due to refugees from earlier waves, principallyrnfrom Southeast Asia. But thernmigration from the former Sox-iet Unionrnbegan relatively recently, and as thernexodus continues, the yearly cost of thernprogram can only go up. Watch for thernrefugee industry’s campaign to “privatize”rnthe resettlement process. It hasrnnothing to do with limiting access tornpublic assistance and requiring sponsorsrnto foot more of the bill. This privatizationrncampaign is about diverting morernfederal funds to “private” agencies whosernmain function is walking the new arrivalsrnthrough the red tape of public assistance.rnThe partially taxpayer-funded agency forrnex-Soviets in New York, with a staff ofrn550, is already the size of a small governmentrnbureau.rnOne might argue that taxes paid byrnworking refugees cover the costs of dependentrnrefugees. If a system could berndevised to direct to Yuri’s mother everyrndollar paid by her son in taxes and retirementrncontributions, there probablyrnwould be more than enough to cover thernexpenses. This is the methodology followedrnin a recent Urban Institute studyrnpurporting to show that all immigrantsrnas a group “put into” the system $30 billionrnmore than they “take out.” This logicrnworks quite well for those who believernthat a night at the theater should costrnonly the price of the popcorn. Unfortunately,rnas taxpayers we have obligationsrnother than assistance programs. If thernUrban Institute’s measure for balancingrnwhat is “put in” versus what is “takenrnout” were declared the standard for allrnUnited States taxpayers, we would bernrunning a deficit well in excess of a trillionrndollars each year.rnBut why should economics be a factorrnfor refugees whose numbers, at any rate,rnare insignificant in the overall picture?rnIn recent years about one in seven legalrnimmigrants has been a refugee. The JordanrnCommission has recommendedrnrefugee admissions of 50,000 a year—rnless than half the recent rate of admissions.rnBut there is little evidence thatrnlegislators or the administration, whichrnsets the yeariy refugee quota, will be ablernto resist domestic pressure politics andrnthe emotion that comes with the veryrnmention of the term “refugee.” “Everythingrnthey once had has been destroyedrnor taken away, probably at gunpoint.rnHome, family, possessions, all gone,” accordingrnto the United Nations HighrnCommissioner for Refugees.rnWhen Yuri’s mother arrives, she willrnbe joining about 40,000 refugees fromrnthe former Soviet Union alone. Almostrnnone of the immigrants comes fromrnthe population of two million actuallyrnidentified by the UNHCR as refugees inrnand among the former republics.rnDon Barnett writes on immigration forrnnumerous national publications.rnBond and Betrayalrnby Wayne AUensworthrnGoldeneyernProduced by Michael G. Wilsonrnand Barbara BroccolirnDirected by Martin CampbellrnScreenplay by Jeffrey Cainernand Bruce FeirsteinrnReleased by United ArtistsrnIn the best of the James Bond films derivedrndirectly from the novels of IanrnFleming—Dr. No, From Russia WithrnLove, Goldfinger, and Thunderball—rnSean Connery was able to evoke the gentlemanly,rnbut roguish, quality of thernBritish “clubland” heroes like RichardrnHannay and Bulldog Drummond whornhad helped inspire O07’s creator, whilernadding a hard-edged brutality to therncharacter’s persona that was rarely seenrnin the clean-limbed protagonists of anrnearlier time. Fleming, like Conan Doyle,rnhad brought to life a character whornseemed real, however improbable his adventures,rnto the reading and filmgoingrnpublic. Like Fleming’s creation, Connery,rntongue firmly in cheek, faced thernmost unlikely of villains with a sense ofrnamused irony, but was nevertheless ablernto lend a seriousness to the role thatrnseemed more realistic to an audiencernthat had witnessed world war, Stalin,rnHitler, and Hiroshima. The eady Bondrnfilms, like postwar film noir or “adult”rnWesterns, suited an era that did notrnrequire that its heroes be Boy Scouts, butrnwas not yet prepared for the amoralrnantihero that Clint Eastwood wouldrnsoon popularize in his squint-and-killrn”spaghetti Westerns.” Stallone’s andrnSchwarzenegger’s superhuman anticsrnare probably a carryover from the Bondrnfilms, particularly the exaggerated selfparodyrnof the Roger Moore years, but therntight-lipped Terminator-style killingrnin Rambo or Commando is a spinoff ofrnthe cold-bloodedness of Eastwood’s .45-rntoting angel of death. Bond still has arncode, a rough one, to be sure, like that ofrnJohn Wayne’s Western heroes of thern50’s, whose behavior would have hardh’rnpassed muster with Roy or Hopalong,rnbut one that still retains some sense ofrnhonor. Bond is a killer, but not a murderer.rnIn the latest installment of the Bondrnsaga, the Harry Saltzman-Albert Broccolirnteam’s successors (Barbara Broccolirnkeeps the Bond property all in the family)rnhave wisely chosen to continue movingrnthe series away from the cartoonishrnstyle of the 70’s and mid-80’s by castingrnthe worthy Pierce Brosnan as Bond.rnBrosnan, in view of his pretty-bov daysrnon television’s Remington Steele, retainsrnthe attractive combination of irony andrnruthlessness that Connery created andrnthat Shakespearean actor Timoth’ Daltonrnbrought back to the Bond characterrnin The Living Daylights (1987), after thernfoppish Moore had made the imagernof Bond as Bnely tuned commando impossiblernto believe. Nobody wanted tornbe Moore’s Bond. If Brosnan is not letrndown by the production team, he mayrnbe successful in keeping the Bond franchiserna going concern in the 90’s, for it isrnthe film’s production failures that almostrnscuttle the Brosnan ship on her maidenrnvoyage.rnThe film is poorly edited. The chasernscenes drag on far longer than necessary,rnand Bond himself is almost lost amidrncountless helicopter crashes, trainrnwrecks, and car chases that are hard tornfollow—just who is pursuing whom, andrnjust where is Bond in this cacophony ofrnexplosions, squealing tires, and gunfire?rnEven during the bone-crunching fistfightrnsequence between Bond and hisrnarchenemy, another touch evocative ofrneady Bond films, particularly the SeanrnConnery-Robert Shaw brawl in FromrnRussia With Love, it is difficult for thernviewer to make out just what is going on.rnThe production team needs to tightenrnup a bit and reduce the crash-’em-ups torna manageable number and scale insteadrnof trying to keep the teenagers interested.rnThe story and screenwriting team savern44/CHRONICLESrnrnrn