem to make a difference?

On a more tangible note, I thought that Preston made a concise and compelling explanation of how devastating mass deportations would be on every level. She spoke of individual trauma, family separation, community destabilization, and the incredible blow to the economy. She wrote of how Harris had planned to build legal pathways “for undocumented immigrants, especially the farm workers who make up nearly half of the nation’s agricultural labor force.” In research for my sociology class, I stumbled upon a staggering figure: one out of nineteen civilian workers in the United States are undocumented (Gleeson). “Trump’s plan to shrink the country’s labor force, Posen wrote, “‘is both broadly and deeply self-destructive,’” Preston wrote.

Another important part of Preston’s article was on the total dysfunction of the asylum system. The system was created in the 1980s, and was “never designed to handle large numbers of migrants,” Preston wrote. Before hearing Preston speak at the church in New York, I had no idea of the history of the asylum process. Speaking with her has emphasized how important it is to understand the history, intention, and practice of migration laws – a daunting task given the extreme vagueness and complexity of the system. “Since 2010,” Preston wrote, “changes in the populations that were migrating, and the failure of Congress to update the system with new legal channels for refugees and laborers, have made asylum the default access for migrants coming to the southwest border.” The border crisis is fostered and fed by dysfunctional and destructive immigration policies that were not designed to deal with migration as it is today.

The next four years under Trump are terrifying – I hope we finally start to take him seriously now that he’s been elected, for as David Graham wrote, “If personnel is policy, as the Ronald Reagan–era maxim states, then the president-elect is deadly serious.”

The Preston reading, particularly post-election, highlighted the fact that fear-inducing narratives and anecdotes (even when they are untruthful) have more political purchase than data-driven and sound policy when it comes to immigration. It’s frustrating to me that people are voting for things based off of politically-charged quips and fabricated narratives instead of from a place of actually understanding, as Preston laid out, both Harris’s and Trump’s track record and proposed policies.

That being said, I do not agree with all of Harris’s immigration policies. Particularly raising the legal standard for proving that you are part of a PSG concerns me. While the proposed expedited review process will help with backlogs at EOIR and USCIS, I’m worried about new arrivals who will not have legal representation, who might otherwise have meritorious claims.

While I definitely do not agree with Harris’s policies on immigration, as Preston points out, they are undoubtedly better than Trump’s. People would understand that Harris has more sound policies if they would take the time to learn about her policies in comparison to Trump’s record. Yet these “punchy” narratives seem to carry more political weight in voters’ eyes. I’m curious to know what people think about how (or even whether) we can fight against these fear-inducing narratives that seem to capture more voters than sound policy that offers a practical solution—and whether journalism might have a role to play in this.

Towards the end of the article Preston highlights an important point that I think is often neglected in discussions about immigration: that immigration is a public safety issue. As she points out, if mixed status families and undocumented immigrants fear being deported by police officers or fear having their status questioned by officers they will actively avoid reporting any kind of crime that occurs. I think Trump has led his constituents to believe that new arrivals or undocumented people are somehow separate from the community of people that are documented, but as we’ve discussed in class, these people are deeply enmeshed in their communities. Particularly given the fact that Governor Abbott has made a conscious attempt to bus new arrivals to cities like New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia where interpersonal violence is already extremely concentrated to begin with, we should be concerned about the implications Trump’s plan for mass deportation will have with respect to reporting crime in these areas. It seems, unsurprisingly, counterintuitive to me that the issues that Trump is running on—which include fearmongering about a “rise in crime”—are going to be perpetuated (not solved) by the policies that he plans to implement.

Initially, what drew my attention was the Preston’s article about the amount of actionable planning that Trump was doing toward deportation. He spent his entire campaign pushing this agenda, but now that he has the power to appoint people in power, we see that there is this deep desire to fulfill the threats he made. But the how still remains a mystery to most.

Once in office, he followed through with harsh policies like mass deportations, raids on homes and workplaces, and strict border enforcement. For example, his administration used an old law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to send agents into communities, separating families and causing disruptions in schools and businesses. Which opens the question of what he might

The leaders he appointed, like Stephen Miller and Tom Homan, pushed these policies aggressively. Trump also used strong language, calling migrants “predators” and blaming them for crime, unemployment, and even inflation. While this kind of talk energized some of his supporters, it may have worsened stereotypes and divisions.

At first, these policies seemed to have an effect—border crossings dropped during Trump’s first six months in office. But as time went on, migrants adapted. By December 2023, U.S. authorities recorded 250,000 unlawful crossings in one month, a record number. This shows how migration patterns take time to adjust, and the impact of policies isn’t always immediate. Migrants often weigh risks and conditions at home before deciding to leave, so the effects of enforcement measures might not fully show up for years. How do we feel about the delay in migration patterns? Should we give policies more time to work before judging their success or failure? This delay is quite contrasting to the digital age we live in so how does this contribute to issues of information getting to people? What role should public opinion play in shaping immigration policies, especially when the issue is so polarizing?

On top of that, these policies caused problems for communities. Long delays in court left migrants stuck in limbo, while residents grew frustrated with what they saw as a strain on local resources. Policies focused mainly on punishment may not address the root causes of migration, like violence or lack of opportunities in migrants’ home countries. As well as what kind of support are these communities getting for this process?

What makes the article so effective is how it explores the gray area between the extremes of immigration policy. It highlights the urgency of securing borders by Trump’s enforcement-focused measures. These policies, while aimed at deterring unlawful migration, often created new problems, such as humanitarian crises, family separations, and overburdened resources. The article makes it clear that while enforcement may be necessary, it is not sufficient on its own to address the complexities of migration.

On the other hand, the article also delves into Harris’s preventative strategies, which aim to address the root causes of migration by creating stability and opportunity in migrants’ home countries. Programs under her leadership, such as job creation and workforce training in Central America, demonstrate that investment in long-term solutions can reduce migration. However, these efforts fall short when it comes to addressing the immediate chaos at the U.S.-Mexico border, where record numbers of people are arriving, often fleeing violence or economic collapse.

By presenting both perspectives, the article effectively illustrates that neither approach alone is enough to solve the problem. Enforcement without compassion can exacerbate suffering and strain systems, while long-term solutions can feel disconnected from the urgent realities at the border. The real challenge lies in finding a balanced approach that combines immediate action with long-term planning, one that considers both the human and systemic aspects of migration.
How can policymakers better balance enforcement and humanitarian concerns to create effective immigration policies?

I am really interested in how people think of and understand the border crisis. I think Preston’s piece does a really good job of framing how people misunderstand Trump and Harris’ respective records on the border as well as their plans. Trump only built 85 miles of wall during his presidency despite campaigning on building a wall! I also didn’t realise how many of the issues right now at the border are actually because of Trump: because he torpedoed the bipartisan border security bill and because his regulations shut down asylum courts during his first presidency (this was just mentioned in passing but seems quite significant to the current 5-year delays in asylum hearings). By contrast, Harris and Biden seem to have been more effective in reducing the number of crossings and gesturing towards a perhaps more functional asylum and border system. Yet, somehow, they are still seen as weak on the border. Preston’s piece does a good job of tallying the respective policy records, I think most Americans simply don’t understand the economic necessity of migration. It’s equally possible that many do, and they just don’t care. Obviously the article was written before the election, but I wonder if mainstream media coverage will point to white nationalism as a cause for Trump’s election. That seems like a course of action that may well be true to a large extent but also alienating to readers. I remember at the start of the class we discussed how much of people’s resistance to immigration was rooted in racism. I think I remember our answer being inconclusive. Has our answer to that question changed since the election? Does an explicit white nationalist winning the popular vote change our answer? My thinking is that it lends more weight to the idea that some or even many people were motivated by racism. I think a large part of Trump’s winning comes from people seeing immigration as a zero-sum game. It’s hard to think of a country as anything other than a place with finite resources, even if economic growth and innovation mean the truth is actually more complicated. In that context, thousands of people continuously arriving at the southern border, Preston’s article said 250k arrived in one month when Mexico temporarily stopped patrolling, feels unsustainable and the root of all social and economic issues in a very grounded and common sense way, even if economists are telling you that’s not how it works. I also think about Trump winning in the context of the migrants we met in Brooklyn telling us that settled Latinos had been very unsupportive of them when they arrived. In spite of Trump’s white nationalism, I wonder if settled immigrants also see new arrivals as a threat to their resources. I also wonder if settled immigrants don’t like the fact that new arrivals draw attention to their own foreignness, so that they worry that they, too, will be perceived as non-immigrants in the same way. I think this would have been very hard to do, but I do think a consideration of immigration policy needs to consider what voters are associating with migration. For example, how much of the inflationary crisis was blamed on immigrants in voters’ minds?

The next big question is what is going to happen when Trump comes into power. I agree that the appointments of Tom Homan and Stephen Miller to the head of ICE and white house deputy chief of staff, respectively, indicate Trump intends to follow through on his campaign pledges. So, I suppose the question is how bad will the impact really be and will those impacts change people’s minds about immigration? Almost 50% of farm workers in the US are undocumented migrants, so there could very reasonably be food shortages or at least inflation. Will Trump be able to conjure a new enemy then?

I thought that Julia Preston’s piece was an extremely elegant and accessible look into the divisive choice that voters were making in regard to immigration policy during the 2024 U.S. presidential election. I found that the historical context, existing policies, the moral dilemma of immigration, misinformation, and ideological conflict of the issue were effectively condensed into an extremely easy-to-follow piece.

At a fundamental structural level, this article makes me think about the writing structure articles we are assigned for class. The piece starts with a lede that situates the reader in the present, and the most urgent issue of the article which is the impending decision that the American population had to make. Preston spotlights the central question which is that the views of Harris and Trump on immigration seem to have converged to a certain extent. However, she makes clear that this is only a surface level analysis of their take on border policy, and begins to delve into the main body of the article.

Once the reader has been taken through her outlining of migration policy history and each candidate’s vision, she returns to the starting idea of this decision–-one that initially seemed to be rooted in a clash of beliefs, but more fundamentally is established in “a battle of competence” between the two. I found that these insights really sorted out the questions I had about how different these administrations’ approaches to immigration were, and this wrapped the article up in a very neat way.

I do not believe that this piece is labelled strongly as an opinion piece, yet at times, to me it comes off as one due to how anti-Trump policy the messaging is within the writing. The core of the piece rests in a factual foundation: of how border strategy has evolved across these two administrations and the offensive, misleading rhetoric that Trump has spurred is quoted.

This led to me to think about a broader question about journalistic integrity, which is how journalists manage the seeping through of personal opinion within writing. Obviously, based on when we spoke to Julia Preston in New York, she was a strong advocate of the Harris campaign. However, with immigration correspondence covering the election, talk about “nativism” and Trump’s rhetoric has bred distrust within right-wing supporters; fact-checking is seen as a violation of free speech and rests at the core of a lot of right-wing criticism about how the presidential and VP debates were conducted.

A statistic that I found quite surprising and pivotal was the Gallup poll this July that revealed 5 percent of adults said they favored lower immigration, the first time since 2005 that a majority held that negative view. This echoes a global shift that is breeding an anti-migrant sentiment, so how much can this shift be attributed to the Biden administration’s failures at the border? How about to Republican efforts to spread this opinion, like Greg Abbott’s bussing efforts?

Upon searching for Manuel Monterrosa on Instagram or YouTube, viewers can scroll through several reels, pictures, and videos that show Monterrosa’s journey through the Darien Gap.  Manuel Monterrosa is a self-identifiable “migration influencer,” posting content related to migrating to the United States to better aid migrants attempting to complete the journey themselves. He explained that he began posting on these platforms during his original journey to the United States only to recognize the profitable aspect of his content. Not only that,  but Monterrosa takes pride in his 39.3k followers on Instagram and his ability to help other migrants. Using his platform to provide trustworthy information,  He emphasizes that social media has only aided in spreading misinformation regarding immigration. For many who need to get out of their country quickly, finding information on social media is the way to go. Despite platforms not necessarily being the most reliable source, for many migrants, relying on online content is a reality that comes with risks in a world of misinformation.

Monterrosa’s platform is part of a new series of migration influencers taking over social media. Not only are migrants like Monterrosa creating platforms to provide information related to migration, but immigration lawyers, nonprofit organizations, and policymakers are also part of the social media movement that has began to develop in recent years. Many individuals and organizations, like Monterrosa, use their platforms to diffuse misinformation and scams that migrants are vulnerable to. Some of these content creators have upwards of 300k followers, using their ability to reach various audiences and people to recognize proper steps about asylum cases, migrant routes, and misinformation.  Monterosso explains that content is often used to alert migrants of dangerous scams that rob them of their money or jeopardize their safety.  Specifically, Monterrosa elaborates on cases of mass scams circulating on TikTok that support hazardous routes to the United States for large fees.

Interestingly, so much speculation and rumors surrounding immigration laws and each candidate can be summarized relatively simply in one condensed paragraph. This paragraph covers not only the importance of immigration in this election but also the previous administration’s work in immigration and how it compared to Trump’s last term.

After taking this class and also immersing ourselves in various cities and speaking with migrants, so much emphasis has been distracted from these people genuinely just wanting a better life and wanting to find opportunities that allow them to become the best that they can be. Given that the backlog of asylum cases is such a massive issue as to why there are so many immigrants coming in undocumented, Harris’s plan makes the most sense, given what we’ve learned in class. Both from speakers, the people themselves, and from looking at statistics.

Whereas Harris’s motives with her campaign revolving around immigration seem reasonable and also rational, Trump’s plans seem extreme and rash. Focusing solely on just disregarding Immigrants as a whole and committing himself to the belief that all immigrants are bad for the United States, his work leaves no room for conversation. The facts, statistics, and rationale behind the role immigration plays in the country’s economy defuses the ability of the United States to want to limit legal immigration like his plan suggests. As someone who grew up hearing that the United States was a melting pot and the land “of opportunity,” I recognize that these trademarks that have shaped the United States’ image can easily be no longer under Trump’s administration.

The piece emphasized and elaborated extensively on the issue of the asylum cases and asylum process, given that there are so many applications and not enough court cases or lawyers to process all of the needed cases. By adding various policies and new standards, the article suggests that the real issue is the asylum process and how to apply legally. If there is no quick and efficient way to apply legally, people will enter the United States illegally. Then, there will be a separate wave of issues affecting other areas of the country and other elements of immigration. Another concern or point of interest that came up in this article is the fact that mass movements of migration have now also become points of monetary production. Migrants can use their services as guides along the Darien gap and additional routes as profit.

I also keep in mind that mass migration does not come from one particular area or country; it is an issue that occurs in various countries. With that said, there might be a variety of solutions that need to be proposed to be best able to accommodate all people and the United States’s ability to keep measures regarding immigration regulated.

When it comes to Trump’s piece, he is laying out the various new policies and loopholes he is attempting to use to reinforce measures regarding immigration that he hasn’t done before. So much of the article made me question how he will go about this issue differently this term compared to his first term. Especially with both the levels of mass deportation, he hopes to obtain in addition to new levels of legal immigration that he wants to put a stop to.

A factory in the middle of New Jersey was one of the last places Billy would have expected to hear his country’s national anthem. Yet there he was, standing proudly as the rhythms of La Dessaliniène blared over the speakers. He looked around at the room filled with some of his colleagues—a fine subset of Trane Technologies’ multinational workforce in Trenton. There were about a hundred of them, standing solemnly and waving their miniature Haitian flags as the night drew to a close. Billy had a smile on his face!

“It was really nice to see people from different backgrounds come together to celebrate Haitian Flag Day with us,” Billy said with a look of satisfaction. It was the first celebration of its kind at the company, and it all happened because of him—Bill Lorcy, nicknamed Billy.

Billy, 46, has been working at Trane Technologies since 2016. It was the first company to hire him after his Temporary Protected Status (TPS) application was approved. Billy moved permanently to Philadelphia in December 2015 after four years of traveling back and forth between the United States and Haiti on a tourist visa. In 2012, young Billy, an eloquent communications major at the State University of Haiti, the country’s most prestigious institution of higher learning, was selected to join a delegation that represented the university at a conference in Queens, New York. He returned every summer after that. As his five-year visa neared its expiration date, Billy faced a difficult decision. Although he personally wanted to complete his studies before considering leaving Haiti, those around him increasingly insisted that he stay in the United States. For good.

“Everyone told me the same thing: ‘With the direction Haiti is going, there is no reason for you to come back. Stay.’ I decided not to be stubborn, and I stayed,” Billy said.

Like many immigrants, Billy had to move past the painful realization that the United States was nothing like what had been portrayed to him in the media or even what he had experienced as a tourist.

“We are presented with an image of life in the United States as luxurious. However, there is nothing luxurious about daily life. You have to work, take care of your family, and pay the bills,” Billy said. Despite the challenges, he is proud of what he has accomplished since moving to Philadelphia. He has been able to take care of himself, of his family, and support those he left behind in Haiti. “I can’t complain, as they say here,” he concluded, after briefly reflecting on his overall experience in the United States.

He still misses his country dearly. He often evokes memories of his youth—the laughter and friendship associated with the first four decades of his life in Haiti.

(Bottom left, Billy during his time in Queens, NY, 2012)

Billy was born in Carrefour, a commune south of the Port-au-Prince metropolitan area with a population of about half a million. However, he spent much of his time in the city center, where most of the educational and service opportunities he sought were located. He was very involved in the Scout Movement and his church, two institutions that played a vital role in his formation.

“I like to make myself available to help others. As a Christian, you should always be there to help others because God says to love your neighbor as yourself,” Billy said, noting how his religious beliefs shaped his personality and continue to inform his life decisions.

Billy speaks with conviction about his faith; it is a core part of who he is. His religious faith led him to the Haitian Red Cross in 1998, where he served as a volunteer for over a decade before joining Oxfam Quebec in 2010. Through his volunteer work, Billy visited all 10 departments of Haiti, which remains his favorite icebreaker fun fact to this day.

It was also through his faith that Billy met his wife, Rebecca, who is perhaps the real reason he stayed in the United States. They connected on Facebook around 2014 at the recommendation of a mutual friend from church. At that time, Rebecca was already living in the United States.

Although they didn’t realize it until much later, Billy and Rebecca had already crossed paths several times at Christian youth activities and summer camps in Port-au-Prince. Billy was even Rebecca’s camp instructor at some point. They stayed in touch throughout Billy’s travels. He tried to meet up with her every time he came to the United States. When he was in Haiti, they spoke via WhatsApp and Facebook, although network issues often made communication difficult.

“Courting her was no easy task, but by God’s grace, we did it,” Billy said with a smile on the corner of his mouth. Rebecca confirmed his side of the story. “I always told Billy that I didn’t believe he was the one God had planned for me, but Billy always promised he would wait for me. And he did.” Rebecca speaks about Billy with passion, her voice radiating confidence as she shares the things she appreciates about their relationship. It’s hard to imagine a time when she did not believe she had a future with him.

“We’re imperfect,” Rebecca says, “but we understand each other in our imperfections. We’re both playful people who never get tired of each other. Some people find it strange, but we never run out of things to say to each other!” Rebecca and Billy have two children together—two boys—one is 8 and the other, 3. Billy also has a 16-year-old child in Haiti from a previous relationship.

When Billy is not at home or church, he is at work. Earlier this year, he hosted a Haitian Flag Day celebration at his company, which was met with praise from everyone, from coworkers to executives. The food, music, and ambiance brought him home for a brief but special moment. The countless logistical challenges he had to overcome were suddenly all worth it.

“It was a beautiful celebration of Haitian heritage,” Billy said.

New exodus looms for Haitian migrants in the United States

During his campaign, Donald Trump promised he would enact a mass deportation scheme – the largest in American history. He vowed that he would start with Haitians living in Springfield, Ohio. Last month, the Biden administration decided not to extend the humanitarian parole for migrants from Haiti (among other nationalities) who had already been admitted to the country through the parole program. Michael Wilner, a correspondent for McClatchy, suggested that this decision was made to give eligible Haitians to find other avenues to remain in the United States, notably Temporary Protected Status (TPS). In fact, with a Trump presidency, it is almost certain that the program will be completely halted, so looking for alternatives makes sense. However, in an interview with NewsNation back in early October, Trump said he would revoke TPS for Haitians and “bring them back to their country”. It would not be the first time Trump tried to revoke TPS. During his first term, Trump had announced the end of TPS, a decision that was ultimately blocked by a judge in New York. Would things be different this time?

Today, over 300,000 Haitians are TPS beneficiaries. Around 200,000 are beneficiaries of the humanitarian parole program. With both programs expected to be suspended by the Trump administration, over half a million Haitians could be in a legal limbo.

In my final project, I would like to investigate how the Haitian community and its allies are preparing for an end to these programs. I intend to interview Haitian families, beneficiaries of both TPS and humanitarian parole, sponsors of the beneficiaries, people in Haiti who are waiting for their cases to be processed and sponsors who are waiting for their families to come over.

I am also interested in how Canada is preparing for a mass Haitian exodus as happened when TPS first ended in 2017. Can we expect the same to happen this time around? I will try to talk to Haitians who moved to Canada during this period to understand how everything happened and what their experience has been like since.

I will also interview immigration lawyers, leaders of nonprofit and advocacy organizations connected to the Haitian community as well as government officials in Canada to see how they are preparing for a potential haitian migration.

Contacts
Ira Kurzban, the Miami immigration attorney who was among the lawyers who successfully argued the class-action lawsuit against the end of TPS back in 2017.
Marleine Bastien from Family Action Movement Network
Gene Hamilton – immigration lawyer supporting the end of TPS for Haitians
Colleen Desiree, Association of Haitian Women in Boston
Mireille Paquet, Associate Professor, Political Science mireille.paquet@concordia.ca
Marjorie Villefranche (director of Maison d’Haiti, a Haitian community organization in Montreal)
Haitian workers at Princeton, other connections who have TPS and connections in Canada.

Links
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-vows-mass-deportation-migrants-springfield-dismisses-threats/story?id=113661663
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/03/politics/trump-revoke-status-ohio-haitian-migrants/index.html
https://thehill.com/latino/4745949-biden-immigration-tps-haiti-mayorkas/
https://www.boundless.com/blog/biden-administration-ends-temporary-stay-program-thousands-of-migrants-from-four-countries/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/08/canada-migrants-trump-mass-deportation-plan
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/world/americas/a-surge-of-migrants-crossing-into-quebec-tests-canadas-welcome.html

Peter Hessler’s piece in which he followed a trash collector in Cairo was really interesting in that it showcases a perspective that not many people think about: the collector is able to learn so many intimate details about people’s lives just by collecting their trash. This piece also raised some questions for me regarding the line between the professional relationship between a journalist and a source and the personal relationship which can allow for stronger character building. In the case of the trash collector, it seemed that the author had a close personal relationship which included visiting him in his home many times and having casual conversations in which they asked each other about their kids for instance. He also joined him on his trash collection route. This somewhat blurs the lines between professional and personal relationships, but I think it allowed the writer to gain a much better understanding of the person he is writing about.

The piece about Iraqi-centric clubs in Damascus is another example of how immersing yourself in a setting as a journalist can help you pick up on small details through observation or conversation. It’s also important to recognize that this might mean being in environments in which you stand out or might feel uncomfortable for a variety of reasons (the piece mentioned discomfort due to language skills, but this can apply to other contexts as well). I can only imagine how challenging it is to be in certain places to report a story and to develop a more intimate understanding of the characters you are righting about by immersing yourself into their world and going where they would go.

Lastly, the piece about the Syrian intelligence officer is very interesting, especially when it comes to the level of access that’s required to get some of the information and context presented in the piece. I would be very curious to know how a reporter uncovers something such as someone acting as a double agent for multiple intelligence agencies given the level of secrecy required to maintain an identity like that in the first place. It is also interesting to note that this piece was still successful in painting a picture of the characters and his complexities without the same intimate understanding which comes from accompanying the character or “embedding” as in the previous two pieces.