Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (9005 total)
35 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,213 Year: 12,961/23,288 Month: 686/1,527 Week: 125/240 Day: 14/10 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Immigrants good for me and you? Bad? How to make a good answer that is accurate?
Posts: 1717
Joined: 12-22-2015

Message 1 of 353 (804023)
04-04-2017 1:11 AM

I did a little research and was going to post it in a thread but got sidetracked into talking about the Roman Empire. The thread author then said he only wanted to discuss the constitution. I can't find a suitable thread for this discussion so I propose a new one. This is it.

Ian Goldin has a little book (I need to read his bigger works sometime which are far better ) which I will quote.

Divided Nations: Why global governance is failing, and what we can do about it (Oxford)


On page 36, he shows how many migrants there are presently.



In 2010 there were over 220 million international migrants, more than double the figure recorded in 1980.


The era of accelerated globalization since 1990 has ironically been associated with the proliferation of nation states and increasingly stringent border controls.

More migration but lots of barriers to bottleneck the situation. The benefits to consider are many.



The key benefit of migration to the receiving country is that, by allowing people to move, it improves the welfare of the society as a whole. In Exceptional People : How Migration Shaped Our World and Will Define Our Future my co authors and I
show that migration brings many benefits to the migrants and also to the host country

As the US continues to demonstrate, the flux and mix of cultures leads to innovation. It is now calculated that migrants provide more than half of the innovation in the US, even though they are only around 12 percent of the population, with Silicon Valley perhaps providing among the most compelling evidence for the beneficial effects of high skilled migration.


I had some good mainstream media articles on the astonishing benefits of innovation from the immigrants but failed to post them. The issue of "sending countries" suffering a supposed brain drain is a false alarm and it is just not the accurate way of seeing what goes on. The real thing is "brain circulation" happening for the benefit of all including the sending nations. The dynamic is very mutually beneficial.

Look at the benefits of open borders.



The World Bank estimates that increasing migration by 3 percent of the workforce in developed countries between 2005 and 2025 would result in global gains of U. S. $356 billion, and completely opening borders over the next twenty-five years would yield the world economy an extra US $39 trillion and radically reduce poverty.

This is not an easy policy to implement but understand that the 40 trillion dollars in benefits to the economy would be at least 20% higher growth than would otherwise be the case. The world economy is under 100 trillion dollars now and not growing too much lately. The world wide growth benefits of these "open borders " are only based on free human travel and do NOT include the huge additional benefits of 100% free trade and tearing down the gargantuan and endless trade barriers. Both Europeans and Americans pay over $1000 more per person each year on food due to disastrous protectionism. The world wide benefits there are potentially limitless if we somehow managed to get the political will to do the right thing and put humanity above narrow and greedy special interests . Putting humanity first for a change and slaying nationalism and xenophobia would help us all - even the nationalist minded folk who are mislead into cutting their own throats (thinking in their own 1 dimensional way to be doing something good for themselves ).

Without major changes, the most rosy scenario doesn't have the world economy above $200 trillion by 2035. Opening borders (now!) alone would add over 20% (and probably much more to the economy. The growth (the added trillions above where we are now at the end of 25 years) would actually be much more than 20%.

Lots of issues to look at.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 04-04-2017 8:26 AM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 07-04-2017 2:26 PM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 13 by frako, posted 08-09-2018 12:26 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Posts: 1717
Joined: 12-22-2015

Message 3 of 353 (804025)
04-05-2017 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
04-04-2017 8:26 AM

I fixed it yesterday. Can I start the debate now? There is alot of b.s. to shoot down
I can't wait to tackle this b.s. about immigrants coming over here to "sit on their butts and not work".

New York has about 3 million and 23 thousand (according to figures from a few years ago which are the most recent) immigrants among a population of 8.5 million.

5.5 million New Yorkers born here (64%)

3 million immigrants (36%)

You would think that would suggest that immigrants would be about 1/3 of the workforce if they are working on par with native Americans.

Anything less than that would at least indicate a tiny bit of evidence backing up the claim that they come here and don't work.

Guess what?

Immigrants are 47% of the workforce here in the city I was born in.

So much for the "they just want our benefits which Americans get when not working" claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 04-04-2017 8:26 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Posts: 1717
Joined: 12-22-2015

Message 5 of 353 (812738)
06-19-2017 10:33 PM

You must see this Bret Stephens, Only Mass Deportation Can Save Us June 17,2017 artic
This controversial right winger demolished anti-immigration arguments in one of the best op-ed pieces that I have ever seen.

I am going to quote just a smidge


On point after point, America's nonimmigrants are failing our country. Crime? A study by the Cato Institute notes that non-immigrants are incarcerated at nearly twice the rate of illegal immigrants, and at more than three times the rate of legal ones.

83% of illegal immigrants are Christian in identification while nonimmigrants are 70.6%

Twice the number of new business starts come from immigrants. In Silicon Valley and everywhere else.

Check out the article!

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Posts: 1717
Joined: 12-22-2015

Message 6 of 353 (814079)
07-04-2017 8:38 AM

Landmark study from the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (2016
The scientific research shows that immigrants cost us in the first generation but the costs are small.

1st generation immigrants cost U. S. taxpayers $57.4 billion a year.

2nd generation ddescendants of immigrants benefit us $30.5 billion a year.

3rd generation immigrants' descendants benefit the national tax treasures to a net tune of $223.8 billion.

We have 32 million legal and 11 millions first generation undocumented immigrant human beings presently.

Understand that the $71.5 billion defense budget increase ( will be a cost that must be paid for each and every year - NEXT year and for every year we must pay for ) that the Congress just proposed is only possible to pay for due to our small upfront investment in immigrants from the past few generations ( and longer back ).

If the American military is even 1/10 as vital to freedom as militaristic commentary constantly insists, then it is vitally REQUIRED that we increase overall annual immigration numbers by several orders of magnitude.

Posts: 1717
Joined: 12-22-2015

Message 8 of 353 (814123)
07-04-2017 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Phat
07-04-2017 2:26 PM

Re: The Melting Pot
The dislocated folks are the types of economic consequences that get lots of attention due to the fact that hurting segments of a population will be politically active. There will be winners and loosers all over, but especially in the relatively rich countries that the poorer people will migrate to. The hurting folks will get their due attention regardless of what the studies look for.

That is the situation in the rich host countries.

As for the global population at large, the fact that you have a poorer part of the world (which will have folks who will migrate to the greener pastures like the United States ) means that there will be upfront costs to the host nation.

The question of the day is actually several questions about how much the respective parties will get from the deal and how long it will take. (As well as who gets hurt in the process ) The parties are the citizens of the richer host country, the immigrants, the state and federal coffers, the jobs, the economy, the employment rate, etc. Then the (not quite seen as "patriotic") concern about the overseas financial situation will be more relevant than many might think at first glance. The better off the world is, the less people will want to immigrate to the United States to start with.

The ironic thing is that the immigrants help our national economy, federal deficit, national debt, economic growth, employment, etc. But the average person thinks that the poorer people coming here hurts us so immigrant arrivals are (supposedly ) a "bad thing" .

I wish that there was a World Constitution that gave everyone rights ( like health care rights to see any doctor, anywhere, regardless of your national origin and residential address ) so this question of "who benefits more" is irrelevant.

But we see immigrants as "bad" so the fact that the wealth is going up in the rest of the world will reduce the amount of immigration to the USA so that is "good" (except it really isn't good really because the immigrants really do "help us " though it isn't really politically correct to admit that they are beneficial ).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 07-04-2017 2:26 PM Phat has not yet responded

Posts: 1717
Joined: 12-22-2015

Message 9 of 353 (814352)
07-07-2017 12:12 PM

Bret Stephens article on immigrants was popular with alot of folks (not just me )
From the June 25 New York Times


2. Only Mass Deportation Can Save America
Published online June 16, this Op-Ed article by Bret Stephens remained popular for the entirety of last week. "I'm jesting about deporting 'real Americans' en mass. (Who would take them in, anyway?), Mr. Stephens wrote. "But then the threat of mass deportation has been no joke with this administration. "

The left had a fit over this conservative global warming skeptic being hired by a fairly liberal newspaper.

Just like the populist right will have a fit over his total demolition of popular anti-immigrant propaganda.

(Will his fact filled article get the coverage that anti-science theories get? )

The media likes to present the Global Warming skeptic arguments but will pseudo science coverage be matched in total airtime by the fact-filled evidence that demonstrates the benefits of immigrants (contrary to popular anti-immigrant lies that we have heard presented as truth ) ?

Posts: 1717
Joined: 12-22-2015

Message 10 of 353 (837778)
08-09-2018 12:30 AM

GUARDIAN: Democrats need a coherent immigration position (Open Borders best position)
Nice that somebody noticed what I long ago noticed.

The Democrats suck and they aren't an opposition party (they play the same role that the late Alan Combs played when he was on the Sean Hannity show, just useful fodder for those promoting the Republican line).

Immigration policy is too important to just simply give an incomplete and (at best)abbreviated debate. The American people deserve to have all possible policies engrained in (our heads)the national debate.



Why Democrats should support open borders

Reece Jones

The Republican position is coherent, but racist. The Democrats need a forceful pro-immigration rebuttal to beat it

Although the US Senate is holding a debate on immigration policy, the Republican leadership has already settled on an extreme position that will substantially reduce all immigration to the United States.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said the debate will end this week and indicated that the Secure and Succeed Act, proposed by senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Cotton but voted down by the Senate on Thursday 39-60, was the only bill that could pass the House and be signed by the president. Senator Cotton said on Tuesday that it was a non-negotiable “best and final offer”. In the face of this recalcitrance, the Democrats must rethink their current incoherent immigration policy and argue robustly for more open borders.

The Republican plan would have allocated $25bn for border security, ended the diversity visa, and substantially restricted family reunification visas in exchange for a 12-year path for citizenship, including “good moral character checks”, for the 1.8 million people who were qualified for the Daca program. Overall, the plan would reduce legal immigration to the US by 35%, or more than 350,000 people per year mostly from Latin America, Asia and Africa.

Dreamers deadlock: Congress at impasse as pressure mounts to act

Read more

It is logical to support immigration restrictions if you believe that the United States is fundamentally an Anglo-European culture with western civilizational roots. This logic drove the United States’ earliest immigration laws from the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to the Immigration Act of 1924 that established quotas to protect a racially defined notion of who could enter the United States. Subsequent immigration laws removed the explicitly racist elements, but have continued to limit the number of immigrants, the vast majority of whom are not white.

The core of the Democratic position on immigration is harder to discern. Democrats are in favor of some border security, but definitely not a wall. Democrats favor some immigrants such as Dreamers, but accept the status quo that restricts immigration from most of the planet. Since the Republicans have come clean on their desire to reduce legal immigration, Democrats should formulate a forceful pro-immigration argument in favor of open borders.

Open borders could have an enormous positive impact on GDP worldwide. Even critics of immigration, such as George Borjas, acknowledge this: “The removal of immigration restrictions would indeed lead to a huge increase in GDP: global wealth would increase by $40tn – almost a 60% rise. Moreover, the gain would accrue each year after the restrictions were removed.” Given the clear economic benefit, the conservative Wall Street Journal ran an editorial in 1984 arguing for a five word amendment to the US constitution: “There shall be open borders.”

The concern that some citizens might lose jobs to immigrants is not supported by research. One study found migrant and native workers are employed in different sectors of the economy, another showed that migrants create 1.2 additional jobs beyond the job they do because they rent an apartment, buy a car, and frequent local businesses.

See link for more in article

The Open Borders position needs to be heard.

(We need some real policy choices)

Nice if we had a true opposition party.

Can't get good policy if Democrats don't shape up (the Democratic incumbents are a proud lot, and they - by and large - never get shipped out, so we need to demand they shape up)

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2018 9:32 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Posts: 1717
Joined: 12-22-2015

Message 36 of 353 (837848)
08-09-2018 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
08-09-2018 11:21 PM

Conservative Cal Thomas (on a conservative site townhall.com) said this:

In an article for Reason magazine last May, Steve Chapman, a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune, referenced a University of Chicago GenForward Survey of Americans, ages 18 to 34. The survey found that "62 percent believe we need a strong government to handle today's complex economic problems." Only 35 percent said "the free market can handle these problems without government being involved."

The survey, noted Chapman, found that "Overall, 49 percent hold a favorable view of capitalism -- and 45 percent have a positive view of socialism," with socialism scoring higher approval among African Americans, Hispanics and Asian Americans. Sixty-one percent of Democrats have a positive view of socialism, which is not surprising, while 25 percent of Republicans favor it, which is a surprise.

Cal Thomas admits that 25% of Republicans have a positive view about something you feel should be banned in the USA, Faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 08-09-2018 11:21 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 08-10-2018 12:05 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Posts: 1717
Joined: 12-22-2015

Message 38 of 353 (837851)
08-10-2018 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
08-10-2018 12:05 AM

Re: Conservative Cal Thomas (on a conservative site townhall.com) said this:
But you DO CARE what people think.

You said you want people banned from the country over economic policy views.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 08-10-2018 12:05 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 08-10-2018 6:38 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Posts: 1717
Joined: 12-22-2015

Message 40 of 353 (837862)
08-10-2018 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
08-10-2018 6:38 AM

26% of conservatives and 23% of Tea Party folk support socialism.

Only 70% of conservatives and 72% of Tea Party folks hold a negative view of socialism.


You aren't being clear enough about this situation.

Clarify please.

Should they be considered dangerous too?

For their views.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 08-10-2018 6:38 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 08-10-2018 8:03 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Posts: 1717
Joined: 12-22-2015

Message 64 of 353 (837917)
08-10-2018 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
08-10-2018 6:45 PM

Which socialism?

There are hybrid forms of socialism that are less totalitarian but the tendency of socialism is always toward totalitarian oppression in the hands of government

Bernie Sanders demolished this scare tactic and appealed to broad cross-sections of Americans.

Even conservatives are really showing awareness of the very real differences between Scandinavian "socialism" and North Korean communism.

Donald Trump is remembered for the "blood from her wherever" comment directed at the moderator of the August 2015 debate, but he should be remembered for yelling at his demagogic Republicans the list of countries that Single Payer healthcare works well in.

As President, he told the Australian leader, "you have a better health care system than we do" (close to what he said) in front of an international media.

Socialism just isn't the dirty word it used to be. (the attack never gets old though, huh?)

People know that higher per capita incomes mean less than was once thought. There needs to be a way to make sure that progress is reflected in the quality of living (or at least reflected in the quality of the safety net when people fall down) for all people.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 08-10-2018 6:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 08-10-2018 8:22 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Posts: 1717
Joined: 12-22-2015

Message 66 of 353 (837919)
08-10-2018 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
08-10-2018 8:22 PM

Re: Which socialism?
I associate public education (promoted by Marx) with progress, and it specifically was crucial in moderating people and causing us all to move AWAY from old mindsets that were congenial towards tyranny and lack of freedom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 08-10-2018 8:22 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 08-11-2018 4:05 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Posts: 1717
Joined: 12-22-2015

Message 67 of 353 (837920)
08-10-2018 8:35 PM

What about "there shall be open borders" in the constitution as conservatives support
Robert Bartley is noteworthy for his 5 line proposed amendment.

Robert Leroy Bartley (October 12, 1937 – December 10, 2003) was the editor of the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal for more than 30 years


Here is what one gets when putting those 5 words into google.


Open Nafta Borders? Why Not? - WSJ

Jul 2, 2001 - He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports ... a constitutional amendment: "There shall be open borders.".

open borders - BizzyBlog


If Washington still wants to "do something" about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders. Perhaps this ...


Jul 2, 1995 - In imbibing their doctrine straight, their vision has become so blurred ... for a five-word constitutional amendment: "There shall be open borders.

Quotable quotes | Open Borders: The Case


Abraham Lincoln (see also the Open Borders blog post, Abe Lincoln would be a ... They will come in their weakness, we shall meet them in our strength.

Robert Bartley - Wikipedia


Robert Leroy Bartley (October 12, 1937 – December 10, 2003) was the editor of the editorial ... immigration debate of 1984 we suggested an ultimate goal to guide passing policies--a constitutional amendment: 'There shall be open borders.'" ...

Bernie Sanders's fear of immigrant labor is ugly — and wrongheaded ...


Jul 29, 2015 - ... editor Robert Bartley once proposed: "There shall be open borders. ... There are two problems with Sanders's view on this, one empirical and ...

Wrong On The Founders | National Review


Jul 14, 2003 - ... celebrate Independence Day by publishing an editorial endorsing a constitutional amendment proclaiming that “there shall be open borders.

Rupert Murdoch's Open Borders Wall Street Journal Warns: 'Bad Sign ...


Jan 28, 2016 - The Wall Street Journal, like Murdoch, is decidedly open borders. ... a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders.”.

Why Democrats should support open borders | Reece Jones | Opinion ...

Feb 16, 2018 - In the face of this recalcitrance, the Democrats must rethink their ... a five word amendment to the US constitution: “There shall be open borders.

Let Them In: WSJ Editor Argues for Open Borders - NewsBusters


May 18, 2008 - But there is one area in which the editorial page's policy diverges strikingly ... The case for open borders is a case for moving our immigration ...

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 08-11-2018 2:01 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Posts: 1717
Joined: 12-22-2015

Message 105 of 353 (838005)
08-11-2018 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
08-11-2018 7:34 PM

Re: Multiculturalism is a Satan-inspired weapon for destroying Christian culture

a matter of fact there isn't much of the Christian culture left to destroy

What is "Christian culture" anyway?

The Aramaic language?

Or one of the Roman Empire languages (Greek?) (Latin?)

The latter has Spanish as a living language.

Greek and Aramaic are about dead.

(Aramaic would be considerably more "Christian" than Greek, but Greek would perhaps slightly count as there was a Hellenistic Jewish party in the 2nd century Palestine among those like Jason, and Greek was spoken and used by even Jewish Christian sects)

This article is about the last few Aramaic speakers in Georgia.


Protestants were converting Aramaic Christian speakers in India to an even more alien European religion.

(The Aramaic "Christians" were so already so totally washed in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman doctrine that they weren't very close to the early Jewish Christians themselves ANYWAY)

Protestants demolished Aramaic speaking peoples, so they killed (what should be considered) "Christian culture".

(my point is that today's so-called "Christians" are frauds and they have used cultural appropriation to claim to be something they are not)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 08-11-2018 7:34 PM Faith has not yet responded

Posts: 1717
Joined: 12-22-2015

Message 167 of 353 (838679)
08-25-2018 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Hyroglyphx
08-24-2018 12:16 AM

Did a Socialistic decision to own oil fields "create" wealth?
Hyroglyphx said:


I mean, what is running Sweden's economy? It aren't the Socialist programs which, by the design of it, consumes wealth and cannot create wealth. It's private companies like IKEA, Skype, Volvo, Ericsson, Saab, etc that fund their social programs.

But Norway might possibly have a response that challenges that line of thought.



Norges Bank Investment Management, which runs Norway’s 8.3 trillion krone ($988.2 billion) sovereign wealth fund (the world’s largest), reported 1.8% returns for the fund’s second quarter Tuesday morning.


The fund saves pretty good, but it spends out a portion (on Norwegian social programs) every year.

It might be superior to a private system.


What Norway did with its oil and we didn’t

When oil was discovered in the Norwegian continental shelf in 1969, Norway was very aware of the finite nature of petroleum, and didn't waste any time legislating policies to manage the new-found resource in a way that would give Norwegians long-term wealth, benefit their entire society and make them competitive beyond just a commodities exporter.

"Norway got the basics right quite early on," says John Calvert, a political science professor at Simon Fraser University. "They understood what this was about and they put in place public policy that they have benefited so much from."

This is in contrast to Canada's free-market approach, he contends, where our government is discouraged from long-term public planning, in favour of allowing the market to determine the pace and scope of development.

"I would argue quite strongly that the Norwegians have done a much better job of managing their [petroleum] resource," Prof. Calvert says.

While No. 15 on the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness rankings, Norway is ranked third out of all countries on its macroeconomic environment (up from fourth last year), "driven by windfall oil revenues combined with prudent fiscal management," according to the Forum.



Nowway has muscle. It owns oil and has a single payer health care system.


The economy of Norway is a developed mixed economy with state-ownership in strategic areas. Although sensitive to global business cycles, the economy of Norway has shown robust growth since the start of the industrial era. The country has a very high standard of living compared with other European countries, and a strongly integrated welfare system. Norway's modern manufacturing and welfare system rely on a financial reserve produced by exploitation of natural resources, particularly North Sea oil.[13][14][15][16][17]

According to United Nations data for 2016, Norway together with Luxembourg and Switzerland are the only three countries in the world with a GDP per capita above US$70,000 that are not island nations nor microstates.[18]


In 2013 (when the currency was stronger in Norway), this was the health care spending per person.


Norway, Switzerland and the United States are the world’s three biggest healthcare spenders – paying $9,715 per person (9.6% of GDP), $9,276 per person (11.5% of GDP), and $9,146 per person (17.1% of GDP) respectively.


But in 2016, it was much less.


Expenditure on healthcare is about USD $6,647 per head per year (2016), among the highest in the world.[1] It has the highest proportion of nurses and midwives per head in Europe - 1,744 per 100,000 in 2015.[3]


Here are 2016 numbers. (has a good set of graphs, and includes Norway)


While Norway is at around $6,500 per person (it isn't on a chart that lists the actual number, but is on a graphical comparison thingy), here is the United States and Switzerland.

United States $10,348

Switzerland $7,919

Norway has a per capita income of $82,000 presently (Switzerland is around $86,000), while we are at about $62,000.

Our health care is 50% more expensive. The government pays 85% of the total Norwegian costs, so I think it is fair to say that the same $ amount is spent by the government's of both countries.

The difference is the smaller dollar amount spent out of pocket in Norway.

It could be that the socialist system does create wealth when it owns an industry, like oil, that is BOTH profitable and maximizes economic growth.

The health care system might be half the PER GDP COST, which could be seen as "reducing GDP 7-9%", but if it is efficient, then it is macro-economically favorable and in actuality it ends up facilitating growth when the bigger picture is viewed from afar.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2018 12:16 AM Hyroglyphx has acknowledged this reply

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020