Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Immigration Law in Arizona

Rate this topic


TheEgoist
 Share

Recommended Posts

No. Why would I agree with that. What I said is that everyone is justified in ignoring immoral laws.

Because you are not the final arbiter of truth for everyone else to accept. Let me ask you this for clarification, do you think that all laws which anyone thinks are immoral should be disregarded on principle?

When you decide which laws are just and which aren't, post your decision. Until then, I can't imagine what you're basing your opinion on what I should be doing on.

I have above, so I can only assume that you haven't been reading the posts.

If someone sucks at life, and can't tell the moral from the immoral, that's their problem. I am perfectly qualified to know I should treat people living here without the US gov.'s permission the same way I treat everyone else, and I also know shunning such a person would be an immoral act.

If there is one thing that I have no doubt about, it is the certainty you have of your opinions, Jake.

There is no such thing as legal morality. Only morality. Following it is always justified, and breaking with it is never justified. Not even if there's a law that says so. If you want me to break with my morality, you'll have to actually enforce that wish, with a gun actually at my head. At this point in time, that is outside the capabilities of our budding fascist society, so I'll do as I please. And the second all this fascist legislation became actually enforceable (the only way it can be, by the use of terror, through a combination of informants and torture chambers in hidden basements), I'll try to escape.

Again, it seems that you believe we are further along on the road to fascism than I currently accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people advocate breaking laws that you disagree with on principle.

I have not seen anyone advocate this here, or anywhere, except in the context of overt civil disobedience (where the purpose is to call attention to an obviously improper law).

it is an all or nothing decision since you can't cherry pick laws to follow without the law becoming meaningless.

This is a false dichotomy. You are ignoring the fact that law can be proper (when it protects individual rights) or improper (when it violates them). If someone "cherry picks" laws by following only the ones of the first type while breaking those of the second type you can hardly argue that law becomes meaningless.

Because you are not the final arbiter of truth for everyone else to accept. Let me ask you this for clarification, do you think that all laws which anyone thinks are immoral should be disregarded on principle?

This, I believe, shows the root of the trouble. It is not a matter of thinking a law is immoral. Laws can be objectively immoral - not a matter of opinion, a fact - a knowable fact.

And ultimately, when you say "people, as a general rule are more likely to make their decisions about their own interests with more than a little emotional bias and more than a little lack of knowledge" you are basically working from the standpoint that the individual (yourself and present company presumably excluded) cannot be trusted to know right from wrong.

It is pointless to argue law when you have an assumption that is so essentially contrary to the world view of most people here: that people are fundamentally rational beings capable of knowledge (and not just opinion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not seen anyone advocate this here, or anywhere, except in the context of overt civil disobedience (where the purpose is to call attention to an obviously improper law).

I believe that they have, at least with regard to immigration law. I am giving the benefit and assuming that they would be consistent in advocating that all immoral laws be disregarded.

This is a false dichotomy. You are ignoring the fact that law can be proper (when it protects individual rights) or improper (when it violates them). If someone "cherry picks" laws by following only the ones of the first type while breaking those of the second type you can hardly argue that law becomes meaningless.

This, I believe, shows the root of the trouble. It is not a matter of thinking a law is immoral. Laws can be objectively immoral - not a matter of opinion, a fact - a knowable fact.

And ultimately, when you say "people, as a general rule are more likely to make their decisions about their own interests with more than a little emotional bias and more than a little lack of knowledge" you are basically working from the standpoint that the individual (yourself and present company presumably excluded) cannot be trusted to know right from wrong.

It is pointless to argue law when you have an assumption that is so essentially contrary to the world view of most people here: that people are fundamentally rational beings capable of knowledge (and not just opinion).

I believe there is an objective right and wrong answer to all questions, legal questions included. I also believe we are capable of finding those answers out.

Where I disagree, more precisely, is in the acknowledgment of the complexity of the law and the capacity for most, to be necessarily correct in their applications, even if they are somewhat well versed in objectivist ethics and political philosophy. I have found that the circumstances of life, legal and otherwise, are often such that the nuance and detail make certainty less easy and obvious.

If we look at big obvious general principles like, Bob stole Bills car, should Bill get it back? Then the answer is easy and objective, but if we add details like, "I think that I saw a guy, Bob, that I know to be a criminal, drive off in a car that looked a lot like Bill's, then should I run him off the road to try and retrieve Bill's car for him?" The answer in application becomes more questionable. Especially if I live in a place where a shortage of police officers makes it unlikely that he would get it back, otherwise.

So it's not so much that I have a malevolent view of people, but that actual decisions are not always clear cut, which is why lawyers spend months preparing and arguing cases to convince 13 people that someone acted justly of unjustly. Certainty is possible, but not always obvious and off the cuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you are not the final arbiter of truth for everyone else to accept.

Not for everyone else to accept, just for me. Which is what I said, very clearly. What you would like me to do, on the other hand, is let the state be the arbiter of truth, in a matter which does not pertain to the protection of rights.

While I am perfectly willing to delegate the enforcement of rights to the state, as such a deferral does not in any way conflict with my moral principles, that is the full extent of what I am willing to delegate. Anything else would be the ultimate surrender of my rationality. As important as the state is, and it's important, it is not as important as I being the only, ultimate, final, supreme, and dare I say majestic arbiter of truth, when it comes to all moral decisions I make, that are not related to the issue of other people's individual rights in any way, shape, or form.

Let me ask you this for clarification, do you think that all laws which anyone thinks are immoral should be disregarded on principle?

Of course not. Immoral laws should be disregarded on principle. What anyone thinks should have nothing to do with it.

If there is one thing that I have no doubt about, it is the certainty you have of your opinions, Jake.

Why would it be an opinion? Is it or is it not immoral to discriminate between people, based on where they were born? Surely you have a yes or no answer to a simple yes or no question like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry for the delay in response and overall reduced participation. Lack of time for this kind of activities is an ongoing state of things in my life.

I said that even to the extent that I would adhere to immoral laws, I would not champion stricter enforcement of such laws. ~Sophia~ agreed. Why though?

Because I do not support further creation of immoral laws.

The overall rule of law is important (as per my argument) but so it the content of the law. Increasing the % of immoral laws is not in my best interest.

The goal is to eliminate immoral laws while maintaining the overall rule of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The goal is to eliminate immoral laws while maintaining the overall rule of the law.

Immoral laws cannot force you to do immoral things. So if a law is enforced, you have no choice but to obey it, and that is not an immoral act. Morality ends where a gun begins.

However, voluntarily complying with a law that is poorly enforced (such as immigration laws generally are: no one will do anything to you if you hire an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper), does mean that you are making immoral choices, by your own volition (or actually, delegating moral judgement to the government, which is immoral).

I am baffled that you would refuse to hire the most qualified person for a job you need done, because the government told you so, or that you would comply with the many silly and impossible to enforce laws I'm sure Canada has on the books.

How can law supersede morality? How can Politics supersede Ethics? How can the rule of law be dependent on its citizens voluntarily committing immoral acts? How can moral behavior cause anarchy?

And I know, you're going to say it's not immoral, because of the law. But how can the desire of the majority, in matters clearly not related to the protection of individual rights, affect the moral status of your actions? If you think about it, that is the exact opposite of individualism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I hold it as improper to advocate for the breaking of laws unless you're willing to do so consistently because you view the government as beyond repair.
To clarify, apart from advocacy, do you think it is improper to actually break the law without advocating illegality? I assume you mean: don't break it and don't advocate breaking it; but, I'm trying to clarify your position to myself. If yes, then are you saying that everyone living in a country where the government is not beyond repair should stick to the law, regardless of the impact that any particular law has on them? (Emergency situations and minor traffic infractions excepted)? What you seem to be saying is that in such a country, there is no law that is serious enough to be broken.

Is that an accurate understanding of your position, or do you think there may be some laws that are immoral enough in their impact on a particular person that they ought not to be complied with?

I have a second question, in order to understand your position: do you support this particular Arizona law? Given what it is, if you had to vote yes or no on it -- unchanged -- which way would you likely come down? Or would you abstain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'rule of law' as distinguished from the 'rule of men' discriminates between two sources of rules, not two sources of obedience. Laws are supposed to be justified, systematic, principled. Men are capricious, unpredictable and arbitrary. An arbitrary and unjustified law cannot properly claim to be an example of "rule of law".

The Arizona immigration enforcement law imports all of its arbitrariness and unjustness from the federal code. If the federal code could be reformed there would be nothing wrong with the Arizona law.

It is important to keep in mind that the federal government is failing in two respects. It fails to protect the rights of immigrants, and in its failure to enforce the immigration restrictions that exist it is itself eroding the rule of law and endangering people in the border states. The Arizona law addresses aspects of the second failure. The state of Arizona is in the position of having to choose between protecting the rights of its citizens and the rights of its residents. Either choice is wrong, but urgency has caused the state to act. I can't condemn Arizona when the alternative of doing nothing also permits rights to be violated and is equally bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify, apart from advocacy, do you think it is improper to actually break the law without advocating illegality? I assume you mean: don't break it and don't advocate breaking it; but, I'm trying to clarify your position to myself.

Generally speaking, yes. Though I would make exceptions in certain extreme cases.

Applying it to something which affects me, I would not attempt to evade income taxes even though doing so could significantly increase my standard of living. If they wanted 100% instead of 50%, and put me in a coal mine when I refused to work, I'd probably break any laws necessary and some that weren't in attempting to destroy them. And certainly recommend others do the same since the law, in that circumstance is not just deleterious but actually unbearable.

If yes, then are you saying that everyone living in a country where the government is not beyond repair should stick to the law, regardless of the impact that any particular law has on them? (Emergency situations and minor traffic infractions excepted)?

Yes. And of course excluding the breaking of the law by mistake because of a lack of understanding.

What you seem to be saying is that in such a country, there is no law that is serious enough to be broken.

In and of itself, yes I would say that that is a correct summation. Once it's beyond repair then I'd say break all the immoral laws that you can get your hands on.

Is that an accurate understanding of your position, or do you think there may be some laws that are immoral enough in their impact on a particular person that they ought not to be complied with?

I would say generally no, but that certain extreme disparities of treatment, such as slavery, would be severe enough that it would be warranted because of their impact on a particular person or group. In our current context I am not aware of anyone severely affected enough that I would view breaking the as the appropriate response. The worst injustice I see is the level of taxation that steals at least half of the lives of the productive to pay our new bureaucratic overclass elites. Its disgusting, but not so high that it is unbearable or impossible to accomplish some goals in spite of it and not so high anarchy would be more pleasant. So I suck it up and recommend everyone else does the same. Unless they're ready for the "revolution."

I have a second question, in order to understand your position: do you support this particular Arizona law? Given what it is, if you had to vote yes or no on it -- unchanged -- which way would you likely come down? Or would you abstain?

I would probably, out of political expediency vote for it, in the "you asked for it, brother," sense. I view the states as a significant check on federal power and this is sort of the "employee" trick where you do exactly what the boss man says. The federal government writes stupid rules and leaves the states there to clean up the mess, so I would see this as a rational act on the part of Arizona. It has the potential to bring the untenability of immigration laws to a head, which is a peaceful and reasoned way of affecting change at the federal level.

I don't see the civil rights violation aspect of it, since, as I understand it in laymen terms, it basically says if they have probable cause, like a missing drivers license or license plate, they must investigate and then enforce the law that is already there. Lots of Latinos live in Arizona legally so they can't run around arresting all them. Their court dockets couldn't handle it, so I have some faith that if it's passed they will only use the law when they do have actual legal probable cause. Also that a few examples of some cops being less careful or making a race based arrest will be all over the news every six months or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'rule of law' as distinguished from the 'rule of men' discriminates between two sources of rules, not two sources of obedience. Laws are supposed to be justified, systematic, principled. Men are capricious, unpredictable and arbitrary. An arbitrary and unjustified law cannot properly claim to be an example of "rule of law".

The UN definition:

"a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency"

It includes what your saying, but the aspect that is relevent is that it applies to all entities. The US does this reasonably well by comparison to most other countries so I am inclined to think that reasoning and philosophic change is the best way to attempt to correct our path and that civil disobedience or armed conflict are not yet necessary. Also, if someone decided that reason was not effective and wished to use civil disobedience as a political tool for ideological reasons, they must commit the act with the intention of getting caught. So in this circumstance, they should not be sneaking across in the middle of the night, but rather walking across in mass directly in front of border control to force them to arrest 20,000 people. That would be legitimate version of an ideological fight. As it is now, they're just breaking the law.

The Arizona immigration enforcement law imports all of its arbitrariness and unjustness from the federal code. If the federal code could be reformed there would be nothing wrong with the Arizona law.

...

ts of its citizens and the rights of its residents. Either choice is wrong, but urgency has caused the state to act. I can't condemn Arizona when the alternative of doing nothing also permits rights to be violated and is equally bad.

That's a good assessment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not for everyone else to accept, just for me. Which is what I said, very clearly. What you would like me to do, on the other hand, is let the state be the arbiter of truth, in a matter which does not pertain to the protection of rights.

Not the arbiter of truth. Just the enforcer of laws. You can take your truth and apply it with all the reason you can muster in the form of letters to your congressman. What you can't pretend to do is decide to break laws at your own whim and claim that you have some special pass based on your expert understanding of the spirit of the law. Even a lawyer or judge doesn't get that privileged.

Of course not. Immoral laws should be disregarded on principle. What anyone thinks should have nothing to do with it.

Ok, your playing semantic games now. How would they determine that a law violated a principle without thinking it? This is a lame attempt to avoid the fact that careful, reasonable, thoughtful people, even I and *gasp* you can make conceptual errors in application of principles, which is why the law is necessary as a check on the individual fallibility. I once spent three years singing, "rock me, on my days" before seeing the music video on mtv that convinced me it was, "rock me Amadeus." That ever happened to you? Been absolutely certain of something only to find out later you were mistaken? Happens to me all the time.

Why would it be an opinion? Is it or is it not immoral to discriminate between people, based on where they were born? Surely you have a yes or no answer to a simple yes or no question like that.

Holy loaded question, Batman! But surely I do-Yes, it is moral in some contexts. Security jobs for the military come to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is for Jake really, as I think this is a question that has be asked here to ascertain just where you stand.

Would you disagree with me saying that mass civil disobedience is an attack on the rule of law?

Edit: There was a quote in here too, but I quoted the wrong person B)

Edited by Markoso
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is for Jake really, as I think this is a question that has be asked here to ascertain just where you stand.

Would you disagree with me saying that mass civil disobedience is an attack on the rule of law?

Only if the laws being broken are connected to the protection of rights. If these people are breaking private store windows and burning people's cars, for instance. Then, of course, those people are rejecting the notion of rule of law, on principle. If there's enough of them, then that's an attack on the rule of law.

Otherwise, absolutely not. There have been quite a few revolutions against tyranny, and a few against mixed governments as well, around the world, even lately. Some of them peaceful, others violent, but the rule of law always survived. That's because they never challenged it, they only challenged the rule of their particular governments.

So even in such an extreme case, the rule of law is safe as long as men are civilized. I'm not doing anything close to that, I'm simply minding my own business, and encouraging everyone to mind theirs, irrespective of what some men who are using our government for illegitimate purposes want.

Not the arbiter of truth. Just the enforcer of laws. You can take your truth and apply it with all the reason you can muster in the form of letters to your congressman.

I believe this:

Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it—that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life—that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence.

So no, I won't be doing that. I already am independent, so there is no need to pointlessly beg a congressman who doesn't even believe in it, for independence.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then you don't believe that our government can be reasoned with?

Of course I don't. What is an example of someone reasoning with the current government (or with anyone initiating force as a matter of course)?

I do believe that the government can be changed though.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I don't. What is an example of someone reasoning with the current government (or with anyone initiating force as a matter of course)?

I do believe that the government can be changed though.

Altered by means of violence and/or civil disobedience, primarily?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Altered by means of violence and/or civil disobedience, primarily?

No. Elections. Are you trying to tell me that advocating for a free country and living morally in the meantime are mutually exclusive? That would be absurd.

And ignoring laws without publicly challenging the government isn't civil disobedience, it's only regular, private disobedience. That's what I'm doing, and I'm not doing it to change anyone's mind about anything. I'm not making a political statement, I'm just living my life.

I don't believe that civil disobedience or violence would change people's minds. Only advocacy would, which then will lead to elections changing the government. But I don't intend to try and convince the current political leadership, only people who can be convinced. And in the mean time, my life is most important to me, and I intend to make it as independent from irrational meddling as I possibly can.

Because the Health Care Bill situation was such a success, right?

I though it was a success, because the people opposing that Bill were never aiming to convince Obama or Dem representatives of their cause. They were trying to defeat them, in the public debate, and they did a stellar job. It was a humiliating, crushing defeat for the Obama camp, which delayed or wiped off the table pretty much everything else they were planning, and set up a real chance for even the Health Care Law to be repealed.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you trying to tell me that advocating for a free country and living morally in the meantime are mutually exclusive? That would be absurd.

Absolutely they are, when you are not in a free country. People make compromises with the law all day long and if they don't, they end up in jail or prison. It's only a matter of time.

Breaking certain laws, occasionally, is a game of Russian roulette where you are risking some number of days, months, or years of your life in the pursuit of your rational long-term self interest, so I hope the kronic, or whatever petty laws you're sticking it to the man over is worth it, yo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that Arizona is going to make a couple of amendments to their new immigration law.

The word "solely" will be deleted from: "A law enforcement official or agency … may not solely consider race, color or national origin"

And, "Any lawful contact" will be changed to "lawful stop, detention or arrest".

Both are good changes, unless one wants more illegals caught, or if one wants the unpalatable parts to get some court to throw the entire law.

Perhaps, Arizona should take page out of Pennsylvania's book and say that when a police officer legally arrests someone, he may also (on reasonable suspicion) ask to see if he has paid all his taxes right (perhaps by seeing if the Arizona treasury or the IRS want the guy). In fact, such a law would be better than what Pennsylvania is doing, because it would not go to all the tax-dodgers homes, but merely get the ones who are legally arrested. Who can be against that ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely they are, when you are not in a free country. People make compromises with the law all day long and if they don't, they end up in jail or prison. It's only a matter of time.

Breaking certain laws, occasionally, is a game of Russian roulette where you are risking some number of days, months, or years of your life in the pursuit of your rational long-term self interest, so I hope the kronic, or whatever petty laws you're sticking it to the man over is worth it, yo.

Don't worry about it. So you are finally conceding the point that I should be complying with bad laws out of fear, not principle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry about it. So you are finally conceding the point that I should be complying with bad laws out of fear, not principle?

Not an admission that fear, not principle, is the only factor; just pointing out that if you do not follow the law, out of principle or not, then there are serious consequences affecting your principle of self interested action, precisely because you put yourself into a state of war with the government and law abiding people, by making the irrational demand that any law, to be justified, must first be run by you. What you are advocating is a sort of Nietzschean ethic, where each individual, who is an uber mensch should not let themselves be held to "slave ethic" of obeying the law since you know better then professionals and elected individuals in the field.

I think that you view the law and its enforcement as being relevant only if you get caught. I view it as something which one should adhere to out of principle, in that, it is an admission that in dealing with your fellow man in a social context, an objective entity is required to arbitrate disputes on an individual or grand scale. So if I lose a court case in which I am certain justice was not served, it is still proper that I observe the ruling and perhaps appeal the case if unsatisfied, rather than seek vigilante justice.

Laws are the same in that they are precedent based rulings arbitrating conflicting desires and assumptions of all relevant parties. When they over step their bounds or act unjustly, as any human system will, appealing, through the supreme court for example, is a proper way to deal with an existence of injustice. Anything else is a rejection of reason or an admission that violence is the only tool left to us. This can be seen in the way the states attorney generals are suing over health care rather than raising militias or refusing to enforce the federal laws.

My argument is very simple. There are two fundamental ways to deal with other human beings. Reason or violence. Violence can become reasonably necessary, but when it is, it should be all out war, principled with declarations of your aims, intent and grievances. A revolution, in other words. I see no such consistency or principled intent in everyone doing whatever they (or jake or Rand, for that matter) thinks is morally correct. That is anarchy based on the same conceit and mistaken premises of the french revolution, and a not reasoned reworking of the power structure to be more conducive to human liberty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not an admission that fear, not principle, is the only factor; just pointing out that if you do not follow the law, out of principle or not, then there are serious consequences affecting your principle of self interested action, precisely because you put yourself into a state of war with the government and law abiding people, by making the irrational demand that any law, to be justified, must first be run by you.

Is that what I demanded? When?

What you are advocating is a sort of Nietzschean ethic, where each individual, who is an uber mensch should not let themselves be held to "slave ethic" of obeying the law since you know better then professionals and elected individuals in the field.

I do know better, and obeying fascist laws on principle is a slave ethic, your argument from intimidation not withstanding. Do you really think comparing me to Nietzsche is a logical argument?

My argument is very simple. There are two fundamental ways to deal with other human beings. Reason or violence.

Wrong. The two fundamental ways to deal with human beings are reason and force. Anti immigration laws are initiation of force, and fall into the latter category. Replacing force with violence of course removes that obvious fact from consideration, so that you can continue with rationalizing it away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that what I demanded? When?

I suppose you could read any of your posts on this thread and see it. Is this a polemic exercise for you? If you don't think a law is right, you don't see a need to follow it. Its been your main line of reasoning all along.

I do know better, and obeying fascist laws on principle is a slave ethic, your argument from intimidation not withstanding. Do you really think comparing me to Nietzsche is a logical argument?
I'd suggest rethinking Nietzsche in this regard. And it's not an argument from intimidation. We are dealing with the concepts of proper and improper uses of force. A relevant aspect of when to rebel is connected very much to the practicality of a given circumstance. Throwing your naked body on a line of bayonets, for example, would not be reasonable even if clones of Hitler and Stalin were holding all of the bayonets.

Wrong. The two fundamental ways to deal with human beings are reason and force. Anti immigration laws are initiation of force, and fall into the latter category. Replacing force with violence of course removes that obvious fact from consideration, so that you can continue with rationalizing it away.

I apologize for my sloppy semantics. 'Force' is fine if it helps accomplish some understanding. Can you rephrase the rest of that? I don't comprehend your meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose you could read any of your posts on this thread and see it. Is this a polemic exercise for you? If you don't think a law is right, you don't see a need to follow it. Its been your main line of reasoning all along.

No, that's your straw man. My reasoning is that objectively wrong laws should not be followed voluntarily.

Are you denying the existence of objectively right and objectively wrong laws?

I'd suggest rethinking Nietzsche in this regard.

I don't care what you suggest. I'm waiting for actual arguments, in which you explain why denying a job or a hotel room to an immigrant is moral.

"You sound like Nietzsche" is not such an argument, and I don't care if you think it is.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...