| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Immigration in the Americas
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Immigration in the Americas

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Immigration in the Americas
    Posted: 01 Jan 2012 at 23:11
While naturally one thinks immediately of the United States, its important to remember the scale and the significance of immigration (voluntary and involuntary in the case of slavery) in North and South America. How did these two continents absorb so many immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries and still manage to create the various nationalist based myths that are such a hallmark of the nation state? There is no corner of the Americas left untouched by immigrants during these two centuries. How did the inevitable nativist backlashes differ from one country to another?

The USA and Western Europe are going to have to encourage immigration on a scale seen only in the early 20th century in the North American continent. Our population is ageing, and this to me seems to be the only possible way we can keep our great confidence trick going for another couple of generations. Are there lessons we can learn about the experience in the Americas?

Any book recommendations would be much appreciated, this is an area I'd be interested in exploring.


Edited by Parnell - 01 Jan 2012 at 23:15
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 08:15
European/aboriginal conflict was actually pretty minimal in the early days of Canada, probably because early arrivals were not particularly interested in land, they were interested in money. The fur trade was the great draw for both the French, and also British Hudson's Bay Company traders. Natives were useful in these ventures, so there was an equalibrium. The crunch really came with the industrial revolution. Not only were numbers of European settlers increasing, but attitudes were changing. Whites say their society changing fast, and so presumed this was for some inherent reasons, and aboriginals, by comparison, were stuck in a reduced status. This strongly reinforced patronizing attitudes, and beliefs that native society would be swept away before the forces of higher civilization. Unsavory events followed.
 
Today the US is not doing all that bad. They have a slightly higher birthrate than most other advanced economies, and strong immigration as well. Canada now has a long tradition as an immigrant country, and will likely do ok in the future. Not so sure about Europe, with its more entrenched national cultures, and very low birthrates. Looking to the future, I think if we want to have a pragmatic view of what works, we have to look to the great multicultural cities like Singapore, Hong Kong, New York, Vancouver, etc. I think that's the way it's going to look.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 08:17
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

The USA and Western Europe are going to have to encourage immigration on a scale seen only in the early 20th century in the North American continent. Our population is ageing, and this to me seems to be the only possible way we can keep our great confidence trick going for another couple of generations. Are there lessons we can learn about the experience in the Americas?

Any book recommendations would be much appreciated, this is an area I'd be interested in exploring.
 
An aging population can be a problem, but it shall not be exaggerated. With a more ingenous and well adapted use of modern technology, and also a better system of equal distribution of resources (money, food, products) we can indeed adapt to a lower number of "workers" and still support the old people in our societies without having to resort to grand scale immigration.


Edited by Carcharodon - 02 Jan 2012 at 08:56
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 08:38
If an ageing population was such a problem the unemployement rate wouldn't be rising in such a way as it is. Technology has made a large labour pool unnecessary and for once I agree with Carch.  Sweden doesn't need much immigration; the reason it is still large is almost purely humanitarian.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 11:18

I join Styrbiorn and Carch in an unusual trinity. High unemployment is a sign that we have too many working age people, not too few.

The long term problem is how do you ensure that people unnecessary to production are ensured they receive their share of output: which almost certainly requires abandonment of what is now considered to be someone's 'fair share'.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 12:28
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I join Styrbiorn and Carch in an unusual trinity. High unemployment is a sign that we have too many working age people, not too few.

The long term problem is how do you ensure that people unnecessary to production are ensured they receive their share of output: which almost certainly requires abandonment of what is now considered to be someone's 'fair share'.


Thats a bit of a false consensus in my opinion. The temporary/cyclical surge in unemployment was caused directly by a catastrophic fall in demand across the board, which has deepened as a result of public sector cutbacks and private sector deleveraging after years of debt buildup. Regardless of the demographics, high unemployment is inevitable in such a situation. Underlying all this however is the fact that while there was once 40 people working for every retiree, we are now approaching a situation of 2 or 3 workers per retiree. The inexorable logic of numbers does a dis-service to what superficially appears to be obvious fact.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 13:10
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I join Styrbiorn and Carch in an unusual trinity. High unemployment is a sign that we have too many working age people, not too few.

The long term problem is how do you ensure that people unnecessary to production are ensured they receive their share of output: which almost certainly requires abandonment of what is now considered to be someone's 'fair share'.


Thats a bit of a false consensus in my opinion. The temporary/cyclical surge in unemployment was caused directly by a catastrophic fall in demand across the board, which has deepened as a result of public sector cutbacks and private sector deleveraging after years of debt buildup. Regardless of the demographics, high unemployment is inevitable in such a situation. Underlying all this however is the fact that while there was once 40 people working for every retiree, we are now approaching a situation of 2 or 3 workers per retiree. The inexorable logic of numbers does a dis-service to what superficially appears to be obvious fact.
 
But the problem of providing meaningful employment for all goes back to long before the current financial difficulties, and today can not really be considered cyclical. This is one of the big questions of our time, which has been consistently sidestepped by politicians. What to do when there is a paradigm change, and full employment is not going to be an option? GDP per capita has been rising for the most part, so there are resources for people. But how they are distributed is going to have to be seen in a new light. Sticking to a libertarian view that unemployed workers just need to make the rounds knocking on factory doors is not going to work. Immigration may be part of the equation for the future, but the world of work is also going to have to be seen anew.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 14:21
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I join Styrbiorn and Carch in an unusual trinity. High unemployment is a sign that we have too many working age people, not too few.

The long term problem is how do you ensure that people unnecessary to production are ensured they receive their share of output: which almost certainly requires abandonment of what is now considered to be someone's 'fair share'.


Thats a bit of a false consensus in my opinion. The temporary/cyclical surge in unemployment was caused directly by a catastrophic fall in demand across the board, which has deepened as a result of public sector cutbacks and private sector deleveraging after years of debt buildup.
I'm not talkng about temporary or cyclical surges but the increase in unemployment that has been going on for at least 200 years. It's masked of course, but when working hours are cut then unemployment is increased, even though it isn't referred to as 'unemployment'. If you have a hundred men working ten hours a day and twenty five men idle, that gets called '25% unemployment'. If you spread the work so that you have 125 men worjing 8 hours a day, that gets called 'full employment'. But either way the same output is produced.
 
If the same wage is paid in both scenarios, then going from the first to the second demand goes up and production stabilises. In going from the second to the first demand drops (because the 25 have no income) which means in turn you no longer need 100 men working ten hours, but only 80 so you fire 20, and the spiral starts.
 
The effect of increasing productivity however is that instead of needing 100 men working ten hours you only need, say, 90, and ten get fired, andthat starts off the same spiral.
 
So technical innovation drives (and has driven siince before the Industrial Revolution) unemployment higher unless actioon is taken to maintain demand by siphoning income from the emploed population to the unemployed, whether through transfer payments or by job sharing.
 
Quote
Regardless of the demographics, high unemployment is inevitable in such a situation. Underlying all this however is the fact that while there was once 40 people working for every retiree, we are now approaching a situation of 2 or 3 workers per retiree. The inexorable logic of numbers does a dis-service to what superficially appears to be obvious fact.
Malthus lives again! 40 (or rather 42) was so high because it referred to the US, social security had only just been introduced, it only covered part of the population and there were very few retirees. If you check the ratio of 'working-aged' to 'over 65s' for instance, you get a rather different result.
 
 
Quote Social Security already weathered a much more dramatic change in the worker-to-retiree ratio when it went from 18-to-1 in 1950 to 4-to-1 in 1965 without collapsing. Compared to that change in just 15 years, the far less dramatic change from today’s 3-to-1 ratio to 2080′s 2-to-1 ratio is less daunting.
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 02 Jan 2012 at 14:23
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 14:38
Since migration only moves people around, but neither as such makes the combined world - population grow nor shrink, it is hard to see how it can make up for a permanent solution to anything.
Especially not when we remember there is no "natural law" dictating some populations to grow faster than others (if we exclude "populations" of monks etcetera).
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 14:42
At first sight I agree, but it occurs to me that in theory you could have migration from unproductive areas of the world to productive ones.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 14:55
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

At first sight I agree, but it occurs to me that in theory you could have migration from unproductive areas of the world to productive ones.
yes, but then the next question is what makes the difference between those areas. There could in general either be natural differences, like fertile soil, raw materials or, not to forget, good "logistics", a "good climate" etcetera in one area relative to others. Or there could be cultural and social differences and different "degrees of development". In the later case the differences in "productivity" is probably not that permanent.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 15:08
I had natural differences in mind. If someone had Stalineque powers, for instance, would it not help to move the Inuit to central America to help grow more bananas? Proper application of operational research techniques should be able to optimise the distribution of peoples with regard to available resources, minimising transport costs.
 
Philip K.Dick or someone may already have come up with this suggestion in more detail.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2012 at 00:25
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...move the Inuit to central America to help grow more bananas? ...
j

Should I remember you that Central America not only grow bananas, but also makes Intel Chips and there Dr. Chang-Diaz is developing the plasma rocket to go to Mars?

The only region that is going bananas right now is Europe, actually.

And with respect to the future of immigration, should I remember you that today the more available immigrants of the near future will be Black Africans with HIV, analphabet, ten kids, and an IQ of 60? What a marvelous future immigration will provide.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2012 at 07:53
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


And with respect to the future of immigration, should I remember you that today the more available immigrants of the near future will be Black Africans with HIV, analphabet, ten kids, and an IQ of 60? What a marvelous future immigration will provide.
 
Talking about stereotyping. All those things you mention can be found among your precious Latinos too.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2012 at 14:14
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

While naturally one thinks immediately of the United States, its important to remember the scale and the significance of immigration (voluntary and involuntary in the case of slavery) in North and South America. How did these two continents absorb so many immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries and still manage to create the various nationalist based myths that are such a hallmark of the nation state? There is no corner of the Americas left untouched by immigrants during these two centuries. How did the inevitable nativist backlashes differ from one country to another?
 
Well it was the immigrants themselves back then who tried to integrate into society rather than the other way around.
 
Remember that immigrants rarely had any objectives other than living a good and descent life outside of poverty and nationalism was far from being in their heads (exceptions like the Welsh in Argentina do exist but are rare). This is why they adopted whole heartedly their new homes even abandoning their own religions to do that. Most Lebanese/Syrian South Americans are Druze or sunni muslims who converted when they came to assimilate. The majority of Irish Americans (nearly 60% according to one interesting study) are in fact protestants. Gaelic speaking Irish and Scottish immigrants in the 18th century abandoned their language upon arrival even translating some of their own traditional ballads into English.
 
The rise of nationalistic identities is almost exclusive to countries where discrimination was law like the US. There hispanics were treated in the same manner as blacks even if they were living in those areas before they were conquered in 1848. The Irish American identity is strong in the Northeast of the US where discrimination was rampant but ceases to exist elsewhere and was only revived later on.
 
Plus one must not forget that opportunities were abundant and european countries encouraged migration as a means of population control. 
 
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

The USA and Western Europe are going to have to encourage immigration on a scale seen only in the early 20th century in the North American continent. Our population is ageing, and this to me seems to be the only possible way we can keep our great confidence trick going for another couple of generations. Are there lessons we can learn about the experience in the Americas?

Any book recommendations would be much appreciated, this is an area I'd be interested in exploring.
 
In absolute numbers, the US received more immigrants in the last 10 years than any time before, 14 million to be exact.
 
As for the lessons from America, live and let live. The first jewish immigrants came straight from the ghettoes with kolpiks and shpitzels, 50 years later the only thing differentiating a jew from a none jew was hidden inside the trousers.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2012 at 14:20
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I join Styrbiorn and Carch in an unusual trinity. High unemployment is a sign that we have too many working age people, not too few.

The long term problem is how do you ensure that people unnecessary to production are ensured they receive their share of output: which almost certainly requires abandonment of what is now considered to be someone's 'fair share'.
 
That would be true in a net zero immigration state. The fact that there are more migrants filling jobs than unemployed citizens the same country says that jobs exist but the employers don't want to incurre the extra cost of employing a citizen.
 
If the population growth, ie the replacement rate, is not achieved, immigration is bound to happen.
 
 
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2012 at 15:47
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Plus one must not forget that opportunities were abundant and european countries encouraged migration as a means of population control. 
I'm not sure that last bit is entirely true[1] though it's propbably worth a thread on its own. Population growth in the 19th/20th centuries means a growing economy and, importantly, more cannon fodder for armies. France at least still encourages large families through tax reductions, reduced prices on public transport and so on.
 
Britain 'encouraged' internal migration through programs like Highland Clearance, but the displaced mostly ended up in English factories, where extra manpower was needed. It did at various times, at least in the 20th cenrtury, encourage migration to the white Dominions, but the purpose was the extension and solidification of the Empire, not population control (in the sense of population reduction.)
 
I don't even think emigration of Jews was encouraged in Tsarist Russia. But like I said it's an interesting topic I'd be interested in knowing more about.
 
[1] Assuming you mean emigration.
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 03 Jan 2012 at 15:49
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2012 at 16:05
I ineed meant emigration.
 
As for my theory, well I know it is a bit out there but I cannot stop thinking about it since everything pointed out to it. The penal colonies where "criminals" were let loose to make their fortunes and on the pain of death banned from returning, the massive cash injection into projects that would take decades to return their capital (primarily the British railroad investments), the deliberate policies to starve unwanted peoples and give them a way out through migration only (the famine) and the active support of immigrant hungary countries like the US in their conquests of Mexico and the west (while denying them the opportunity to go up to Canada).
 
These may have not been intended as population control but they did have the effect of doing such.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2012 at 19:23
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Plus one must not forget that opportunities were abundant and european countries encouraged migration as a means of population control. 

In Sweden's case it was the opposite: when the emigration became so alarming that a fifth of the population had left, the government started a program to curb emigration. It came to nothing though, as the Great War and US immigration quotas stopped most of the migration anyway.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2012 at 22:16
@Gcle:

I tip my hat to a better argued point.

@Al Jassass:

Gaelic rapidly became a minority language in Ireland in the 19th century so I don't think it is at all unusual to see Irish emigrants abandon it so rapidly. Neither is it a convincing argument that it provides evidence towards some greater disposition and readiness to integrate (The language was in a death spiral by the late 18th century anyway) Furthermore I don't believe any Irish historian would be surprised by your comment that the majority of Irish Americans are indeed Protestant; indeed I wonder what your point is (Presbyterian Irishmen were much more militantly secular, liberal and seperatist in late 18th century Ireland than most Catholics - Who were not at all secular or liberal, though a bit seperatist) It is true than ordinary opinion equates Irish Americanism with Catholicism, but ordinary opinion was never known for its grasp of the facts.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jan 2012 at 00:25
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


And with respect to the future of immigration, should I remember you that today the more available immigrants of the near future will be Black Africans with HIV, analphabet, ten kids, and an IQ of 60? What a marvelous future immigration will provide.
 
Talking about stereotyping. All those things you mention can be found among your precious Latinos too.


Curiosly, like worldwide,  HIV in Latin America is concentrated mainly in that same ethnic group. Confused
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jan 2012 at 09:13
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Curiosly, like worldwide,  HIV in Latin America is concentrated mainly in that same ethnic group. Confused
 
 
HIV exists in several groups.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.