Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Illegal Immigration & Objectivism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

A group of GOP and Democrats have come up with a broad framework on immigration reform. If anyone is curious here is the 5 page document they released. It is a broad framework, with many details to be filled in. On the face of it, it would be a great improvement over today's system. Some GOP politicians and some Fox commentators are already critical of it. Hopefully, they will not hold sway, and the framework will move forward into a set of laws that legalizes most illegal immigrants, and encourage more immigration to the U.S.

I kinda like it. I do hope they carry through with the "encouraging legal immigration" part as well, instead of just letting the same problem build up again in another decade.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 374
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And like their other powers, their power to police the border must be kept limited by the proper function of that power. In this case, stopping poor Mexican immigrants because they are coming and tak

A group of GOP and Democrats have come up with a broad framework on immigration reform. If anyone is curious here is the 5 page document they released. It is a broad framework, with many details to be filled in. On the face of it, it would be a great improvement over today's system. Some GOP politicians and some Fox commentators are already critical of it. Hopefully, they will not hold sway, and the framework will move forward into a set of laws that legalizes most illegal immigrants, and encourage more immigration to the U.S.

From the linked document:

"III. Strong Employment Verification

We recognize that undocumented immigrants come to the United States almost exclusively for jobs. As such, dramatically reducing future illegal immigration can only be achieved by developing a tough, fair, effective and mandatory employment verification system. An employment verification system must hold employers accountable for knowingly hiring undocumented workers and make it more difficult for unauthorized immigrants to falsify documents to obtain employment. Employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers must face stiff fines and criminal penalties for egregious offenses."

The weakest part of illegal immigration reform has been holding US employers accountable for hiring undocumented workers. "Stiff fines" and "criminal penalties" sounds good, but "egregious offenses" probably means the threat of being held accountable will remain minimal, thus continuing to undermine any real change in the system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The weakest part of illegal immigration reform has been holding US employers accountable for hiring undocumented workers. "Stiff fines" and "criminal penalties" sounds good, but "egregious offenses" probably means the threat of being held accountable will remain minimal, thus continuing to undermine any real change in the system.
I agree with the underlying facts: i.e. the enforcement at the employer-level has been lax. If that is strengthened, it can cause illegal immigrants real problems. Yesterday, Tom Tancredo -- one of the GOP's xenophobic anti-immigrants -- was on TV suggesting that the employer-system should be enforced so vigorously that illegal immigrants are out of options and "self-deport". Again, I agree with the underlying facts.

However, the laxness of the current system is a good thing. It is one of the things that has allowed the bad immigration law to be circumvented. It is a good guess that any law that comes about will not loosen the verification further, but will tighten it, even if minimally. This would be a bad thing, but it could be worth it, if the rest of the law allows legalization of most current illegals and also encourages more new immigrants.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if you assume the government owns the entire country and everyone's property in it. Otherwise, if I want to invite foreigners to my property, it is forced exclusion against my and the foreigner's inviolate rights if you try to stop it.

Since the government is responsible for deterring or repelling invasions I would not object to them taking over management (if not ownership) of a strip of land around all the borders and littoral extents (i.e. the coast guard and navy get to which a 10 mile strip of water off our shores). Normal private owners are not in the military business and we have government which among other things operate our armies and navies.

Anything on the interior, of course, should be privately owned by individuals or voluntary associations of individuals except for certain facilities which are required for the government to carry out its rightful functions -- police, army and courthouses.

ruveyn1

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the underlying facts: i.e. the enforcement at the employer-level has been lax. If that is strengthened, it can cause illegal immigrants real problems. Yesterday, Tom Tancredo -- one of the GOP's xenophobic anti-immigrants -- was on TV suggesting that the employer-system should be enforced so vigorously that illegal immigrants are out of options and "self-deport". Again, I agree with the underlying facts.

The primary underlying fact is, as recognized by this report, illegal jobs create illegal immigration.

However, the laxness of the current system is a good thing. It is one of the things that has allowed the bad immigration law to be circumvented. It is a good guess that any law that comes about will not loosen the verification further, but will tighten it, even if minimally. This would be a bad thing, but it could be worth it, if the rest of the law allows legalization of most current illegals and also encourages more new immigrants.

I fail to see any good thing in the arbitrary enforcement of regulations that punish undocumented workers while ignoring the legal obligations of those employers who hire them. This is a two part equation that requires addressing both sides (employers and employees) in order to arrive at a solution. Until then, US policy will only continue to foster the creation of disposable employees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the government is responsible for deterring or repelling invasions I would not object to them taking over management (if not ownership) of a strip of land around all the borders and littoral extents (i.e. the coast guard and navy get to which a 10 mile strip of water off our shores). Normal private owners are not in the military business and we have government which among other things operate our armies and navies.

Anything on the interior, of course, should be privately owned by individuals or voluntary associations of individuals except for certain facilities which are required for the government to carry out its rightful functions -- police, army and courthouses.

ruveyn1

So to keep invited immigrants from voluntarily coming across property where they are invited by private owners, the government should nationalize (steal) the land from these owners around the borders (and assuming also other ports of entry) and forcibly keep peaceful, invited immigrants from crossing? How is this in any stretch of the imagination compatible with the non-initiation of force? That's like saying, since the governments job is repelling trespassers (invasion) the government should nationalize a ring around my property and keep my neighbor, whom I invited over for lunch, out of my property. All because some other person on some other third-party property doesn't like who I invite.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The primary underlying fact is, as recognized by this report, illegal jobs create illegal immigration.
Yes. Do you also agree that the primary problem is not the illegal immigration or the illegal jobs, but the underlying law that makes it illegal? If you disagree, then we might be talking across each other. Illegal immigration is quite like illegal drugs. The first and foremost solution has to be: legalization.

I fail to see any good thing in the arbitrary enforcement of regulations that punish undocumented workers while ignoring the legal obligations of those employers who hire them. This is a two part equation that requires addressing both sides (employers and employees) in order to arrive at a solution. Until then, US policy will only continue to foster the creation of disposable employees.

Arbitrary enforcement is bad, and so is a situation where illegality is winked at. The rule of law is a good thing. Yet, it is not a primary. Can we agree that the ideal solution is to fully legalize the majority of immigration and to allow much more legal immigration in the future?
Link to post
Share on other sites

So to keep invited immigrants from voluntarily coming across property where they are invited by private owners,

Suppose those -invited- guests are invited by the members of a Jihadi sleeper cell?

We live in a warring world and military security has a certain degree of priority in certain circumstances.

Anyway, think about it.

ruveyn1

Link to post
Share on other sites
Suppose those -invited- guests are invited by the members of a Jihadi sleeper cell?
First you use the term invasion to describe illegal immigration. This is a misuse of the term since an invasion would imply that at least a significant number of these illegals are coming here to steal or plunder. Now, you are backing down to the possibility that a tiny number among those millions may want to harm the U.S. Well, it is not that difficult to come to the U.S. legally on a short-visit visa: it is what the 911 hijackers did. Also, legalizing people who can show they've lived in the U.S for a few years and have been working here illegally has nothing to do with terrorism.

The correct approach to terrorists sneaking across the border is to ensure that we make it easy and legal for people who want to come to work here to do so. The only people who will need to sneak across the border in that situation would be people who think they would be rejected by the screening: mostly those who have committed crimes in the U.S. and have been deported. Also, any tiny number of terrorists who think they might be screened out if they try to come here legally. In a scenario like that, patrolling and controlling the border will be far safer, because people will no longer make the completely justified assumption that people sneaking in are most likely just trying to find a better job. Legalization is the route to safety.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Do you also agree that the primary problem is not the illegal immigration or the illegal jobs, but the underlying law that makes it illegal? If you disagree, then we might be talking across each other. Illegal immigration is quite like illegal drugs. The first and foremost solution has to be: legalization.

If the legitimacy of the law cannot be maintained then the law ought to be repealed. The means for accomplishing that is to challenge the law in court, not to circumvent the law and go unpunished. Undocumented workers are simply looking for work. Those who employ them do so in order to gain cheap laborers without meeting their legal obligation to pay minimum wages, taxes, etc., thereby gaining an illegitimate advantage over employers who obey the law. In that respect I consider those who provide illegal jobs to be the primary offenders of illegal immigration because they do not seek to change the law, only to profit from ignoring it.

Arbitrary enforcement is bad, and so is a situation where illegality is winked at. The rule of law is a good thing. Yet, it is not a primary. Can we agree that the ideal solution is to fully legalize the majority of immigration and to allow much more legal immigration in the future?

We can agree that whatever law is in place needs to be obeyed or challenged in court, but I can't agree that the best way to avoid criminal behavior is to legalize it. Business law and immigration policy are valid concerns that merit real solutions which maintain the integrity of law by rewarding those who behave legitimately over those who behave illicitly. I came across a quote recently that represents my opinion on the appropriate way to challenge bad law: "Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly." ~ Dalai Lama

That being said, of course I agree that immigration is primarily a benefit to our country. I have observed that those who arrived here legitimately are generally the harshest critics of illegal immigrants; have you?? When one goes to the effort to gain a value like citizenship through legitimate means, it's understandable that one might resent that value being offered to those who didn't as though to reward their lack of effort.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to post
Share on other sites
That being said, of course I agree that immigration is primarily a benefit to our country. I have observed that those who arrived here legitimately are generally the harshest critics of illegal immigrants; have you?? When one goes to the effort to gain a value like citizenship through legitimate means, it's understandable that one might resent that value being offered to those who didn't as though to reward their lack of effort.
I am an immigrant, and I know lots of immigrants. As a rule, as a group, these legal immigrants do not resent illegals. There are a few who do, but many of these also want less legal immigration too: not a motivation of justice. I assume there must be some legal immigrants who think legal immigration should be increased while also resenting illegals, but I know none, among my immigrant acquaintances. Everyone who talks to me about such unfairness is natural born and does not understand U.S. immigration law. The key thing such people do not realize is that the issue is not about some people coming legally and other cutting the line. Rather it is about the law allowing some people to come in easily, having different-length lines for different people, and virtually disallowing some from coming in at all. legal immigrants are much more familiar with the laws. The guy who came in on an H-1B work permit and then got a green card understands that his Mexican gardener did not break his line: he was never allowed in that line in the first place.

The immigration process is not straightforward, but most people who are allowed to join some type of line, do so, because following the process is far better than living illegally. The ones who come in illegally do so primarily because they are shut out by the legal process -- sometimes there is a legal process that covers them, but they would have to wait for decades ... by which time, the whole point of immigration will be undermined.

Those who employ them do so in order to gain cheap laborers without meeting their legal obligation to pay minimum wages, taxes, etc., thereby gaining an illegitimate advantage over employers who obey the law.
I hope you also agree that laws like minimum-wage and lots of labor law is also not legitimate and ought to be scrapped. I think it is a good thing that some people are able to get around the minimum-wage laws.

If the legitimacy of the law cannot be maintained then the law ought to be repealed. The means for accomplishing that is to challenge the law in court, not to circumvent the law and go unpunished. ...

We can agree that whatever law is in place needs to be obeyed or challenged in court, but I can't agree that the best way to avoid criminal behavior is to legalize it. Business law and immigration policy are valid concerns that merit real solutions which maintain the integrity of law by rewarding those who behave legitimately over those who behave illicitly.

I'm not arguing that the best way to avoid criminal behavior is to legalize it. That would be too general...and false. The first question is: is the law infringing on someone's rights. If people are stealing, we should not make stealing legal. However, if people are smoking marijuana, the problem is with the law. If people want to hire prostitutes, the problem is with the law. If people want to hire low-paid Mexicans, the problem is with the law.

The south once had laws against blacks marrying whites. If a mixed couple were in love and wanted to marry, we can argue that the law ought to be repealed. However, if they think they can get away with their relationship and not be caught, would we say they were acting immorally?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am an immigrant, and I know lots of immigrants. As a rule, as a group, these legal immigrants do not resent illegals. There are a few who do, but many of these also want less legal immigration too: not a motivation of justice. I assume there must be some legal immigrants who think legal immigration should be increased while also resenting illegals, but I know none, among my immigrant acquaintances. Everyone who talks to me about such unfairness is natural born and does not understand U.S. immigration law. The key thing such people do not realize is that the issue is not about some people coming legally and other cutting the line. Rather it is about the law allowing some people to come in easily, having different-length lines for different people, and virtually disallowing some from coming in at all. legal immigrants are much more familiar with the laws. The guy who came in on an H-1B work permit and then got a green card understands that his Mexican gardener did not break his line: he was never allowed in that line in the first place.

The immigration process is not straightforward, but most people who are allowed to join some type of line, do so, because following the process is far better than living illegally. The ones who come in illegally do so primarily because they are shut out by the legal process -- sometimes there is a legal process that covers them, but they would have to wait for decades ... by which time, the whole point of immigration will be undermined.

We are all immigrants, or the descendents of immigrants. The resentment I spoke of is for the gifting of unearned values. Whatever the current process of immigration is, the choice remains to behave legitimately or illegitimately. However bad the process of immigration is, rewarding illegitimate behavior only makes that process worse.

I hope you also agree that laws like minimum-wage and lots of labor law is also not legitimate and ought to be scrapped. I think it is a good thing that some people are able to get around the minimum-wage laws.

Once enacted all law is legitimate by definition until challenged in court and repealed. If a particular law ought to be scrapped, it needs to be done in a way that doesn't undermine the entire legal system. It certainly isn't a good thing to reward illicit behavior by allowing criminals to get around whatever law they choose to ignore.

I'm not arguing that the best way to avoid criminal behavior is to legalize it. That would be too general...and false. The first question is: is the law infringing on someone's rights. If people are stealing, we should not make stealing legal. However, if people are smoking marijuana, the problem is with the law. If people want to hire prostitutes, the problem is with the law. If people want to hire low-paid Mexicans, the problem is with the law.

If there is a problem with the law it needs to be challenged in court. That is the venue for determining infringement on someone's rights.

The south once had laws against blacks marrying whites. If a mixed couple were in love and wanted to marry, we can argue that the law ought to be repealed. However, if they think they can get away with their relationship and not be caught, would we say they were acting immorally?

No, but they would be acting illegally. Morality and legitimacy are often in conflict, but neither is improved by allowing bad law to go unchallenged. Employers of undocumented workers profit with impunity at the legal jeopardy of their employees, and without any desire to challenge immigration law in court because they would lose their advantage over employers who obey the law. Would you say they are acting morally?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a problem with the law it needs to be challenged in court.
My problem is that almost everyone who says this also does not want to change the law. I'm not speaking of you here, but almost every commentator who stresses the "legality" aspect is a hypocrite who is using that as an excuse and who fully intends to fight against any change in the law. This is like a southern slave holder saying that slaves should not flee, but should try to abolish slavery peacefully. Why? How is this the moral thing to do?
Link to post
Share on other sites

First you use the term invasion to describe illegal immigration. This is a misuse of the term since an invasion would imply that at least a significant number of these illegals are coming here to steal or plunder. Now, you are backing down to the possibility that a tiny number among those millions may want to harm the U.S. Well, it is not that difficult to come to the U.S. legally on a short-visit visa: it is what the 911 hijackers did. Also, legalizing people who can show they've lived in the U.S for a few years and have been working here illegally has nothing to do with terrorism.

The correct approach to terrorists sneaking across the border is to ensure that we make it easy and legal for people who want to come to work here to do so. The only people who will need to sneak across the border in that situation would be people who think they would be rejected by the screening: mostly those who have committed crimes in the U.S. and have been deported. Also, any tiny number of terrorists who think they might be screened out if they try to come here legally. In a scenario like that, patrolling and controlling the border will be far safer, because people will no longer make the completely justified assumption that people sneaking in are most likely just trying to find a better job. Legalization is the route to safety.

The point I am making is the government has to control who comes over our borders. It is part of their function of national defense.

As to the other "illegals" what assurance do we have they are not carrying some kind of dreadful contagious disease, like Ebola.

To guard the health of the national all incoming persons should come through a controlled portal so their health can be checked.

In the Old Days when zillions of immigrants came into New York by way of Ellis Island, they were checked for symptoms of leprosy, tuberculosis and small pox. If there was any doubt they were quarantined for 6 weeks on Ellis Island. If they showed frank symptoms of a communicable disease they were sent back on the next returning boat.

ruveyn1

Link to post
Share on other sites
The point I am making is the government has to control who comes over our borders. It is part of their function of national defense.
Yes, and they have done a terrible job at it, because of the voters who want to restrict the number of immigrants on all sorts of irrational and immoral grounds. Remove those restrictions, and keep only rational checks and things will be just fine.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I am making is the government has to control who comes over our borders. It is part of their function of national defense.

And like their other powers, their power to police the border must be kept limited by the proper function of that power. In this case, stopping poor Mexican immigrants because they are coming and taking our jobs is an abuse of the government's control of the border, much like locking up nonviolent drug offenders is an abuse of the government's legitimate power to imprison criminals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem is that almost everyone who says this also does not want to change the law. I'm not speaking of you here, but almost every commentator who stresses the "legality" aspect is a hypocrite who is using that as an excuse and who fully intends to fight against any change in the law. This is like a southern slave holder saying that slaves should not flee, but should try to abolish slavery peacefully. Why? How is this the moral thing to do?

I'm not sure that the slavery issue is appropriate to the discussion of illegal immigration, with the possible exception that in terms of work forces, plantation owners and employers of undocumented workers are similarly financially invested in maintaining laws which work to their advantage at the expense of those whose labor they depend on. My primary concern is with properly identifying the cause of illegal immigration which is the employment of undocumented workers, and not the workers themselves. These employers aren't acting with civil disobedience, which AR correctly points out is only justified when disobedience of law is done for the purpose of challenging that law in court. These employers simply profit illegitimately from the avoidance of the same laws that work to the disadvantage of their workforce.

The report you posted identifies the cause but states that only "egregious" offenses should be prosecuted, which makes me question the sincerity of those who propose immigration reform at this time.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to post
Share on other sites
... ... My primary concern is with properly identifying the cause of illegal immigration ... ...
My primary concern is to change the bad law that makes the rational pursuit of one's happiness a crime.

The report you posted identifies the cause but states that only "egregious" offenses should be prosecuted, which makes me question the sincerity of those who propose immigration reform at this time.
The essential feature of their proposal is that it changes the law to decriminalize some activity that should never have been criminal in the first place, and increases the legal opportunities for the future.

Morally, voters should apologize to all the illegal immigrants whose pursuit of life, wealth and happiness has been criminalized for too long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The report you posted identifies the cause but states that only "egregious" offenses should be prosecuted, which makes me question the sincerity of those who propose immigration reform at this time.

Well sure, the only reason that this is happening is that Republicans lost so heavily with Latinos this past cycle, and they want to win elections in the future. Still, many people who are spearheading the effort are sincerely and intensely passionate about it. For example, here is Republican Senator Marco Rubio talking about immigration in June of last year, and his personal connection to the issue: http://www.thedailys...12/marco-rubio

I would characterize people like Rubio as having been in the right place at the right time politically. He is someone who has previously attempted (in vain) to get work done on immigration, and now all of a sudden (due to the recent election), his party is willing to listen. He has the credentials of having worked on the issue before it was popular with his party (credentials he deserves), and now he has the chance to get something done on it. I'm very optimistic about this immigration reform effort and the prospects for at least making our immigration system less dysfunctional and more immigration-friendly.

Edited by Dante
Link to post
Share on other sites

Morally, voters should apologize to all the illegal immigrants whose pursuit of life, wealth and happiness has been criminalized for too long.

Should voters offer reparations to all the legal immigrants whose legitimate pursuit of life, wealth and happiness was unnecessarily prolonged?

Just sayin'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well sure, the only reason that this is happening is that Republicans lost so heavily with Latinos this past cycle, and they want to win elections in the future. Still, many people who are spearheading the effort are sincerely and intensely passionate about it. For example, here is Republican Senator Marco Rubio talking about immigration in June of last year, and his personal connection to the issue: http://www.thedailys...12/marco-rubio

I would characterize people like Rubio as having been in the right place at the right time politically. He is someone who has previously attempted (in vain) to get work done on immigration, and now all of a sudden (due to the recent election), his party is willing to listen. He has the credentials of having worked on the issue before it was popular with his party (credentials he deserves), and now he has the chance to get something done on it. I'm very optimistic about this immigration reform effort and the prospects for at least making our immigration system less dysfunctional and more immigration-friendly.

We can presume that if the immigration system were operating swiftly and intelligently, undocumented workers as legal immigrants would quit the farm for better jobs with benefits, causing agricultural costs to rise significantly in order to fill all those positions that legal immigrants (as American workers) aren't interested in doing. Personally I'm prepared to pay more for food that's grown by hard working individuals who aren't threatened by deportation in order to keep their wages low. I just don't see all those who are currently cashing in on the status quo being very motivated to change it, other than by paying lip service to this issue.

Time will tell.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to post
Share on other sites

We can presume that if the immigration system were operating swiftly and intelligently, undocumented workers as legal immigrants would quit the farm for better jobs with benefits, causing agricultural costs to rise significantly in order to fill all those positions that legal immigrants (as American workers) aren't interested in doing. Personally I'm prepared to pay more for food that's grown by hard working individuals who aren't threatened by deportation in order to keep their wages low. I just don't see all those who are currently cashing in on the status quo being very motivated to change it, other than by paying lip service to this issue.

Time will tell.

The point is that many people who were "cashing in" on this issue politically are beginning to think that doing so is actually a losing strategy now, with the shifting demographics of the country. Also, consumers who might have to pay higher food prices are not a political group with any clout. It's a classic example of a large group where the costs are diffused, and thus no one individual has the incentive to get politically active over, say, an extra 50 cents on some food products. This is precisely the reason that agricultural subsidies (which have been keeping food prices artificially high for decades) are so entrenched; the people hurt by the policies are a massive group, with the costs diffused among them, while the people who benefit (the farm lobby) enjoy concentrated benefits. Thus, the lobbying over agricultural subsidies is a bit one-sided, and they easily persist. I fail to see why rising food prices would be a problem for immigration reformers when they clearly aren't for the farm lobby.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that many people who were "cashing in" on this issue politically are beginning to think that doing so is actually a losing strategy now, with the shifting demographics of the country. Also, consumers who might have to pay higher food prices are not a political group with any clout. It's a classic example of a large group where the costs are diffused, and thus no one individual has the incentive to get politically active over, say, an extra 50 cents on some food products. This is precisely the reason that agricultural subsidies (which have been keeping food prices artificially high for decades) are so entrenched; the people hurt by the policies are a massive group, with the costs diffused among them, while the people who benefit (the farm lobby) enjoy concentrated benefits. Thus, the lobbying over agricultural subsidies is a bit one-sided, and they easily persist. I fail to see why rising food prices would be a problem for immigration reformers when they clearly aren't for the farm lobby.

I am having trouble reasoning why farm subsidies keep the food prices artificially high. Is it because (putting aside the effects of import and production controls) they keep smaller farmers out of business and enable farmers to not have to worry about lowering costs/more efficient methods of production?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of these subsidies are actually direct price supports which hold up prices in a straightforward way, such as in the U.S. sugar industry. A direct subsidy, however, doesn't directly increase the price paid. A direct subsidy decreases the production cost that the producer faces; he responds by increasing production, and quantity rises and the market price falls. However, now the market price no longer reflects the actual cost to produce the good. Because production has increased, marginal cost has increased while price has decreased; the difference is the subsidy, being footed by the taxpayer. As a whole, we're paying more for the good than we'd be willing to on a free market.

However, I was being imprecise in limiting this to simple subsidies; I also have in mind the kind of import controls that you reference. In actuality, many different forms of regulation are used to shift costs from farmers onto either customers or taxpayers (basically the same group). They can get away with it because the average consumer or taxpayer has very little to gain from repealing these laws, and therefore no one lobbies against them.

Link to post
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...