Comprehensive Immigration Bill at Senate

bear23 said:
What is your reasoning behind this??
Click to expand...


I just feel there are too many issues to be discussed, negoiated and compromised within this comprehensive bill. The Senate and the House disagree on many issues. Thanks.
 
Fact 1:Illegal immigration is out of control. Costs with medical, healthcare, security are causing a heavy burden in the US administration at all leves.

Fact 2 :policitians finally notice they need to do something to fix this - and that's a bipartisan conclusion.

Fact 3:passing bills which grants amnesty or guest-worker visas to millions of illegal aliens without enforcing immigration laws will just work as a tremendeous magnet to ATTRACT even more illegal immigrants to this country. Threrefore passing bills such as S.1033 and others wouldn't solve Factor 1 above. It doesn't matter whether one is in favor or against legalizing illegal aliens, that is a fact already proven by other amnesties;illegal immigration waves just were drastically increased upon granting amnesty to people already here.

Fact 4:Be in middle of opposers and supporters of illegal immigration will be an uncertain business. We are the ones in the middle.

Conclusion: My hope is that PACE or other specific remedy - even if a temporary visa recapture relief - gets supported and implemented. Waiting for a comprenhensive reform bill may be really painful and slow.



meg_z said:
I just feel there are too many issues to be discussed, negoiated and compromised within this comprehensive bill. The Senate and the House disagree on many issues. Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
I agree with Marlon.. We need some amendments that are very specific to legal immigration relief measures. It need not be a separate bill. It could be an extension to something that is already existing as law.

PACE is more relevant to us that comprehensive immigration reform. However, lobbying for much more specific to legal immigration is what we shoudl be aiming for, in my humble opinion.

marlon2006 said:
Fact 1:Illegal immigration is out of control. Costs with medical, healthcare, security are causing a heavy burden in the US administration at all leves.

Fact 2 :policitians finally notice they need to do something to fix this - and that's a bipartisan conclusion.

Fact 3:passing bills which grants amnesty or guest-worker visas to millions of illegal aliens without enforcing immigration laws will just work as a tremendeous magnet to ATTRACT even more illegal immigrants to this country. Threrefore passing bills such as S.1033 and others wouldn't solve Factor 1 above. It doesn't matter whether one is in favor or against legalizing illegal aliens, that is a fact already proven by other amnesties;illegal immigration waves just were drastically increased upon granting amnesty to people already here.

Fact 4:Be in middle of opposers and supporters of illegal immigration will be an uncertain business. We are the ones in the middle.

Conclusion: My hope is that PACE or other specific remedy - even if a temporary visa recapture relief - gets supported and implemented. Waiting for a comprenhensive reform bill may be really painful and slow.
Click to expand...
 
Assuming the above

Lets say for a second that we agree with that. Then why was there so much opposition among the republican conservatives to the immigration provisions in S1932.
The fact is that conservative republicans are against immigration in ANY form.
Whilst legal immigration provisions may be more easy to pass currently, the fact remains that as it stands the majority who oppose "illegal immigration" are generally oppossed to immigration in all its forms.
They view the family based immigration as the unchallengable and needed compromise for living in this world! Anything else is an unnecessary excess!
Like it or not the debate is rather polarised and we are caught in the middle.
 
meg_z said:
I just feel there are too many issues to be discussed, negoiated and compromised within this comprehensive bill. The Senate and the House disagree on many issues. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly the reason why this comprehensive bill will just drag out. The argument you present in fact goes against the comprehensive immigration bill.

In fact, whether this bill goes through depends not on whether legal immigration cause has support, on the other hand it depends on what kind of support illegal immigration has and that has nothing to do with us.


Its just like a case going to a court. Which case will get a decision fast. A case that is complicated, has so many plots and sub plots(comprehensive immigration reform) or a simpler case with a clear agenda(PACE).
 
WSJ Article

The problem with the above article and other similar ones is that there is never a mention about the problems faced by us (LEGAL, skilled immigrants).
 
That's exactly the point!!!

That is exactly the point.

Comprehensive immigration bill is about 11 million illegals and fear of terrorists lurking among them.

And if see the WSJ - 9% of the illegals are ASIANS - i.e. about 1 million people.

I guess in April 2001, a lot of these folks applied under 245(i) - no wonder visa dates movements are in dinosaur era.

What is surprising is the high number of illegals among Europeans/ Canadians!!!

Regards
GCStrat :)
 
Compete America Praises Specter Immigration Proposal to Expand Access to Highly Educated Foreign Talent

H-1B and EB Visa Programs Would be Reformed to Ensure Access to the World’s Best Talent

Washington, D.C. – Compete America congratulated Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) on his proposals to reform U.S. immigration processes for highly educated foreign nationals.

Key provisions of the draft legislation, which the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to begin consideration of on Thursday, March 2 nd, would immediately relieve the crisis U.S. employers face when seeking to hire highly educated foreign nationals. It would also provide relief for thousands of valued foreign-born workers currently stuck in a severely backlogged green card system.

“Senator Specter understands the value of highly educated foreign nationals to U.S. competitiveness. These are the innovators, entrepreneurs, scientists and researchers that have contributed mightily to this country’s economy. The current system denies U.S. employers much-needed access to this talent pool, and is counterproductive and punitive,” said Sandra Boyd, Vice President of the National Association of Manufacturers and Chair of Compete America.

“We are very pleased with many of the provisions included in Senator Specter’s proposal specific to highly educated foreign nationals. Taken together, they would go a long way toward fixing a broken system and securing America’s position as the world’s innovation leader,” said Lynn Shotwell, Executive Director of the American Council on International Personnel. “We look forward to working with the Senator and others to make sure these provisions become law this year.”

Compete America (www.competeamerica.org) is a coalition of more than 200 corporations, universities, research institutions and trade associations concerned about legal, employment-based immigration and committed to ensuring that the United States has the highly educated workforce necessary to ensure continued innovation, job creation and leadership in a worldwide economy.

http://www.competeamerica.org/news/alliance_pr/20060301_talent.html
 
Compete America Expresses Hope for a House Competitiveness Plan that Includes Access to Critical Foreign Talent

2006 GOP High Tech Agenda Complements President's Competitiveness Initiative

Washington, D.C. - Compete America expressed hope today that the House Republican high tech agenda for 2006, which includes a provision for increasing America's talent pool, will ensure access to the highly educated foreign nationals needed to keep America on top of the worldwide economy. The plan, announced this afternoon by House GOP leadership and members of the High-Tech Working Group, complements the President's American Competitiveness Initiative, which recognizes the importance of highly educated foreign nationals to our continued economic strength.

"President Bush recognizes the central importance of highly educated foreign workers to a competitive workforce and America's continued global leadership. The ability to attract and retain these workers must be included in any plan for improving American competitiveness," said Sandra Boyd, National Association of Manufacturers Human Resources Policy Vice President and Compete America Chair. "We are pleased that the House plan has embraced the spirit of the President's initiative, and we are hopeful that the House will reaffirm the President's desire to attract and retain the foreign talent that is so critical to U.S. employers and our nation."

Compete America believes it is fundamental to the United States' economic interest to provide world-class education and job training, and to have a secure and efficient immigration system that welcomes highly educated and skilled professionals to the United States.

"America has a long history of welcoming highly educated foreign talent to our country, and they have, in turn, been long-time contributors to America's economic might. Congress must enact much-needed reforms to both the H-1B visa and green card programs so that U.S. employers can continue to attract and retain some of the world's brightest minds," Boyd continued.
 
Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
On The Chairman’s Mark On Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Executive Business Meeting Of The Committee On The Judiciary
March 2, 2006

Today we begin a long overdue debate on comprehensive immigration reform. I commend the Chairman for initiating this debate.

We are a nation of immigrants. My grandparents came to this nation as immigrants, and my Irish and Italian grandfathers became stone cutters in the stone quarries of Vermont. We all support legal immigration, but we are also a nation of laws, and our laws must be enforced. We must work hard to keep this nation vital, vigorous and ready to offer the American Dream to each new generation of Americans, and that includes ensuring that American workers can find jobs. We must confront what we all know is a broken system, and the path to truly fixing it will have to be paved with straight talk and honest facts. Goodwill and bipartisanship will help get us there, and in the lead up to these proceedings, it is encouraging that this Committee has taken at least some baby steps down that constructive path. There are 11 million undocumented aliens in this nation, and we all know that it would be impossibly costly, complicated, distracting and burdensome to locate and deport those 11 million people. Even if it were remotely feasible to do this, we all know another stark fact -- that many of our industries and the economies of countless American communities have come to depend on immigrant labor.

No one is suggesting that we provide amnesty to those who are living and working in America illegally. What we need is a realistic and orderly process that brings illegal aliens and undocumented workers out of the shadows. We need aliens to come forward, to register, to pay taxes, and to learn English. If we can achieve that, we can help eliminate the underground economy, where illegal aliens accept lower wages than Americans and where worker safety is jeopardized. If we enact laws that are reasonable, that are fair, and that put people on a level playing field, we can start to regularize wages for all workers and ensure just competition.

This is more than an economic issue; it is also a security issue. Rather than talking about having to build walls across our Northern and Southern Borders to prevent migration, we can bring the 11 million undocumented into the light of day. This is a basic point: knowing who is in our nation allows us to improve our national security. Then our security resources can be sharply focused on capturing those who want to do us harm.

The Chairman has presented us with a proposal that draws from several existing proposals as well as including fresh ideas of his own. There are some worthy provisions in the bill and some that I find deeply troubling. I expect that this bill will dominate the Committee’s executive agenda for the next several weeks, so today I will discuss just a handful of the bill’s provisions.

I was pleased to see the Chairman include in his bill additional border patrol agents, inspectors, and Customs and Border Patrol officers. I have fought for additional border agents since 2001, when I added a Northern Border security section to the USA PATRIOT Act to authorize tripling of the patrol staff along the border. The mark includes some positive provisions to help math and science students study and stay in the United States, raising the competitiveness of our work force in these critical areas. And it picks up on a proposal to make more H-1B visas available, an effort I strongly supported in the budget reconciliation process last fall.

The mark creates a new visa category, H-2C, for persons coming temporarily to the United States to perform labor or services if U.S. workers cannot be found. I believe that this provision has the potential to help our dairy farmers legally hire foreign workers. Dairy workers often slip through the cracks when we discuss agricultural worker visas, which are often seasonal in duration. Dairy farms need workers year-round. I hear the concerns of Vermont dairy farmers almost daily, and they raise legitimate questions. They want to follow the law, but they struggle to find legal dairy workers. I want to see some relief for all of our dairy farmers, whether they are in Vermont, Pennsylvania, New York or Wisconsin.

Unfortunately, there are a number of problematic provisions in the Chairman’s mark.
It contains a provision to conduct studies on the feasibility of building barrier systems on the Northern and Southern borders. I prepared an amendment to strike the Northern Border barrier study, which I do not believe will increase the security of our nation. Given all of our protection needs, and the cost of meeting them, I cannot understand why we would direct funds to study the feasibility of what appears to be not only utterly infeasible, but also entirely undesirable, especially from the perspective of the states along what has long been the world’s longest, safest and most commercially important international border. We should focus our efforts on working with our friend and ally, the Canadian Government, to continually improve security, trade, and community ties. I was pleased to hear from the Chairman’s office that this provision will likely be stripped as we move forward.

The mark also takes what I believe are steps in the wrong direction. Several sections give the Executive branch broad powers that are exempt from judicial review. We have seen how this Administration acts when it believes it is above the law. Whether it is redefining torture or spying on Americans domestically, this Administration seems to have little respect for court review. I know that the Chairman holds the judiciary in high regard, and so I am, frankly, puzzled to see these court-stripping provisions in his bill.

The bill also expands the definition of aggravated felony to include minor offenses and applies these changes retroactively. Such modifications could have serious consequences for victims of domestic violence, who are often charged along with their batterers when police arrive at the scene of a domestic incident. We just succeeded in reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. I am dismayed to see proposals in the mark that might harm those same victims we worked so hard to protect in VAWA.

The Chairman has tried to produce a bill that balances the interests of the many different and strongly held points of view in the immigration debate. I appreciate his efforts, but am sorry that we are starting this debate with a document that does not include a path to citizenship for immigrants who register, wait in line, pay their fines, and follow the laws. I am dismayed that we are not starting with commonsense and bipartisan approaches to deal with the 11 million undocumented aliens presently in this country.

In addition, the mark might have included bipartisan proposals like “Ag Jobs” and the DREAM Act. It might have taken steps to help refugees, who are sometimes forced to use fraudulent documents to escape persecution in their home countries. Instead the mark would add to their burdens by barring asylum in many such circumstances. These are missed opportunities. Punitive measures, unreviewable discretion, and other restrictions on judicial review add insult to injury. We may be able to modify the mark in positive ways in the coming weeks, and I stand ready to work with the Chairman and any member of this committee to do so.
 
Statement of U.S. Senator Russell D. Feingold
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Executive Business Meeting
March 2, 2006

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While I think it’s safe to say that there is consensus here that our current immigration system is broken, I understand that we have different visions as to how to improve it. I would like to take this opportunity to touch on some of the components that I view as critical to this debate, and that I believe must be part of the bill that the Committee ultimately reports to the full Senate.

I strongly support efforts to curb illegal immigration and to prevent terrorists from entering our country to do harm. We can and must bolster our efforts at the borders, and I am pleased that the Chairman’s mark contains strong provisions in this area. But it would be fiscally irresponsible to devote more and more federal dollars to border security without also creating a realistic immigration system to allow people who legitimately want to come to this country to go through legal channels to do so. If we focus exclusively on enforcement, our immigration system will remain broken, and I fear we will have wasted federal dollars. Improving our border security alone will not stem the tide of people who are willing to risk everything, even their lives, in order to enter this country. We need to improve security at our borders and create a system in which law-abiding non-citizens can enter the country legally to work when there is truly a need for their labor. We will all be better off if we create a realistic immigration system that recognizes our country’s need for these workers, that allows them to come into the country legally, and that ensures our government knows who is already here.

Today, millions of undocumented workers contribute to our communities and economy, in Wisconsin and across the country. Let’s be perfectly clear: Not one member of this Committee has suggested giving undocumented aliens blanket amnesty. I and others on this Committee do recognize, however, that a comprehensive proposal must include provisions that will bring the estimated 11 million undocumented aliens currently living in the United States out of the shadows. I think Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy’s bill provides a model for the type of earned legalization program that we should include as part of this bill. Their proposal would require undocumented aliens to show work history, satisfy background checks, pay fines, fulfill English language and civics requirements, and wait at the back of the line in order to obtain permanent status. In other words, people who, once here, work hard and play by the rules would be able to earn a path to permanent status.

We also need a foreign worker program that allows employers to turn to foreign labor but only when they cannot find American workers to do the job. Our laws should acknowledge the reality that American businesses need access to foreign workers for jobs they cannot fill with American workers. In my home state I have heard from many business owners, including a number whose businesses go back for generations, about the need for Congress to fix our broken immigration system because they cannot find American workers. These hard-working American business owners desperately want to play by the rules, and cannot fathom why Congress has dragged its feet on this issue for so long. Whether it’s tourism, or farming, or landscaping, our businesses will continue to suffer if we fail to enact meaningful, comprehensive, long-term immigration reform.

At the same time, any new temporary worker program must include strong labor protections to ensure that foreign labor does not adversely affect wages and working conditions for U.S. workers. We must not create a second class of workers subject to lower wages and fewer workplace protections. That would hurt all workers because it drives down wages for everyone. Foreign workers who have paid their dues should be treated fairly and deserve the protections of all working Americans. And if we permit these workers to enter the country legally, our border agents can focus their efforts on terrorists and others who pose a serious threat to this nation.

It is crucial that the Senate pass meaningful, pragmatic comprehensive immigration reform. This is a complex issue, and I am sure I join my colleagues in thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in holding hearings and ensuring that legislation on this issue goes through the appropriate Committee channels. I commend my colleagues for their efforts on this issue, I look forward to working with them, and I urge the President to work with Congress to enact realistic immigration reform.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201104.html

Senate battles over immigration reform

By Donna Smith
Reuters
Thursday, March 2, 2006; 3:06 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A battle over immigration reform began in the U.S. Senate on Thursday with lawmakers divided over whether to focus solely on border security and enforcement or take up a broader bill that could offer a guest worker program to some of the 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said he hoped to have a comprehensive immigration bill ready for full Senate consideration by the end of March. But as the committee began drafting the bill on Thursday, Specter said it would be a "gigantic task" to win agreement on one that his committee and the Senate will pass.

"I have seen virtually no agreement on anything when it comes to this immigration bill," he said.

A bill offered by Specter as a starting point for debate would create a guest worker program as suggested by President George W. Bush that would allow immigrant workers to live in the United States for up to six years and then return to their home counties.

Specter's legislation offers no way for those temporary workers to become permanent residents. Competing legislation offered by Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, would.

The bill also includes measures to beef up security along the 2,000-mile (3,200-km) border with Mexico and crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.

The U.S. House of Representatives last year passed tough enforcement legislation that requires employers to check the legal status of workers, tightens border security and calls for construction of a high tech fence along the U.S. border with Mexico. The bill has no guest worker program.

Some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said lawmakers should follow the House's lead and focus first on border security and enforcement. They argue that Congress should put off until later legislation addressing an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States and Bush's proposed temporary worker program.

"We cannot and should not discuss a guest worker program until the enforcement provisions are settled," said Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican. He said a guest worker program that includes people living illegally in the United States was a "back-door" approach to amnesty which many lawmakers say they do not want.

Kennedy argued it was unrealistic to ignore 11 million undocumented immigrants and any reform must provide a way for them to "come out of the shadows" and become citizens.

"The United States benefits in important ways from immigration," Kennedy said. "But these benefits are substantially undermined and even reversed when immigrants have no way to obtain legal status."

Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas said the reform measure should include a temporary worker program open to undocumented workers already in the country. But their plan would require them to eventually return to their home country and wait to re-enter the United States as a permanent resident.

Immigration reform and border security is a high priority for a number of lawmakers. More than 1.2 million aliens were caught in 2004, according to a recent study by the Congressional Budget Office. Most of them returned to their home country voluntarily but about 200,000 were formally removed, the CBO said.

The Border Patrol has intercepted more than 400,000 people trying to cross the border illegally in the first two months of this year, about double last year's pace, U.S. officials told a Senate panel on Wednesday. About 10 percent of those caught had criminal records, they said.
 
best chance

I get the impression that the best possible ooutcome of this debate for us in this is for a strict enforcement bill with some Eb provisions such as visa recapture and perhaps numbers expansion.
That way it is likely to pass in the house and we get what we need. Our cause does to appear to have the degree of opposition as that of the illegals. If gridlock occurs and there is no bill that may be a worse outcome for us, since there will likely be no revisiting this issue until atleast one more year, then with implementation delays etc, most of us will be in for a wait of years.
The country can then figure out what to do about the 11 million illegals. If they succeed in trying to make them legal in whatever form then we will get caught in the tsunami of applications.
 
I agree. I have no problem with strict enforcement. The problem is the politicians are too greedy.

posmd said:
I get the impression that the best possible ooutcome of this debate for us in this is for a strict enforcement bill with some Eb provisions such as visa recapture and perhaps numbers expansion.
That way it is likely to pass in the house and we get what we need. Our cause does to appear to have the degree of opposition as that of the illegals. If gridlock occurs and there is no bill that may be a worse outcome for us, since there will likely be no revisiting this issue until atleast one more year, then with implementation delays etc, most of us will be in for a wait of years.
The country can then figure out what to do about the 11 million illegals. If they succeed in trying to make them legal in whatever form then we will get caught in the tsunami of applications.
Click to expand...
 
Abosutely. This is consistent with what I have been saying.
I think we should try to lobby for a very specific, EB oriented bill. Moreover, most generic 'immigration comprehensive bills' already include increase of visa numbers for the EB folks anyway. We don't need to spend lots of energy lobbying for that one, since it is already there. The problem is that this illegal immigration debate is extremely controversial, it is going to be a pain and uncertain business get caugth in the middle of opposers and supporters.

I hope we can join our efforts with IV and try to expedite a bill to the EB folks only. No H1B, no illegal aliens amnesty should be in that one.

posmd said:
I get the impression that the best possible ooutcome of this debate for us in this is for a strict enforcement bill with some Eb provisions such as visa recapture and perhaps numbers expansion.
That way it is likely to pass in the house and we get what we need. Our cause does to appear to have the degree of opposition as that of the illegals. If gridlock occurs and there is no bill that may be a worse outcome for us, since there will likely be no revisiting this issue until atleast one more year, then with implementation delays etc, most of us will be in for a wait of years.
The country can then figure out what to do about the 11 million illegals. If they succeed in trying to make them legal in whatever form then we will get caught in the tsunami of applications.
Click to expand...
 
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002840722_immigcsm03.html?syndication=rss
Senate faces "gigantic task" in addressing immigration

By Michelle Mittelstadt




WASHINGTON — Senators opened a high-stakes debate Thursday over how to fix a dysfunctional immigration system, offering clashing policy prescriptions to deal with an illegal-immigrant population that tops an estimated 11 million.

As Senate Judiciary Committee members staked out their positions, they agreed on only two points: Post-Sept. 11, 2001, national-security concerns compel tougher border enforcement, and immigration changes are shaping up as the most contentious job facing Congress this year.

"A gigantic task," said committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

The question before the Senate: Does it follow the lead set by the House in December and approve an enforcement-only bill or fashion legislation that marries enforcement with a temporary-worker program open to illegal immigrants already here and migrants who will come in the future?

Three of the committee's 10 Republicans said Thursday that the federal government must significantly improve immigration enforcement before beginning to consider a guest-worker program.

"We need to get our house in order before we implement a temporary-worker program," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

But with the other Republicans and most of the panel's eight Democrats favoring a more comprehensive approach, the committee appears likely to pass a bill that includes a guest-worker program.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said it would be "irresponsible" for Congress to avoid dealing with the illegal immigrants already in the country.

"We can't ignore those 11 million in the hopes the problem will go away on its own," he said, noting that it serves national security to bring them out of the shadows.

Shaping the guest-worker program is expected to prove the biggest fight in the Senate, with competing views over whether immigrants who enter the program should be required to return to their country once their work visas expire or be allowed to remain in the United States on a path to citizenship.

Democrats are pushing what they called "earned" legalization, which would allow temporary workers in good standing who have paid taxes and learned English to gain legal permanent residence at the end of their work visas.

While sensitive to the view that illegal immigrants broke the law to get here, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said blame must be shared by the U.S. government. "How many times did we look the other way when we needed cheap labor to build this great nation?"

Senators have prepared a flurry of amendments to a draft bill offered by Specter that includes a work-and-return guest-worker program, or what critics have derisively labeled "report-to-deport."

Specter, who offered the draft to jump-start the debate, made clear that given his druthers, he'd provide a pathway to citizenship for those already in the country. But, he said, "I don't know that that can be done realistically."

He is under pressure from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to deliver a bill to the Senate floor by March 27. Frist has left open the possibility that if the deadline isn't met, he'll offer his own enforcement-only bill.
 
Agree completely.

Otherwise, we might become collateral damage at the best.

marlon2006 said:
Abosutely. This is consistent with what I have been saying.
I think we should try to lobby for a very specific, EB oriented bill. Moreover, most generic 'immigration comprehensive bills' already include increase of visa numbers for the EB folks anyway. We don't need to spend lots of energy lobbying for that one, since it is already there. The problem is that this illegal immigration debate is extremely controversial, it is going to be a pain and uncertain business get caugth in the middle of opposers and supporters.

I hope we can join our efforts with IV and try to expedite a bill to the EB folks only. No H1B, no illegal aliens amnesty should be in that one.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top