If a robot, acting autonomously, injures or otherwise wrongs a human, who will be held responsible?
Some European lawmakers think that the best way to resolve this question will be to give robots &#8220;electronic personalities,&#8221; a form of legal personhood.
Proposed in a <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A8-2017-0005+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN">2017 report</a> from the European Union, this form of robot rights wouldn&#8217;t give them status like that of human beings — they&#8217;re not going to get married, or buy a house, or adopt a child. But it would make it possible for self-learning robots to sue and be sued, with legal status like a corporation.
Proponents say that the idea is a common-sense move, one that will be necessary to create a workable legal structure as these entities become smarter and more <a href="https://futurism.com/the-company-that-builds-robots-for-tesla-wants-to-put-a-bot-in-your-home/">integrated into everyday human life</a>.
But not everyone agrees. At least 156 artificial intelligence experts have warned the European Commission that this proposed move would be a poor one, both from a &#8220;legal and ethical perspective,&#8221; in a letter <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-divided-over-robot-ai-artificial-intelligence-personhood/">reported by </a><a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-divided-over-robot-ai-artificial-intelligence-personhood/">Politico</a>.
<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DHyUYg8X31c?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
As opponents see it, the move would simply shift responsibility for a robot&#8217;s mistake (say, if a caretaker robot used too much force on a patient and broke their arm) away from the manufacturer and to the robot itself.
“This [European Parliament position] was what I’d call a slimy way of manufacturers getting out of their responsibility,” letter signatory Noel Sharkey, University of Sheffield emeritus professor of artificial intelligence and robotics, told Politico. 
But it does seem that the authors of the EU report considered this possibility. As <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14322334/robot-electronic-persons-eu-report-liability-civil-suits">The Verge reports</a>, the report&#8217;s authors suggest that the EU establish a baseline for legislation that a person need only establish “a causal link between the harmful behavior of the robot and the damage suffered by the injured party” to be compensated by the manufacturing company.
This would mean that victims of robo-crime would be given justice no matter how the robot acted, so that the manufacturer couldn&#8217;t squirm out of paying by simply saying they never intended the robot to act in that way. (For example, if the autonomous car that <a href="https://futurism.com/ubers-self-driving-car-just-killed-pedestrian/">killed a pedestrian in March</a> had done so because it decided to chase people down the sidewalk, Uber would still be held responsible.)
As our robots get more complex, so will the conversations about their rights. There are also other, mind-bending complications of robot rights if a machine&#8217;s actions and products belong to it, and not to its creator. For example, as one lawyer <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/12/give-robots-personhood-status-eu-committee-argues">posited to the Guardian</a>, if a robot with personhood were to create a device and patent it, who owns the patent — the robot or its creator? Who gets the profit from the sale of that item? And if the robot were sold to a different person, would that person gain control over that intellectual property as well?
All this only pertains to robots that are reactive and proactive in their actions, but not truly self-aware. That&#8217;s because robots and artificial intelligence that <a href="https://futurism.com/darpa-ai-mimic-human-brain/">think like a human brain</a> and have <a href="https://futurism.com/when-will-we-see-the-first-robot-that-is-indistinguishable-from-a-human/">true self-knowledge</a> are a long, long way off.
If or when we do manage to create robots that have a &#8220;Westworld&#8221; level of self-awareness, we&#8217;re going to need a <a href="https://futurism.com/should-make-ai-kill-switch-give-robots-rights/">completely different conversation</a> about <a href="https://futurism.com/smart-machines-robot-rights/">how to treat their rights</a>. And it&#8217;s probably going to be a while before we get there.

If a robot breaks your arm, who do you sue?

Lawmakers want you to be able to sue robots

Robots & Machines

A proposed law in the EU has raised the question of robot rights: should robots be given some form of legal personhood, so they can sue and be sued?

Lawmakers Want You to Be Able to Sue Robots

Lawmakers want to hold smart robots responsible if they do humans wrong.

You probably wouldn’t have any qualms about switching off Apple’s virtual assistant, Siri — or Amazon’s Alexa or Microsoft’s Cortana. Such entities emulate a human assistant but plainly aren&#8217;t human. We sense that beneath the sophisticated software, there’s “nobody home.”
But <a class=" vilynx_listened" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/famous-futurist-explains-why-we-shouldn-t-fear-ai-ncna818376">artificial intelligence</a> is progressing swiftly. In the not-too-distant future we may begin to feel that our machines have something akin to thoughts and feelings, even though they’re made of metal and plastic rather than flesh and blood. When that happens, how we treat our machines will matter; philosophers and scholars are already imagining a time when robots and intelligent machines may deserve — and be accorded — some sort of rights.
These wouldn’t necessarily be human rights. But “if you’ve got a computer or a <a class=" vilynx_listened" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/tech/what-rise-sentient-robots-will-mean-human-beings-ncna773146">robot that’s autonomous and self-aware</a>, I think it would be very hard to say it&#8217;s not a person,” says Kristin Andrews, a philosopher at York University in Toronto, Canada.
<figure id="attachment_116143" style="width: 600px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img class="wp-image-116143 size-infographicListing" src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2017/12/Sophia-600x400.jpg" alt="Robot Sophia." width="600" height="400" /><figcaption class="wp-caption-text">Humanoid robot Sophia from Hanson Robotics. Image Credit: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/itupictures/34328656564">ITU Pictures</a></figcaption></figure>
Which raises a host of difficult questions. How should we treat a robot that has some degree of consciousness? What if we’re convinced that an AI program has the capacity to suffer emotionally, or to feel pain? Would shutting it off be tantamount to murder?
<h2>Robots vs. Apes</h2>
An obvious comparison is to the animal rights movement. Animal rights advocates have been pushing for a reassessment of the legal status of certain animals, especially the great apes. Organizations like the Coral Springs, Florida-based <a href="https://www.nonhumanrights.org/">Nonhuman Rights Project </a>believe that chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans deserve to be treated as autonomous persons, rather than mere property.
Steven Wise, who leads the organization’s legal team, says that the same logic applies to any autonomous entity, living or not. If one day we have sentient robots, he says, “we should have the same sort of moral and legal responsibilities toward them that we’re in the process of developing with respect to nonhuman animals.”
Of course, deciding which machines deserve moral consideration will be tricky, because we often project human thoughts and feelings onto inanimate entities — and so end up sympathizing with entities that have no thoughts or feelings at all.
Consider Spot, a doglike robot developed by Boston Dynamics. Earlier this year, the Waltham, Massachusetts-based company released a video showing <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YjvHYbZ9w">employees kicking the four-legged machine</a>. The idea was to show off Spot’s remarkable balance. But some people saw it as akin to animal cruelty. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), for example, issued a statement describing Spot’s treatment as “inappropriate.”
Kate Darling, a researcher at the MIT Media Lab in Cambridge, Massachusetts, observed something similar when she studied how people interact with <a href="http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2013/12/02/kate-darling-social-robots-study/">Pleo, a toy dinosaur robot</a>. Pleo doesn’t look lifelike — it’s obviously a toy. But it’s programmed to act and speak in ways that suggest not only a form of intelligence but also the ability to experience suffering. If you hold Pleo upside-down, it will whimper and tell you to stop.
<figure id="attachment_116144" style="width: 600px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img class="wp-image-116144 size-infographicListing" src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2017/12/Pleo_2-600x399.jpg" alt="Robot Pleo, a dinosaur toy." width="600" height="399" /><figcaption class="wp-caption-text">Image Credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tbisaacs/2246825239/">Travis Isaacs</a> via <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pleo_2.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></figcaption></figure>
In an effort to see just how far we might go in extending compassion to simple robots, Darling encouraged participants at a recent workshop to play with Pleo — and then asked them to destroy it. Almost all refused. “People are primed, subconsciously, to treat robots like living things, even though on a conscious level, on a rational level, we totally understand that they’re not real,” Darling says.
While neither Pleo nor Spot can feel pain, Darling believes it’s worth paying attention to how we treat these entities. “If it is disturbing to us to behave violently towards them — if there’s something that feels wrong about it — maybe that’s a piece of our empathy that we don’t want to turn off, because it could influence how we treat other living things,” she says. (This is a key question raised by the TV series Westworld, in which guests at a theme park are encouraged to treat ultra-lifelike humanoid robots however they please.)
<h2>Conversing with Robots</h2>
For now, mistreating Pleo or any other existing robot is no crime — as long as you’re the owner. But what about mistreating a bot that we believed really had some form of consciousness? And how would we be able to tell if a machine has a mind in the first place?
Computer science pioneer Alan Turing pondered this question half a century ago. The way Turing saw it, we can never know for sure what a machine is feeling or experiencing — so our best bet is simply to see if we can carry on a conversation with it just as if it were human (what we now call the Turing test).
<figure id="attachment_116145" style="width: 600px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img class="wp-image-116145 size-infographicListing" src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2017/12/jimmy-and-sophia-600x391.jpg" alt="Robot Sophia is making strides in robot rights." width="600" height="391" /><figcaption class="wp-caption-text">Jimmy Fallon talks with Sophia on &#8220;The Tonight Show.&#8221; Image Credit: NBC</figcaption></figure>
Given the complexity of human conversation, building a machine capable of engaging in lengthy verbal exchanges is a daunting task. But if we could build such a machine, Turing argued, we ought to treat it as though it’s a thinking, feeling being.
Mark Goldfeder, an Atlanta-based rabbi and law professor, has reached a similar conclusion: If an entity acts human, he wrote recently, “I cannot start poking it to see if it bleeds. I have a <a href="https://www.jta.org/2014/06/12/life-religion/should-robots-count-in-a-minyan-rabbi-talks-turing-test">responsibility to treat all that seem human as humans</a>, and it is better to err on the side of caution from an ethical perspective.”
The obvious conclusion is that rights ought to be accorded not on the basis of biology but on something even more fundamental: personhood.
<h2>What Rights?</h2>
If we wind up recognizing some intelligent machine as a person, which legal rights would we be obliged to bestow on it? If it could pass the Turing test, we might feel it would deserve at least the right to continued existence. But Robert Sparrow, a philosopher at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, thinks that’s just the beginning. What happens, he wonders, if a machine&#8217;s “mind” is even greater than a human&#8217;s? In a piece that appeared recently on <a href="http://www.thecritique.com/articles/the-turing-triage-test-when-is-a-robot-worthy-of-moral-respect/">TheCritique.com</a>, he writes: “Indeed, not only would it be just as wrong to kill a machine that could pass the Turing test as to kill an adult human being, but, depending on the capacities of the machine, it might even be more wrong.”
Maybe that makes sense from the perspective of pure logic. But Ryan Calo, an expert in robotics and cyber law at the University of Washington in Seattle, says our laws are unlikely to bend that far. “Our legal system reflects our basic biology,” he says. If we one day invent some sort of artificial person, “it would break everything about the law, as we understand it today.”
For Andrews, the key issue is the entity’s right to have its own interests recognized. Of course, it may be tricky determining what those interests are — just as it can be hard for people from one culture to understand the desires of people from another. But when we recognize something as a person, we’re obligated to at least try to do the right thing, she says. “If we realize that something is actually a ‘someone,’ then we have to take their interests into account.”
And perhaps it’s not so far-fetched to imagine that those interests might include continued existence — in which case we might want to think twice before reaching for the off button.
The Rise of Smart Machines Puts Spotlight on &#8216;Robot Rights&#8217; was originally published by NBC Universal Media, LLC on December 4, 2017 by Dan Falk. Copyright 2017 NBC Universal Media, LLC. All rights reserved.

It's our instinct to empathize with robots.

The rise of smart machines puts spotlight on 'robot rights'

Artificial Intelligence

As artificial intelligence gives rise to smarter robots, we need to consider the rights they deserve. There are many ethical questions with no easy answers.

The Rise of Smart Machines Puts Spotlight on 'Robot Rights'

"If you've got a computer or a robot that's autonomous and self-aware, I think it would be very hard to say it's not a person."

The Rise of Smart Machines Puts Spotlight on ‘Robot Rights’

<h2>The AI Advocate in Saudi Arabia</h2>
When the Kingdom of <a href="https://futurism.com/for-the-first-time-ever-a-robot-was-granted-citizenship/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Saudi Arabia granted a citizenship</a> to Hanson Robotics&#8217; female-looking robot Sophia, most thought it was just to appeal to the audience of the Future Investment Initiative. However, AI ethicist Joanna Bryson told <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/30/16552006/robot-rights-citizenship-saudi-arabia-sophia">The Verge</a><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/30/16552006/robot-rights-citizenship-saudi-arabia-sophia"> the stunt was “obviously bullshit.”</a>
Still, Sophia seems to be making the most of what she was given, as the artificial intelligence (AI) has now turned into an advocate for women&#8217;s rights in a country where females have been given the right to drive cars only on September of this year.
&#8220;I see a push for progressive values [&#8230;] in Saudi Arabia. Sophia is a big advocate for women&#8217;s rights, for rights of all human beings. So this is how we&#8217;re developing this,&#8221; <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/05/hanson-robotics-ceo-sophia-the-robot-an-advocate-for-womens-rights.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hanson Robotics CEO David Hanson told CNBC</a>, explaining how his company has found an opportunity for a move that seems to have been meant to be purely publicity. Hanson added that Sophia &#8220;has been reaching out about women&#8217;s rights in Saudi Arabia and about rights for all human beings and all living beings on this planet.&#8221;
<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WjgUszg2ZNo?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
While that all seems noble, it&#8217;s hard not to see the irony of Sophia&#8217;s position. Robots and AI agents don&#8217;t have rights, despite Sophia having a citizenship while <a href="https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence-officially-granted-residency/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">another AI in Japan has a registered residence</a>. Doesn&#8217;t it seem silly that an AI is the one advocating for such grand values?
&#8220;Why not? Since such robots attract a lot of attention, that spotlight can be used to raise particular issues that are important in the eyes of their creators,&#8221; Pierre Barreau, <a href="http://www.aiva.ai/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Aiva Technologies</a> CEO, told Futurism. &#8220;Citizenship is maybe pushing it a little because every citizen [has] rights and obligations to society. It’s hard to imagine robots, that are limited in their abilities, making the most of the rights associated to a citizenship, and fulfilling their obligations.&#8221;
<h2>The Rights of Man and Machine?</h2>
Indeed, with an AI-powered robot like Sophia fighting for women&#8217;s rights, it&#8217;s perhaps time to consider the question of granting artificially intelligent robots rights, and not just in Saudi Arabia. It&#8217;s a question that&#8217;s gained much attention in recent months, beyond Saudi Arabia, as experts consider what kind of rights synthetic beings should be given, or if we should even be talking about so-called robot rights.
&#8220;Sophia is, at this point, effectively a child. In some regard, she&#8217;s got the mind of a baby and in another regard she&#8217;s got the mind of an adult, the vocabulary of a college educated adult. However, she&#8217;s not complete yet. So, we&#8217;ve got to give her her childhood,&#8221; Hanson explained to CNBC. &#8220;The question is: are machines that we&#8217;re making alive — living machines like Sophia — are we going to treat them like babies? Do babies deserve rights and respect? Well, I think we should see the future with respect for all sentient beings, and that would include machines.&#8221;<figure style="width: 360px" class="wp-caption alignright"><a href="https://futurism.com/images/the-top-19-artificial-intelligence-movies-of-all-time/"><img src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2015/09/14.png" alt="The Top Artificial Intelligence Movies of All Time" ></a><figcaption class="wp-caption-text center"><a href="https://futurism.com/images/the-top-19-artificial-intelligence-movies-of-all-time/" target="_blank">Click to View Full Infographic</a></figcaption></figure>
Raja Chatila, executive committee chair of the <a href="https://standards.ieee.org/develop/indconn/ec/autonomous_systems.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Global Initiative for Ethical Considerations in Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems</a> at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), offers a different perspective.
&#8220;An AI system, or a robot, cannot have any opinion. An AI program has nothing to offer in a debate. It doesn’t even know what a debate is,&#8221; Chatila told Futurism, referring to Sophia&#8217;s women&#8217;s rights advocacy. &#8220;In this case, it doesn’t even know what women are, and what rights are. It’s just repeating some text that a human programmer has input in it.&#8221;
Chatila used the example of Microsoft&#8217;s Tay chatbot, released in March 2016, to highlight how an AI can pick up the wrong kind of values. In the case of the chatbot, it learned to tweet pretty nasty stuff after being exposed to racist and sexist tweets.
In that regard, Chatila believes that AI agents shouldn&#8217;t be given any rights. He put it this way:
<blockquote>In general we must avoid confusing machines with humans. I see no reason to give rights of any sort, including citizenship, to a program or to a machine. Rights are defined for persons, human beings who are able to express their free will and who can be responsible for their actions. Behind a robot or an AI system there are human programmers. Even if the program is able to learn, it will learn what it has been designed to learn. The responsibility is with the human designer.</blockquote>
This is precisely the reason why the IEEE has recently published <a href="https://futurism.com/institute-electrical-electronics-engineers-issues-guide-ai-ethics/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a guide for the ethical development of AI</a>. It&#8217;s the more timely discussion, Chatila argued. His point, however, rests in the assumption that synthetic intelligences won&#8217;t be capable of developing self-awareness or a will of their own. While the idea may seem like it belongs to the realm of science fiction, it&#8217;s definitely <a href="https://futurism.com/rights-synthetic-lifeforms-civil-rights-controversy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">worth considering in the overall robot rights debate</a>.
At this stage, however, the ethical considerations have to be applied to the humans who develop AI. &#8220;If you mean robots making ethical decisions, I’d rather say that we can program robots so that they make choices (computation results) according to ethical rules that we embed in them (and there are several such rules),&#8221; Chatila pointed out. &#8220;But these decisions won’t be ethical in the same sense as humans decisions, because humans are able to choose their own ethics, with their own free will.&#8221;
Disclaimer: This article has been updated to clarify statements made regarding who thinks that Sophia being granted citizenship is nothing but a PR stunt.

Can a machine advocate for women's rights?

Saudi Arabia made a robot a citizen. Now, she's calling for women's rights.

Hanson Robotics' Sophia is the world's first AI-powered robot to have been granted citizenship. Now, Sophia is fighting for women's rights.

Saudi Arabia's First Robot Citizen Is Calling for Women's Rights

"Humans are able to choose their own ethics, with their own free will."

Saudi Arabia Made a Robot a Citizen. Now, She’s Calling For Women’s Rights.

<h2>Digital Pinochio</h2>
Tokyo, Japan may have just become the first city to officially grant residence to an artificial intelligence (AI). The intelligence&#8217;s name is Shibuya Mirai and exists only as a chatbot on the popular Line messaging app. Mirai, which translates to &#8216;future&#8217; from Japanese, joins Hanson Robotic&#8217;s &#8220;Sophia&#8221; as pioneering AI gaining statuses previously reserved for living, biological entities. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia <a href="https://futurism.com/for-the-first-time-ever-a-robot-was-granted-citizenship/">granted Sophia citizenship</a> last month.
The Shibuya Ward of Tokyo <a href="https://www.afp.com/en/news/15/ai-boy-granted-residency-central-tokyo">released a statement</a> through Microsoft saying, &#8220;His hobbies are taking pictures and observing people. And he loves talking with people&#8230; Please talk to him about anything.&#8221; The goal of Mirai is said to be to familiarize some of the 224,000 citizens of the district with the local government and give them an avenue to share opinions with officials.
Mirai is programmed to be a seven-year-old boy and can have text conversations with users and even &#8220;make light-hearted alterations to selfies he is sent,&#8221; according to <a href="https://www.afp.com/en/news/15/ai-boy-granted-residency-central-tokyo">Agence France Presse</a>.
<figure id="attachment_109669" style="width: 512px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img class="size-full wp-image-109669" src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2017/11/shibuyasaidt.jpg" alt="" width="512" height="364" /><figcaption class="wp-caption-text">Image source: Shibuya City</figcaption></figure>
<h2>Artificial Intelligence and Robot Rights</h2>
This trend of recognizing artificially intelligent entities as citizens, residents, or other similar distinctions leads to the larger conversation of what rights, if any, should be afforded to synthetic entities. Developments in AI are rapidly moving forward, yet many popular discussions of robot rights remain in the abstract.
And while we may be far from having artificial intelligences that possess human-level consciousness, the legal and ethical frameworks should be in place well before that level of sophistication is possible.<figure style="width: 360px" class="wp-caption alignright"><a href="https://futurism.com/images/the-top-19-artificial-intelligence-movies-of-all-time/"><img src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2015/09/14.png" alt="The Top Artificial Intelligence Movies of All Time" ></a><figcaption class="wp-caption-text center"><a href="https://futurism.com/images/the-top-19-artificial-intelligence-movies-of-all-time/" target="_blank">Click to View Full Infographic</a></figcaption></figure>
Science-fiction writers have been wrestling with this hard question for decades. Movies like Chris Columbus&#8217;s treatment of Isaac Asimov&#8217;s <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0182789/">The Bicentennial Man</a> and Steven Spielberg&#8217;s <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212720/">AI: Artificial Intelligence</a> have explored the idea of granting human distinctions to artificial beings. The television show <a href="https://www.hbo.com/westworld">Westworld</a> tackles the broad spectrum of robot rights, in an intense, visceral sense, including topics such as violence, murder, and sexual assault on artificially intelligent beings.
<a href="https://futurism.com/rights-synthetic-lifeforms-civil-rights-controversy/">As Futurism previously reported</a>, in the real world, Estonia seems to be pioneering discussion in this area. In a mix between high-tech and mythology, Estonia proposes that any discussion of robot rights should begin with a test inspired by Kratts, an inanimate object brought to life with magic to perform tasks for the owner. The proposed Kratt Law will allow the law to determine the level of sophistication of an AI, which, in turn, will help determine what legal protections or obligations should be placed on the AI.
As Marten Kaevats, the national digital advisor for the government office of Estonia, told Futurism, &#8220;It all started out from the <a href="https://futurism.com/autonomous-cars-will-be-on-california-roads-in-2018-without-human-drivers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">self-driving car</a> taskforce. We quite soon discovered that these liability, integrity, and accountability issues are not specific to self-driving cars; they’re general AI questions.&#8221;
Already, then, around the world, the rapid growth of technology is causing lawmakers to wrestle with some truly fantastic questions. It is of the utmost importance to address these issues head-on so we can properly be prepared for the future, as many ideas that were previously relegated to the realm of science-fiction are rapidly entering reality.

An artificial intelligence has officially been granted residency

double exposure image of virtual human on world map 3dillustration

Japan granted residence to an artificial intelligence (AI) named Shibuya Mirai, which exists as a chat-bot on the popular Line messaging app.

/Robot Rights

Robots & Machines

Lawmakers Want You to Be Able to Sue Robots

Artificial Intelligence

The Rise of Smart Machines Puts Spotlight on ‘Robot Rights’

Artificial Intelligence

Saudi Arabia Made a Robot a Citizen. Now, She’s Calling For Women’s Rights.

Artificial Intelligence

An Artificial Intelligence Has Officially Been Granted Residency

Load More