Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something. Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again too. Who decides?”     Robert A. Heinlein

June 21, 2007

Immigration Is Good For The Economy

by Doug Mataconis

Contrary to the argument made by most immigration opponents, it seems that immigration actually raises wages for workers as a whole:

Immigration has a positive impact on the U.S. economy and boosts wages for the vast majority of native workers, though there are “small negative effects” on the earnings of the least-skilled Americans, according to a report the White House issued yesterday.

The report, a review of economic research prepared by the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, concludes that foreign-born workers have accounted for about half of labor force growth in the past decade, fueling overall economic output, creating jobs and increasing earnings for native-born workers by as much as $80 billion a year.

Immigrants and their children also have a “modest positive influence” on government spending, the report says, contributing about $80,000 more per person in tax dollars over the long run than they claim in government benefits and services.

The report directly challenges attacks on President Bush‘s proposal to overhaul immigration laws. His measure would link beefed-up border security and a crackdown on employers who hire illegal immigrants to provisions granting legal status to the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country. It would also create a guest-worker program sought by business and shift the emphasis of immigration policy from family ties to job skills and education.

(….)

Foreign-born workers make up 15 percent of the U.S. labor force, with large concentrations at the top and bottom of the education scale, the report says. For example, immigrants make up 36 percent of workers who lack a high-school diploma and 41 percent of scientists with doctoral degrees.

As a group, immigrants earn 77 cents on the dollar compared with native workers, though that gap largely disappears among college graduates.

More than 90 percent of native workers benefit from the influx of low-wage labor because immigrants take jobs that complement higher-paid native workers rather than competing with them, according to the report. For example, [Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Edwin P.] Lazear said, immigrant roofers lower costs for contractors and home-builders, creating jobs for plumbers and electricians and lowering the price of houses for consumers.

That’s the side of the immigration debate that the nativists don’t want you to think about. Kick out all that cheap foreign labor and the cost of everything from your new house to the lettuce at the grocery store goes up. Not to mention the revenue lost to businesses who benefit from the wages that immigrants earn.

But this shouldn’t be surprising. It’s the same thing that happened in the late 1800′s when Eastern Europeans started coming in large numbers. People complained they were taking away jobs from “real Americans” and, you know, they dressed weird and spoke in those funny foreign languages. And it’s the same thing that happened when the Irish arrived here, and the Italians. The only difference this time is that the immigrants are closer and they don’t need to get on a ship to get here.

And, oh yeah, they dress weird and speak a funny language.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/06/21/immigration-is-good-for-the-economy/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

34 Comments

  1. [...] posted at The Liberty Papers   [...]

    Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Immigration — June 21, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
  2. Xenophobia…it’s used to justify everything from keeping people unemployed to keeping unions and corrupt politicians in power to starting wars with countries that didn’t attack us.

    Kind of sad that after almost 400 years of more or less open borders so many people haven’t figured out that immigration and the assimilation of new cultures has been one of America’s greatest strengths.

    Comment by UCrawford — June 21, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
  3. There is plenty of water for everyone to drink too!
    http://www.doi.gov/water2025/

    Comment by Radical Times — June 21, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
  4. I’m tired of these types of articles that attempt to talk about immigration when the issue of today is ILLEGAL immigration. The person that put this article together must be getting paid from some entity that cares not about the future of the United States of America. It’s all double talk through and through and the U.S. LEGAL population is not going for it.

    BUILD THE FENCE!!

    Comment by Brian — June 21, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
  5. Brian,

    Actually, I’m part of the legal population, I live in an area with a substantial migrant population, and I’m all for open immigration. That’s mainly because I like cheap goods, respect a healthy work ethic, and support the right of the individual to seek a better life for themselves…regardless of what country that individual happens to come from.

    As for the aspersions you cast on the pro-immigration folks, I suppose they’re understandable. Frankly, I’ve long suspected that the anti-immigration folks are a bunch of pro-union racists who can’t stand the idea of competition and don’t want to give up their welfare benefits. Either that or they simply know jack shit about economics and they’re too lazy or stupid to find out. So perhaps in my own way I’m being just as prone to negative stereotypes as you.

    Of course I’m also not the one proposing to keep people out of the country based on the color of their skin or where they happened to be born…

    Comment by UCrawford — June 21, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
  6. Doug, the study is bollocks. I don’t even need to look at that to realize it. Progressive tax system with the vast majority of illegals earning well below the crossover point. Considerable use of entitlement funds over and above that.

    Not rocket science.

    How people end up making a ‘modest positive contribution’ over their lifetime when as far as I can tell they never actually pay as much in government taxes as the government spends on individuals per capita is something I can’t for the life of me figure out.

    Comment by Nick — June 21, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
  7. I think it’s time to have another Constitution Convention and we all go our separate ways and see whose right the Nationalist or the Transnationalist.

    Comment by Radical Times — June 21, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
  8. UCrawford, I don’t give a shit where they came from either. The point is, they need to come here legally. I’m tired of my kids schools being dumbed down because they have to cater to all of the kids that don’t speak any English. How is this fair to them? When I went to the same elementary school that my kids go to now, it was made up of mostly white kids, and now it is probably 98% hispanic, and a good portion of them don’t speak english and are not expected to. Instead my kids have to learn spanish in class. If they want a language, fine, they can take it of their own free will when it is offered in junior high and high school.

    If they want to be treated with respect, come here legally, learn english, and quit flooding the welfare system. Don’t come here and have an anchor baby just so they can stay. The thing about our ancestors that did come over on boats did it legally. They went through the process of becoming a citizen and should be proud of it. We are being taken over by these Illegal Aliens. That is not what America is about.

    If their conditions are so piss poor, then they should stay there and fight their government for better opportunities and better conditions instead of coming here and bitching that they don’t have equal rights. Damn right they don’t have equal rights and they shouldn’t until they go about being a citizen the legal way just as thousands of others have in the past.

    I agree with Brian, “Build The Fence”, put a damn moat around it too with alligators if needed.

    Comment by Aimee — June 21, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
  9. Aimee,

    I don’t disagree…..they need to come here legally.

    I just think that current immigration laws are too restrictive.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — June 21, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
  10. http://borjas.typepad.com/the_borjas_blog/2007/06/no_pain_no_gain.html

    My stance on immigration is wholly dependent on how progressive the income tax system is and the nature of the welfare state.

    Comment by Nick — June 21, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
  11. I Agree that Immigration is beneficial to society, but the real problem is the welfare state. Wether they pay in more than they pay out isn’t the issue.
    The issue is that participation in any government program expands it’s power base. Immigration of low skilled jobs tilts the ratio of “government” power to “free” power more toward the governments favor.

    If not for the entitlement system, we could open the immigration flood gates and have an economic boom.

    Comment by David C — June 21, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
  12. It is almost impossible to immigrate into the U.S. legally. Hell, it took Senator Kennedy’s personal intercession to get my father, a physicist with a PhD in Physics, into the U.S.

    I think the wait time is now what 10 – 20 years for people in many countries?

    I often hear people complain that they are only opposed to illegal immigration, who do not recommend opening the doors much wider than they are now. Since legal immigration is all but impossible, such a position boils down to actually being opposed to immigration in general. In many cases it is clear that the pople staking out that position are opposed to almost any immigration but, lacking the moral courage to actually state this outright, hide behind a concern for the rule of law.

    I am unconvinced by arguments that immigrants are a drain on the welfare state. That means we should abolish the welfare state. Hell, native born children are a drain on the welfare state, and I don’t think anyone would support a Chinese 1-child policy to limit population growth.

    I consider the welfare state to be immoral. Trying to mitigate the damage that the welfare state causes by interfering with the right of people to freely contract is as immoral as going through the infant wards of hospitals and randomly deporting newborn children to orphanages over-seas.

    The system will eventually collapse anyway; why prolong the pain?

    Comment by tarran — June 22, 2007 @ 1:08 am
  13. There are only two sustainable inputs to true GDP growth: population growth and efficiency (usually in the form of technology improvement).

    Everything else is phantom or parasitic GDP – shuffling an existing fixed pot of wealth with each link in the chain taking a cut.

    Historically we relied on both sources. Generally we’ve not had a sustained a replacement rate of native reproduction so we have relied on immigration (you know, the “America is a nation of immigrants” story). When the English dropped the ball with the industrial revolution in the 1840s-1850s, the US picked it up and ran with it; at least until recently.

    Closing the borders and outsourcing science and technology is a sure path to total economic collapse.

    Comment by Mantra — June 22, 2007 @ 1:40 am
  14. Would a compromise be to let individual states decide on immigration for themselves? The pro-open border states would be responsible for their health bills and be fined for any crimes they commit in non-open border states. We tailor our immigration policy towards community needs instead of an utopian centralized plan.

    Comment by Radical Times — June 22, 2007 @ 5:09 am
  15. RT,

    Leaving immigration up to the states isn’t practical at all.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — June 22, 2007 @ 8:17 am
  16. What’s comical is that we already have open immigration between states, and aside from complaints about Californians moving into western states I haven’t seen any of the wholesale civilizational collapse people predict.

    And before people start kvetching about culture clashes, take a trip from Louisiana to New Hampshire. The post office might fly the same flag, and the currency has the same pictures, but that’s about all they have in common.

    In fact, after the War Between the States, when presumably there was incredible hostility between the populations, white people could travel freely and settle in whichever state they wanted to. Bitching about carpet-baggers aside, the free movement of people actually did not cause problems that would justify banning it.

    Comment by tarran — June 22, 2007 @ 8:37 am
  17. I think Tarran nailed it squarely on the head. The problem with immigrants “flooding” the welfare system is not the fault of the immigrants. The problem is that we have a welfare system at all. Aimee, however, is right in one respect, illegal immigrants shouldn’t be entitled to welfare benefits…but by the same token neither should anyone else in America (citizen or otherwise). And I say that both as someone who has never used welfare benefits (because I’ve had paying jobs since I was 10) and as someone who finds it repellant that my tax dollars are used to subsidize someone who opts not to work. Frankly, if opening the floodgates to immigrants creates a crisis in the welfare system, I’m perfectly okay with that…it means that we’ll finally be forced to have a real debate about just how worthwhile or justified the welfare system is in the first place. So thanks for validating my point, Aimee.

    As for the problems with English in the schools, I’d say that also reflects more on the quality of public school education than on the immigrants. But that’s another debate.

    Reason had an amusing cartoon on this topic today, by the way:

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/120992.html

    Comment by UCrawford — June 22, 2007 @ 8:52 am
  18. 4th try…

    That’s the side of the immigration debate that the nativists don’t want you to think about. Kick out all that cheap foreign labor and the cost of everything from your new house to the lettuce at the grocery store goes up. Not to mention the revenue lost to businesses who benefit from the wages that immigrants earn.

    Nobody seems to be mentioning that legal/documented labor costs are kept artificially high by payroll deductions.

    Comment by js290 — June 22, 2007 @ 11:11 am
  19. http://br.endernet.org/~akrowne/writings/illegal_immigration/illegal_immigration/

    Comment by js290 — June 22, 2007 @ 11:11 am
  20. That’s the side of the immigration debate that the nativists don’t want you to think about. Kick out all that cheap foreign labor and the cost of everything from your new house to the lettuce at the grocery store goes up. Not to mention the revenue lost to businesses who benefit from the wages that immigrants earn.

    Or, perhaps legal/documented labor costs are ketp artificially high by payroll deductions. See link in previous reply.

    BTW, WordPress sucks…

    Comment by js290 — June 22, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
  21. js290,

    Your article lost its credibility once it based its premise for tax reform on the idea that the government had a responsibility to remove the differences in relative wealth.

    FYI…a great number of people who are less successful in life are in that position because of actions they themselves have taken. And it’s not the obligation or responsibility of anyone else to shield individuals from the consequences of their actions…particularly when the proposed solution involves forcibly stealing money from people who earned or inherited it (via compulsory taxation) and giving it to people who didn’t.

    Simply put, nobody owes anyone else a living, and if the “blue-collar” (by which I assume you really mean “unskilled”) American workers your article tries to deify are finding competition from lower-paid immigrants to be such a problem, I’d suggest that it’s because the job skills those unemployed workers possess simply aren’t worth as much in a free market as those workers (and the unions that often represent them) would like us to believe.

    Life sucks when you have minimal utility to offer an employer. But that’s not anyone else’s responsibility to fix either…and nobody owes you a higher wage or secure employment based solely on where you happened to be born, which is what the anti-immigration faithful never seem to get. Appeals to pity, which is what articles like the one you cited are all about, are for private charities to address, not government programs and “progressive” taxation.

    Comment by UCrawford — June 22, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
  22. Doug, I made mistake I was referring to the Guest Worker Program. I was just thinking of a way for individual communities to decide on Guest Workers which I believe is the main conflict. There are communities that need Guest Workers but then there are ones that don’t want them shouldn’t they have the right to choose? For better or for worst whatever that maybe? I think it might be feasible if we used RFID.

    The Nationalist see it all as a plot to destroy the United States while Transnationalist see it as a step up into their utopia.

    Comment by Radical Times — June 22, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
  23. Your article lost its credibility once it based its premise for tax reform on the idea that the government had a responsibility to remove the differences in relative wealth.

    Hmm… I wonder if you read a different article than I did…

    FYI…a great number of people who are less successful in life are in that position because of actions they themselves have taken. And it’s not the obligation or responsibility of anyone else to shield individuals from the consequences of their actions…particularly when the proposed solution involves forcibly stealing money from people who earned or inherited it (via compulsory taxation) and giving it to people who didn’t.

    Hmm… I tend to think the wealthy use the government to steal from the poor more so than the other way around…

    Simply put, nobody owes anyone else a living, and if the “blue-collar” (by which I assume you really mean “unskilled”) American workers your article tries to deify are finding competition from lower-paid immigrants to be such a problem, I’d suggest that it’s because the job skills those unemployed workers possess simply aren’t worth as much in a free market as those workers (and the unions that often represent them) would like us to believe.

    There are no “free markets” here…

    Life sucks when you have minimal utility to offer an employer. But that’s not anyone else’s responsibility to fix either…and nobody owes you a higher wage or secure employment based solely on where you happened to be born, which is what the anti-immigration faithful never seem to get. Appeals to pity, which is what articles like the one you cited are all about, are for private charities to address, not government programs and “progressive” taxation.

    Now you’re just ranting about whatever. The article I referenced was making the argument that illegal immigration is caused in part by the tax system which artificially makes legal/documented labor costs more expensive for the employer.

    I don’t know what you’re spouting off about… “free markets”… as we if we such a thing here… “progressive taxes helping blue collar workers”… as if the government hasn’t ever bailed out the wealthy… oh wait, I guess you’re saying when the government bails out the wealthy people, that’s called “free markets.” Gotcha…

    Comment by js290 — June 22, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
  24. I read the entire article you cited…did you?

    Illegal immigration is caused by several things…poverty and unemployment in the countries of the immigrants’ origins, the availability of jobs in our country, and the desire of humans not to have to starve to death because of ridiculous laws. Reasons like that are why unskilled immigrants come here, not progressive taxation. That’s why immigrants are so often willing to shell out big bucks to coyotes and risk death to cross our borders.

    As for the costs for employers being lower to hire illegal immigrants…well, duh. Want to get rid of that incentive? Then dump minimum wage laws so that American citizens can competitively bid for work against illegal immigrants. Cut back on government support for labor unions so that they don’t have a coercive edge in negotiations and drive the costs of employing domestic labor up. Cut back on restrictive licensing laws so that start up businesses have less barriers to entry and can create more jobs for everyone. Your article’s proposal to increase progressive taxation, however, is completely off the mark. In addition to having no actual effect on immigration (other than to likely create less jobs here by punishing the producers in society) all that does is to steal money from the more productive to give it to the less productive out of some sense of pity. And I don’t have a lot of pity for anyone that thinks they’re entitled to the money in my pocket simply because they’ve got a hard luck story that’s got nothing to do with me.

    Now, if you’re saying that restrictive government is the cause of much employment misery, I agree and I’m all on board with getting them out of our daily lives. If you think that wealthy people abuse the system and get undeserved breaks, hell, I’m all for creating a straight percentage tax so that everyone pays their fair share, and I’d be a big proponent eliminating subsidies and payouts for corporations and special interests. Less government can only be a good thing. If, however, you’re merely saying that poor American people deserve a handout because an immigrant was willing to do the same job as them for less money, you’re wasting your time because you’ve got no moral argument. Same thing with your article’s argument for keeping out immigrants because they’ll suck up welfare…abolish welfare and it won’t be an issue. Americans have no more right to steal tax money out of other peoples’ pockets than immigrants do.

    Comment by UCrawford — June 22, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
  25. And if you’re so set on having government provide charity for the poor, why not get behind a policy of voluntary income taxation? If some people want to use the government to try and alleviate misery, they’ll be free to fund it themselves (like with public campaign funds). And those that don’t support bailing out the poor won’t have to pay the costs for a program they disagree with. At least then welfare wouldn’t be a system of petty theft, as it is now.

    Comment by UCrawford — June 22, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
  26. Your article’s proposal to increase progressive taxation, however, is completely off the mark… Same thing with your article’s argument for keeping out immigrants because they’ll suck up welfare…

    UCrawford,

    you are a ranting retard that obviously didn’t read the article or have no reading comprehension.

    http://br.endernet.org/~akrowne/writings/illegal_immigration/illegal_immigration/

    The Solution: Eliminate the Income Tax

    Sometimes it’s eerie how spot-on the founding fathers of the United States were. Though they made direct taxes explicitly illegal, later governments couldn’t figure out why (and couldn’t help themselves), so they simply erased that pesky little clause of the Constitution. As argued above, the income tax is basically a huge bulls-eye painted on the United States that says “exploit me.” It sets up a scenario whereby those who wish to opt out of the citizenship system, and indeed, the core of our social fabric, are actually rewarded.

    We will not successfully prevent illegal immigration by “watching our borders more closely.” The cost of doing such a thing perfectly will be astronomical, and even then, still susceptible to false positives that would be a civil liberties nightmare.

    The cheap, easy, elegant, and humane solution to illegal immigration is simply to do away with the income tax system. If you do this, the 20-30% wage advantage of illegals vanishes instantly.

    Comment by js290 — June 22, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
  27. About the only thing I agreed with in the article was the author’s final conclusion to get rid of the income tax entirely. Not because it will stop immigrants from coming here to work (it won’t). And not for any of the other reasons he listed…they were all rubbish and most of them seemed to contradict his conclusion (which is why I dismiss the article’s legitimacy). But only because eliminating the income tax will force government to reduce services (including welfare), which can only be a good thing.

    Comment by UCrawford — June 22, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
  28. js290

    “Later on, I will argue that by switching to a national sales or VAT tax (both of which are consumption taxes [Ehrbar, 2005]), the illegal immigration problem can largely be solved. This would not be the case for a flat income tax. Thus, I argue, the consumption taxes are superior, if for this reason alone.”

    His argument was for removing the income tax so that government could charge us a national sales tax. A consumption tax essentially punishes people for the act of purchasing goods and services…those that purchase more will pay more in taxes and have less disposable income to spend on other products beyond subsistence or need (which slows the growth of jobs). It may create more revenue for the government, but it’s about as anti-economic growth as you get. And he’s doing this in an attempt to continue welfare services.

    In case you’ve missed my point, Oh Clever Dispenser of Nicknames, taking more revenue from consumers so you can give it to the government to redistribute is not a good thing. Retard.

    Comment by UCrawford — June 22, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
  29. New Government Report Says Government Policy Is Great!

    Doug, you just get off the turnip truck?

    Comment by C Bowen — June 22, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
  30. What do you think about this Testimony that states that Hi-Tech companies reject American applicants then claim there aren’t enough programmers because they want to higher cheaper foreign programmers?

    http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html

    Comment by Radical Times — June 23, 2007 @ 6:27 am
  31. I’m getting a kick out of this article because I’m NOT an economist.

    I can sort of see how a myopic economist may be able to see an increase in profits by snuffing the descendants of the founders of this country. That makes room for the criminals in business’s illegal labor. Not only can many of the illegal invaders be paid off in token wages but that also leaves the honest workers stiffed with the criminal’s taxes, medical and social services. It’s a pure genius way of eliminating any competition. They won’t be able to compete on that playing field. Every day more and more will go under.

    The part that confuses me is I can see examples of some of the illegal aliens previous work. How will all of the crime that surrounds illegal immigration be helping you out when the honest people are forced to join in, in the lawlessness?

    Comment by Carson — June 24, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
  32. Carson,

    A few of points:

    1) Nobody is snuffing out anybody. An immigrant does not have to kill someone who is already here to make room for themselves.

    2) If I were to convince the U.S. Congress to forbid anybody from employing people who post under the handle of “Carson” the people who continued to illegally do business with you would not be hurting anyone. In fact, the law itself would violate the right of you and those you interact with to contract with each other. Laws criminalizing immigration are in fact a violation of the right to contract. As such, they are no more moral than laws against interracial marriage, or laws requiring segregated seating on buses.

    3) Illegal immigrants earn black market wages. These are not token wages, but the actual freemarket price for labor. When they differ from the “legal” price, it’s a sign that the government is intervening in labor markets causing a misallocation of resources.

    4) Yes, immigrants strain the welfare state. So do births. The welfare state is immoral and should be abolished. It’s immorality is in no way an argument to further violate human rights.

    5) If native born workers require the government to “protect” them from competing with foreign born labor, that is a sign that the natives are incapable of competing on a level playing field. Remember, if you are trying to keep immigrants “from takin ‘er jobs’, what you are actually demanding is that the government make an unlevel playing field in your favor. You are basically claiming that native born Americans are incapable of competing fairly with foreign born workers. Personally, I believe that to be hog-wash.

    Comically, people have been complaining about the wrong sort of immigration since before the American Revolution. While Thos. Jefferson was penning the Declaration of Independence and listing in it the grievance that the King was restricting immigration into the colonies, old Ben Franklin was bitching about the excessive immigration of Germans who talked funny, worshiped God the wrong way, and had ruddy complexions. It was dumb then, and it is dumb now.

    Incidentally, you might want to study something called The Theory of Comparative Advantage”. It explains why unskilled immigrant labor actually makes everyone better off.

    Comment by tarran — June 25, 2007 @ 3:14 am
  33. tarran,

    An estimated 47 million is a whole lot of somebody’s.

    The Unacknowledged Holocaust

    Back in the 60’s the Federal Government came into the public schools and brainwashed us as little children with the message that the children we were about to have were unwanted because the population was rising so fast. They launched a program called, “Zero Population Growth”. They pushed Family Planning and birth control pills. I think you and I now both know that you only have to trick people for their few child bearing years and there is no going back.

    Many of us never had a say in the future of our unborn.

    I am the result of two living cells. One from each of my parents. They are the result of two living cells, one from each of their parents. I wasn’t just born. I am a continuation of life. I am a living thing that reaches back into time perhaps 400 million years and the result of billions of joining of pairs of cells. It is possible that if you were to follow my cells back to my parent’s cells and beyond that my family tree touches every living thing here on earth. That is if we limit ourselves to believing life was created here on earth. If it rained down from the immensity of the universe it could reach back into that immensity of time and space, and who knows what relationships and who knows what species.

    At least until I came up against the Federal Government and their plan to control the population.

    I have seen the Federal Government do little else to control the population.

    The open border, United States laws only apply to some malarkey, is a serious slap in the face. No, not a slap in the face. It reaches well beyond that. Maybe back to the beginning of time and stretch to the bounds of the universe.

    Comment by Carson — June 25, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
  34. I’m sorry; whaaaat ?

    The federal government encouraged people not to have children, and therefore they must also interfere with the right of people to trade with each other?

    Do you seriously believe that two unrelated wrongs make a right?

    Wow.

    Comment by tarran — June 25, 2007 @ 7:43 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML