Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Obama admin stops deportation of some illegalsFollow

#1 Jun 15 2012 at 11:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,933 posts
I really couldn't think of a good title. "USA: Amnesty International"? "Si se puede... quedarse en los EEUU"?

Meh, whatever. Here's the topic:

Quote:
Under the new policy, people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and were successful students or served in the military can get a two-year deferral from deportation, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said.

It also will allow those meeting the requirements to apply for work permits, Napolitano said, adding that participants must be in the United States now and be able to prove they have been living in the country continuously for at least five years.

The change is part of a department effort to target resources at illegal immigrants who pose a greater threat, such as criminals and those trying to enter the country now, Napolitano said.


First thoughts:

1. Obvious election-year mandate made for political gain.
2. Didn't Marco Rubio (R-FL) propose almost the exact same idea?* Granted, he wanted it through Congress, which likely would not have happened.
3. I don't see an issue with it, personally, besides the fact that Obama's used it for political points rather than just doing it because it's the right thing to do.

How's about yous guys?

*Edit: Yup, he did. It's gotta sting a bit to see his brainchild be given to the Dems.
Office of Marco Rubio wrote:
“There is broad support for the idea that we should figure out a way to help kids who are undocumented through no fault of their own, but there is also broad consensus that it should be done in a way that does not encourage illegal immigration in the future. This is a difficult balance to strike, one that this new policy, imposed by executive order, will make harder to achieve in the long run.

Today’s announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem. And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one.”


Edited, Jun 15th 2012 1:38pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#2 Jun 15 2012 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,032 posts
The article in The Hill mentioned that it would only affect ~800k people.

Considering you can't have a criminal or felony record, and have to be somewhat educated (high school graduate) or have served in the military, I'm totally fine with this. It's not like these people were getting deported anyways.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#3 Jun 15 2012 at 11:40 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,251 posts

I don't see an issue with it, personally, besides the fact that Obama's used it for political points rather than just doing it because it's the right thing to do.


There are no actions taken by government for altruistic ends. You're not 11 any more, time to stop pretending those sorts of things are factors.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#4 Jun 15 2012 at 11:41 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Quote:
The change is part of a department effort to target resources at illegal immigrants who pose a greater threat, such as criminals and those trying to enter the country now, Napolitano said.
I get (and support) the concept of removing blanket illegal immigration practices, but what's the point of the bolded bit? If this measure is there to grant amnesty to illegals that have been here and proved themselves productive, law-abiding citizens, why would the old-fashioned blanket measures still apply to people coming into the country illegally right now?
#5 Jun 15 2012 at 11:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,933 posts
Demea wrote:
The article in The Hill mentioned that it would only affect ~800k people.

Considering you can't have a criminal or felony record, and have to be somewhat educated (high school graduate) or have served in the military, I'm totally fine with this. It's not like these people were getting deported anyways.


Some most certainly were. Working at a college here, I can tell you at least one student in our program here is currently being held by authorities in Miami and awaiting deportation proceedings. Problem? The college raised tuition costs (about 10%, so maybe several hundred dollars) this semester, and the student couldn't raise the money to pay for her classes within the month timeframe given to foreign students. When that happens, the government revokes their right to stay in the country and sends them packing; nothing we as a college can do but report it.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#6 Jun 15 2012 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
******
43,432 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
There are no actions taken by government for altruistic ends. You're not 11 any more, time to stop pretending those sorts of things are factors.
Only if you stop pretending that it won't be brought up by people that can't find a real reason to be against something.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#7 Jun 15 2012 at 11:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If it makes Rubio feel better, this seems like an extension of the prosecutorial discretion Obama put into place around a year ago. Essentially, if a person was able to show a clean record and that they were a good citizen, the government exercised the right to say "No harm, no foul" and sideline the case. The person wasn't now legal, the government just said they weren't interested in pursuing him because they had more important illegal immigrants to go after.

That and the whole "school or military" thing has been part of the stalled DREAM act for years now. Rubio's just trying to get some news for his own VP aspirations after his earlier stumbles on the whole topic.

Edited, Jun 15th 2012 1:00pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Jun 15 2012 at 12:00 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,211 posts
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Quote:
The change is part of a department effort to target resources at illegal immigrants who pose a greater threat, such as criminals and those trying to enter the country now, Napolitano said.
I get (and support) the concept of removing blanket illegal immigration practices, but what's the point of the bolded bit? If this measure is there to grant amnesty to illegals that have been here and proved themselves productive, law-abiding citizens, why would the old-fashioned blanket measures still apply to people coming into the country illegally right now?


Gotta stop those future anchor-babies, dontcha' know.

Actually, that's probably not far off the mark. If a parent knows that their child who is currently 12 years old has a shot at becoming a legit US citizen if they can survive as an illegal immigrant for 5-6 years, they might be willing to take a risk that they otherwise would avoid. By eliminating anyone who enters the country right now, it's meant to discourage this sort of wishful thinking.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#9 Jun 15 2012 at 12:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,607 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:

2. Didn't Marco Rubio (R-FL) propose almost the exact same idea?* Granted, he wanted it through Congress, which likely would not have happened.


On one hand I agree, its easy to see a potential bill getting bogged down in an endless debate about who would qualify, how long they'd have to be here, etc. while both sides try to pander to potential supporters. On the other hand it was an easy way to claim all the credit for an idea that had some degree of bi-partisan support.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#10 Jun 15 2012 at 12:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The DREAM Act (originally 2001, then tried again in 2008-2009 and talked about since) predates Rubio joining the Senate (2010) by some time. To call this Rubio's idea in any form is pretty silly.

The closest connection is that neither this order nor Rubio's plan offers a path to citizenship but that's no doubt due to the limits of what Obama can issue as an executive order more than because he agrees with Rubio's version.

Edited, Jun 15th 2012 1:10pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Jun 15 2012 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:

First thoughts:

1. Obvious election-year mandate made for political gain.
2. Didn't Marco Rubio (R-FL) propose almost the exact same idea?* Granted, he wanted it through Congress, which likely would not have happened.
3. I don't see an issue with it, personally, besides the fact that Obama's used it for political points rather than just doing it because it's the right thing to do.

How's about yous guys?

There are so many misconceptions about immigration law. First of all:
1. Nope, that would have been prosecutorial discretion, which by trying to limit itself to the folks who would make the best future candidates for citizenship effectively made itself useless. Most people who qualify for it also qualify for some other type of relief from deportation in immigration court and decide to roll the dice rather than stay here undocumented.
2. This would never ever ever ever pass in Congress in the current economic climate.
3. Grow up.

Demea wrote:
Considering you can't have a criminal or felony record, and have to be somewhat educated (high school graduate) or have served in the military, I'm totally fine with this. It's not like these people were getting deported anyways.
Sure they could be. Once it is determined you are present illegally in the US, if you are over 18 and have no other relief available OR if you lose the case in which you petition for relief from deportation, you have two choices: a) Deportation at government expense or b) Voluntary Departure. Voluntary Departure involves renouncing your right to appeal, so some folks go with option A. After the case is closed and appeal exhausted, it is entirely up to the Deportation Office whether or not they stay the deportation for humanitarian reasons. This is the power Obama is exercising. It's a sieve under a net. A new Pres can negate the policy, and all those stayed deports get reactivated.

AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Quote:
The change is part of a department effort to target resources at illegal immigrants who pose a greater threat, such as criminals and those trying to enter the country now, Napolitano said.
I get (and support) the concept of removing blanket illegal immigration practices, but what's the point of the bolded bit? If this measure is there to grant amnesty to illegals that have been here and proved themselves productive, law-abiding citizens, why would the old-fashioned blanket measures still apply to people coming into the country illegally right now?
No amnesty. Amnesty =residency. This simply buys a plane ticket, but doesn't put them a plane, capice?
catwho wrote:
Gotta stop those future anchor-babies, dontcha' know.
No such animal as an anchor baby anymore. There are other more stringent requirements that trump having a US-born child 99% of the time.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#12 Jun 15 2012 at 6:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,478 posts
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Quote:
The change is part of a department effort to target resources at illegal immigrants who pose a greater threat, such as criminals and those trying to enter the country now, Napolitano said.
I get (and support) the concept of removing blanket illegal immigration practices, but what's the point of the bolded bit? If this measure is there to grant amnesty to illegals that have been here and proved themselves productive, law-abiding citizens, why would the old-fashioned blanket measures still apply to people coming into the country illegally right now?


Because, as I often tell conservatives who misuse the term (usually after cringing), amnesty is when the laws remain unchanged, but you make an exception for a specific set of people who broke it during a particular time period. So granting amnesty to smugglers and gun runners who helped the fight during the revolution gets them off the hook for their actions during that time period, but does not make smuggling and gun running legal going forward. Granting late fee amnesty for returned library books lets those who meet the criteria avoid the penalties, but doesn't remove them for future late returns.

Letting people who've been in the country illegally for X years (and meet other criteria) stay is properly an amnesty (as close as the term fits at least given that immigration status is an ongoing thing). What is *not* amnesty would be say creating a new guest worker visa designed to allow those who might otherwise live here illegally a legal means to do so. It's not amnesty because you've actually changed the law to make what they're doing illegal (well, to make it easier for what they're doing to be done legally anyway).

If the bolded part wasn't there, it would require changing the law. If we just made it legal for anyone to enter the country without going through our immigration process going forward, then that's a change in the law. It's not an amnesty since the law you'd be granting them amnesty *from* has just changed such that their current actions are no longer illegal. It's a totally different thing and kinda important to make note of said difference.

Atomicflea wrote:
No amnesty. Amnesty =residency. This simply buys a plane ticket, but doesn't put them a plane, capice?


Depends on how strictly we're going to apply the definition. Specifically, amnesty requires a documented act which frees someone of a negative effect for an action they have taken (or are taking). More broadly, it's anytime we choose not to apply said negative effects as a matter of policy. What we're doing here is creating a set of criteria under which we will not apply the laws. We're not even buying the plane ticket, just telling them they're here illegally, but we're not going to do anything about it.

Frankly, while I understand the motivation for this sort of thing (it appears on the surface to be humanitarian and whatnot), I think that this is worse in some ways. You're still maintaining a threat over the heads of these people since said amnesty could be lifted at any point. And from a political angle, you've created a enumerated group of political victims which can be used for political gain. Don't vote Republican, or they'll start deporting those poor innocent people we identified and set aside! Call me cynical, but I honestly don't think that the political left wants to "fix" our immigration issues. They get too much political power from keeping them in an eternal legal limbo.

Put them on the plane and send them home, and you can't constantly point to them as some group to be protected and helped. Grant them citizenship and you also can't do this. Even setting aside the potential political reasons for this, I just think that setting up rules but then allowing them to be broken (but just for now) is a crappy way to approach this issue.


Quote:
catwho wrote:
Gotta stop those future anchor-babies, dontcha' know.
No such animal as an anchor baby anymore. There are other more stringent requirements that trump having a US-born child 99% of the time.


Officially and on paper, sure. But aren't we talking about subjective choices being made by our government in terms of how/when the law is applied? You don't think that said choice is influenced by whether a potential deportee has minor children who are US citizens? Again, this is why the habit of choosing to not apply the law consistently is a bad idea. It creates a disconnect between how the laws are "officially" and how they actually end out being implemented. So folks like you can insist that there's nothing in our immigration policies that allows for the anchor baby effect, yet clearly it is happening, because we don't follow the official rules and polices.


And also? I'm getting tired of the Obama administration failing to make the legal changes they want (or not bothering to try in some cases), but instead just selectively choosing which laws to enforce. At the end of the day, the executive branch's job is to enforce those laws, not re-write them to their own satisfaction. You don't like a law, then get it changed. In addition to being a crappy way of doings things (as I pointed out earlier), it is strengthening an already bad precedent of serious overreach of executive power. It's not about this issue. No matter how much you may agree with the action in this case, you will likely disagree with some future president using the same (now established) power in the future. That's a bad road to travel down. We separate out government into three branches for a reason. By empowering itself to selectively refuse to enforce laws, the executive branch effectively bypasses the other two entirely. That's a bad thing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#13 Jun 15 2012 at 11:32 PM Rating: Good
I'm glad Obama finally grew a pair & started using his executive powers. He doesn't have Dubya sized balls, but now we at least know that he owns a pair.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#14 Jun 16 2012 at 12:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
No such animal as an anchor baby anymore. There are other more stringent requirements that trump having a US-born child 99% of the time.
Officially and on paper, sure.

She's actually talking in real practice based on over a year of observing immigration court cases for 50+ hours a week.
Quote:
But aren't we talking about subjective choices being made by our government in terms of how/when the law is applied? You don't think that said choice is influenced by whether a potential deportee has minor children who are US citizens?

Above other concerns? Probably not. Hence the "more stringent requirements that trump having a US-born child 99% of the time" remark and based on the federal attorneys explaining to the judge why the government is going to exercise discretion in this case. If the reason is "He has a kid", they'd say so. They have no reason not to say so -- it's not as though the judge can force the government to pursue the case.

Edited, Jun 16th 2012 1:21am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Jun 16 2012 at 8:21 AM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
28,183 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
I'm glad Obama finally grew a pair & started using his executive powers. He doesn't have Dubya sized balls, but now we at least know that he owns a pair.



The bailout, health care debate, scolding Congress AND the Supreme Court multiple times and murdering Osama bin Laden in his own state-sponsored safe house didn't convince you, but THIS did? Smiley: dubious

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#16 Jun 16 2012 at 8:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
gbaji wrote:
Letting people who've been in the country illegally for X years (and meet other criteria) stay is properly an amnesty (as close as the term fits at least given that immigration status is an ongoing thing).
Nope. It's a stay of execution, except in this case, the execution is the deportation.

Quote:
Depends on how strictly we're going to apply the definition. Specifically, amnesty requires a documented act which frees someone of a negative effect for an action they have taken (or are taking).
We're applying the definition in an immigration law sense, which is the only way it applies. Immigration amnesty is a pardon for violating immigration law. This stay of deportation is simply a mandate exercised upon an already existing discretionary power. If you reported for deportation and asked to stay for another six months because your USC father was given six months to live by his doctor, then ICE-ERO (Enforcement and Removal) could ALWAYS choose to exercise their discretion to stay (delay) your deportation.


Quote:
And also? I'm getting tired of the Obama administration failing to make the legal changes they want (or not bothering to try in some cases), but instead just selectively choosing which laws to enforce. At the end of the day, the executive branch's job is to enforce those laws, not re-write them to their own satisfaction. You don't like a law, then get it changed. In addition to being a crappy way of doings things (as I pointed out earlier), it is strengthening an already bad precedent of serious overreach of executive power. It's not about this issue. No matter how much you may agree with the action in this case, you will likely disagree with some future president using the same (now established) power in the future. That's a bad road to travel down. We separate out government into three branches for a reason. By empowering itself to selectively refuse to enforce laws, the executive branch effectively bypasses the other two entirely. That's a bad thing.
Not a law. A discretion that ICE ERO has always had, and has chosen to use or not in the past, just as prosecutorial discretion is something that DHS prosecution has always had.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#17 Jun 16 2012 at 8:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
gbaji wrote:
Officially and on paper, sure. But aren't we talking about subjective choices being made by our government in terms of how/when the law is applied? You don't think that said choice is influenced by whether a potential deportee has minor children who are US citizens?
Nope. Let me explain the basics, since you seem so intent on misunderstanding the process.

1. Illegal, here with no family, probably no criminal history? Deport
2. Illegal here with USC/resident family (including baby) that could petition for them once they turn 21? Likely Voluntary Departure, unless they have a criminal record, in which case they are being deported.
3. Visa overstay or illegal that claims persecution or torture? Will likely go to hearing for Asylum/Withholding of Deportation. Does not grant residency at trial, allows them apply one year after for residency to USCIS. They could still be denied.
4. Illegal, here for 20 years, no family? Deport if has criminal record, VD if has ties to the US and they think someone could petition him in future.
5. Anyone with a drug conviction other than a small amount of pot, resident or illegal? Deport. Permanent ban to re-entry.
6. Came in illegal, has USC family petitioning for him/her, an an approved visa petition from USCIS? Likely VD, because they STILL need to leave the country to get their visa in their home country. Good luck with that. Mexico is processing visas for unmarried sons and daughters of citizens from like, 1993.Wait is longer if you are a brother, or married.

The sort of immigration relief people are referring to when they discuss "anchor babies" is incredibly hard to attain. If you can prove in a hearing that you have 10 years in the US, 10 years of good moral character, and a USC or resident spouse, child or parent that can prove "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" if you were to be deported, a judge may grant residency through cancellation of removal. If you get a DUI, you'll be hauled right back in and you can only get cancellation once. Frankly, the people that can demonstrate this deserve citizenship. One that comes to mind is a Salvadorean couple that came illegally in the early 90s, and since then have five kids and a business and no criminal record, not even a ticket. Two of their kids have scholarships to college. One is a priest. They paid taxes, contributed. There should be a way for folks like these to earn citizenship when they have contributed more to our society than many who were born into it.





Edited, Jun 16th 2012 9:52am by Atomicflea
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#18 Jun 16 2012 at 10:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
485 posts
Careful there, you're dangerously close to sounding like an expert. And we all know how Gbaji feels about experts.

I still love this:
gbaji, on Jan. 30, 2012 wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#19 Jun 17 2012 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
BonYogi wrote:
Careful there, you're dangerously close to sounding like an expert. And we all know how Gbaji feels about experts.
Not an expert at all, just an observer in around 5,00o individual cases in about a year and have a working knowledge of how it tends to go. At this point, I can usually call it before I ever hear the full testimony.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#20 Jun 18 2012 at 7:37 AM Rating: Good
******
43,432 posts
That makes you biased, therefore wrong.

Edited, Jun 18th 2012 9:37am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#21 Jun 18 2012 at 3:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,478 posts
Atomicflea wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Officially and on paper, sure. But aren't we talking about subjective choices being made by our government in terms of how/when the law is applied? You don't think that said choice is influenced by whether a potential deportee has minor children who are US citizens?
Nope. Let me explain the basics, since you seem so intent on misunderstanding the process.

1. Illegal, here with no family, probably no criminal history? Deport
2. Illegal here with USC/resident family (including baby) that could petition for them once they turn 21? Likely Voluntary Departure, unless they have a criminal record, in which case they are being deported.


You realize you just proved my point right there, right? The sole difference between automatic deportation and voluntary departure (which means nothing at all if someone's already been willing to stay in the country illegally) is whether that person has a USC child/relative. So the easiest way to avoid deportation (in addition to avoiding committing any crimes while in the US) is to have a child while in the US.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Jun 18 2012 at 4:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"Voluntary Departure" in this case is a legally binding agreement with the court to leave the country on their own dime in exchange for not losing their ability to petition for re-entry in the future. It's not someone independently deciding that the US isn't all that and going home.

Edited, Jun 18th 2012 7:56pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Jun 18 2012 at 7:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
gbaji wrote:
Atomicflea wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Officially and on paper, sure. But aren't we talking about subjective choices being made by our government in terms of how/when the law is applied? You don't think that said choice is influenced by whether a potential deportee has minor children who are US citizens?
Nope. Let me explain the basics, since you seem so intent on misunderstanding the process.

1. Illegal, here with no family, probably no criminal history? Deport
2. Illegal here with USC/resident family (including baby) that could petition for them once they turn 21? Likely Voluntary Departure, unless they have a criminal record, in which case they are being deported.


You realize you just proved my point right there, right? The sole difference between automatic deportation and voluntary departure (which means nothing at all if someone's already been willing to stay in the country illegally) is whether that person has a USC child/relative. So the easiest way to avoid deportation (in addition to avoiding committing any crimes while in the US) is to have a child while in the US.
Psst. Here's a secret: Neither one of them is leaving, child or no. Actually, I take it back---the one with the child is actually MORE LIKELY TO LEAVE. I bet you can't figure out why and I don't care. As always, your willful misunderstanding of basic logic and your compulsion to turn facts into your own personal tampon supersede all.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 60 All times are in CDT