Borders

Why Was the Border Patrol Union Going to Participate in Donald Trump's U.S.-Mexico Border Tour?

Should armed agents of the state be able to organize and use their power to influence politics?

|

Todd Krainin

Donald Trump is headed to Laredo, Texas, a town near the U.S.-Mexico border, as part of his presidential campaign's focus on border security issues. Trump made headlines, and garnered controversy, while first announcing his presidential campaign when he suggested Mexican immigrants were drug dealers and rapists.

Today, Local 2455 of the National Border Patrol Council, the union for border patrol agents, said it was pulling out of Donald Trump's tour of the border. Though they won't say why, Trump's history of controversial comments might have something to do with it.

Via CNN:

"After careful consideration of all of the factors involved in this event … it has been decided by Local 2455 to pull out of all events involving Donald Trump," the union said in a statement. "Make no mistake, our border with Mexico is not secure and there's no doubt that we need to have an honest discussion about that with the American people."

Trump still plans on visiting the border with other agents, his spokeswoman said, and will address a group of law enforcement officials at an event after the tour.

But why was Local 2455 considering joining Trump's tour in the first place? The union's advocacy of specific border policies is problematic. Permitting the unionization of armed agents of the state is questionable in and of itself. When those armed agents can turn around and campaign for policies—like a "safer border"—that would create more work for them and, in essence, enrich them, that illustrates the problem of public unions in general.

Border patrol agents are hired to patrol the border. As Americans, of course they have a right to a political opinion, but they should not have the right to use their government position—a position that's a privilege, not a right—to amplify their political opinions. That power, wielded by law enforcement unions and other kinds of public unions, distorts the conversation about policies by privileging positions that demand more government attention, resources, and deference, a vicious cycle that leads to more government intervention and more oppression under the guise of democratic participation.

NEXT: 'A lousy Republican, a lousy conservative, and a vulgar human being'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Only if they’re democrats?

  2. Should armed agents of the state be able to organize and use their power to influence politics?

    What difference, at this point, does it make?

    1. What difference does it make that they’re armed? I see no difference betweeb their union and teachers unions doing this same type of thing. All public sector unions should be eliminated.

      1. I agree with this. I agree with the argument against public sector unions for this reason. But I don’t understand why the author would call out this specific union as if its behavior was special? Is this any different than cops (in uniform) or teachers standing beside a political figure at a speech?

        1. No, it’s not. Public employees wielding this much power over the political process is horrifying. Public employees of government already wield plenty of power; they are after all working there everyday and interpreting how to actually execute the laws and guidance coming from the legislature and executive. Yes, their power is “softer” and more subtle than the sort of influence a union can bear directly on the political process but still extremely powerful. The combination of their bureaucratic power and their union power gives them a hugely and dangerously amplified influence over the government.

        2. Maybe because this incident happened today in the world, and not theoretically in the ethereal realm of libertarian Forms?

          1. No no no Hugh. If an author doesn’t make sure to call out every hobby horse of every commenter in every article, then they are clearly engaged in an attempt to sweep those particular incidents under the rug.

            1. Don’t forget shilling and cocktails.

            2. Then fuck Ed for not saying that deep,dish isn’t pizza.

              Fuck him good and hard!

          2. the ethereal realm of libertarian Forms

            Sounds good. Anyone selling citizenship and a passport? I’m in.

            1. Good luck with that, I think Agile Cyborg is responsible for processing applications.

              1. Damn! I already awarded the internet to somebody else today.

                1. Aimed at pan fried wylie

          3. Cops and teachers throwing weight at political rallys is not theoretical and the fact that they are armed is still irrelevant.

            1. This is obviously true, and even if we got rid of the state recognition of such unions we wouldn’t rid unions of advocating policies unless we actually outlawed free association for government employees. The whole article is pretty fucking stupid.

              1. Really? There is just no way to say “public employee unions are illegal”?
                JFK, that great liberal icon, was horrified by the thought of public employee unions.

            2. Man that point was coming right at you and you dodged it like a fucking ninja.

      2. I think he was quoting Queen Rodham.

        That’s why i usually do it like this:

        “WHAT DIFFERENCE, AT THIS POINT, DOES IT MAKE?!?!”

        Then I remind people about the time she went to Egypt and the Egyptian people threw tomatoes at her, stupid, wrinkly face while chanting “Monica” over and over.

        1. Wait, they did? That’s hilarious.

          1. Oh it happened. For some reason it doesn’t get brought up when her worshippers are talking about her “accomplishments.”

            A close second-place is 2009 when she was in Botswana or the Congo or some such place, giving a speech to a room full of students, while at the same time Bill Clinton was literally rescuing hostages in North Korea (keep in mind that this is while Hillary is Secretary of State) and when Hillary finally opened for questions some 20-year old African chick was like “*YAWN* so anyway…what does Bill Clinton think about all this?” and Hillary got all indignant in her pants suit and was like “My husband is not the Secretary of State whah whah whah…”

            Funny, sickening stuff.

            1. Hey, the Egyptian thing was almost three years ago exactly:

              http://www.reuters.com/article…..7520120716

              “Protesters threw tomatoes and shoes at Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s motorcade on Sunday during her first visit to Egypt since the election of Islamist President Mohamed Mursi…

              ….Protesters chanted “Monica, Monica,” a reference to the extra-marital affair conducted by Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, while in the White House. Others earlier chanted “leave, Clinton” an Egyptian security official said.”

              1. “almost three years ago”
                At this point what difference does it make.

    2. I’m confused. Reason’s stance is that American citizens should not be able to cooperate to have a political voice if they’re federal workers, but that non-citizen criminal aliens should be able to cross our borders, commit crimes and suck down taxpayer dollars like cheap lager on nickel beer night?

      Why does Reason hate America?

      Why does it prefer criminal aliens?

      Libertarian? Demoncrap? Socialist? Communist? Which is it, “Reason”?

      1. You have clearly won the argument, as you were the first to establish an accusation of Communism. Congratulations!

      2. A person working for the government, necessarily, should be under different rules than a private citizen.
        Public unions, especially the police unions, are the biggest reason for the growth of our government.
        Ima too buzzed to connect the dots for you, but the end result is that people who work for the government should not have more power setting government policy than the people they work for.

      3. Public Unions have repeatedly demostrated undue influence over their employers.

  3. Suggested?

  4. Are you new to this country Ed? This has been going on in all places and all levels for decades.

    1. Look, Donald Trump invented using government unions to campaign. Get with the program!

  5. No body move, or the beaner gets over the border! (Now, that is fantastic wielding of unionist power.)
    …meanwhile, Agent Lopez, proud union member, laments…’damn Mexicans are stealing our jobs!’

    1. ?Aye dios mio! Esta loco enough to do it!

      Se?or Samuel Johnson

      1. It’s a sad day when a solid Blazing Saddles joke like that goes unnoticed.

        1. As I used to tell a friend of mine when he said someone didn’t get his joke, “just because someone isn’t laughing doesn’t mean they don’t “get” your joke.”

  6. Seriously, the US Government has not allowed a single strike from ‘private’ airline employee groups since maybe the early early 80s. The POTUS has always intervened with a cooling off period. Why should other ‘essential services’ be off the hook?

  7. Border patrol agents are hired to patrol the border

    Give or take a hundred miles.

    1. …of any land/sea border.

      Also, any “reasonably-sized” area around a port of entry.

    2. No, there’s no give, it’s all take.

  8. Anything besides Trump happening in the world these days?

    1. Well, there’s Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam and Trump.

    2. Come Monday, I suspect we will have reached peak Trump.

      1. Can you actually reach peak Trump? It may be like peak Derp.

        1. The news cycle begins on Monday.

          They release bad news on Friday because by Monday, it’ll all be old news. Last weeks’ news cycle.

          Come Monday, Trump will more last week than he is this week.

          Come the Monday after that, Trump may have to murder somebody to get the media’s attention.

          1. We can only hope.

    3. Actually, Homple, ISIS is turning 2,300 United States Humvees into suicide car bombs .

      I should think that is rather newsworthy.

      1. But where’s the trump angle?

        1. http://deadline.com/2015/06/do…..201445840/

          Apparently he’d make them run out of gasoline for the HMMWVs.

  9. I hear in some parts of Europe, drafted personnel of the armed forces are allowed to form unions… which, other than being gallingly stupid, does have a certain irony to it.

    1. Yes, but they go on strike for one day and the government capitulates. Furthermore, only one regiment goes on strike at any time, so there’s never any risk, especially for France because historically it always finds a way to defend itself.
      In WWII for example they feigned defeat to the Vichy only as a ruse which everyone knows they used unexpectedly and nearly single-handedly to defeat Nazi Germany. D-Day, the total sideshow that it was continues to pump US patriotism, but every serious historian knows and understands the cruciality of the resistance.The French military is really a facade for the potent inner resistance.
      Now if the resistance goes on strike, that’s another story.

  10. Today down in Des Moines, I actually saw a Trump 2016 bumper sticker. Is this guy actually running? Is this real?

    1. I think the better question is what you were doing in Des Moines.

    2. Why can’t someone have an ironic bumper sticker? Why not paste an Obama 2016 on yours just to provoke comment.

  11. Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump,

    yadda, yadda, yadda.

    Trump, Trump, Trump.

    P.S. Trump.

  12. What government agency has the power to take away your first amendment right to petition the government?

    I don’t care for unions and I really don’t care for public service unions, but any group can get together and advocate for whatever they want and the government may not stop them.

    (At least from a how it should be perspective. I realize how it is isn’t necessarily how it should be.)

    1. The problem is that when you’re talking about public employees, it’s impossible to tell the difference between campaign contributions and payola.

      The Hatch Act is a good thing.

      How many people are still employed by the federal government since before the Hatch Act was passed in 1939?

      Think of it as a contractual condition of employment. If you want to work here, you can’t campaign for candidates.

      If you want to work for the SEC, you shouldn’t be allowed to hold stock in any of the companies you might investigate either. There are lots of things like that, and they make good sense. If it’s a condition of employment that you agree to before you’re hired, then there isn’t anything wrong with that.

      1. I should add that there are part of the Hatch Act that probably aren’t okay, too…

        “The act also precluded federal employees from membership in “any political organization which advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act

        I think that was supposed to be a prohibition against membership in the Communist Party, but I could see the government stretching that to prohibit membership in the Libertarian Party–since some libertarians and libertarian candidates are anarcho-capitalists and may advocate overthrowing every form of government–including our constitutional form.

        With that caveat, requiring civil service workers to forgo campaigning for candidates as a condition of employment is a good thing.

      2. Think of it as a contractual condition of employment. If you want to work here, you can’t campaign for candidates.

        I’m torn on this. While I understand the necessity of conditions of employment for government workers, it is still “government” violating people’s rights.

        It used to piss me off royally that as an officer I could not identify myself as such when attending political functions. That position lends credibility to my veiws on certain issues and I wasn’t allowed to use it. I should have been allowed to publically call my boss’s policy wrong as any other citizen may (call my boss wrong) and have my position lend credibility to my argument. Just so I still follow the lawful orders he gives.

        The difference between a private employer and a government employer is that the private employer has rights (freedom of association) whereas government doesn’t have rights, only powers.

        I suppose, then, one could argue that in my military capacity, I had no rights, only powers, and therefore my rights couldn’t be violated.

        And then, there’s the question of which rights the government can ask you to sign away.

        Maybe the anarchists are right.

      3. “The problem is that when you’re talking about public employees, it’s impossible to tell the difference between campaign contributions and payola.”

        At the very, very least, treat cop unions like the military: no advocacy while in uniform.

    2. I don’t have a problem with unions, in general. I also believe it’s a First Amendment right and I dislike government intrusion into contractual affairs between competent parties, whether pro- or anti-union.

      I draw the line at public service unions, however. Public employees are agents of the state. While they do have some constitutional protections (they can’t be fired, for example, for voting Libertarian), it is not in dispute that the government can restrict activities that can influence their jobs as agents of the state.

      1. How about the Supreme Court Union? Only 9 members. No body move or your case isn’t heard?
        How do you think the Supreme Court would rule on such a thing?

  13. Just out of curiosity, what color are the Border Patrol uniforms?

    1. Olive green. You know who else wore olive green uniforms?

      1. Cocktail olives?

      2. The Olive Green Berets?

      3. Green? In the desert? No wonder people are getting across the border. Why not have them wear safety orange and be done with it?

    2. Here ya go. However, the wet back is darker.

      1. Greenshirts? That seems a little lame.

      2. the wet back is darker

        Dude, that is so racist.

  14. So, is anyone else about 99.9% certain that Trump is deliberately trying to split the GOP vote for his friend Hillary? Now he’s supposedly talking 3rd-party as of this morning.

    1. I do not think that there is some high level conspiracy between the Clintons and Trump, but in the back of Trump’s mind I am certain that vote splitting outcome does not displease him.

      In the debates undoubtedly he will be caustic towards the GOP nominee and hold his fire towards Clinton.

    2. Pretty much.

    3. He isn’t thinking like that.

      He’s been doing everything he can to get his name in the news since the early 1980s.

      That’s still all he’s doing.

      Looking back and seeing who benefits and assuming they did what they did on purpose is always a bad idea.

      He has no idea what he’s doing. He just wants his name in the news.

      He’s the guy from Network.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_qgVn-Op7Q

      He said something that resonated with certain people, but he has no idea what he’s doing. He’s just spouting off like he has been for 35 years.

      1. He’s the guy from Network + Charlie Sheen.

        Winning!

        He has no plan. He has no idea what he’s doing other than getting his name in the news.

        1. He’s more like the Joker. He’s a dog chasing cars, but has no clue what to do if he catches one.

    4. You really care about this? The election is when? You are serious?

    5. Think of the ego boost he’ll get when he can claim that he single-handedly ruined the election. Personally, I hope he wins. It will certainly get things over with faster.

      That is, unless you believe that the President isn’t really the all powerful supreme leader of the country. Think of all the stupid shit that could be undone just by him saying he’s for it.

  15. Congratulations, you have made your 10,000th Trump reference! Your prize is this awesome hairpiece.

  16. What is the upper range of the popular vote that an inevitable Third Party Tump candidacy will secure?

    I don’t know why everyone around here seems to think that Trump will fade away to an electoral irrelevance.

    There are far too many forces that will compel this brand of populism to continue at some level through November 2016, not the last of which is Trump’s own monstrous ego.

  17. Alt alt-text: You know who else used the Nazi salute?

    1. The Boy Scouts?

    2. Mel Brooks in Springtime for you-know-who?

    3. All the school kids in this country when the pledge was first introduced?

    4. Dr. Strangelove?

  18. And . . . the Trumpapalooza at Reason continues.

    1. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump.

      1. Heeeeeeeeeere’s Donald!

      2. Unfortunately, that scene in The Shining is a lot less scary now that you can produce a 1,000 manuscript of the same same sentence repeated over and over…in just 2 or 3 hours, rather than an entire winter.

        1. It’s still on a typewriter, it’s not like he could have copy-pasted that shit.

        2. Hours may be overestimating.

          Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C, end, Ctrl-V, repeat

          It grows exponentially.

          Printing, on the other hand…

      3. It’s all your fault that there’s a character limit here. That being said, I felt strangely compelled to read it.

    2. Hey. We stopped getting pictures from Pluto. Give ’em a break. And fortunately police brutality is rare enough that only three articles come at us per day.

  19. Hey, you know what’s more interesting than the umpteenth article on a huckster playing the media for fools?

    The ongoing coverup of a police massacre in Waco:

    Why is Waco, Texas, fighting to suppress multiple videos of the shootout that killed nine bikers at the Twin Peaks restaurant on May 17? Why are some attorneys in the case now prohibited from talking to the press? And why haven’t Waco officials revealed how many of the nine victims were killed by bullets from police officers’ guns?

    http://www.theatlantic.com/pol…..rs/399047/

    1. I don’t think we’ll ever know the truth on that one. They fucked up so bad that every level of government will do everything to protect them.

      1. Plus, it’s a bunch of bikers. By default everybody assumes they’re a bunch of meth dealers. So good luck with that.

      2. It makes me sad. I was hoping that bikers really were outlaw enough to have a gunfight with cops. Nope. The cops have definitely become such a big, bad gang nobody else will mess with them.

        1. It wouldn’t surprise me if the fight itself was instigated by undercover cops to intentionally give the uniformed cops an excuse to open fire. Premeditated mass-murder all around. If that is indeed the case, then the cops have absolutely nothing to lose by threatening to kill any judge, prosecutor or defense attorney who attempts to reveal the truth. Nothing at all.

  20. they should not have the right to use their government position?a position that’s a privilege, not a right…

    So, it’s perfectly OK to ban gays from joining the military? After all, the position is a privilege not a right.

    Logical inconsistency, how you irk me!

    1. Sure. It’s stupid but not illegal. Do fat 40-somethings have a right to be in the military?

      1. I don’t see why a fat 40 something can’t be in the military. You’re asking them to work a joystick and stare at a computer monitor to do drone strikes, not defend Thermoopylae from the Persian Empire with a spear.

        1. Forget that fat 40-something. Get his WW2-vet dad out of retirement.

          He can pilot drones until the dreadnought preservation-crypt technology is ready.

        2. The point is, it’s silly to keep people out of the military who want to serve. Silly is not illegal.

          In other words, ace_m82 was making a stupid point.

          1. What about people with asthma? Just because they will fail out at a high rate and end up collecting benefits doesn’t mean we should discriminate against them. Seems like it’s a good idea to keep many people out who want to serve.

            1. Which is why military service not being a right is a good thing.

            2. How about “it’s silly to keep able bodied people who are capable of serving out of the military”?

              1. Define “able bodied”.

                Now define “able minded”. Both are needed to volunteer. I am able bodied, but am certainly no long able minded (mostly due to the experience of the tyrants in uniform, not this pittance of an issue).

                If you get (perhaps) 3% more able bodied but lose 5-10% of the able minded, you’ve lost, not gained.

      2. Are you sure it’s stupid? Gays are around 3% of the population and I wouldn’t have ever joined had they been allowed to serve openly.

        Ever been several months into a deployment, horny as heck, and sleeping head to toe in the back of a truck? Or in a hole in the ground? Do you know how many ugly women got pregnant in Iraq/Afghanistan? Rape is a real threat, not only to women…

        Now, gays shouldn’t be persecuted by government, for sure. Still, if you make the “privilege not a right” play, you need to therefore think about the consequences of the action. If you call it a right, then you need to make no such Utilitarian argument.

        1. …and the stupid point is still in progress.

          1. Not an argument…Try harder.

            Last time I checked, there were more reported rapes against MEN in this country than against WOMEN!

            Did you serve spark? Did you ever think about the actual ramifications of such a thing?

            1. That just isn’t true first off. Secondly, male on male rapists are not necessarily gay. It’s more often a power thing than sexual. Most prison rapists aren’t homosexual.

              1. That just isn’t true first off.

                Take into account prison rapes, at least for that one year. I’ll research it if you want.

                Most prison rapists aren’t homosexual.

                Unless it’s a mixed sex prison, then you are wrong by definition. Just because they wouldn’t do it normally, they still do it. Homosexual is an act, not a desire.

          2. To put it a different way, do you want your “enhanced” TSA screener to be gay? Do you think 97% of men do? Or is that not the very reason why men search men and women search women?

            1. I understand that you’re afraid of gay men and angry about it. That doesn’t mean you have a good point.

              I think it’s perfectly acceptable for the military to ban gays because service isn’t a right. I also think it’s completely stupid for them to turn away able-bodied men and women who want to serve.

              1. I understand that you’re afraid of gay men and angry about it.

                Wrong on both counts. Thanks for playing.

                I also think it’s completely stupid for them to turn away able-bodied men and women who want to serve.

                You are free to think that. But, if your reasoning is to get more able-bodied men and women to serve, what would happen if fewer volunteered because of it?

                The reason homosexuals were banned in the military for so long wasn’t because it was scary or wrong, but because it negatively affected good order and discipline. Do you think it may still do so?

                1. The reason homosexuals were banned in the military for so long wasn’t because it was scary or wrong, but because it negatively affected good order and discipline.

                  How could they know that when openly gay people weren’t allowed to serve?

                  How many times did you get raped while on deployment? Because there were definitely gay guys there before they were allowed to be open about it.

                  1. How could they know that when openly gay people weren’t allowed to serve?

                    Because they caught non-open gay people “in the act” in much the same circumstances I described above. And yes, it did affect good order and discipline.

                    there were definitely gay guys there before they were allowed to be open about it

                    Yep, but there were almost certainly fewer. Heck, even a ban on any gay serving wouldn’t have gotten rid of all of them… Regardless, allowing gays to serve openly would mean they would have an incentive to be more “open” with their sexuality (duh).

                    One of the reasons that you can sleep in a hole in the ground with a bunch of guys is because there’s a trust that no-one has any interest in you. If you add random women to the equation, it no longer holds true (and doesn’t really work). It is the same in this situation.

                    How many times did you get raped while on deployment?

                    That’s an argument by anecdote. It’s like saying I don’t need to carry a weapon because I’ve never been robbed before.

                    Should there be a ban on gays in the military? There shouldn’t even be a governmental military, so no, there shouldn’t be a ban on it!

                    1. You’re not scared of gay guys, you just wouldn’t have joined the military if they were allowed to serve openly. Ok. Somehow the military hasn’t collapsed into chaos since DADT, and militaries like the IDF have functioned effectively for years with gay soldiers. Hell, let’s go back 2,000+ years I know of quite a few armies with homos that were quite effective.

                    2. You’re not scared of gay guys, you just wouldn’t have joined the military if they were allowed to serve openly.

                      True statement. Not difficult to understand. One need not fear something (someone) in order for you to avoid sleeping in a hole in the ground with it (him/her).

                      Somehow the military hasn’t collapsed into chaos since DADT

                      I didn’t say it would.

                      militaries like the IDF have functioned effectively for years with gay soldiers

                      As (in)effectively as any governmental arm of force can, maybe. It’s like comparing the tallest midget though.

                      Hell, let’s go back 2,000+ years I know of quite a few armies with homos that were quite effective.

                      True, but it’s counterfactual to what may have happened and not a good comparison to today. Pedantry was very common at the time. In many cultures it wasn’t “rape” to have sex with little boys because they weren’t men yet.

                      Wow, that’s just evil.

  21. Does this mean the press won’t have Miriam Felfbaum to kick around for four more years ?

  22. Why Was the Border Patrol Union Going to Participate in Donald Trump’s U.S.-Mexico Border Tour?

    Really. Ed? It couldn’t possibly be that they feel Trump is an ally for their interest in increasing their power and budget?

    The real question is “Why did they suddenly change their mind?”

    Could it be that the SEIU (a larger part of the AFL-CIO than the Border Patrol) wants more hotel, kitchen, and janitorial workers to unionize?

  23. So, when was the last time you denounced the President (of any party) for surrounding himself with a bunch of ‘armed agents of the state’ when announcing some new LE policy?
    And, how much good did it do?

  24. They organize all of the time to pass gun control, and that’s organization against my civil rights.

  25. “Should armed agents of the state be able to organize and use their power to influence politics?”
    No, but they do it every day, all day long. It is the chief reason why public Unions should never exist.
    It is public knowledge Public Unions lead the Democrats lead around by their shorts hairs.

  26. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  27. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.