Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
erok123

For the 7th straight year, Visa overstays surpass illeagal border crossings

Recommended Posts

So when you're building a wall, bring your Visa, because President Trump doesn't like immigrants, and he doesn't take American Express.

 

Visa, It's Everywhere You Want To Be.

Edited by E-money
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, two wrongs make a right? :idk: More liberal logic.

 

Aw, more "substance".

 

I'm not allowed to name the "substance" in question by name. :lol:

 

:eekphil:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is some of the strongest information which undercuts the wall.

 

what you mean most people did not sneak across the border?

:eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These people are so scared of the Orange Menace that they took a plane instead of jumping the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, two wrongs make a right? :idk: More liberal logic.

 

Liberal logic is to insure that what steps is taken to address illegal immigration will be the most effective methods of control for the money spent, and so far nothing has demonstrated that erecting fencing along portions of the border meets that criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A sincere question: how do they know just how many people are coming in over the border illegally if those people are not being caught? IOW, how can they determine which is worse (illegal border crossings vs. visa overstays) without being able to accurately count the number of people who don't get caught crossing the border?

 

The visa overstay number is relatively easy to determine by comparison since they have records and know who came in, and whether or not they left. The illegal border crossings, not so much.... unless I'm overlooking something, which is why I'm asking...

 

Regardless of the answer to that question, IMO, neither should be ignored; it doesn't matter which is "worse" if both are a significant source of people being in the US without authorization. IMO, both parts of the problem (as well as others) need to be addressed, which is (again) why I support a comprehensive approach to the problem.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on Phil...reason is not supposed to be part of the equation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Liberal logic is to insure that what steps is taken to address illegal immigration will be the most effective methods of control for the money spent, and so far nothing has demonstrated that erecting fencing along portions of the border meets that criteria.

 

Nothing, really? Have you heard about gated communities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A sincere question: how do they know just how many people are coming in over the border illegally if those people are not being caught? IOW, how can they determine which is worse (illegal border crossings vs. visa overstays) without being able to accurately count the number of people who don't get caught crossing the border?

 

The visa overstay number is relatively easy to determine by comparison since they have records and know who came in, and whether or not they left. The illegal border crossings, not so much.... unless I'm overlooking something, which is why I'm asking...

 

Regardless of the answer to that question, IMO, neither should be ignored; it doesn't matter which is "worse" if both are a significant source of people being in the US without authorization. IMO, both parts of the problem (as well as others) need to be addressed, which is (again) why I support a comprehensive approach to the problem.

 

 

Beyond knowing how many are here. The fed, state and municipalities use the census data to do long term infrastructure planning. By example, I have a co-worker who is an Indian national. He uses the same infrastructure that I do. It's imperative to understand the growth/decline and demographic to do what is in the best interest (of who is always the debate). Whether here legally or not the impact on budgets and infrastructure is the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nothing, really? Have you heard about gated communities?

 

I lived in a gated community. It sure didn’t stop people from getting in and out. In fact crimes there were a little higher than neighboring ungated communities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are associated with homeowners associations which regulate even such Minor Details as what kind of bushes you can plant or how you paint your house.

 

Let's not make the mistake of extending those authoritarian tendencies onto a national scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A sincere question: how do they know just how many people are coming in over the border illegally if those people are not being caught? IOW, how can they determine which is worse (illegal border crossings vs. visa overstays) without being able to accurately count the number of people who don't get caught crossing the border?

 

Because it is an "unknowable", they use extrapolation. The make an informed estimate based on number of captures, number of missed captures (they got away), number of people caught later on, witness reports, local law enforcement estimates and physical evidence (abandoned campouts, garbage on known routes, etc).

Edited by BA.Barcolounger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because it is an "unknowable", they use extrapolation. The make an informed estimate based on number of captures, number of missed captures (they got away), number of people caught later on, witness reports, local law enforcement estimates and physical evidence (abandoned campouts, garbage on known routes, etc).

 

Yea but how do they know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Beyond knowing how many are here. The fed, state and municipalities use the census data to do long term infrastructure planning. By example, I have a co-worker who is an Indian national. He uses the same infrastructure that I do. It's imperative to understand the growth/decline and demographic to do what is in the best interest (of who is always the debate). Whether here legally or not the impact on budgets and infrastructure is the same.

 

That doesn't answer my question - at all.

 

Census data is only compiled every ten years, and the US Census was last taken eight years ago, so it doesn't apply at all to the last seven years that are under discussion per the OP.

 

Secondly, I suspect that not everyone who is here illegally trusts the US government to keep the census information away from ICE / Homeland Security, and therefore may not answer truthfully anyway. Besides, do they even ask you whether or not you're a US citizen on the census? Didn't a judge just say that question can not be asked on the upcoming census? If that is indeed the case (and from my recollection of the last census forms I filled out, I believe it is), then how does the census provide any data regarding the number of people who are in the US illegally?

 

 

While I can see the reasoning behind your infrastructure comments, the census is also used to apportion representatives to the US House of Representatives; counting non-citizens in that seems to me to be granting representation in the government to non-citizens...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because it is an "unknowable", they use extrapolation. The make an informed estimate based on number of captures, number of missed captures (they got away), number of people caught later on, witness reports, local law enforcement estimates and physical evidence (abandoned campouts, garbage on known routes, etc).

 

So they guesstimate. Makes sense. Thank you for the reply.

 

However, that extrapolated / estimated figure is still more questionable / less accurate than the figures for the visa overstays, would you not agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you lived in a gated community where crime was higher inside than outside the fencing. Are you sure you weren't in prison? lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That doesn't answer my question - at all.

 

Census data is only compiled every ten years, and the US Census was last taken eight years ago, so it doesn't apply at all to the last seven years that are under discussion per the OP.

 

Secondly, I suspect that not everyone who is here illegally trusts the US government to keep the census information away from ICE / Homeland Security, and therefore may not answer truthfully anyway. Besides, do they even ask you whether or not you're a US citizen on the census? Didn't a judge just say that question can not be asked on the upcoming census? If that is indeed the case (and from my recollection of the last census forms I filled out, I believe it is), then how does the census provide any data regarding the number of people who are in the US illegally?

 

 

It doesn't.

 

The Trump Administration was (and still is) trying to get the citizenship question added for the 2020 census. A judge struck it down, but I imagine it will eventually make it to SCOTUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So they guesstimate. Makes sense. Thank you for the reply.

 

However, that extrapolated / estimated figure is still more questionable / less accurate than the figures for the visa overstays, would you not agree?

 

I would agree, based on the nature of the data.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It doesn't.

 

The Trump Administration was (and still is) trying to get the citizenship question added for the 2020 census. A judge struck it down, but I imagine it will eventually make it to SCOTUS.

 

I don't agree with Trump on much, but I do see their point. Again, since House representation is apportioned based on census data, counting non-citizens in that would potentially lead to over-representation in the House; especially in areas with large non-citizen immigrant populations.

 

By adding a question regarding citizenship to the census you would be able to better (though not completely accurately, since again, I suspect some won't trust the Census Bureau to keep the data away from ICE) determine the total number of people in a given area (for infrastructure / planning purposes) as well as the number of US citizens in the same area, for representative apportion purposes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't agree with Trump on much, but I do see their point. Again, since House representation is apportioned based on census data, counting non-citizens in that would potentially lead to over-representation in the House; especially in areas with large non-citizen immigrant populations.

 

Though House representation is calculated using Census data, that is not the Census' constitutional purpose. It is there to count people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That doesn't answer my question - at all.

 

Census data is only compiled every ten years, and the US Census was last taken eight years ago, so it doesn't apply at all to the last seven years that are under discussion per the OP.

 

Secondly, I suspect that not everyone who is here illegally trusts the US government to keep the census information away from ICE / Homeland Security, and therefore may not answer truthfully anyway. Besides, do they even ask you whether or not you're a US citizen on the census? Didn't a judge just say that question can not be asked on the upcoming census? If that is indeed the case (and from my recollection of the last census forms I filled out, I believe it is), then how does the census provide any data regarding the number of people who are in the US illegally?

 

 

While I can see the reasoning behind your infrastructure comments, the census is also used to apportion representatives to the US House of Representatives; counting non-citizens in that seems to me to be granting representation in the government to non-citizens...

 

The need to count how many PEOPLE is what the census is for. Even the 14th amendment says people. Because someone is not a citizen doesn't mean that they don't impact the area where they live. Yes, I agree that ILLEGAL aliens very likely won't send in a census form, the millions of LEGAL immigrants will, or at least should be counted. The legal immigrants are here paying into SS, Medicare and taxes. If the legal immigrants aren't counted or dismissed they will be a victim of what spawned the American Revolution. That would be taxation without representation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would anyone disagree that this war has multiple fronts?

 

I agree. It sure does have multiple fronts. None of which a physical wall will fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or the need to be Frugal and not wasting taxpayer money on largely symbolic political exclamation points like a vanity wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Though House representation is calculated using Census data, that is not the Census' constitutional purpose. It is there to count people.

 

Sorry, but that is incorrect.

 

Originally apportionment was covered under Article One, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution:

 

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

 

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative...

 

 

Underlined emphasis added by me to show where the "numbers" (i.e. census data) is relevant to the apportionment of Representatives.

 

 

However, that changed with the passage of the 14th Amendment.

 

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment says:

 

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.[4] But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

Why were untaxed Indians not counted? Because they were citizens of their respective nations, and NOT considered to be citizens of the United States at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified.

 

While the way that people are counted changed under the 14th Amendment, Constitutionally, census data has always been used to apportion Representatives to the House. It's been part of the reason behind a national census ever since the Constitution was ratified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The need to count how many PEOPLE is what the census is for. Even the 14th amendment says people. Because someone is not a citizen doesn't mean that they don't impact the area where they live. Yes, I agree that ILLEGAL aliens very likely won't send in a census form, the millions of LEGAL immigrants will, or at least should be counted. The legal immigrants are here paying into SS, Medicare and taxes. If the legal immigrants aren't counted or dismissed they will be a victim of what spawned the American Revolution. That would be taxation without representation.

 

If you're not a citizen, you don't get to vote. IMO you shouldn't have, nor do you deserve, representation in Congress unless you're a citizen.

 

Want to vote? Want representation? Then become a naturalized citizen.

 

If I go to Australia or Japan to live on a long-term visa, I don't get to vote in their elections, nor do I have any right to be represented in their government because I'm not a citizen of those countries. That's significantly different than the Colonies before the American Revolution - those were British subjects who had no representation in their own country's government, thus no say in whether and how they were being taxed.

 

I can see why liberals want to make sure this question isn't on the census, since it could potentially lead to greater representation for them in the House. Non-citizens can't (legally) vote, but if they're counted in the census, it can (and I suspect does) lead to more Democratically controlled seats in the House of Representatives than they'd have if only citizens were to be counted for the purpose of apportionment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the accuracy of the numbers a Wall will just encourage even more to arrive by plane or bus or boat making the Wall ineffective in the end. About the only people the Wall will keep out are dirt poor Mexicans who live near the border.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regardless of the accuracy of the numbers a Wall will just encourage even more to arrive by plane or bus or boat making the Wall ineffective in the end.

 

You can't enter by plane, boat or bus without having a visa to begin with. If those who cross the border illegally could get a visa and merely overstay it, I suspect they would. Not everyone can get an entry visa...

 

 

About the only people the Wall will keep out are dirt poor Mexicans who live near the border.

 

Mexican immigration has supposedly been declining... now it's the "dirt poor" coming from Central America who comprise the majority of undocumented immigrants who cross the southern border - at least according to what has been posted here in previous discussions on the subject.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So they guesstimate. Makes sense. Thank you for the reply.

 

However, that extrapolated / estimated figure is still more questionable / less accurate than the figures for the visa overstays, would you not agree?

 

I extrapolate that the number of illegal border crossing surpasses visa over-stays based on the number of illegal aliens I see in my game cameras each year.

 

Edited by nedezero1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can't enter by plane, boat or bus without having a visa to begin with. If those who cross the border illegally could get a visa and merely overstay it, I suspect they would. Not everyone can get an entry visa...

 

I guess things have changed since I last traveled/toured abroad. Back then I only needed my Passport.

 

Mexican immigration has supposedly been declining... now it's the "dirt poor" coming from Central America who comprise the majority of undocumented immigrants who cross the southern border - at least according to what has been posted here in previous discussions on the subject.

 

Unless they are part of a Caravan (rare event) with families helping each other out I can't imagine a poor person walking from lets say El Salvador all the way through Mexico and through the border evading border patrol and then miles through a desert to a city here. Then what? Rob a gas station? I can't imagine what small percentage that makes up.

 

Edited by Alndln3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you're not a citizen, you don't get to vote. IMO you shouldn't have, nor do you deserve, representation in Congress unless you're a citizen.

 

Want to vote? Want representation? Then become a naturalized citizen.

 

If I go to Australia or Japan to live on a long-term visa, I don't get to vote in their elections, nor do I have any right to be represented in their government because I'm not a citizen of those countries. That's significantly different than the Colonies before the American Revolution - those were British subjects who had no representation in their own country's government, thus no say in whether and how they were being taxed.

 

I can see why liberals want to make sure this question isn't on the census, since it could potentially lead to greater representation for them in the House. Non-citizens can't (legally) vote, but if they're counted in the census, it can (and I suspect does) lead to more Democratically controlled seats in the House of Representatives than they'd have if only citizens were to be counted for the purpose of apportionment.

 

So they shouldn't pay taxes? They're here as guests, right?

 

The reason for the census is to count not to clear up immigration status or voting rights.

 

In the technology forward areas and major cities it would lead to lower representation. This would be great to gain steam in our race to the bottom

 

 

America has roughly 40,000,000 legal immigrants. That's 1/5 of the population. What do we do with them? Not count them? Aren't they just as important to both the economy and national security?

 

If the objective is is sift out immigrants, then another process needs to be developed. The citizen question would be the easiest thing ever. Just check yes in the box. In effect accomplishing nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I guess things have changed since I last traveled/toured abroad. Back then I only needed my Passport.

 

I believe it's country-specific; you might not need an entry visa if your home country is part of the EU, but most people who want to live or even visit need a visa to enter the US.

 

Generally, a citizen of a foreign country who wishes to enter the United States must first obtain a visa, either a nonimmigrant visa for a temporary stay, or an immigrant visa for permanent residence. Visitor visas are nonimmigrant visas for persons who want to enter the United States temporarily for business (visa category B-1), for tourism (visa category B-2), or for a combination of both purposes (B-1/B-2).

 

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/tourism-visit/visitor.html

 

 

Unless they are part of a Caravan (rare event) with families helping each other out I can't imagine a poor person walking from lets say El Salvador all the way through Mexico and through the border evading border patrol and then miles through a desert to a city here. Then what? Rob a gas station? I can't imagine what small percentage that makes up.

 

They often pay smugglers when they want to come to the US, and they transport them. I suspect it takes years of savings in order for them to afford the fees the smugglers charge them.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/30/world/smuggling-illegal-immigration-costs.html

 

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-02-28/smuggling-costs-skyrocketing-parents-balance-risk-and-debt-their-childrens-future

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless they are part of a Caravan (rare event) with families helping each other out I can't imagine a poor person walking from lets say El Salvador all the way through Mexico and through the border evading border patrol and then miles through a desert to a city here. Then what? Rob a gas station? I can't imagine what small percentage that makes up.

Recent history has shown that people from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador traveling in caravans toward the US tend to...

 

1. Dwindle in size as they travel north as some people peel off to stay in Mexico, turn back, etc.

2. Arrive at border crossings and apply for Asylum

3. Do not venture into uninhabited border areas to sneak in.

Edited by BA.Barcolounger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So they shouldn't pay taxes? They're here as guests, right?

 

Nope - they wanted to come here, and as long as they're here, they need to follow our laws. If they're here on a work visa, then they are subject to US taxation, just as I would be subject to EU taxation on any money I made if I flew to London and worked on a record there for a month. I shouldn't be able to demand a say / representation in the House of Commons just because I was a non-citizen who went there as a visitor to work for a while, and was taxed on the money I made while I was there.

 

If non-citizens want representation, they can go through the naturalization process. Once they become citizens, they have the right to vote and IMO, they then (and ONLY then) deserve representation in the House.

 

 

The reason for the census is to count not to clear up immigration status or voting rights.

 

The reason for the census is indeed to count... but again, the Constitution has always stated that the count is to be used for the purpose of apportionment. Also, as I previously pointed out re: "non-taxed Indians," the Constitution clearly implies that the count and apportionment of representatives applies to citizens, and not those who are citizens of other nations.

 

 

In the technology forward areas and major cities it would lead to lower representation. This would be great to gain steam in our race to the bottom.

 

Yes, I suspect it would lead to lower representation in those heavily Democratically-controlled areas (which is why the Democrats are so strongly against it - they most likely benefit from non-citizens in terms apportionment and the number of House seats they get under the current system), but again, I don't think representation should be based on the number of non-citizens living in any area of the country - only on the number of citizens. I believe the Constitution supports that, but that's a matter of interpretation that will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

 

In what way does limiting apportionment to only the number of citizens (and not to those who have no right to vote or to representation in our government) increase the "race to the bottom?"

 

Second, how do you explain the Constitution specifically excluding non-taxed Native Americans who were legally considered to be citizens of other nations? Doesn't that clearly show intent to limit the census count for the purposes of apportionment of representation in the House to citizens?

 

Whether you think it does or not, I suspect the issue is headed for the SCOTUS, and they'll make the final decision... and that point is going to be one of the ones that is presented to them in oral arguments.

 

 

America has roughly 40,000,000 legal immigrants. That's 1/5 of the population.

 

First, please provide a link to substantiate that factual claim and the number you cited.

 

Second, 1/5th of 325,000,000 (the current population of the USA) is not 40,000,000. It's 65,000,000. The number you cited is roughly 1/8th of the population.

 

 

What do we do with them? Not count them? Aren't they just as important to both the economy and national security?

 

Simple.

 

Put the citizenship question on the census. Count everyone, and use that larger figure for the purposes of infrastructure and planning, and use only those who are citizens for the purpose of apportionment of Representatives in the House.

 

 

If the objective is is sift out immigrants, then another process needs to be developed. The citizen question would be the easiest thing ever. Just check yes in the box. In effect accomplishing nothing.

 

Not if you make it a federal offense to lie on the Census form - which I believe it already is. But I do agree that "another process" needs to be used to "sift out (illegal) immigrants." The census isn't well-suited to that purpose, and since I believe it's important to get as accurate of a count as possible, I would not be in favor of using census data for the purpose of "sifting out" or going after illegal immigrants.

 

I support adding the citizenship question to the census only for the purpose of getting a more accurate count of citizens for the purpose of apportionment, and not for immigration enforcement purposes. Again, I think the entire count (including non-citizens, whether here legally or not) is useful for the purposes of planning and infrastructure, as discussed previously.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Simple.

 

Put the citizenship question on the census. Count everyone, and use that larger figure for the purposes of infrastructure and planning, and use only those who are citizens for the purpose of apportionment of Representatives in the House.

 

 

The federal government already has citizenship data. They can simply crosscheck the citizenship data with the census data and get all the info they need for determining representation.

 

Opinion...

 

The reason they are trying to get the citizenship question added is NOT to make the census more efficient. They want it on there in order to scare people away from answering it, so they will be underrepresented in congress.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frugal? Where I live it may be "frugal" to not bother spraying for insects, but if you don't do it, your house may fall down.

 

Same difference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recent history has shown that people from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador traveling in caravans toward the US...

 

1. Dwindle in size as they travel north as some people peel off to stay in Mexico, turn back, etc.

 

I think you're probably right on that point, although a sizable number (~ six thousand) appear to make it to the border, based on the numbers of people from Central America who were reported as being in the camps in Tijuana.

 

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/12/tijuana-migrant-caravan-asylum-border-trump/577396/

 

 

2. Arrive at border crossings and apply for Asylum

 

Many appear to be doing that.

 

 

3. Do not venture into uninhabited border areas to sneak in.

 

Can you substantiate that? Are you claiming that none of them have tried to do that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree. It sure does have multiple fronts. None of which a physical wall will fix.

 

Locking your car will not "fix" the risk of it getting stolen. But it drastically reduces the risk. i.e. the physical wall will most definitely help. A lot. That's why so many are built. They work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think you're probably right on that point, although a sizable number (~ six thousand) appear to make it to the border, based on the numbers of people from Central America who were reported as being in the camps in Tijuana.

 

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/12/tijuana-migrant-caravan-asylum-border-trump/577396/

 

 

 

 

Many appear to be doing that.

 

 

 

 

Can you substantiate that? Are you claiming that none of them have tried to do that?

 

It is a supposition based on #2. If nearly all are applying for asylum, that logic dictates that nearly none are crossing illegally in remote areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The federal government already has citizenship data.

 

Really? From where?

 

That's one of the main things that the Constitution says the census is for, as I have previously substantiated.

 

 

Opinion...

 

The reason they are trying to get the citizenship question added is NOT to make the census more efficient. They want it on there in order to scare people away from answering it, so they will be underrepresented in congress.

 

 

Why would a citizen be afraid to answer a citizenship question? Again, IMO, ONLY citizens deserve representation in Congress, not non-citizens.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you're not a citizen, you don't get to vote. IMO you shouldn't have, nor do you deserve, representation in Congress unless you're a citizen.

The way most democrats fall on this issue, you get the feeling the illegal aliens are their constituents - or at least their voters. :D

 

 

Share this post


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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...