vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
wallpaper Ell amp; Nikki - Running Scared
joshraj
10-03 11:46 AM
Starting the thread for tracking the receipt notices recd by applicants for applications recd by the center on July 27 2007. Please update the thread with receipt dates, issued center. Also highlight if your I-140 is approved or pending with the center name
meridiani.planum
07-30 06:24 AM
I have a unique problem with possibly getting a green card too early. Please let me know how I can make this situation better. My priority date in EB2 India is in Jan 2006, which means potentially I could get my green card in 2-3 months.
I plan to get engaged in December 2008 and married in December 2009 to an Indian born Australian citizen. As far as I can see, her chargeability would be from India.
What are my options to make my life easier and to be able to successfully bring my future wife to the US the easiest possible way. So far, I have 2 options:
1. Use the special E3 work visa for Australian citizens.
2. If I dont get my GC within the next few months, do an early court marriage and invoke the following-to-join spouse when she is ready to come to the US.
If you follow #1 while you will have your GC immediately your wife will need to maintain her E3 visa until your PD is current again.
I plan to get engaged in December 2008 and married in December 2009 to an Indian born Australian citizen. As far as I can see, her chargeability would be from India.
What are my options to make my life easier and to be able to successfully bring my future wife to the US the easiest possible way. So far, I have 2 options:
1. Use the special E3 work visa for Australian citizens.
2. If I dont get my GC within the next few months, do an early court marriage and invoke the following-to-join spouse when she is ready to come to the US.
If you follow #1 while you will have your GC immediately your wife will need to maintain her E3 visa until your PD is current again.
2011 ell amp; nikki running scared
dan19
03-09 02:50 PM
Based on Murthy.com, It's likely that EB3 World will move but India and China will remain stagnant:confused:
As most EB3 numbers go to IT software and as there are so many issues, until DOS and USCIS fix these issues they wont move these forward
As most EB3 numbers go to IT software and as there are so many issues, until DOS and USCIS fix these issues they wont move these forward
more...
rdehar
11-27 01:40 PM
How does it work? It doesn't work anymore :D
Labor substitution is dead.
Beware of anyone scamming you in name of labor sub...
Labor substitution is dead.
Beware of anyone scamming you in name of labor sub...
Lasantha
01-18 11:47 AM
You can stay out side for 3 years in a 5 year period.
Friends,
How long can one stay out of Canada once landed as a permanent resident? Is it 2 years or 3 years???
I did my landing in July 06 and have received canadian PR but then moved back to US since then and have not visited Canada since.
Can somebody please provide some input on this? Friend of mine told me that i have to move before July, 08 in order to maintain canadian PR status. Is it true?
Many thanks for your input on this.
Friends,
How long can one stay out of Canada once landed as a permanent resident? Is it 2 years or 3 years???
I did my landing in July 06 and have received canadian PR but then moved back to US since then and have not visited Canada since.
Can somebody please provide some input on this? Friend of mine told me that i have to move before July, 08 in order to maintain canadian PR status. Is it true?
Many thanks for your input on this.
more...
gc_freedom
02-21 02:28 AM
admesystems you can apply for AP but you can not use it because you were out of status for 1 year you will not be allowed to enter US for next 10 years!
So it's of no use to you.
gc_freedom
So it's of no use to you.
gc_freedom
2010 Ell amp; Nikki - Running{.
cjain
08-10 03:45 PM
from AILA
http://www.aila.org/content/fileviewer.aspx?docid=23079&linkid=164409
http://www.aila.org/content/fileviewer.aspx?docid=23079&linkid=164409
more...
pal351
11-21 05:41 PM
Please share your experiences.
Thanks.
Thanks.
hair ell amp; nikki running scared
s_r_e_e
08-15 11:26 AM
you just beat me in posting this
:D
happend to have oh law site open on the side while reading this... it was easy to find the faq link in there :)
:D
happend to have oh law site open on the side while reading this... it was easy to find the faq link in there :)
more...
cal97
03-12 02:17 PM
Congratulations! I am not sure if the online status is being updated. I got my I-140 approval on 3/5/2009 and still shows as pending online.
Anyways, enjoy your freedom.
After a long 5 years I finally received 485 case approved letter for both my case and my spouse's case. However the online status still shows pending. Is this common?. How long would it take for the online case status to be updated.
EB2- PB Dec2003
485 Filed date: 08/02/07
Texas service center
Anyways, enjoy your freedom.
After a long 5 years I finally received 485 case approved letter for both my case and my spouse's case. However the online status still shows pending. Is this common?. How long would it take for the online case status to be updated.
EB2- PB Dec2003
485 Filed date: 08/02/07
Texas service center
hot ell amp; nikki running scared
rameshk75
01-09 03:24 PM
NSC is processing 140's filed on or before Apr 6,2007 - Once the processing dates shows your filing date, on 31st day, you can ask your employer to open a service request. NSC respond to your SR within 45 days. Hope this helps.
I don't think the dates for NSC is on or before Apr 6, 2007.
My 140 details:
RD: Apr 30,2007
Approved on May 03,2007
Regular Processing
FYI..
I don't think the dates for NSC is on or before Apr 6, 2007.
My 140 details:
RD: Apr 30,2007
Approved on May 03,2007
Regular Processing
FYI..
more...
house quot;Running Scaredquot; by Ell
Al6200
05-06 09:02 AM
I never said it was. What I am saying is that it's off topic considering what he wants to achieve.
He will? Why?
Again, that's got nothing to do with the desire to learn Win32.
And so can using the WPF in .NET, but how does that help with learning Win32?
Sorry for going a little off topic... I just was showing him some things related to Win32, like if I showed him MFC or COM.
Anywho, Win32 is a pretty cool API. One thing I'd recommend is Visual Studio's help files, or just creating a project in visual studio where the Win32 code is written in automatically, and then studying that code.
If you're not using Visual Studio, a highly recommend you use it as a compiler. There is a scaled down free version.
He will? Why?
Again, that's got nothing to do with the desire to learn Win32.
And so can using the WPF in .NET, but how does that help with learning Win32?
Sorry for going a little off topic... I just was showing him some things related to Win32, like if I showed him MFC or COM.
Anywho, Win32 is a pretty cool API. One thing I'd recommend is Visual Studio's help files, or just creating a project in visual studio where the Win32 code is written in automatically, and then studying that code.
If you're not using Visual Studio, a highly recommend you use it as a compiler. There is a scaled down free version.
tattoo ell amp; nikki running scared
gotgc?
02-03 05:04 PM
I have used my Canadian PR card for transit thru the UK while on AP. It was quite some time back though. The gate agent took a while to go thru my docs, but was satisfied and was allowed to board both ways. The verification obviously took a bit longer on the way back to the US, but nothing unusual. If I remember well, I did carry a copy of the transit rules with me in case there was any issue. My guess is you should be fine.
Thanks for your reply...judt wanted to make sure, did you travel to and from USA? Where did they check your documents?when you mention gate agent, which gate agent it is? is it your departure airport staff or London Immigration? On the way back who did check these documents? I am planning to take the transit rules with me as well...please let me know
Thanks for your reply...judt wanted to make sure, did you travel to and from USA? Where did they check your documents?when you mention gate agent, which gate agent it is? is it your departure airport staff or London Immigration? On the way back who did check these documents? I am planning to take the transit rules with me as well...please let me know
more...
pictures ell amp; nikki running scared
caprianurag
11-15 03:55 PM
So, what did you decide..to join as PM or not?
dresses ell amp; nikki running scared
jr8rdt
11-23 09:18 PM
How to get a notarized experience letter?
should the exp letter be signed in front of the notary (this can be difficult because the person is overseas)? or can I just give the copy of the experience letter to the notary for him to notarized it? what is the process? anybody??
thanks
should the exp letter be signed in front of the notary (this can be difficult because the person is overseas)? or can I just give the copy of the experience letter to the notary for him to notarized it? what is the process? anybody??
thanks
more...
makeup ell amp; nikki running scared
Lasantha
07-17 04:41 PM
Screw Murthy !!! I have never seen him picking up any good news.
Kumar, you better get ready face two law suites from Sheila Murthy. First for misrepresentig her as a Man and second for sexual harrasment. You are in big trouble boy!!!
Kumar, you better get ready face two law suites from Sheila Murthy. First for misrepresentig her as a Man and second for sexual harrasment. You are in big trouble boy!!!
girlfriend ell amp; nikki running scared azerbaijan lyrics. ell amp; nikki running scared
smuggymba
08-10 08:48 AM
Friends
This is my situation
My I 140 approved, my status is F1 COS to H1 B
My wife situation, B1 (Visitor) COS to H4.
Now we r planning to change my wife status from H4 TO F1.
Can anyone with their experience suggest How complicated is my Case!!!!
Can we file COS by ourself or do you suggest to Hire an Attorney.
Pl advice
Thanks
We did the COS from H4 (stamped) to F1 for my wife ourselves. It was easy, no lawyer but we got an RFE on the dollar amount so we replied again ourselves (giving an excel sheet etc). You can do it yourself.
This is my situation
My I 140 approved, my status is F1 COS to H1 B
My wife situation, B1 (Visitor) COS to H4.
Now we r planning to change my wife status from H4 TO F1.
Can anyone with their experience suggest How complicated is my Case!!!!
Can we file COS by ourself or do you suggest to Hire an Attorney.
Pl advice
Thanks
We did the COS from H4 (stamped) to F1 for my wife ourselves. It was easy, no lawyer but we got an RFE on the dollar amount so we replied again ourselves (giving an excel sheet etc). You can do it yourself.
hairstyles ell amp; nikki running scared
krish.d.rao
07-25 10:39 PM
you can use AC21 even if your I140 is not approved, provided your GC sponsoring employer does not revoke it. I am speaking from personal experience.
I was stuck in the same job for 7 years and changed jobs after 180 days of filing my 485. At that time my I140 had been pending for 12 months but i took a chance. Later i got an RFE on my I140 (experience letters) but it was approved a few days after i sent in the required information.
The job description was the same although my new salary was about twice the amount mentoned in my labor. AC21 provision was created keeping in mind the extensive backlogs so if you have a good relation with your present employer go ahead and make use of it.
I was stuck in the same job for 7 years and changed jobs after 180 days of filing my 485. At that time my I140 had been pending for 12 months but i took a chance. Later i got an RFE on my I140 (experience letters) but it was approved a few days after i sent in the required information.
The job description was the same although my new salary was about twice the amount mentoned in my labor. AC21 provision was created keeping in mind the extensive backlogs so if you have a good relation with your present employer go ahead and make use of it.
randomdude
12-07 12:11 PM
There is no gain in waiting longer.
What is AC21? It exists due to immigration rules of limited PDs and backlogs which prolong the processing time of a 485 beyond 180 days. Since these delays are caused by their system, they have provided the option of switching employers as long as certain criteria is met.
As long as you meet the critieria you are all set. Waiting longer without meeting the criteria will be of no use and if you meet all the requirements of AC21, there is no reason to wait.
Thanks for replying KaiserSoze...nice name btw, hope you are not a figment of imagination like the one in the movie ;-)
I don't intend to be intrusive, but are you currently on EAD? Or do you plan to move to it?
I have also read at multiple places that the receipt date is the date from which we start counting 180 days for AC21. I believe that this date still holds true when one's case is transferred from say NSC to TSC. Does anyone know this for sure?
As luck would have it, my contract with my client ends on the 183rd day of my receipt date! Hence this and the original question
What is AC21? It exists due to immigration rules of limited PDs and backlogs which prolong the processing time of a 485 beyond 180 days. Since these delays are caused by their system, they have provided the option of switching employers as long as certain criteria is met.
As long as you meet the critieria you are all set. Waiting longer without meeting the criteria will be of no use and if you meet all the requirements of AC21, there is no reason to wait.
Thanks for replying KaiserSoze...nice name btw, hope you are not a figment of imagination like the one in the movie ;-)
I don't intend to be intrusive, but are you currently on EAD? Or do you plan to move to it?
I have also read at multiple places that the receipt date is the date from which we start counting 180 days for AC21. I believe that this date still holds true when one's case is transferred from say NSC to TSC. Does anyone know this for sure?
As luck would have it, my contract with my client ends on the 183rd day of my receipt date! Hence this and the original question
joshraj
10-13 04:32 PM
Atlast something is happening :)
No comments:
Post a Comment