View Poll Results: Most Effective Way to Deal With Illegal Immigrant Already in the US ? ?

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • Provide a way for them to gain citizenship

    11 15.94%
  • Provide Amensty

    0 0%
  • Put them on on bus/plane/train back HOME

    54 78.26%
  • Don't know - Don't care

    4 5.80%
Page 3 of 6 First 123456 Last
  1. #23
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts


    Gives a new perspective on "closing the border"...I would like to see us declare the southern border closed as a war zone and populate with national guard...oops, sorry illegal immigrants, stay away from the war....
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement New "Immigration Bill" Poll
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #24
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    January 30, 2013 12:00 P.M.
    A Pointless Amnesty
    By The Editors

    Illegal immigration is a curious subject: It is one of the few domains in which the authorities entrusted with enforcing the law feel obliged to negotiate the most concessionary terms and conditions with those who are breaking it, as though law enforcement were an embarrassing inconvenience. But the rule of law, national security, and economic dynamism are not mere pro forma matters — they are in fact fundamental, a reality lost on our would-be “comprehensive” immigration reformers.

    There are several new immigration proposals in the political pipeline: one from President Obama, one from a bipartisan group in the Senate, and one from a bipartisan group in the House. Each of the proposals contains an amnesty for the dozen million or so illegals already in the country, and none of them contains adequate security provisions. Panicked Republicans are looking for a grand bargain, but they are wrong on both the politics and the policy. Piecemeal reform emphasizing empirical security benchmarks is a far better option.

    The terms of the amnesty vary in the different proposals, but is far from obvious that there should be a “path to citizenship” on any terms for illegals at this time. Whether it is desirable to regularize the status of those illegals already here, and on what terms such a regularization might be offered, are questions that can be answered only when the immigration system is under control. That is a matter of political prudence — the experience of the 1980s amnesty suggests that it is easier to offer an amnesty than to secure the border — but also of context: Reviewing and processing the millions of illegals already here would be a vast administrative task, and we will not know how to go about managing it intelligently until we see what the environment looks like after illegal immigration is under control.

    Why an amnesty now? Maybe it is only the polls. John McCain, a principal instigator of the Senate group, has made his motives clear: “Elections, elections — the Republican party is losing the support of Hispanic citizens.” His plan apparently is to develop a bipartisan approach to helping Republicans win elections; perhaps Chuck Schumer imagines other outcomes. Senator McCain has not said why he believes that the interests of Hispanic citizens are to be identified with those of non-citizens, why those interests should trump the interests of citizens (including Hispanic citizens) harmed by the lawlessness of our borders, or why a senator with an established record for supporting amnesty could not muster one in three votes from those Hispanic citizens.

    Republican immigration reformers with an eye to political reality should begin by appreciating that Latinos are a Democratic constituency. They did not vote for Mitt Romney. They did not vote for John McCain. They did not vote for George W. Bush, and in the election before that they did not vote for George W. Bush again. In 1998, George W. Bush was reelected to the governorship of Texas with 27 percent of the African-American vote — an astonishing number for an unabashed conservative. Bush won 68 percent of the overall vote in that election, carrying 240 out of Texas’s 254 counties. Hispanics voted overwhelmingly for Democrat Gary Mauro.

    And, if we are to take Hispanics at their word, conservative attitudes toward illegal immigration are a minor reason for their voting preferences. While many are in business for themselves, they express hostile attitudes toward free enterprise in polls. They are disproportionately low-income and disproportionately likely to receive some form of government support. More than half of Hispanic births are out of wedlock. Take away the Spanish surname and Latino voters look a great deal like many other Democratic constituencies. Low-income households headed by single mothers and dependent upon some form of welfare are not looking for an excuse to join forces with Paul Ryan and Pat Toomey. Given the growing size of the Hispanic vote, it would help Republicans significantly to lose it by smaller margins than they have recently. But the idea that an amnesty is going to put Latinos squarely in the GOP tent is a fantasy.

    No immigration reform deserving the name is possible without first enforcing the law at the border and at the workplace. Conveniently for Republicans, doing so is very popular — two out of three voters support building a border fence. Indeed, even Senator McCain has been known to utter the words “build the danged fence.” There is no reason, political or substantive, for failing to do so. Securing the border is more popular in the polls than is amnesty, even in the Associated Press poll that carefully omits the word “amnesty.”

    About that word. Call it “regularization,” call it a “path to citizenship,” it amounts to precisely the same thing: a decision to set aside the law and to ignore its violation. And therein lies a problem for so-called comprehensive reform: Normalizing the status of the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country, either in toto or in part, would require the development and application of standards for doing so, whether those are relatively narrow (as in the DREAM Act and similar proposals) or broad. Unless we mean to legalize every illegal in the country — including violent felons, gang members, cartel henchmen, and the like — there will be of necessity a system for sorting them out. It is difficult to believe that the same government that failed to enforce the law in the first place will be very scrupulous about standards as it goes about dealing with the consequences of its own incompetence.

    It is for that reason that broader reform measures must wait until credible enforcement mechanisms are in place. Those mechanisms include, at a minimum, a physically secured border and mandatory universal use of the E-Verify system, which confirms the legal status of new hires. We agree with Senator Rubio’s view that “we can’t be the only nation in the world that does not enforce its immigration laws. . . . Modernization of the legal immigration system is impossible unless we first secure the border and implement an E-Verify system.” We very much doubt that Senator Rubio will achieve meaningful border security in cooperation with Senators Schumer, Durbin, Menendez, and Bennet. The less-of-the-same version being developed in the House with the support of John Boehner and Paul Ryan almost certainly will suffer from similar defects, since it appears to be based on the same premises. And the other party in this negotiation, President Obama, is even less likely to place enforcement at the center of his immigration agenda; the president has nominally endorsed the Senate reform principles, but the White House already has signaled that it intends to oppose Rubio’s proposal that any amnesty be delayed until the security of the border has been verified.

    Rather than getting their heads handed to them in yet another grand bargain, Republicans should push for piecemeal reform through focused, narrow legislation. Senator Rubio’s security measures would be a good place to start. Mandatory and universal use of E-Verify, together with improvements in the program, should have been legislated years ago. We should create a technological system for monitoring and preventing visa overstays, the source of 40 percent of our illegal immigration, to say nothing of the 9/11 plotters — although Congress has already mandated it six separate times in the past 17 years, and it’s still not done. Likewise, Congress passed a law in 2006 mandating that a double-layer border fence be completed; it has not. Which is to say, the executive branch is no more in compliance with the law than the illegals themselves. Congress should demand that the fence be completed in accordance with the law. Other reforms, such as making economic skills rather than the reunification of extended families the main criterion for legal immigration, also deserve consideration. But rather than achieve that, both the president’s program and Rubio’s would expand “guest worker” provisions, as though there were an acute shortage of low-skilled labor in the United States.

    Senator Rubio argues that a grand bargain is necessary because an enforcement-only bill could not pass the Senate, while an amnesty-only deal would not pass the House. But he is drawing the wrong conclusion from that stalemate: The better course of action is to fight for sensible enforcement provisions right now and let Democrats explain to an anxious electorate why they insist on holding enforcement of the law hostage to an immediate amnesty. And no grand bargain will take immigration off the table as a political issue: Liberals can always argue for weaker enforcement provisions in the future, easier pathways to legal residency and citizenship, and the like.

    Senator Rubio, an exemplary conservative leader, is correct that our immigration system is broken. And he is correct that, at some point, we are going to have to do something about the millions of illegals already here. But he is wrong about how to go about repairing our immigration system, and wrong to think that an amnesty-and-enforcement bill at this time will end up being anything other than the unbuttered side of a half-a-loaf deal. And there is no reason to make a bad deal for fear of losing a Latino vote Republicans never had.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...y-editors?pg=2
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #25
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    USA Trying to Deport Christian Homeschooling Family Knowing They Face Persecution
    February 16, 2013



    Uwe and Hannelore Romeike are Christians and the parents of six children. When their kids attended the German public schools, they were bullied and harassed because of being Christians. The parents began looking into the schools and what their kids were being taught. They found a number of objectionable and inappropriate things in the textbooks that they didn’t want their kids learning.

    They strongly believed that their children would receive a better education grounded in biblical principles by being schooled at home rather than having their children indoctrinated by the German schools. Uwe said:
    “We knew that homeschooling would not be an easy journey.”
    However, the German government had made homeschooling illegal and actively pursued Christian families who tried to homeschool their children. In 2008, the Romeike family was ripped apart when government officials stepped in and forcibly removed the kids from the home. The parents were fined thousands of euros.

    Their only hope was to seek political asylum in a country that allowed Christians to homeschool, so they applied to the US for asylum. A US immigration judge ruled in 2010 that the family did face persecution from the German government and granted the Romeike family political asylum. The family moved and settled in Tennessee.

    Remember at last month when President Obama issued his Religious Freedom Day proclamation? He said:

    “Today, we also remember that religious liberty is not just an American right; it is a universal human right to be protected here at home and across the globe. This freedom is an essential part of human dignity, and without it our world cannot know lasting peace.”

    “As we observe Religious Freedom Day, let us remember the legacy of faith and independence we have inherited, and let us honor it by forever upholding our right to exercise our beliefs free from prejudice or persecution…”
    Here’s how he lives up to his statement.

    US Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Homeland Security are fighting the political asylum status. Holder claims that the family’s fundamental rights have not been violated by Germany’s law forbidding families from homeschooling. They have asked the courts to withdraw the family’s political asylum and have them deported back to Germany.

    The Home School legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is representing the Romeikes family and fighting to have them stay in the US. They say that:
    “The U.S. law of asylum allows a refugee to stay in the United States permanently if he can show that he is being persecuted for one of several specific reasons. Among these are persecution for religious reasons and persecution of a ‘particular social group.’”

    “In most asylum cases, there is some guesswork necessary to figure out the government’s true motive—but not in this case. The Supreme Court of Germany declared that the purpose of the German ban on homeschooling was to ‘counteract the development of religious and philosophically motivated parallel societies.’”

    “This sounds elegant, perhaps, but at its core it is a frightening concept. This means that the German government wants to prohibit people who think differently from the government (on religious or philosophical grounds) from growing and developing into a force in society.”

    “The Romeikes’ case is before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The case for the government is officially in the name of the Attorney General of the United States. The case is called Romeike v. Holder. Thus, the brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice is filed on behalf of the attorney general himself—although we can be reasonably certain he has not personally read it. Nonetheless, it is a statement of the position of our government at a very high level.”

    “We argued that Germany is a party to many human rights treaties that contain specific provisions that protect the right of parents to provide an education that is different from the government schools. Parents have the explicit right to give their children an education according to their own philosophy.”

    “While the United States government argued many things in their brief, there are three specific arguments that you should know about.”

    “First, they argued that there was no violation of anyone’s protected rights in a law that entirely bans homeschooling. There would only be a problem if Germany banned homeschooling for some but permitted it for others.”

    “A second argument is revealing. The U.S. government contended that the Romeikes’ case failed to show that there was any discrimination based on religion because, among other reasons, the Romeikes did not prove that all homeschoolers were religious, and that not all Christians believed they had to homeschool.”

    “This argument demonstrates another form of dangerous “group think” by our own government. The central problem here is that the U.S. government does not understand that religious freedom is an individual right. One need not be a part of any church or other religious group to be able to make a religious freedom claim. Specifically, one doesn’t have to follow the dictates of a church to claim religious freedom—one should be able to follow the dictates of God Himself.”

    “One final argument from Romeikes deserves our attention. One of the grounds for asylum is if persecution is aimed at a “particular social group.” The definition of a “particular social group” requires a showing of an “immutable” characteristic that cannot change or should not be required to be changed. We contend that German homeschoolers are a particular social group who are being persecuted by their government.”
    If they are returned to Germany, the couple could be facing more large fines, jail time and the loss of their children. If this is not a violation of the family’s fundamental rights, then I don’t know what is. Perhaps more importantly to all homeschoolers in America is that if Holder wins this case, there is the possibility that it could serve as a legal precedent for Obama’s efforts to outlaw homeschooling here in the US.

    What gets me really hot under the collar on this case is that Holder and the DHS are allowing nearly a million illegal aliens to remain in the US, still illegally, while trying to deport a family who only wants to homeschool their children. When Obama penned that proclamation last month, he was lying out both sides of his mouth and had no intention of doing anything for any Christian. He’ll leap tall buildings to defend the rights of Muslim and gays, but he’ll turn his back and walk away from Christians. The hypocrisy of the Obama administration is enough to make me want to vomit.

    http://mariomurilloministries.wordpr...e-persecution/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  5. #26
    pepperpot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    exactly where I should be...
    Posts
    8,566
    Thanks
    4,402
    Thanked 3,793 Times in 2,027 Posts
    So they legally try to come here, are granted political asylum and then are being deported? Why? Did they commit a crime here? Meanwhile, others sneak in during the night, earn untaxed dollars that they send out of the country, use our "government entitlements" and services to the max and they are allowed to stay? Actually encouraged and welcomed with open arms? WTF?
    Mrs Pepperpot is a lady who always copes with the tricky situations that she finds herself in....

  6. #27
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pepperpot View Post
    So they legally try to come here, are granted political asylum and then are being deported? Why? Did they commit a crime here? Meanwhile, others sneak in during the night, earn untaxed dollars that they send out of the country, use our "government entitlements" and services to the max and they are allowed to stay? Actually encouraged and welcomed with open arms? WTF?
    They followed the law and honored the system ...

    ... so they applied to the US for asylum. A US immigration judge ruled in 2010 that the family did face persecution from the German government and granted the Romeike family political asylum. The family moved and settled in Tennessee.

    So we are going to deport someone who DID follow the law but grant amensty to those who defy the law WTH ??
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  7. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,400
    Thanks
    849
    Thanked 444 Times in 312 Posts
    The following article is about a large heroin bust with the arrest of 5 men living in the city of peekskill (very small city) where 4 of the 5 could very well be in this country illegally. They were not just passing thru the city but actually living there. If Obama had his way it appears that those 4 men would be allowed to live here legally along with their families. if they are convicted, the taxpayers would have to support them and their families while they spend years behind bars for selling a drug that is killing American citizens. Here is an example of people who have committed at least one crime (being here illegally) and then committing another crime (heroine sales) and we have people in our government who want to reward them by granting them green cards and possible citizenship. Outrageous!

    http://www.lohud.com/article/2013021...nclick_check=1
    5 Peekskill men arrested, $1.5M in heroin seized
    PEEKSKILL — Police and federal agents arrested five Peekskill men after seizing 3 kilograms of heroin with an estimated street value in excess of $1.5 million, authorities said Friday.

    The bust, one of the largest heroin seizures in the region in recent years, comes amid a crackdown on the heroin trade following several overdose deaths in the Lower Hudson Valley.

    The U.S. Department of Homeland Security alerted local authorities of the operation about a week ago. Peekskill and Westchester County police worked with the feds to make the arrests and confiscate the drugs at a Peekskill home.

    “Ultimately, the heroin was delivered to these individuals, and they were arrested,” Peekskill Acting Police Chief Eric Johansen said.

    Though the heroin was delivered to Peekskill, it’s likely the narcotics would have worked their way throughout the northern suburbs of Westchester County and into Putnam County as well.

    “This arrest goes a long way in putting a major dent in the heroin pipeline in this county,” Johansen said. “We’re pleased to get this off the street.”

    Elias Diaz Vargas, 39, and Ruben Contreras, 38, are charged with first-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, which carries a prison sentence of up to 25 years to life. They are being held without bond.

    Charged with second-degree criminal facilitation are Nestor Figueira-Ramirez, 41; Urias Portillo Espinoza, 22; and Freddy Garcia, 27. They are being held on $100,000 bonds.

    All were arrested Wednesday and arraigned in City Court on Thursday.

    Federal immigration detainers have been placed on four of the men on suspicion they may be in the country illegally. Vargas appears to be the only one without a detainer warrant, Westchester County jail records indicate.

    Westchester County police Capt. Christopher Calabrese praised the multi-jurisdictional investigation and said his department “is fully committed to the fight against the expanding use of deadly heroin in Westchester, especially by our youth that has had recent tragic results.”

    “Illegal drugs are not tolerated in Peekskill,” Mayor Mary Foster said. “Our police department will continue to work proactively to ensure that Peekskill is a safe place to live, work, visit and enjoy.”

    State and local police also have made at least 29 arrests involving heroin sales and possession in Putnam and northern Westchester in the weeks since four men died of apparent heroin overdoses. The four young men from Putnam County and Somers died at Putnam Hospital Center in a span of two weeks in late November and early December, prompting a call for action to stop the deadly narcotic’s flow in the northern suburbs.

    In January, Peekskill police arrested five people who were charged with distributing heroin and crack in the city and nearby Cortlandt.

    Staff writer Marcela Rojas contributed to this report.

  8. #29
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    I used to work in a grocery store... and every Sunday for about six months there was a woman who would come thru my line and rail at me for my "sinfullness" and tell me I was "surely going to Hell" for breaking the Lords' Commandments - one of which was working on the Sabbath. Every Sunday. Most of the time, I smiled & nodded and ignored her. One day - she caught me in a mood... as she proceded to tell once again how I was sinning by being at work - I pointed out that if people like her would boycott the stores that are open on Sunday - then the store would have no profit and would not remain open. First she looked shocked - then she looked thoughtful. She said "God Bless you" before she left, and I never noticed her in the store again. I don't know if she changed her habits, or if she changed her store... but I think the point is valid here. No one is going to chase you down and force anyone to go to a business that is open on Sunday - and if no one goes - it will close on its' own. But if I want to go sit at Extra Innings , eat nachos, and watch the ballgame with my husband and my brothers ( cause I don't have six big screen tvs at my house ) then why is it anyone's business.


    Majority of Americans believe most or all illegal immigrants should be deported
    1:16 PM 02/21/2013

    majority of American citizens believe that most or all illegal immigrants should be deported, according to a new Reuters/Ipos poll.

    According to Reuters, which reported the findings Wednesday evening, 30 percent of Americans polled in the online survey said they think most illegal immigrants should be deported, with some exceptions. Twenty-three percent said they think all illegal immigrants should be deported.

    Five percent said that all illegal immigrants should stay, according to Reuters, and 31 percent said most illegal immigrants should remain in the country.

    The poll comes as Washington debates how to reform the nation’s immigration system and what to do with the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the country.

    The report further notes that views on immigration differ among party affiliations, with 75 percent of Republicans saying they think all or most illegal immigrants should be deported. Forty percent of Democrats said they believe the same.

    The poll was conducted from Feb. 15 to 19, and surveyed 1,443 Americans adults. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...91K01A20130221

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/21/po...#ixzz2LYsvBv4R

    (RELATED: Polls also generally show support for offering immigrants pathway to citizenship http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/07/an...are-all-wrong/ )
    Last edited by Jolie Rouge; 02-21-2013 at 12:10 PM.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  9. #30
    pepperpot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    exactly where I should be...
    Posts
    8,566
    Thanks
    4,402
    Thanked 3,793 Times in 2,027 Posts
    Pathway is get out and get on line.
    Mrs Pepperpot is a lady who always copes with the tricky situations that she finds herself in....

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to pepperpot For This Useful Post:

    boopster (02-21-2013)

  11. #31

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,400
    Thanks
    849
    Thanked 444 Times in 312 Posts
    and along with showing them the door, stop allowing children of people in this country illegally to become citizens. There is nothing in the constitution stating that children of criminals should reap the rewards and because they get the rewards, their parents share in that! If we base justice on allowing illegals and children of illegals to gain from a crime, then we would have to allow bernie madoffs family, friends, colleagues etc to keep their profits that were gained by illegal means.

  12. #32

    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    5,185
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 852 Times in 390 Posts
    Pathway...smatchway. You have to take advantage of it or nothing changes. My neighbors are illegal and proud of it. They have been here for about 30 years. They have no desire to become citizens. According to them they are fine as it is and will not have to pay big bucks.

    The fact that the man and his wife will get free medical while hubby and I must pay and are veterans really irks the crap out of me.

    Me

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to hblueeyes For This Useful Post:

    boopster (02-22-2013)

  14. #33

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,400
    Thanks
    849
    Thanked 444 Times in 312 Posts
    They keep having one child after another in this area. Their kids get free lunches in the schools along with free supplies. We have a popular restaurant where I feel like a foreign since americans are outnumbered. The only time that I can recall where I was one of the majority of english speaking people in the restaurant (chinese buffet) was when there was fear of an illegal roundup. As soon as obama started with his 'stop deportations, let's give them all a free college education' speech, they all came back to the restaurant.

    illegals have been asked if they want to become american citizens and most say NO - they do not want to pay taxes, have to pay for medical etc. Right now they can money from the US government for having a child born here: rent subsidies, food cards, free medical, no need for auto insurance etc. some states give them the right to have drivers licenses, some allow them to vote, some are even collecting SS. so why is this government abusing its own citizens? why can an illegal go to a hospital, get treated while an american has to decide between food and medical care? a few towns away, a friends church has a food pantry. she is appalled by the number of people who come, do not speak english, in their large suvs and fill up the back of it. some come with friends who speak english and ask the church for money and clothing too......but they drive $30000+ vehicles. I know of another person who is hispanic who was in a semi private room in a hospital. the person in the other bed was not here legally so she did not end up with a bill. her visitors which were numerous had no respect for her privacy: kids were jumping on her bed, they were very loud and even one adult took the food off her tray and ate it. She didn't let on that she understood spanish but they thought americans were stupid and they thought it was funny that they could get benefits for free that americans had to pay for.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in