Jump to content

Cincinnati: Immigration Thread

Guest neilworms
Guest neilworms
in City Discussion

Featured Replies

I wish Cincinnati come become a second toronto in terms of immigration and diverse population.

 

The fact that the most common type of question asked is, "what highschool did you go to" is just sad, and sums up cincinnati's lack of diversity.

 

I'm a pure believer that if Cincinnati can expand it's immigration growth that our economy will continue to soar.

Glad to see Cranley is paying attention to this.

 

I have been thinking about this issue a lot recently, and wondering why Cincinnati doesn't do more to attract immigrants and accept refugees. For example there was some press a few weeks back about how St. Louis benefited a lot from accepting thousands of Bosnian refugees in the 90s, and how they're trying to get more Syrian refugees now. Here's a Guardian article on it: theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/14/st-louis-missouri-syrian-refugees

 

According to the Migration Policy Institute, the Cincinnati MSA immigrant population is 4.2% of the total population. That puts us in 252nd place. As a comparison, Columbus is 6.8% and Cleveland 5.7%. Not great numbers, but both do better than Cincinnati. Here's the interactive map if you want to see other cities: migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/us-immigrant-population-metropolitan-area

 

It just seems to me such a no brainer for shrinking Rust Belt cities to want immigrants. We have so many vacant houses and storefronts, especially in the West End (Linn St should be a bustling corridor) and real estate is relatively cheap (outside of the OTR bubble). The energy of new arrivals could be such an economic boon.

 

Another article: citylab.com/work/2015/09/where-syrian-refugees-are-likely-to-settle-in-the-us/404698/

 

(Sorry, still can't post actual links)

I wish Cincinnati come become a second toronto in terms of immigration and diverse population.

 

The fact that the most common type of question asked is, "what highschool did you go to" is just sad, and sums up cincinnati's lack of diversity.

 

I'm a pure believer that if Cincinnati can expand it's immigration growth that our economy will continue to soar.

 

I have lived in this area for over 30 years now, after NOT growing up here.  I have NEVER had anyone ask me this question, yet I hear people complain about it all the time. It's like an urban legend or something.

I've been here 8 years and the only time I've ever been asked that was by an old west sider. It's absolutely an urban legend at this point. The people who were so insular to actually think high school matters whatsoever have aged out of the conversation.

I was asked it all the time when I was in college.  Coming from the Dayton area (only 40 miles up the road) it was a very bizarre question.

 

A native Cincinnatian I'm friends with here in Chicago who's from Indian Hill and went to St. X puts a huge emphasis on his high school time, to weird levels.  He's generally a pretty cosmopolitan guy too.

I have been asked it a few times in my going on 3 years now living here.  Mostly though if someone asks me where I from and I tell them from Iowa, they don't ask me what high school I went to.

 

Now, my gf who is a native asks any and everyone where they went to high school, if she finds out first they are from Cincinnati.  And actually I notice, a lot of times she will say, where are you from?  They will reply with, I am from Cincinnati and went to Sycamore HS, etc.

 

Also to Neilworms' point, I notice a lot of people put a huge emphasis on high school, like her friends, etc.  Not everyone does.  But it seems like they remember every single person from elementary school on up through high school, all of the gossip going on about what they may be doing with their lives via facebook and other gossip avenues, etc.  It is really strange to me.

 

I honestly couldn't care less about the lives of people I barely crossed in elementary, middle or high school, though of course I hope they are doing very well.  I have a core group of about 10 friends at most from high school I keep up with, and thats about it.

 

That said, I agree that increased immigration would be great for Cincinnati.

 

I will agree (as I have in the past) that this high school question is mostly an urban legend. I imagine it might happen on west side catholic festivals, but aside from that, it only happens when I say I'm from Cincinnati. Which is a perfectly normal follow up question. It gives you a sense of their background pretty quickly.

 

As far as immigration: This is one of the few times I agree with Cranley.

 

I think it would be interesting to set up a city run (or city partnered) service where you can sign up to host refugees in a spare bedroom or an apartment/house you own. Go through some quick classes, have your home/room/apartment inspected to ensure it's safe, and then partner you with a refugee or family.

 

I would be willing to cheaply rent out my spare bedroom to a refugee. I couldn't help a family, but an individual I could definitely house while they get on their feet.

The high school question is definitely not an urban legend.  I have had it asked to me many, many times- especially by Cincinnatians I meet outside of Cincinnati.  I don't really mind it, though.  It instantly conveys a lot about the person, including (usually) what part of town they're from, places they might have hung out, people they might know, etc. Now if you're not from Cincinnati, I would agree it's pointless to ask the question.  When I've asked it, I always preface the question with are you from Cincinnati? If they're not, and I have some sort of connection to the place they mention they're from, I will generally follow up with "oh my friend/dad/cousin lives in _____ (neighborhood), what part of the city are you from? It's the same type of question, just coded a little differently.

 

As far as increasing the immigration to Cincinnati, I am 100% for it, and I think this initiative by Cranley is a great idea.  I caught a little bit of the show Newsmakers this past Sunday, and they were talking with the director of Catholic Charities of Southwest Ohio, which is handling and receiving the refugees.  He said they were targeting to bring 315 refugees to Cincinnati this year, and they hope that they can raise that number.  If anyone ( ryanlammi[/member] ) is interested in helping these people out, I would say that contacting CCSWO is the way to go.

Hold on, do people not think that natives asking natives is entirely different? And happens all over. I always took the "urban legend" version of this as first being asked "where'd you go" which is because Cincinnati was so infrequently settled by outsiders that you could just assume someone is from there originally and could skip the "where are you from" portion of the question.

 

If I randomly meet someone and say, "I'm from Cleveland" and they are as well it's almost always followed by "what part" which is essentially the same question. And I've watched countless others connect with people from their home cities in this manner. But it always follows a revelation that you grew up in the same area.

 

But the idea that people immediately jump to the conclusion that you've always lived in Cincy and therefore first ask "where'd you go" before even knowing if you're from there is a thing of the past.

John Cranley claims he wants Cincinnati to be the most immigrant-friendly city in the country, yet refuses to accept Syrian refugees.

 

You can agree or disagree about his position, but the claim he wants Cincinnati to be the most immigrant-friendly city is embarrassing in light of his views on Syrian refugees. Either we accept everyone who seeks refuge after vetting or we aren't the most immigrant friendly city and never will be.

Either we accept everyone who seeks refuge after vetting or we aren't the most immigrant friendly city and never will be.

 

We aren't the most immigrant friendly city, and we probably will never even begin to approach such status.

Either we accept everyone who seeks refuge after vetting or we aren't the most immigrant friendly city and never will be.

 

We aren't the most immigrant friendly city, and we probably will never even begin to approach such status.

 

I cringed every time he said this in the past. I knew we were nowhere close to that status and likely nothing Cranley did would go far enough. This just goes to show that he's all talk. While dozens of other cities (Louisville, Dayton, etc) are doubling down on their commitment to refugees from all over the world, Cranley has made an entire group of people feel unwelcome.

 

Here is a quote from him in March: "If you're fleeing political persecution anywhere in the world, we want you here," he said Friday."

 

Europe is being flooded with over 10,000 refugees/day (about 40% by some estimates are Syrian). The US is only expected to accept 10,000 in the next year. I think we can properly vet these 10,000 individuals so we aren't accepting people with any links to terrorism. I suspect the vetting process would go similar to the drug testing of welfare recipients in Florida where almost no positive cases were found. Let's vet these 10,000 people and then accept them into Cincinnati.

John Cranley claims he wants Cincinnati to be the most immigrant-friendly city in the country, yet refuses to accept Syrian refugees.

 

You can agree or disagree about his position, but the claim he wants Cincinnati to be the most immigrant-friendly city is embarrassing in light of his views on Syrian refugees. Either we accept everyone who seeks refuge after vetting or we aren't the most immigrant friendly city and never will be.

 

I bolded what I think that's the key word. How can you really vet a refugee who might turn up with no identification? You can't even really confirm who they are, let alone whether or not they've been in contact with known ISIS members (or share the ideology). Even if they manage to get their passport before fleeing, all you have is a single picture to confirm identity, and even if you confirm the identity, there's no way to fully prove someone isn't a threat.

John Cranley claims he wants Cincinnati to be the most immigrant-friendly city in the country, yet refuses to accept Syrian refugees.

 

You can agree or disagree about his position, but the claim he wants Cincinnati to be the most immigrant-friendly city is embarrassing in light of his views on Syrian refugees. Either we accept everyone who seeks refuge after vetting or we aren't the most immigrant friendly city and never will be.

 

I bolded what I think that's the key word. How can you really vet a refugee who might turn up with no identification? You can't even really confirm who they are, let alone whether or not they've been in contact with known ISIS members (or share the ideology). Even if they manage to get their passport before fleeing, all you have is a single picture to confirm identity, and even if you confirm the identity, there's no way to fully prove someone isn't a threat.

 

So what's your solution? Send them back to their homelands to die? Let them live out the rest of their existences in tents in refugee camps? There is no way to fully prove that anyone isn't a threat.  Everyone seems to be dwelling on the fact that one of the terrorists in Paris MIGHT have been a refugee who passed through Greece, but ignoring the fact that the rest of the terrorists were home grown in either France or Belgium.  The 9/11 conspirators all passed normal vetting procedures and were allowed in the country legally and look how that turned out.  There isn't a clear solution, but we should resist the urge to be reactionary and impulsive in our policies.

John Cranley claims he wants Cincinnati to be the most immigrant-friendly city in the country, yet refuses to accept Syrian refugees.

 

You can agree or disagree about his position, but the claim he wants Cincinnati to be the most immigrant-friendly city is embarrassing in light of his views on Syrian refugees. Either we accept everyone who seeks refuge after vetting or we aren't the most immigrant friendly city and never will be.

 

I bolded what I think that's the key word. How can you really vet a refugee who might turn up with no identification? You can't even really confirm who they are, let alone whether or not they've been in contact with known ISIS members (or share the ideology). Even if they manage to get their passport before fleeing, all you have is a single picture to confirm identity, and even if you confirm the identity, there's no way to fully prove someone isn't a threat.

 

So should we close our borders to all refugees? I don't see what you are arguing if this isn't the conclusion you are trying to get us to reach.

So what's your solution? Send them back to their homelands to die? Let them live out the rest of their existences in tents in refugee camps? There is no way to fully prove that anyone isn't a threat.  Everyone seems to be dwelling on the fact that one of the terrorists in Paris MIGHT have been a refugee who passed through Greece, but ignoring the fact that the rest of the terrorists were home grown in either France or Belgium.  The 9/11 conspirators all passed normal vetting procedures and were allowed in the country legally and look how that turned out.  There isn't a clear solution, but we should resist the urge to be reactionary and impulsive in our policies.

 

The solution is to eliminate ISIS (not contain it) and not require people to flee their own homes to survive. There needs to be more support for local refugee camps in controlled areas of Syria, and (as Hollande has called for) there needs to be a coalition dedicated to the complete destruction of ISIS (the US, Europe, and Russia should be working together).

 

So should we close our borders to all refugees? I don't see what you are arguing if this isn't the conclusion you are trying to get us to reach.

 

We should close our borders to refugees from this single conflict in lieu of better solutions and as a result of now known abuse by ISIS. Not all refugees from all conflicts should be treated the same. At the very least, we shouldn't increase the amount of refugees we grant asylum to, as it does nothing to resolve the bigger issue at hand. If we have the resources to grant asylum to millions of people, we have the resources to make them safe in their own homes.

I agree on the need to defeat ISIS. We should all come together (along with the countries in the Middle East) to defeat ISIS. This should be a turning point to put (non-American) boots on the ground and take back the cities that ISIS holds. But that is a separate issue from the 10,000 refugees fleeing every day.

 

We're talking about 10,000 Syrian refugees over the course of a year for the US. Not millions.

 

And we've tried to make them safe in their own homes and somehow it always backfires (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya). As a country partially responsible for the refugees we should be taking in our fair share.

 

We can be selective in which refugees we receive. Europe cannot. There is a huge difference and we have a responsibility to help.

 

And to start refusing refugees altogether would be the biggest international embarrassment the US has ever seen. A country of riches closing their borders to those who need the most (which we partially caused) because we have labeled them all as potential terrorists.

^It's fascinating that the discussion makes it sound like ISIS is at some kind of high point right now.  They've lost approximately 25% of the territory from their peak, most of those losses coming in the last 3-6 months.  There are some interesting perspectives out there that say the reason they undertook the Paris attack was *because* they are losing ground in their boots-on-the-ground battles.  I think there's a very real chance that, once ISIS is crushed as any kind of occupying, "real-world" force, they will double down on the terrorism approach. 

 

That's not to say that a coalition of countries should not be committed to rooting it out, and they should work together better.  But that won't necessarily prevent situations like Paris from occurring. 

And to start refusing refugees altogether would be the biggest international embarrassment the US has ever seen. A country of riches closing their borders to those who need the most (which we partially caused) because we have labeled them all as potential terrorists.

 

It's going to be very interesting to read the history books 100 years from now and how they judge this action.

"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

John Cranley claims he wants Cincinnati to be the most immigrant-friendly city in the country, yet refuses to accept Syrian refugees.

 

You can agree or disagree about his position, but the claim he wants Cincinnati to be the most immigrant-friendly city is embarrassing in light of his views on Syrian refugees. Either we accept everyone who seeks refuge after vetting or we aren't the most immigrant friendly city and never will be.

 

I bolded what I think that's the key word. How can you really vet a refugee who might turn up with no identification? You can't even really confirm who they are, let alone whether or not they've been in contact with known ISIS members (or share the ideology). Even if they manage to get their passport before fleeing, all you have is a single picture to confirm identity, and even if you confirm the identity, there's no way to fully prove someone isn't a threat.

 

There are millions of refugees.  We plan to accept 50,000 a year. If you seriously believe the statement you just made you have no knowledge of the US Department of State refugee resettlement program. 

 

Since 2007 205,000 Iraqi's have applied to the US for resettlement. We interviewed 145,000.  We accepted 100,000, and 85,000 of those people are now in America living as refugees.  They are an amazing part of the United States and should be welcomed. 

 

So tell me again how there's no way to verify anyone?

John Cranley claims he wants Cincinnati to be the most immigrant-friendly city in the country, yet refuses to accept Syrian refugees.

 

You can agree or disagree about his position, but the claim he wants Cincinnati to be the most immigrant-friendly city is embarrassing in light of his views on Syrian refugees. Either we accept everyone who seeks refuge after vetting or we aren't the most immigrant friendly city and never will be.

 

I bolded what I think that's the key word. How can you really vet a refugee who might turn up with no identification? You can't even really confirm who they are, let alone whether or not they've been in contact with known ISIS members (or share the ideology). Even if they manage to get their passport before fleeing, all you have is a single picture to confirm identity, and even if you confirm the identity, there's no way to fully prove someone isn't a threat.

 

There are millions of refugees.  We plan to accept 50,000 a year. If you seriously believe the statement you just made you have no knowledge of the US Department of State refugee resettlement program. 

 

My point is that it's imperfect, and it's literally impossible for it to ever be perfect - be it refugees or asylum seekers. Tsarnaev comes to mind, and the Boston Marathon bombing is likely one of the reasons Massachusetts is among the majority of states currently refusing to accept Syrian refugees.

If we can never be 100% sure refugees won't do terrible things, should we, in your opinion, stop accepting any? If not, I see no reason to bring this up in the argument.

 

I trust the US government to vet these potential asylum seekers thoroughly and if anything suspicious comes up, deny their application. If it passes Homeland Security and whatever other checks are done, we should welcome the refugees to Cincinnati.

^ It's about risk assessment. You know you can never be 100% certain, but the risk involved with accepting Burmese refugees is essentially 0, while ISIS has stated (and demonstrated) that its plans are to take advantage of lax border security and refugee programs to infiltrate foreign nations, making the risk specific to Syria much greater. There's no need to change anything concerning most refugees, just refugees from this one specific conflict for the short term.

You shouldnt drive then.

 

The risk assessment for being killed by a terrorist is significantly less than driving.

Should not be a mere risk assessment.  It should be looked at as a cost/benefit assessment.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/11/17/first-ones-here-syrian-family-settles/75902946/

 

On Friday afternoon, Cincinnati's first refugee family from the Syrian civil war had the same concerns as most families living in a new land.

 

Marie and Ahlam Alhamoud wanted to learn English. Marie, the father, was wondering how to find a job. Ahlam was trying to make a home for her children. The children wanted only to ride bikes and make friends.

You shouldnt drive then.

 

The risk assessment for being killed by a terrorist is significantly less than driving.

 

It's not that anyone is afraid of being killed by a terrorist, it's that they don't want millions of taxpayer dollars supporting people who may actually be enemies.

You shouldnt drive then.

 

The risk assessment for being killed by a terrorist is significantly less than driving.

 

It's not that anyone is afraid of being killed by a terrorist, it's that they don't want millions of taxpayer dollars supporting people who may actually be enemies.

 

Then we shouldn't spend any money on anything because some of it will inevitably help someone who will be an enemy. Not everything is black and white. There is an enormous gray area.

All I can say is that the reaction of politicians, many people, this editor, etc., is exactly what they wanted to do, scare people.  He says, "I am terrorized".  OK, you were defeated by the terrorists, they beat you, that is exactly their aim.

 

ISIS has been making threats for years, and now all of the sudden all of America is afraid of this?  I heard either Bill Cunningham or Chris Smitherman spewing on WLW about 1.7 million refugees being let into America last year (2014).  Wasn't it something like 70k? 

 

If I could speak direct to the editor or if I cared to talk to him, here is what I would say: "If you lived in a Christian country, surrounded by Christians like yourself, and a group of radical Christians start terrorizing you and your family, they threaten to kill you or put you under Old Testement Moses Law, so you run and are living for 3 years in a refugee camp.  This camp has low amounts of food, open sewers, low electricity, no work, no money, sickness, no showers, etc.  But no one will take you in, because these same radical Christians who drove you out of your home, who killed your brother, etc., they went and killed 150 people in another country, and so the whole world is afraid you will do the same, because you are also a Christian from the country where this all started.  How would that make you feel about the countries who refuse to take you in, and how would that make you feel individually about you and your families situation?  Should the whole world shut you out and keep you in the same position you are in for the rest of your life, or until the war is over, which has no time limit?  If you were in that situation, what would you tell the world about you and your family, who did nothing wrong and is running to literally save your own life?"

 

The enemy is accomplishing exactly what it set out to accomplish. 

^That's the biggest irony of all.

"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Here's a well-regarded book that profiles terrorists:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Terror-Networks-Marc-Sageman/dp/0812238087?tag=vglnkc4928-20

 

Contrary to conventional wisdom, most: are middle class; do not have criminal backgrounds; were not madrassa-trained; are married with children; are well-educated; are multi-lingual; didn't start out being religious fanatics; are geographically and economically mobile.  Seventy percent joined jihad while living in a different country than the one they grew up in.  You get the picture.

 

 

 

Contrary to conventional wisdom, most: are middle class; do not have criminal backgrounds; were not madrassa-trained; are married with children; are well-educated; are multi-lingual; didn't start out being religious fanatics; are geographically and economically mobile.

 

 

This exact description apples to the majority of Syrian refugees that have been/will be granted asylum in the US, doesn't it?

^Or the majority of adult Americans (perhaps minus the well educated and multi-lingual part). All of your comments in this thread seem to indicate that you're just xenophobic, and probably racist. Better to just come out and admit it than continue to make illogical, thinly veiled statements.

Let's keep this thread civil, folks. No personal attacks!

^Or the majority of adult Americans (perhaps minus the well educated and multi-lingual part). All of your comments in this thread seem to indicate that you're just xenophobic, and probably racist. Better to just come out and admit it than continue to make illogical, thinly veiled statements.

 

My point in this thread has been to assure refugees are properly vetted before being granted asylum in the US, something a majority of state governors, and even a large number of Democrats have done (Cranley included). If that is all it takes to be called racist and xenophobic, the majority of the country fits the description.

 

By the way, you can easily look like a doofus if you resort to ad hominem without knowing anything about the person you’re attacking. My partner of about 5 years now is not white, and her family immigrated to the US to raise her.

The problem is that we cannot accept a large number of immigrants from Syria or anywhere else without an established plan for how house, educate, and employ them.  You don't want large numbers of people, especially men ages 15-30, sitting around idle.  After 3-4 weeks they're going to start getting pissed.  Unfortunately in cities like Cincinnati we do not have public transportation that can reach many of the jobs that immigrants would be qualified for.  Are we going to give these people cars?  $500/mo vouchers for Uber?  And intelligent, educated people from foreign countries can't immediately do higher-level work in a country where they don't speak and read the language.  They're going to get pissed when they've been here for a year and are still riding in a van down to Hebron at 10pm to work until 6am in some fulfillment center getting yelled at every night by some methed-out manager. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point was to show how challenging it will be to weed out those with bad intent.  Another part of the profile is that families and/or friends often aid and abet terrorists. 

 

I can understand Angela Merkel's attitude -- she's a preacher's daughter and probably regards helping refugees as a duty more than a choice, just like a lot of Christians in the US do.  But caution and common sense are in order.  ISIS may have failed in its attempt to inflict a lot of harm in Paris via its suicide bombers who blew themselves up before they could kill large numbers of people, but it nevertheless had a productive week or so with about 400 deaths between the Parisians who were gunned down and the Russian jetliner that was bombed.  I think concern is justified even if the odds of being a victim are minimal. 

The problem is that we cannot accept a large number of immigrants from Syria or anywhere else without an established plan for how house, educate, and employ them.  You don't want large numbers of people, especially men ages 15-30, sitting around idle.  After 3-4 weeks they're going to start getting pissed.  Unfortunately in cities like Cincinnati we do not have public transportation that can reach many of the jobs that immigrants would be qualified for.  Are we going to give these people cars?  $500/mo vouchers for Uber?  And intelligent, educated people from foreign countries can't immediately do higher-level work in a country where they don't speak and read the language.  They're going to get pissed when they've been here for a year and are still riding in a van down to Hebron at 10pm to work until 6am in some fulfillment center getting yelled at every night by some methed-out manager. 

 

You're aware, right, that the US already settles thousands of refugees every year? I'm sure there's room for improvement, but other than the theoretical security concerns, there's really nothing new about Syrian refugee settlement. There's already a fairly well developed infrastructure (largely church-based) to provide housing, guidance, job placement, etc.

 

I don't know what to make of the security concerns. They sound wildly over-blown to me. We're not talking about an unvetted population that just happens to wash up on shore, so the dangers seem to be drastically lower than in Europe. There are about 50k Saudi students at US universities at any given time these days. Seems pretty unlikely to me that a much smaller population, only a small share of which would be made up of Sunni men between 16-40, would pose a serious threat.

Yes I am aware that people are moving here in large numbers all the time.  But there is a big difference between people who have been planning to move for years and people who are uprooted and end up some place they never imagined living. 

 

In the 90s I knew people at our church who helped Bosnian refugees and said that they were surprisingly ungrateful.  Of course, the big problem was they were living in people's suburban houses but were stuck there because they couldn't drive anywhere and of course there are no public buses.  People were thinking they were going to have prayer-happy peasants living in their houses and instead it was people with college degrees and professional jobs in Europe with no religious affiliation who were now stuck living the basements of simpleton Americans. 

 

A couple years ago my parents let some people whose house was one of the 1,000+ destroyed in the crazy Nashville flash flood live in a house my dad bought for super-cheap right after the 2009 housing collapse.  Again this was organized by a church.  Instead of leaving the place as they found it, they made themselves at home to the extreme, then made no effort to go get a new apartment.  I think my dad finally had to kick them out after four or five months.  They broke some things and made no offer to at least pay for utilities, let alone a nominal rent. 

 

This is how idiotic the fear and misinformation in this thread is.  The US resettles nearly 100,000 refugees every year.  We're talking about taking 15,000 out of the 4 million Syrian refugees.  Since 2007 we have resettled 87,000 IRAQI refugees. 

 

guess what? ISIL actually calls Iraq home and has more land amassed in Iraq than in Syria.  Why didn't they try sneaking in that way last year or the year before? Why would you even TRY to be a refugee considering it takes over a year, when you could just get a short term visa to go on vacation in the US and blow shit up. 

 

This entire fear of Refugees is 100% baseless and hilarious.  If wecan't get enough info on someone to feel safe... we'll move on!  There are 4,000,000 people to pick 15,000 out of. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

Go to topic listing

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.