What should be done about illegal immigration?

Regarding a diversion about states of mind, frames of reference, etc, I found the article below somewhat interesting.

I have my qualms with it: it's certainly not balanced, and in all but ignoring the Wilson- and Truman-era Red Scares it's simply not fair. There's also some minor offensive rhetorical tricks (equating 19th centrury Republican condemnation of polygamy with today's resistance against gay marriage, for example). Hence only pasting in excerpts below.

But whenever one is dealing with the type of conservative who, it appears, would die before admitting any Democrat is right on any substantive point, or who instinctively and immediately perceives liberal arguments, however elaborate, as, say, "based on nothing other than feelings or distorted evidence", there are some hints in there about the states of mind one may be dealing with - or what might have nurtured it.

(Yes, this is a very Blathamesque post).

Quote:

Exor-schism
The New Republic
04.04.07

Last month National Public Radio listeners said they were shocked when former House Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay explained why he wouldn't talk to Democratic lobbyists: "Why would I meet with an enemy?" But in saying that anybody "who wanted to make me the minority whip" was not just a political opponent, an American with legitimate if differing interests, but rather an enemy to be shunned, DeLay wasn't speaking some strange, new, fanatical language, he was using the vocabulary Republicans have traditionally relied on to rally support.

The Republican Party began as a crusade against the enemy within, and it has never strayed far from its origins. The early Republicans deserve full marks for identifying and waging a war to expunge a real domestic threat to the United States--the institution of chattel slavery. Slaveholders really did constitute a mortal threat, not only to the United States, but to the cause of liberty generally [..]

We less often remember that those mid-nineteenth-century Republicans found slavery only about as threatening as [polygamy]. The first Republican Party platform considered it the "imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism--Polygamy, and Slavery."

This generous definition of enemies within became a staple of Republican rhetoric. "In all quarters ... this country is becoming honeycombed through and through by disintegrating forces," presidential candidate James Garfield said in 1880. He meant labor unions, debtors, and Francophiles who were "letting 'the red foulfury of the Seine' run riot among our people." [..]

Americans could only keep their unruly fellow citizens in check if they elected Republicans, who easily identified their party with the nation. As Calvin Coolidge said in 1924, "We had better stick to the American government, the American brand of equality, and the American brand of wages. America had better stay American." Back in 1880, Garfield had put it well: "In a time like this, more than ever before, this country needs a body of law-givers clothed and in their right minds."

Republicans identifying threats to social order were not wrong. Anarchists, communists, socialists, and even plain old trade unionists could cause chaos. But the GOP depicted every eruption of unruliness as a menace equal to the Confederacy. Every time was "a time like this," in Garfield's phrase, requiring stern leaders to discipline their people.

The enemy within was eternal and everywhere because the enemy was within each of us. "The worst evil that could be inflicted upon the youth of this land would be to leave them without restraint and completely at the mercy of their own uncontrolled inclinations," Coolidge said. [..]

Politicians who persuade themselves they've controlled their worst impulses and thus entitled themselves to control yours, who identify the good of their party with the good of the country, who see every dissenter as an enemy [harbor] a sincere belief, and also politically useful: Rutherford B. Hayes, seeking to avoid charges of party corruption in 1876, told Garfield, "Our main issue must be It is not safe to allow the Rebellion to come into power."

However plausible it was to describe the Democratic Party of the nineteenth century as "the Rebellion," the charge lost credibility in the twentieth century as the Democrats abandoned white supremacy for civil rights. [But] Republicans still try to draw on their nineteenth-century capital, [..] identifying party with country, and calling the Democrats treasonous aliens: In recent years, [..] DeLay said he could flout the law because "I am the federal government", and Grover Norquist described the New Deal as "very un-American." DeLay's demonization of the Democrats isn't a shock or a product of his move to the blogosphere--it's what Republican leaders really believe.

0 Replies

Quote:

(Yes, this is a very Blathamesque post).

Clearly, this site is making significant gains in taste and discernment.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

We better work out something with Mexico soon. It is currently undergoing drastic declines in its oil deposits. This will undoubtedly hurt its economy and what little social services it provides its people. They will be swarming to the U.S. in greater quantities than now.

From Wikipedia

Economy of Mexico

Mexico has a free market and export-oriented economy. Measured in purchasing power parity, its Gross Domestic Product recently surpassed a trillion dollars, making it the thirteenth largest economy in the world.[1] Mexico is also firmly established as an upper middle-income country with the highest income per capita in Latin America,[2] in market exchange rates. Mexico is the only Latin American country to be member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Poverty
After the 1994-1995 economic crisis, probably the most severe in the country's history, 50% of the population fell into poverty. A rapid growth in exports propitiated by NAFTA and other trade agreements, and the restructuring of the macroeconomic finances initiated during Zedillo's and continued during Fox's administration had impressive results in the reduction of the poverty rate. According to the World Bank, extreme poverty was reduced to 17.6% in 2004. Most of this reduction was done in rural communities whose rate of poverty declined from 42% to 27.9% in the 2000-2004 period, although urban poverty stagnated at 11%.[17]

Does this sound like a country from which so many citizens should need to illegally cross the borders of its neighbor in order to achieve a decent life for their families?

Remittances
Remittances, or contributions sent by Mexicans living abroad, mostly in the United States, to their families at home in Mexico, are a substantial and growing part of the Mexican economy; they comprised $18 billion in 2005.[18] In 2004 they became the second largest source of foreign income after crude oil exports, roughly equivalent to foreign direct investment (FDI) and larger than tourism expenditures; and represented 2.5 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product.[19] The growth of remittances has been remarkable: they have more than doubled since 1997. Recorded remittance transactions exceeded 41 million in 2003, of which 86 percent were made by electronic transfer.[20]

It is estimated that half or more of Mexican immigrants to the United States are legal, and have access to formal transfer channels usually blocked to illegals simply due to the lack of accepted identification documents. The Mexican government, cognizant of the economic viability of immigrant workers, began issuing an upgraded version of the Matrícula Consular de Alta Seguridad (MACS, High Security Consular Identification), an identity document issued at Mexican consulates abroad. This document is now accepted as a valid identity card in 32 US states, as well as thousands of police agencies, hundreds of cities and counties, as well as banking institutions.[20]

The main receptors of remittances in 2004 were the states of Michoacán, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Mexico and Puebla, which jointly captured 45% of total remittances in that year.[19] Several state governments, with the support of the federal government, have implemented programs to use part of the remittances to finance public works. This program, called Dos por Uno (Two for every one) is designed in a way that for each peso contributed by migrants from their remittances, the state and the federal governments will invest two pesos in building infrastructure at their home communities.[21]

Doesn't this sound like a country for which emigration is a key component of it economic strategy?

Mexican immigration can make economic sense for both countries, and I would rather see the Dos por Uno program help improve Mexican society than our simply providing them with massive aid packages.

We need to realize that Mexican immigrants are not attempting to take over our country, are not responsible for all of our crime, and are not the sole abusers of our social welfare programs.

We also need to realize that Mexican immigrants are not a wretched and oppressed people whose only chance for a decent life is to emigrate (illegally if need be) to the US.

It will not help solve the problem by demonizing Mexican immigrants, just as it will not help solve the problem by demonizing Americans who oppose illegal immigration.

In my opinion the ultimate deciding factor in this issue is the interests of Americans. We have no obligation to accept each and every person that wants to enter America and benefit from its wealth and freedom. It is, I believe, in our best interest to take in as many immigrants as our economy and society can bear providing those immigrants want to become part of America and we can reasonably screen them for bad apples.

It is in our best interest to assist immigrants to assimilate within our way of life. Assimilation does not mean giving up their cultural heritage, it does mean, where necessary, sublimating that heritage to the overall greater good of their new country. Providing immigrants with the means to live for years in our country without ever learning English is not in our best interest. It may seem like the "nice" thing to do, but it exacerbates, not solves the problem.

There are ways to solve this problem without disregarding the concerns of those on either side of the argument.

Whether or not someone is a "Liberal," a knee-jerk reflex to call those with whom one disagrees a bigot is a terribly weak (intellectually) rhetorical device.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I offered to go with your evaluation if you make a good attempt at an honest and objective one. If you choose not to, I can't see how you have shown it to be a wacko site at all.

And this, people, was pretty much one of my points when I first adressed Foxfyre's claim that "anchor baby" was used "pretty much universally".

Not just that she's wrong - that was easily shown, and her later linguistic argument about the difference between "universally" and "pretty much universally" is firmly in Bill Clinton territory ("depends on what the meaning of is is"). But that her claim, exercised in various forms in her posts since as well, tells us a lot about what "universe" we're talking about here - what it looks like. What the frame of reference is we're dealing with here.

The ability to tell wacko sources from credible ones is essential to doing research in the Internet era, in which the former proliferate. Anyone who looks and reads for more than five minutes on americanpatrol.com and doesnt recognize it's a wacko fringe site, has a problem - one that we should keep in mind when considering his/her definitions of what credible, neutral, mainstream etc is.

Setting aside your oh-so-typical-liberal tendency to keep making this a personal issue, Nimh, let me try to explain my point of view one more time here.

In my vernacular "universally" means everybody or everywhere. "Pretty much universally" means most. I also amended my comment in a subsequent post to explain that I meant "Pretty much universally understood by those closely following the immigration issue." Translation for the verbally challenged: Most people who closely follow the immigration issue in the USA have heard and/or use the term anchor baby.

"Wacko" is frequently in the mind of the beholder given the number of people who imply, infer, suggest, and/or flat out state that sites such as Frontpage, Newsmax, Town Hall etc. are 'wacko" sites though they may not use that specific term. "Wacko" to me is not the same thing as advocate for, biased on the side of, or apologist for a particular concept or point of view. In order to be 'wacko', it has to deal with implausible conspiracy theories, manufactured information, gross distortions of reality, intentionally dishonest interpretations, or just generally be a mudslinging site where hate posts and venon is indiscriminately splattered.

Using that definition, I do not think AmericanPatrol qualifies despite the fact that it targets problems associated with illegal immigration and is a strong advocate for strong enforcement of the laws or making new laws re illegal immigration. It does post a lot of sources dealing with the issue and some of these take positions I disagree with and/or use language I wouldn't use. And of course anybody who opposes enforcement of the existing laws, opposes stronger laws, and/or opposes strong border enforcement and/or any border enforcement will disagree with all or most of AmericanPatrol and may strongly object to it. None of this necessarily makes it a "wacko" site however.

That's why I invited OE--I would invite anybody--to show where AmericanPatrol is distorting, manufacturing, etc. what it posts on its website on the subject of immgration. I know you put a great deal of importance on your interpretation of things, Sir, but the site isn't wacko just because you declare it to be or because you dislike the content. Therefore I asked for some additional verification before I accept your designation for the site. I also agreed to accept the designation when credible evidence was shown. I personally don't like the site.

In the same way I disagree with most of what Salon.com publishes because it is such a strong advocate for modern liberalism and only presents that point of view in a favorable light. I therefore consider Salon.com credible in presenting the liberal point of view but a terrible source for honestly presenting the conservative point of view. That does not make Salon.com a wacko site, however, even if I may have impetuously used that term in reference to it in the past.

Was it Blatham who said that he couldn't find 'anchor baby" on Salon.com? I couldn't find "immigration" there either. Shall we therefore conclude that 'immigration' is not a term widely used or understood? See what I mean?

From the first collection of hits my search engine pulled up, I picked those sites that weren't personal blogs and didn't appear to qualify as wacko sites and tried to pick an assortment that represented a broad spectrum of how and where the term is used. I then checked to be sure that the term "Anchor baby" was used in each one I selected--something OE still has not admitted is the case after he said that three sites didn't reference the term anchor baby.

I think the evidence I posted plus the thousands of hits anybody's search engine pulls up supports the contention of some of us that the term is widely used or known to those following the immigration issue. That some or even many of those hits link to wacko or fringe sites or that some of you have not heard the term is not good evidence that the term is not widely used or known to those closely following the immigration issue. Could we at least agree on that?

Obill states that he immediately saw the term as pejorative. He also at different places has implied that he saw as pejorative--(i.e. racist, bigoted, selfish et al)--anybody suggesting that the law be enforced. I don't think therefore he is sufficiently objective on this topic to be a good judge of what is or is not pejorative even as I accept that as his own point of view.

Yes the term can be pejoratively. Almost any word can be used pejoratively. The way I and the sources I consider authoritative use it, it is used descriptively and not pejoratively.

I hope I have explained my position adequately for your discerning nature. If not, I'm sure you will continue to attempt to demean, discredit and/or embarrass me as you see fit and will continue to ignore any of my posts when you can't figure out a way to distort my intent in order to do that.
_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Was it Blatham who said that he couldn't find 'anchor baby" on Salon.com? I couldn't find "immigration" there either. Shall we therefore conclude that 'immigration' is not a term widely used or understood? See what I mean?

I see that you are unable to use an internet search machine:

0 results for "anchor baby" on www.salon.com --> click

37.200 results for "immigration" on www.salon.com --> click

Why do you keep on posting statements that are just factually wrong, Foxy? I don't understand that. Do you think it helps your argument when your statements can be shown to be incorrect within 10 seconds?

0 Replies

Quote:

I think the evidence I posted plus the thousands of hits anybody's search engine pulls up supports the contention of some of us that the term is widely used or known to those following the immigration issue. That some or even many of those hits link to wacko or fringe sites or that some of you have not heard the term is not good evidence that the term is not widely used or known to those closely following the immigration issue. Could we at least agree on that?

Perhaps you missed it when I wrote it above, Fox, but 'thousands of hits' on Google means something practically doesn't exist. The vast majority of searches, even ones for political terms, bring up millions of pages. Usually tens of millions. You are throwing ammo to your opponents, a practice I don't recommend.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Why do you keep on posting statements that are just factually wrong, Foxy? I don't understand that. Do you think it helps your argument when your statements can be shown to be incorrect within 10 seconds?

I agree (as well to that what Cyclo said).

At first, it was a bit entertaining, though, I must admit.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Was it Blatham who said that he couldn't find 'anchor baby" on Salon.com? I couldn't find "immigration" there either. Shall we therefore conclude that 'immigration' is not a term widely used or understood? See what I mean?

I see that you are unable to use an internet search machine:

0 results for "anchor baby" on www.salon.com --> click

37.200 results for "immigration" on www.salon.com --> click

Why do you keep on posting statements that are just factually wrong, Foxy? I don't understand that. Do you think it helps your argument when your statements can be shown to be incorrect within 10 seconds?

I don't know why I bother to respond to you OE when you do not extend the courtesy to me.

But I again went to Salon.com and on THEIR site, the word 'immigation' came up with the following, none of which had anything to do with immigration. If you check the 'web' portion though, it gives you what you get when you search in Google.

The American people: Just not that into George Bush
James Taranto ridicules Matthew Dowd and Andrew Sullivan with dumb gay jokes, but it won't revive the president's approval ratings.

Apr-02-2007

Grilling Gonzales' fall guy
Punishing hearings on the U.S. attorneys scandal brought no relief for the attorney general's disgraced former chief of staff, or the embattled White House.

Mar-29-2007

On the trail of "legislate, don't investigate!"
With help from readers, a look at how Republican talking points spread through the media.

Mar-28-2007

A "new bargain" on trade?
Harvard's Dani Rodrik says the global economy is as open as it needs to be. House Democrats chime in with a proposal to close things up a bit.

Mar-27-2007

Refuting Karl Rove's talking points
Only five of almost 500 attorneys have been fired midterm in the last 25 years. Can we stop saying what Bush did is just what every president does?

Mar-23-2007

What Bush is hiding
In the U.S. attorney scandal, Alberto Gonzales gave orders, but he also took them -- from Karl Rove, who plotted to turn the federal criminal justice system into the Republican Holy Office of the Inquisition.

Mar-21-2007

Smearing the U.S. attorneys
New details show the Bush administration's "document dump" gives a misleading rationale for the firing of two U.S. attorneys.

Mar-19-2007

McCain takes the press for a bumpy ride
Gaffes and all, the media's favorite Republican restarts the Straight Talk Express in Iowa.

Mar-18-2007

In Iowa, the immigration question dogs McCain
"You were here at the beginning of the conversation? I'll repeat it if you would like."

Mar-15-2007

Billy the Greek
Raising funds for his run at the presidency, Bill Richardson has an unlikely role model -- Michael Dukakis.

Now please provide me a link or two related to immigration that will take me to the Salon.com site. I think I use a search engine reasonably well and mine won't get me there.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I think the evidence I posted plus the thousands of hits anybody's search engine pulls up supports the contention of some of us that the term is widely used or known to those following the immigration issue. That some or even many of those hits link to wacko or fringe sites or that some of you have not heard the term is not good evidence that the term is not widely used or known to those closely following the immigration issue. Could we at least agree on that?

Perhaps you missed it when I wrote it above, Fox, but 'thousands of hits' on Google means something practically doesn't exist. The vast majority of searches, even ones for political terms, bring up millions of pages. Usually tens of millions. You are throwing ammo to your opponents, a practice I don't recommend.

Cycloptichorn

Perhaps you've overlooked the point that Google doesn't narrow the field to those who follow immigration issues closely. When you can make that distinction get back to me.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

I think the evidence I posted plus the thousands of hits anybody's search engine pulls up supports the contention of some of us that the term is widely used or known to those following the immigration issue. That some or even many of those hits link to wacko or fringe sites or that some of you have not heard the term is not good evidence that the term is not widely used or known to those closely following the immigration issue. Could we at least agree on that?

Perhaps you missed it when I wrote it above, Fox, but 'thousands of hits' on Google means something practically doesn't exist. The vast majority of searches, even ones for political terms, bring up millions of pages. Usually tens of millions. You are throwing ammo to your opponents, a practice I don't recommend.

Cycloptichorn

Perhaps you've overlooked the point that Google doesn't narrow the field to those who follow immigration issues closely. When you can make that distinction get back to me.

What an incredibly stupid thing to have written. You are really outdoing yourself today.

You state

Quote:

I think I use a search engine reasonably well and mine won't get me there.

Fox, you don't use a search engine reasonably well if you don't know how to do this yourself. You have displayed a great ignorance of how the internets work today Laughing

not that there's anything surprising about this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Such an annoying little gnat you are, Cyclop. When you can put things into their proper context get back to me too. Until then, please go play or something.

Or perhaps you could provide me with a link on immigration that would take me to the Salon.com site? That would be good too.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But I again went to Salon.com and on THEIR site, the word 'immigation' came up with the following, none of which had anything to do with immigration. If you check the 'web' portion though, it gives you what you get when you search in Google.

0 Replies

Good Walter. I've been there. Now can you give me a link to any article related to immigration from the Salon.com website? Did you check the Salon site option on their search option or the Web option on their search option? I checked the Salon.com site option and came up with the links I posted.

But if you can get an immigration article off the Salon site, let's see a link.

Wait: The March 18 link does have the word immigration in it. Let's see if it discusses immigration or just discusses McCain.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Good Walter. I've been there. Now can you give me a link to any article related to immigration from the Salon.com website? Did you check the Salon site option on their search option or the Web option on their search option? I checked the Salon.com site option and came up with the links I posted.

But if you can get an immigration article off the Salon site, let's see a link.

Why do we always have to take you by the hand and lead you there, only to have you deny that the original claim afterwards????

Here, a link --> click me to see where I take you <-- link

Where does it take you? What's the topic? Why were you unable to find this yourself?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Good Walter. I've been there. Now can you give me a link to any article related to immigration from the Salon.com website? Did you check the Salon site option on their search option or the Web option on their search option? I checked the Salon.com site option and came up with the links I posted.

But if you can get an immigration article off the Salon site, let's see a link.

Why do we always have to take you by the hand and lead you there, only to have you deny that the original claim afterwards????

Here, a link --> click me to see where I take you <-- link

Where does it take you? What's the topic? Why were you unable to find this yourself?

Because I didn't read past the headline. I do concede the article has the word 'immigration in it' and though it is another typical Salon.com Bush bashing article, it does relate to the immigration issue. Likewise the one re McCain and immigration--the article deals with the responses at an Iowa townhall meeting rather than discuss immigration, but I cannot say that the concept of immigration is not addressed.

Happy?

I don't think you'll find 30+ thousand references to immigration on Salon.com as you said there were however.

I've admitted my errors. When are you going to admit any of yours that you have been pointedly ignoring?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't think you'll find 30+ thousand references to immigration on Salon.com as you said there were however.

I can't argue with complete denial of reality! You don't have to think! You have to

CLICK THIS LINK

AND LOOK!!!

Go there! Right now! Look at the results you get! Look at the number of results you get!

Then come back and post the results!

I want to see you doing this!

0 Replies

Dunno. It says it in German but it doesn't look like 30+ thousand. Does it? If so, then okay. I just didn't think Salon.com had 30+ thousand articles about anything, even to bash George Bush and his administration.

But thanks. I can see there is more re immigration that what clicking the Salon.com search option brings up. I posted what I got when I clicked on it.

0 Replies

Oh, and this (the bolded part)

Foxfyre wrote:

I do concede the article has the word 'immigration in it' and though it is another typical Salon.com Bush bashing article, it does relate to the immigration issue.

is factually wrong, too.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Dunno. It says it in German but it doesn't look like 30+ thousand.

It is in German? Sorry.

CLICK HERE FOR RESULTS IN ENGLISH

What's the number of results?

0 Replies

Okay, that worked.

Here's what I get when I go to Salon.com, type immigration into the buffer and click on the web option:

Displaying 1 - 10 of 4,281 web results found for your query Immgration

Sponsored Results
Official U.S. Citizenship - Apply Today
Prepare and complete your US citizenship application online. Learn if you qualify for free.

www.uscitizenship.info

Immigration
Get Complete News Coverage of Immigration at FOX News - Visit Now.

www.FOXNews.com

Immigration Lawyers Here
Present Your Case - Free. Lawyers Respond. Fast 100% Secure.

www.lawyerslegallaws.com

Web Results
Flickr: Photos tagged with immgration
Flickr is almost certainly the best online photo management and sharing ... Photos Your Photos Groups Flickr Members For a Location. Explore / Tags / immgration ...

www.flickr.com

Visa and Immgration
Phuket Discovery Offer Very Special Discount Hotels And Package Tours Through. ... Visa & Immigrations. Phang-Nga Discovery Tour Ltd. Part. ...

www.phuket-discovery.com

The Path To Immgration
By Julia. The changing environments throughout the ages have caused the movement of ... Whether forced to make such decisions or doing so by their own ...

web.mit.edu

Immigration Law Offices - Leaf Koerner, LLC

www.leaflaw.com

Siskind's Immgration Bulletin- February 8, 2002
Siskind Immigration Bulletin Request Consultation Live Chat. About the Firm. Our Offices. Our Team ... State Department Visa Bulletin. Siskind's Immigration ...

www.visalaw.com

Immgration Movement Coverage
Maynard alumni offer examples of their coverage of the immigration movement now ... Alumni Reports. Columns. Dori J. Maynard. Richard Prince's Journal-isms. Guests ...

www.maynardije.org

IMMGRATION MATTERS
immigration matters. International students must have a study permit to ... An application form is sent to the sucessful candidate with ... international ...

www.sidsnet.org

Poll: Readers split on immgration impact on business - Los Angeles Business from bizjournals:
Home Online Edition. Latest News Special Reports Business Advice News From Other ... About Bizjournals Contact Us Advertising Services Editorial Services ...

www.bizjournals.com

Core Knowledge - Lesson Plans

www.coreknowledge.org

Search: immgration bail bond - Optimum Online
Search results for immgration bail bond from Optimum Online Metasearch. ... Another website which advocates for the anti-immgration Sierra Club board ...

search.optonline.net

As you can see there's not much there related to immigration on Salon.com--everything links to other sources. And I earlier posted what I got when I clicked exclusively on the Salon.com site.

But again, you said 30+ thousand hits. Are you sticking with that?

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know