rule changes a-comming ?

Old Feb 20th 2011, 10:55 pm
  #16  
BE Enthusiast
 
Waggle's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Loughborough, England, UK
Posts: 908
Waggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud of
Default Re: rule changes a-comming ?

Originally Posted by helcat12
There is certainly more corruption in some other countries and the way things proceed can be unbelievably slow unless you are prepared to grease palms. I feel sympathy for some people from other countries as their situations can be dire and immigration can offer them a chance to make a better life, but their desperation can sometimes tempt them to take liberties with the truth.
The sad fact is that those who are playing by the rules count the cost in terms of both time and money of the attempts by others to cheat the system.
The Cat 1 route is widely abused by people trying to shoe-horn their experience into one of the in demand NOC categories and, as Waggle has said, find ways round the POF issue. Cat 2 should be less of an issue, as having a job with a verified LMO in itself proves that the worker is valuable to the Canadian economy, but clearly people are finding cheats to try to get round even this by applying for AEO with a fraudulent offer.
I think CIC will be increasingly strict about this and will eventually require workers to go through the LMO/TWP route to doubly ensure that the job offer is genuine and that all the requirements have been met.
There's been talk for a few years now from immigration lawyers and applicant alike that the days of FSW1 are numbered, and that eventually nobody can emmigrate to Canada as a Federal Skilled Worker without a job offer.

The problem is that getting a job offer relies heavily on a positive LMO, and these are getting harder to find. So if CIC remove FSW1, then they're going to have to rethink how strict they are with LMO's in order to allow applicants from other countries a reasonable chance of securing a job.

If they do decide to keep FSW1 with an in-demand list, then I think CIC are going to have to work on getting the application time down to 6 months or so, in order to have a hope of responding to labour market needs. Certainly if things extend beyond 12 months then there is little point in having an in-demand occupation list IMO.

Wayne.
Waggle is offline  
Old Feb 20th 2011, 11:11 pm
  #17  
All Sooked up!
 
james.mc's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Location: Sooke, BC.
Posts: 1,894
james.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: rule changes a-comming ?

Originally Posted by rubberduckofdeath
I think the problem there is that the canadavisa forum has a high percentage of people from countries where it's common place to bend/break the rules, buy your way through situations etc because it's how their societies operate at multiple levels. They often don't recognise that it's not how things are done in lots of other countries.
Bending/Breaking Rules
Is Canada readily accepting people from countries who's culture operates around bending/breaking the rules as a norm? If these people have grown up bending the rules without a second thought, then are they highly likely to do so in Canada once settled.

On the POF front.
For those that come from countries where things are generally law abiding and whose first language is English, 'Unencumbered' is very clear in it's meaning and application. Even so, the expression 'Unencumbered funds' as used by CIC, probably needs revising and presented in simplistic (but possibly longer) terms for those that do not use English as a first language. i.e. Proof of personal wealth. No! You can't borrow the money!

Maybe CIC l should also tighten up longevity for proof of funds. i.e. Minimum of Six months prior to initial application, POF on request for medicals and POF once again on landing... without the landing check being left to the discretion of the immigration officer.
I, and probably many others, would have no problem with CIC tightening up on this (especially proving longevity and where our finds have come from) but for those thinking of borrowing money for POF, it may prove to be an issue.

I've not landed yet, but would still welcome a tightening up of the system.
james.mc is offline  
Old Feb 20th 2011, 11:15 pm
  #18  
SUPER MODERATOR
 
christmasoompa's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Location: In a darkened room somewhere.............
Posts: 34,161
christmasoompa has a reputation beyond reputechristmasoompa has a reputation beyond reputechristmasoompa has a reputation beyond reputechristmasoompa has a reputation beyond reputechristmasoompa has a reputation beyond reputechristmasoompa has a reputation beyond reputechristmasoompa has a reputation beyond reputechristmasoompa has a reputation beyond reputechristmasoompa has a reputation beyond reputechristmasoompa has a reputation beyond reputechristmasoompa has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: rule changes a-comming ?

Originally Posted by james.mc
Even so, the expression 'Unencumbered funds' as used by CIC, probably needs revising and presented in simplistic (but possibly longer) terms for those that do not use English as a first language. i.e. Proof of personal wealth. No! You can't borrow the money!
It does state that the money cannot be borrowed though - not sure how much clearer CIC can make it!

"You cannot borrow this money from another person. You must be able to use this money to support the costs of living for your family."
christmasoompa is offline  
Old Feb 20th 2011, 11:33 pm
  #19  
All Sooked up!
 
james.mc's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Location: Sooke, BC.
Posts: 1,894
james.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: rule changes a-comming ?

Originally Posted by Waggle

If they do decide to keep FSW1 with an in-demand list, then I think CIC are going to have to work on getting the application time down to 6 months or so, in order to have a hope of responding to labour market needs. Certainly if things extend beyond 12 months then there is little point in having an in-demand occupation list IMO.

Wayne.
I agree that shorting the processing time is key to meeting the needs of the market, but they surely they can anticipate as well? For example, as the economic recovery takes place those working in construction will be in greater demand for a few years down the line.

People I know around here (Algarve) are amazed that it takes 12-13 months at present. They'd be horrified if they knew how long people have waited in the past e.g.. 5 years!!

Something else I read somewhere indicated that that more emphasis might be given to official language skills (English or French) and little less towards proof of education/vocational qualifications.
In some countries fudging false educational certs or vocational qualifications is probably easier to do than on others. Fudging language skills is another matter. Mind you there have been instances of 'professional' testers taking the place of applicants for language tests. Not sure how that went.
More points for local language skills would ensure from day one that people upon 'landing' will actually be able to communicate with immigration, government offices, employers, banks and the public at large rather than having to seek out the nearest community of ethnic mother tongue speakers just to get by.
james.mc is offline  
Old Feb 20th 2011, 11:41 pm
  #20  
Island life at last
 
helcat12's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: BC
Posts: 2,715
helcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: rule changes a-comming ?

We have not been given PR yet either. We lost out on the change of job categories last time (my OH's job was on the in demand list and then wasn't!) so getting a permanent job was our only chance.
Luckily, everything went smoothly with job and LMO in the hand quite quickly. Seeing that it can be done by the job offer/LMO/TWP route and also hearing more about the stunts people are pulling to try to wangle PR when they don't fit the bill, I also think CIC should think carefully about how their system works.
I think the recent changes have helped a lot in weeding out a significant portion of the chancers at the CIO stage and this has resulted in a pretty big reduction in processing times for everyone else, which is great.
I think that there is still room for further improvement by segregating the processing of FSW into Cat 1 and Cat 2 so that Cat 2 applicants with LMO TWP don't clog up the system by having to repeatedly renew these while awaiting their PR. This will increase the speed with which essential workers are recruited and retained and free up quicker the staff to process Cat 1, which would be beneficial for all.
There is the family sponsorship issue as regards both qualifications and language. There are many people who immigrate by this route, especially from countries where large families are the norm and I think it is true that there is no language requirement if this is the route of entry. Maybe they will change this?
helcat12 is offline  
Old Feb 20th 2011, 11:42 pm
  #21  
All Sooked up!
 
james.mc's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Location: Sooke, BC.
Posts: 1,894
james.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: rule changes a-comming ?

Originally Posted by christmasoompa
It does state that the money cannot be borrowed though - not sure how much clearer CIC can make it!

"You cannot borrow this money from another person. You must be able to use this money to support the costs of living for your family."
Sure.. and yet people still ask if it's OK to borrow the money so something is out of whack.

Maybe Bold might do the trick.

Suggestion
You must show that you have enough money to support yourself and your dependants after you arrive in Canada.
  • You cannot borrow this money from another person.
  • You must be able to use this money to support the costs of living for your family.
As opposed to the current information:
You must show that you have enough money to support yourself and your dependants after you arrive in Canada. You cannot borrow this money from another person. You must be able to use this money to support the costs of living for your family.
james.mc is offline  
Old Feb 20th 2011, 11:50 pm
  #22  
Island life at last
 
helcat12's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: BC
Posts: 2,715
helcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: rule changes a-comming ?

Originally Posted by james.mc
Sure.. and yet people still ask if it's OK to borrow the money so something is out of whack.

Maybe Bold might do the trick.

Suggestion

As opposed to the current information:
Or maybe a sledgehammer!

As Cat 2, I am not sure about this because it doesn't apply to us, but do they currently ask for POF at the initial CIO stage?
If not, maybe they should and then ask again at the VO stage and maybe also at the landing stage? Someone who has to borrow this money (and it actually isn't a huge amount) would find this much more testing.
helcat12 is offline  
Old Feb 21st 2011, 12:01 am
  #23  
All Sooked up!
 
james.mc's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Location: Sooke, BC.
Posts: 1,894
james.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: rule changes a-comming ?

I'd also like to see more emphasis on the spouse as well.

It's all well and good having a primary applicant that fits the bill, but in our case (I'm the primary applicant) my wife is better qualified educationally than I am, she is much younger than me (plenty of points there), works in the oil and gas industry as well, English is her first language. Her job is not on the NOC list so very little 'credit' is given for her potential usefulness/adaptability in Canada yet earlier in 2010 she was allowed by CIC to work in Canada under temporary contract because they did not have anyone with her skills/qualifications available in country at the time. It wasn't under an LMO.

What I'm suggesting is, yes people can apply as the primary applicant and sponsor a partner, but the partners language skills/experience/adaptability should have more emphasis than it currently does.
There must be scores of useful (to Canada) professional couples out there who want to emigrate but neither quite score enough to pull it off as the primary applicant, yet combined they would probably breeze it and prove pt be of greater benefit to Canada than just one skilled worker with an unskilled partner.

We'll be coming in a two net tax payers from day one. We're both 'skilled workers' but the system doesn't seem to see it that way. It looked at me as the skilled worker and basically just checked that my wife is healthy and has a minimum level of education.
james.mc is offline  
Old Feb 21st 2011, 12:04 am
  #24  
All Sooked up!
 
james.mc's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Location: Sooke, BC.
Posts: 1,894
james.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: rule changes a-comming ?

Originally Posted by helcat12
Or maybe a sledgehammer!

As Cat 2, I am not sure about this because it doesn't apply to us, but do they currently ask for POF at the initial CIO stage?
We were pre June 26th 2010. I seem to recollect that POF was supplied with the full package, but not on initial application.

These days, post 26th June 2010 I think applicants have to supply the whole package with POF included which could mean that, in theory, it could be a year or so before you 'might' (from what I have read it depends on the immigration officer on duty at the time) have to show POF on Landing. Seems a bit slack to me unless someone knows any different?

Last edited by james.mc; Feb 21st 2011 at 12:07 am.
james.mc is offline  
Old Feb 21st 2011, 12:13 am
  #25  
Island life at last
 
helcat12's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: BC
Posts: 2,715
helcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: rule changes a-comming ?

Originally Posted by james.mc
I'd also like to see more emphasis on the spouse as well.

It's all well and good having a primary applicant that fits the bill, but in our case (I'm the primary applicant) my wife is better qualified educationally than I am, she is much younger than me (plenty of points there), works in the oil and gas industry as well, English is her first language. Her job is not on the NOC list so very little 'credit' is given for her potential usefulness/adaptability in Canada yet earlier in 2010 she was allowed by CIC to work in Canada under temporary contract because they did not have anyone with her skills/qualifications available in country at the time. It wasn't under an LMO.

What I'm suggesting is, yes people can apply as the primary applicant and sponsor a partner, but the partners language skills/experience/adaptability should have more emphasis than it currently does.
There must be scores of useful (to Canada) professional couples out there who want to emigrate but neither quite score enough to pull it off as the primary applicant, yet combined they would probably breeze it and prove pt be of greater benefit to Canada than just one skilled worker with an unskilled partner.

We'll be coming in a two net tax payers from day one. We're both 'skilled workers' but the system doesn't seem to see it that way. It looked at me as the skilled worker and basically just checked that my wife is healthy and has a minimum level of education.
We are the same - I am the spouse, but I am also a graduate and although I have been a teacher for ten years, I have experience in job categories that are on the in demand list (I was a biological scientist, working in several disciplines before that). I will work when I reach Canada and perhaps not as a teacher but I may use my other skills. Our application doesn't get much credit for my skills and what I can contribute.
I also think that if Canada wants to attract younger people because (like many Western countries) there is an ageing population, they could us this sort of double applicant approach to attract young qualified couples with or without children who would help to balance that now and in future.
helcat12 is offline  
Old Feb 21st 2011, 12:37 am
  #26  
All Sooked up!
 
james.mc's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Location: Sooke, BC.
Posts: 1,894
james.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond reputejames.mc has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: rule changes a-comming ?

Originally Posted by helcat12
I also think that if Canada wants to attract younger people because (like many Western countries) there is an ageing population, they could us this sort of double applicant approach to attract young qualified couples with or without children who would help to balance that now and in future.
I agree. It needs a more unified approach to attract younger couples.
james.mc is offline  
Old Feb 21st 2011, 12:48 am
  #27  
BE Enthusiast
 
Waggle's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Loughborough, England, UK
Posts: 908
Waggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud of
Default Re: rule changes a-comming ?

Originally Posted by james.mc
I'd also like to see more emphasis on the spouse as well.

It's all well and good having a primary applicant that fits the bill, but in our case (I'm the primary applicant) my wife is better qualified educationally than I am, she is much younger than me (plenty of points there), works in the oil and gas industry as well, English is her first language. Her job is not on the NOC list so very little 'credit' is given for her potential usefulness/adaptability in Canada yet earlier in 2010 she was allowed by CIC to work in Canada under temporary contract because they did not have anyone with her skills/qualifications available in country at the time. It wasn't under an LMO.

What I'm suggesting is, yes people can apply as the primary applicant and sponsor a partner, but the partners language skills/experience/adaptability should have more emphasis than it currently does.
There must be scores of useful (to Canada) professional couples out there who want to emigrate but neither quite score enough to pull it off as the primary applicant, yet combined they would probably breeze it and prove pt be of greater benefit to Canada than just one skilled worker with an unskilled partner.

We'll be coming in a two net tax payers from day one. We're both 'skilled workers' but the system doesn't seem to see it that way. It looked at me as the skilled worker and basically just checked that my wife is healthy and has a minimum level of education.
I actually agree with this as well. If you are applying as a couple they should really take the viability of both parties into consideration.

For example, my wife is the principal applicant in our FSW1 application because of her industrial pharmacy experience (NOC 3131). However, I am also educated to degree standard, have many professional Microsoft computing certifications, 13 years commericial experience in my Skill Level A profession (NOC 2174 or such) and I earn over £10,000 pa more than my wife. Yet my contribution on our points matrix is just a few points in adaptability. Someone with a husband/wife who was unemployed and had no experience or qualificatoins under any Skill 0, A or B job would score almost as highly as us.

Not that it's a big issue since we have 76 points or so. Sorry I have no wish to sound elitist in any way - but I do think there is room for improvement in their selection/admissability criteria.

Wayne.
Waggle is offline  
Old Feb 21st 2011, 1:03 am
  #28  
Island life at last
 
helcat12's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: BC
Posts: 2,715
helcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond reputehelcat12 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: rule changes a-comming ?

Originally Posted by Waggle
I actually agree with this as well. If you are applying as a couple they should really take the viability of both parties into consideration.

For example, my wife is the principal applicant in our FSW1 application because of her industrial pharmacy experience (NOC 3131). However, I am also educated to degree standard, have many professional Microsoft computing certifications, 13 years commericial experience in my Skill Level A profession (NOC 2174 or such) and I earn over £10,000 pa more than my wife. Yet my contribution on our points matrix is just a few points in adaptability. Someone with a husband/wife who was unemployed and had no experience or qualificatoins under any Skill 0, A or B job would score almost as highly as us.

Not that it's a big issue since we have 76 points or so. Sorry I have no wish to sound elitist in any way - but I do think there is room for improvement in their selection/admissability criteria.

Wayne.
If a couple were much younger (which is what CIC seem to want) and so earned fewer points for work experience but both had good education, then they might not make the points, so a different allocation of the adaptability points to place emphasis on the couple might help recruit their target group.
helcat12 is offline  
Old Feb 21st 2011, 1:09 am
  #29  
BE Enthusiast
 
Waggle's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Loughborough, England, UK
Posts: 908
Waggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud ofWaggle has much to be proud of
Default Re: rule changes a-comming ?

Originally Posted by helcat12
We are the same - I am the spouse, but I am also a graduate and although I have been a teacher for ten years, I have experience in job categories that are on the in demand list (I was a biological scientist, working in several disciplines before that). I will work when I reach Canada and perhaps not as a teacher but I may use my other skills. Our application doesn't get much credit for my skills and what I can contribute.
I also think that if Canada wants to attract younger people because (like many Western countries) there is an ageing population, they could us this sort of double applicant approach to attract young qualified couples with or without children who would help to balance that now and in future.
I think the main things Canada needs to do in order to attract a "younger" immigrant population is are:

a) Reduce the application timescales to make sure it is months rather than years. The "6 to 10 months" timecales quoted when they first moved to a fast track system seems to be rapidly disappearing out of the window. A young person with a burning desire to try a new country really won't wait that long. If Canada is proving too cumbersome to apply to, they'll likely opt for a different country.

b) Improve communication. It really should not take much to have a fully integrated email system so you can be notified the moment any part of your application status changes, right from when it is first received by CIO. Currently applicants have to wait 4 months before they can be completely certain CIO have even received their application. And ECAS is so inaccurate there hardly seems any point in having it.

I think CIC have made some good steps in the right direction with the "new" process of submitting the complete application to CIO. But they stand to lose some good, skilled people to other countries if they can't get things together.

Wayne.
Waggle is offline  
Old Feb 21st 2011, 1:39 am
  #30  
BE Enthusiast
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Location: Airdrie, Alberta
Posts: 382
Bucks_Family has a reputation beyond reputeBucks_Family has a reputation beyond reputeBucks_Family has a reputation beyond reputeBucks_Family has a reputation beyond reputeBucks_Family has a reputation beyond reputeBucks_Family has a reputation beyond reputeBucks_Family has a reputation beyond reputeBucks_Family has a reputation beyond reputeBucks_Family has a reputation beyond reputeBucks_Family has a reputation beyond reputeBucks_Family has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: rule changes a-comming ?

Originally Posted by Waggle
I think the main things Canada needs to do in order to attract a "younger" immigrant population is are:

a) Reduce the application timescales to make sure it is months rather than years. The "6 to 10 months" timecales quoted when they first moved to a fast track system seems to be rapidly disappearing out of the window. A young person with a burning desire to try a new country really won't wait that long. If Canada is proving too cumbersome to apply to, they'll likely opt for a different country.

b) Improve communication. It really should not take much to have a fully integrated email system so you can be notified the moment any part of your application status changes, right from when it is first received by CIO. Currently applicants have to wait 4 months before they can be completely certain CIO have even received their application. And ECAS is so inaccurate there hardly seems any point in having it.

I think CIC have made some good steps in the right direction with the "new" process of submitting the complete application to CIO. But they stand to lose some good, skilled people to other countries if they can't get things together.

Wayne.
Do people really treat emigration from their home in the same way as buying a house or a car? I was under the impression that for the majority of people this decision is a lifestyle choice, and that after much deliberation and likely expense of recce trips, they'd chosen Canada as the place they wanted to settle in, and not just the quickest place to get to.
It will take as long as it takes.
Bucks_Family is offline  

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.