Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


History is often the brooding and ignored stepchild of policy debate.
September 5, 2011 9:11 AM   Subscribe

Are overly restrictive immigration rules causing a worldwide economic slow down? According to the Guardian "Allowing workers to change location significantly enriches the world economy. So why do we erect barriers to human mobility?"
posted by blue_beetle (43 comments total) 7 users marked this as a favorite

 
"Allowing workers to change location significantly enriches the world economy. So why do we erect barriers to human mobility?"

Because we are composed of nation states?
posted by dibblda at 9:17 AM on September 5, 2011 [6 favorites]


Because arbitrage is for corporations, not workers, silly!
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:32 AM on September 5, 2011 [15 favorites]


Allowing workers to change location significantly enriches the world economy. So why do we erect barriers to human mobility?

Well, it would make things run far smoother if we didn't have to smuggle our $5/week workers into the country in shipping containers.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:50 AM on September 5, 2011 [3 favorites]


Now these arguments sound worse than ridiculous. Society decides who is or is not a member of the relevant club and, beyond the short-term, that decision can change massively. Though our fears will likely continue to impoverish us for some time, they need not do so forever. from the FPP article

Here's some food for thought:

A professional account from People Move blog of The World Bank on migrant workers and remittance flows on the question "Are migrants more likely than nationals to be unemployed during economic crisis?"

Despite this finding, the reality remains that migrants are more vulnerable during an economic crisis than native workers. They tend to be overrepresented in sectors more sensitive to the business cycle, they have less secure contractual arrangements, they are overrepresented in low-skilled occupations, and they often face discrimination in hiring and layoffs.


A personal account from a geographer based in Indonesia:

Today’s post is inspired by the fate of Ruyati, an Indonesian national who was beheaded in Saudi Arabia last week for murdering her boss. Ruyati had allegedly been tortured, starved, and denied payment by her boss, which evidently drove her to commit her crime, but details are still sketchy. The government of Saudi Arabia has repeated flaunted established cannons of international relations (and law) by refusing to inform the government of Indonesia that Ruyati was to be executed or to provide any other information about the case.

Consequently, Ruyati’s family only found out after the execution and was unable to provide legal and moral support. This story has provoked public outcry in Indonesia, but Ruyati is only one of dozens of Indonesians trapped by circumstances beyond their control in a far-off land.

Indonesia is a major international supplier of cheap labor, sending millions of people abroad each year (tenaga kerja Indonesia, TKI) to earn money working in low-skilled occupations such as construction and housekeeping. Nations like Saudi Arabia and Malaysia benefit from the cheap labor, because the Indonesians do work that other people aren't willing to do (or demand a higher wage to do).

These migrant laborers generate billions of dollars a year in income, which is generally sent back to Indonesia as remittances. Remittances refers to money sent home by immigrants to support families, and is such an important part of the Indonesian economy that the migrant labors have publicly been declared pahlawan devisa, or "heroes of foreign exchange".

Remittances have come to be viewed as an important part of development financing; in fact the total amount remitted by migrant laborers worldwide by far outweighs money provided by wealthy nations to developing countries as foreign aid. Remittances are now the second biggest inflow to many developing nations (behind foreign direct investment, FDI).

posted by infini at 9:54 AM on September 5, 2011 [4 favorites]


Some context: The author is from the Center for Global Development, which was founded by a director and a board member of the Peter Peterson Institute. The Peterson Institute has been a leading voice in the fight for "entitlement" "reform".
posted by Ralston McTodd at 9:56 AM on September 5, 2011 [3 favorites]


Yes, let's make migration a fundamental human right. It sounds reasonable.
posted by polymodus at 10:01 AM on September 5, 2011 [5 favorites]


Because we are composed of nation states?

Unfortunately, this isn't really an answer. It's more like a rephrase of the question.

Because arbitrage is for corporations, not workers, silly!

This seems a little closer to an answer. But I'd say "arbitrage is for collectives, not individuals." Barriers are erected by collectives for a variety of reasons, protectionism, fear, hate, etc. in the mistaken belief that the pie is fixed, and admitting outsiders means the pie gets divvied up into smaller portions.
posted by 2N2222 at 10:04 AM on September 5, 2011 [5 favorites]


Why would we want to enrich the world economy? Considering, y'know, what enriching the world economy has done to the world so far.
posted by jfuller at 10:11 AM on September 5, 2011 [2 favorites]


Well, it would make things run far smoother if we didn't have to smuggle our $5/week workers into the country in shipping containers.

It would certainly change things, partially because legalizing immigration would mean that employers can't underpay undocumented aliens and threaten to report them. Might actually drive up the cost of labor in some fields. Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing.
posted by thegears at 10:14 AM on September 5, 2011 [3 favorites]


Considering, y'know, what enriching the world economy has done to the world so far.

Made the world a better place for more people than ever? Yeah, why would we want to do that?
posted by 2N2222 at 10:15 AM on September 5, 2011 [2 favorites]


Clemens is not primarily interested in migration as a human right. He endorses temporary guest worker programs and argues that "there is no fundamental reason why the bundle of obligations and privileges we call U.S. citizenship -- jury duty, military service in time of draft, access to federal government services, access to many jobs, and so on -- must always and exclusively be conferred to other people as an unchangeable bundle", essentially proposing a kind of a la carte Citizenship Lite status. He even holds up construction workers in Dubai as an example of the great opportunities that await migrant workers under his proposed system.
posted by Ralston McTodd at 10:27 AM on September 5, 2011 [2 favorites]


Made the world a better place for more people than ever?

I guess the "more people" part requires clarification, and the "than ever" part suggests that we are or have been moving in the right direction. One could argue that more and more people have been working to make fewer and fewer people massively wealthy. But I guess if somebody works hard to have their income jump from, say $2.50/day, to $5/day, that does improve their lot in life, while at the same time the work they did allowed one person's net worth to jump from, say $2.5 billion to $5 billion.
posted by Seymour Zamboni at 10:32 AM on September 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


But I guess if somebody works hard to have their income jump from, say $2.50/day, to $5/day, that does improve their lot in life, while at the same time the work they did allowed one person's net worth to jump from, say $2.5 billion to $5 billion.

Sounds like two positive things?
posted by esprit de l'escalier at 10:37 AM on September 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


Sounds like two positive things?

The $5-billionaire can now buy about twice as much political influence as before; the $5-an-hour worker can't really buy political influence either way.
posted by Ralston McTodd at 10:41 AM on September 5, 2011 [10 favorites]


It would certainly change things, partially because legalizing immigration would mean that employers can't underpay undocumented aliens and threaten to report them. Might actually drive up the cost of labor in some fields. Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing.

Indeed. Allowing above board immigration and employment helps make draconian border control and workplace policing obsolete.
posted by 2N2222 at 10:44 AM on September 5, 2011


The $5-billionaire can now buy about twice as much political influence as before; the $5-an-hour worker can't really buy political influence either way.

It's better for the worker to remain at $2.50 a day so the $5-billionaire has less political influence?
posted by 2N2222 at 10:45 AM on September 5, 2011 [2 favorites]


the $5-an-hour worker can't really buy political influence either way.

But more food, yes.
posted by chavenet at 10:51 AM on September 5, 2011 [3 favorites]


It's better for the worker to remain at $2.50 a day so the $5-billionaire has less political influence?

It depends on what form that political influence takes. Lowering the minimum wage and breaking up unions to bring down the worker's wage ultimately to $1.50, or reducing the amount spent on social services that benefit such workers, are two obvious possibilities.
posted by Ralston McTodd at 10:57 AM on September 5, 2011 [4 favorites]


He endorses temporary guest worker programs and argues that "there is no fundamental reason why the bundle of obligations and privileges we call U.S. citizenship -- jury duty, military service in time of draft, access to federal government services, access to many jobs, and so on -- must always and exclusively be conferred to other people as an unchangeable bundle", essentially proposing a kind of a la carte Citizenship Lite status. He even holds up construction workers in Dubai as an example of the great opportunities that await migrant workers under his proposed system.

I'm not sure I see a problem here. One line of thinking wants to make citizens of immigrants, as if citizenship is some hugely prized status that immigrants should desire. Yet there's a large pool of immigrants who don't want to become citizens, don't care about government services or jury duty, and in fact are more interested in making their families back home better off.

Dubai is often held up as the example of evil conspicuous consumption. I won't defend the country or its practices as a whole. Yet, I can't decry the fact that its development has increased the earnings for many people across the globe, who would be worse off without the opportunities which they're still willing partake in.

It depends on what form that political influence takes. Lowering the minimum wage and breaking up unions to bring down the worker's wage ultimately to $1.50, or reducing the amount spent on social services that benefit such workers, are two obvious possibilities.

This scenario depends on a particularly cartoonish portrayal of evil rich people that doesn't even seem to apply. And even if evil rich people managed to make this happen, we're supposed to take a dismal view of that worker's desire to seek a better life elsewhere?
posted by 2N2222 at 11:33 AM on September 5, 2011 [2 favorites]


Um, I'm actually all for loosening immigration restrictions and believe it's high time for the xenophobia and racism behind them to go the way of the dodo. But the position presented here seems to be "If everyone moved to the rich countries, then obviously everyone would be richer!" I never thought I'd see someone argue something that was tautological and false at the same time.

I'm unconvinced by the argument that immigration is good because a NYC cab driver generates more value than an Ethiopian cab driver. That's such a false equivalence; I mean seriously, a discussion of wages that makes no apparent reference to the different costs of living? I suspect that making USD 35,000 in New York City may actually be comparable to making a few thousand ETB in Addis Ababa.

And perhaps, if Ethiopia has less of a need for cab drivers, that same person might become a doctor or engineer instead. I would argue that those professions generate more value despite the possibility that an Ethiopian doctor might still make less than $35k... but that's because I don't define "value" in the simplistic economic terms conceded by this article.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious and all these things are addressed in the research. But if that's the case, then it's a terribly written summary. You can't discuss a complex issue like immigration if you only talk about current wage discrepancies, and only in absolute dollar terms. You must be clear about the "real" value of money in both countries, as well as describing how the wage pressures caused by immigration may affect those statistics.
posted by Riki tiki at 11:34 AM on September 5, 2011 [7 favorites]


Dubai is often held up as the example of evil conspicuous consumption. I won't defend the country or its practices as a whole. Yet, I can't decry the fact that its development has increased the earnings for many people across the globe, who would be worse off without the opportunities which they're still willing partake in.

Dubai is pretty much built on immigrant slave labor.
posted by naoko at 11:50 AM on September 5, 2011 [7 favorites]


When the function of immigration policy is to create a disadvantaged underclass to be exploited for cheap labor, something is wrong and needs to be fixed. The increasingly repressive policy in the US with fortified borders, for chrissake, is obviously failing and doing the wrong thing harder is going to create its own sort of crisis.

The recent riots in England were fueled in part by an immigration policy dating back to the 1950s that imported West Indians as a cheap labor source while keeping them from free entry into society.

Immigration policy that creates barriers to assimilation will only fragment and atomize society, as well as creating tensions that will become future problems. If the barriers aren't there, the children will do the cultural assimilation if the parents don't choose to. Multiculturalism really only boils down to equal legal and civil rights combined with a live and let live approach to social relations. Policies that lead to exploitation only cause problems, no matter who gets to profit unfairly from them in the short term.
posted by warbaby at 11:56 AM on September 5, 2011 [2 favorites]


Yet there's a large pool of immigrants who don't want to become citizens, don't care about government services or jury duty, and in fact are more interested in making their families back home better off.

If Clemens is interested in a system where workers, based on their place of origin, are barred from having or do not desire political rights and access to government services in the communities in which they work, then his desired scenario is not "a world without borders." It is a world where borders do not constrain the pool of labor from which employers can choose. Also, he is not primarily talking about "immigration rules", as stated in the FPP, since immigration is generally considered to be permanent (and indeed he is usually careful to describe what he is advocating for as "migration", "mobility", or "movement" instead of "immigration.")

This scenario depends on a particularly cartoonish portrayal of evil rich people that doesn't even seem to apply.

Are you arguing that there is not a history of influential wealthy people supporting relaxing minimum wage laws and cutting social programs, that this is just some "cartoonish" caricature?
posted by Ralston McTodd at 12:18 PM on September 5, 2011 [3 favorites]


Why immigrate? I head on NPR radio this morning that the "American" company General Electric has outsourced more than 50% of its employees.
posted by Cranberry at 12:30 PM on September 5, 2011


Policies that lead to exploitation only cause problems, no matter who gets to profit unfairly from them in the short term.

Agreed. Surely there's a middle ground between exploitation and using immigration as a tool to mitigate inflation?
posted by esprit de l'escalier at 12:31 PM on September 5, 2011


If Clemens is interested in a system where workers, based on their place of origin, are barred from having or do not desire political rights and access to government services in the communities in which they work

Clemons seems interested in a system where workers are not forced to become citizens in order to work. It's a system where working privileges are divorced from full fledged membership in the club.

Are you arguing that there is not a history of influential wealthy people supporting relaxing minimum wage laws and cutting social programs, that this is just some "cartoonish" caricature?

Are you arguing that people across the globe are not more prosperous now than ever before? Because if you are, you would be on the wrong side of the argument. Arguing that the rich might screw the poor if they get more rich, has more meaning if the rich didn't already have that power. To argue that the poor should continue without the possibility to migrate in order to better their lot in life, simply because the rich will also benefit, is a kind of destructive class warfare where one insists on cutting off one's nose to spite the face.
posted by 2N2222 at 12:41 PM on September 5, 2011


Dubai is pretty much built on immigrant slave labor.

Imported labor, sure. Actual slave labor, sometimes. Yet, is the answer to restrict migration, and deny people the opportunities that simply do not exist back home?
posted by 2N2222 at 12:43 PM on September 5, 2011


When the function of immigration policy is to create a disadvantaged underclass to be exploited for cheap labor, something is wrong and needs to be fixed.

This could be true. But it isn't always the case. In the US, immigration policy specifically discourages importation of a "disadvantaged underclass", also known as unskilled labor. It's extremely difficult for an unskilled laborer to emigrate to the US unless there is a family member of ready employer willing to sponsor. This is in huge contrast to the US in earlier times.

The recent riots in England were fueled in part by an immigration policy dating back to the 1950s that imported West Indians as a cheap labor source while keeping them from free entry into society.

I was under the impression that the policy allowed former colonial peoples to migrate as they pleased. Regardless, this seems a simple reading of the rioting situation.

Immigration policy that creates barriers to assimilation will only fragment and atomize society, as well as creating tensions that will become future problems.

I'm not sure anyone is really arguing in favor of erecting barriers to assimilation.
posted by 2N2222 at 12:57 PM on September 5, 2011


I'm actually all for loosening immigration restrictions and believe it's high time for the xenophobia and racism behind them to go the way of the dodo. But the position presented here seems to be "If everyone moved to the rich countries, then obviously everyone would be richer!"

I think you're misreading the argument. I'd say it was more, "If everyone has the freedom to move to the rich countries, then obviously everyone would be richer!" The point being that people need to be free to pursue prosperity where it can be found. Certainly one can imagine the hardship that might arise if one was restricted from moving away from one's home town, or home state? Yet, it's considered perfectly reasonable for a nation to do exactly this even if migrants pose absolutely no threat whatsoever. Even if it means suffering and even death for the potential migrant.
posted by 2N2222 at 1:03 PM on September 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


Yet, is the answer to restrict migration, and deny people the opportunities that simply do not exist back home?

I'm fine with opening up labor flows; I just also want thorough, enforceable, and enforced protections of workers' rights. Dubai, with its "put workers in debt bondage and take away their passports" model of immigrant employment, is not one I would consider to be a net positive for the job-seeking poor around the world, and one I would prefer not be held up as a shining beacon. That's all.

Not that this stuff doesn't happen in the U.S. too.
posted by naoko at 1:17 PM on September 5, 2011 [4 favorites]


People in the U.S. are certainly not more prosperous today than they were in the postwar period. But the real question isn't whether people now are more prosperous today than in earlier times, it's whether they are more prosperous under today's economic policies than they would be under different economic policies.

Rich people getting richer can make poor people worse off in the long run, but it's not the only reason to be against the policies that Clemens advocates. These policies also create a two-tiered society, where some members, overwhelmingly among the poor, are disengaged from or barred from participating in the political process. They face far greater consequences from losing a job (no unemployment benefits and possibly repatriation under some versions of this scheme) than even others of the same income level. Ultimately, we have minimum wage or child labor or job safety laws not because we have determined that no individual could possibly be better off if they were allowed to work under those conditions, but because we decided that our society is better off without that kind of race to the bottom.
posted by Ralston McTodd at 1:28 PM on September 5, 2011 [5 favorites]


Ugh, this is such neo-liberal BS, happy f'in labor day. The free movement of capital across borders is only "useful" to exploit workers that lack a minimum wage, environmental protections, and the organized labor history the citizens of industrialized nations have, through necessity, and great effort by its citizens, adopted. Protectionism is what governments used to do to benefit the workers of a nation. "Free trade" only benefits the owners in a nation, and that it is so widely accepted as a reasonable doctrine only speaks to the unchecked power the world's owners have achieved.
To add the free movement of workers to that capital only weakens the position of a nation's established workers, through language barriers, cultural barriers, and because, in case anyone's failed to notice, people are kinda racist. Workers are only ever empowered when they unite, and a scheme like this can fuel only division.
The dream is that, someday, (through magic?) we shall all become owners, but is that what this system actually produces? Because so far as I know, transnational capitalism is disempowering working people and concentrating wealth, in the US, in China, and all over the world. Power is power, it does not surrender itself voluntarily, capitalism won't change that.
I am in favor of "a world without borders," but that end should not be the excuse corporations use to drag down the standard of living for workers in those nations where organized labor has raised it up - It's not a popular position, but I wholly think we need to return to protectionism, in capital and in labor, until such time that the working people of all nations have had time to raise their standards of living, independently.
posted by relooreloo at 1:31 PM on September 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


> It's better for the worker to remain at $2.50 a day so the $5-billionaire has less political influence?

No, it's better for the worker to earn $6.00 a day and the $2.5-billionaire remain at $2.5 billion or even *gasp* ...drop to $1.5 billion.

Oh, right, wealth redistribution, sorry! I forgot that he then would have absolutely no incentive at all to work so hard, would flee to a less Communist regime, civilisation would crumble, Atlas would shrug, etc.


> To argue that the poor should continue without the possibility to migrate in order to better their lot in life, simply because the rich will also benefit, is a kind of destructive class warfare where one insists on cutting off one's nose to spite the face.

No one argued that.
posted by Bangaioh at 2:15 PM on September 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm sure that writer would be thrilled if US j-school grads all moved to London and offered to do his job for half-price.
posted by Ideefixe at 2:18 PM on September 5, 2011


While I find the system that Clemens proposes rather sickening (he is not calling for immigration, he is calling for the importation of workers and then their expulsion at the end of their term of service), I do remember encountering a quote that I think both he and I would agree with, albeit with different results.

"Why should the flow of capital be less restricted than the flow of labor?"

I'd love to see a policy that for every "free trade" agreement we make, we also have a "free immigration" policy accompanying it. Or, conversely, a tariff of the percentage of a country's minimum wage the minimum wage in the US is. So if it is $1.50 an hour in a country, and $7.50 an hour in the US, there would be a 400% tariff.

I can dream, can't I?
posted by Hactar at 2:31 PM on September 5, 2011 [2 favorites]


> Made the world a better place for more people than ever? Yeah, why would we want to do that?

Not clear to me either. Why should everything be turned to the advantage of people? And if everything is turned to the advantage of people, why does that make the world a better place?
posted by jfuller at 3:19 PM on September 5, 2011


Capital has always had more freedom on the international stage than labor has ever enjoyed. It also has greater legal protections up to the military might behind that capital. Labor will never be as free as capital nor as powerful.
posted by yesster at 3:32 PM on September 5, 2011


I'm not really seeing any arguments here against a freer flow of international labour if it is accompanied by rights. The idea that a masters degree qualified US or UK citizen can't get a visa to work in Australia or New Zealand without jumping through difficult hoops is a bit absurd, and vice versa.
There appears no reason not to dramatically open up first world migration (perhaps with conditions like no recourse to welfare initially, but an avenue to apply for residency then citizenship after x years).
And if you can agree to that, you can probably also a agree to a staged increase in developing world migration in the fullness of time.
posted by bystander at 3:41 PM on September 5, 2011


2N2222: "Yet there's a large pool of immigrants who don't want to become citizens, don't care about government services or jury duty, and in fact are more interested in making their families back home better off. "

And no one has a problem with this? I don't see this as a workable system. When one of these millions of immigrants is accused of a crime, how is he then going to get a jury of his peers? When they fall ill, are we supposed to ship them back to wherever because they "don't care about government services"? This strikes me as an attempt to create a system where you can have a lot of people physically present but legally not, and I don't see it working.
posted by alexei at 5:46 PM on September 5, 2011


We already have various temporary resident visas. Laws apply to all, regardless of nationality. And not having health insurance doesn't seem to be a barrier to living in most places.
posted by bystander at 12:33 AM on September 6, 2011


Because arbitrage is for corporations, not workers, silly!

Don't know about the US, but here in the UK the big companies were all arguing against more restrictive immigration laws. They want to be able to recruit from as big a pool of candidates as possible.

I'm sure that writer would be thrilled if US j-school grads all moved to London and offered to do his job for half-price.

The writer works for an American research institute.
posted by Infinite Jest at 2:00 AM on September 6, 2011


"Allowing workers to change location significantly enriches the world economy. So why do we erect barriers to human mobility?"

Maybe those who are most in favor of free flows of capital and free trade aren't interested in enriching the world economy. Maybe they're just interested in enriching themselves. And maybe keeping barriers to human mobility aids them in enriching themselves by allowing them to play off one region against another and making it more difficult for workers in different regions to organize together against exploitative working conditions. It's a classic story - set one group against another and they won't realize who is really taking advantage of them.
posted by jhandey at 6:15 AM on September 6, 2011


Urgh, the world's migration systems desperately need an overhaul.

I'm on a bridging visa in Australia awaiting permanent residency. Theoretically I could work or study or do whatever most Australians do. Realistically I have been mostly unemployed (asides from short term gigs) since 2008 because almost every employer either makes up BS policies about not hiring bridging visa people or don't even know what such a visa is; the most common income sources for emerging artists and artsworkers like myself (grants and Centrelink) are completely unaccessible; if I wanted to go back to study I have to pay international student fees, which are 4 times the local fees and ineligible for scholarships; and I've been denied government support (e.g. flood money) at random with "we don't do bridging visas" as an excuse when Brits on bridging visas have gotten them. I'm expected to fully support myself with nearly none of the support or resources that locals and peers take for granted. Yet I pay all taxes, have to deal with being slurred as a "Freeloader", and since the rules keep changing I no longer have any idea if or when I'll get permanent residency. If and when I go overseas I have to come back in three months, and after that time I have to get a whole new visa sticker. $90 to the Government to allow me to travel every so often just because they're stupidly slow at processing applications. And let's not get into getting visas for all the other countries to visit or explore or work on projects.

It seems to me that migration and immigration laws are often made by people who have no idea how they affect real people, and none of us ever get asked what we need or feel about things. We can't vote (citizenship is a whole separate process) so the Government isn't as worried about our concerns. We end up having to sometimes rely on dodgy cash-in-hand jobs - IF we can gt them - or being supported by other people to survive.

I was born and raised in Malaysia. 26 years later - this year - my citizenship has FINALLY been granted. After many years of useless permanent residency (there are temporary visas in Malaysia that get more rights), having my citizenship application sabotaged once before, being excluded from nigh on everything, having to pay extra to change my ID card because some minister went "If PRs have Red ICs then WHY IS IT NOT RED" or get a special stamp in my passport only to read another minister say sheepishly in the press "oh sorry, that was for Indons only tee hee" - all just because I happen to be born to parents who had been in Malaysia for 11 years by that point but were still "foreigners". It's only NOW that they thought "yeah ok you can have citizenship" - after a tedious process including writing a childlike language paper and being told in the interview that my greatest responsibility as a citizen was to "vote for the ruling party because they gave you the gift of permanent residency", I wish I was kidding - and I have deeply mixed feelings about getting a long-overdue citizenship by a country which has demonstrated so many times that it doesn't want me so I've given up on it.

I'm all for loosening restrictions, especially for young people, for creatives, for those who don't fall neatly into one job description, for those with "third-world country passports". Mostly I just want the people who make these laws to PAY ATTENTION to us and STOP SCREWING US OVER. If it wasn't for us your economy woudn't exist. I've been so pushed around now that it's started to be triggery. urgh.
posted by divabat at 6:21 PM on September 8, 2011


« Older Partifi is a free and automated tool for creating ...  |  We know that Yakety Sax makes ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments