It comes around quad-annually with clockwork regularity: It's immigration reform time once again. We have celebrated it together with presidential elections since the first Immigration Reform Act of 1986.

Controlling the borders is the federal government's responsibility. Therefore, we can count on three results: 1) its responsibility will be irresponsibly performed; 2) the government will attempt to fix the problem it created; and 3) the government's fix will make the problem worse.

But the Immigration Act of 1986 would be different. It was a blanket amnesty for 2.7 million illegal aliens that would solve the problem of illegal immigration once and for all. Well, not quite.

It was followed by another amnesty in 1994, then another in 1997, still another in 1998, plus two more amnesties for those who missed the first amnesty in 1986.

So here we are again, amnesty time.

The question arises, How many illegal aliens do we have? The government estimates it's about 10 million which means it's a lot more. The top guesstimate is 20 million.

Why not just legalize them all and be done with it? After all, aren't we a nation of immigrants? Yes and no. Before 1968 preference was given to immigrants from western Europe and Scandinavia. But the Kennedys, Jack and Bobby, marching to the spirit of the times, eliminated this racial preference in favor of racial and ethnic diversity.

Had they given their immigration policy more thought, they would have realized that diversity, then and now, is a root cause of animosity and violence.

Witness the Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, the Hindus and Moslems in India, the Sunnis and Shias in Iraq. One could continue with the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, and the blacks and whites in South Africa as well as in the United States.

But now that the illegals are here, what can be done with them? There are only two solutions; 1) send them back to Mexico where the great majority of illegals emigrated from; 2) issue national right-to-work cards based on citizenship. The choice is self made. The first solution is logistically impossible and morally repugnant. But work cards pose their own problem.

If illegals are to be denied the right-to-work cards, then legal residents must possess them. It brings to mind the familiar, “Your papers, please,” demanded in fascist and communist countries. But that appears to be where we're headed.

There is also the problem of cultural dilution. Many immigrants have no desire to become culturally homogenized. They prefer their own language and customs. To them George Washington or Thomas Jefferson are as foreign to them as Emiliano Salazar or Pancho Villa are to us.

Put it another way. The Mexican government puts the number of Americans living illegally in their nation at 200,000. These expatriates have no desire to learn the Spanish language or become quasi-Mexicans. They, like their Mexican counterparts in the U.S., remain stubbornly unassimilated.

But comparing the effect of 200,000 illegal Americans in Mexico is an order of magnitude different from the effect of 10 million to 20 million illegal Mexicans residing in the U.S.

Augmenting the disparity is the difference between the birth rates of Mexicans and whites. Mexican women have an average of 2.4 children while white women average only 1.8 children. (The minimum birth rate replacement in the U.S. is 2.1.)

California, the most populous state, shows where the U.S. is headed. Next year it is projected to have more Mexicans and other Hispanics than whites.

In short, we are asking, what will be the effects of the Mexicanization of the U.S.?

The ethnic voter profile of the last presidential election offers a clue. Of all those who voted for Romney, 6 percent were Mexicans and other Hispanics; for Obama it was 13 percent.

What shall we conclude?

By inclination and birthrate voters will swing increasingly toward the left. The Republican Party will morph into the right wing of the Democratic Party. The U. S’s all ready strained welfare programs will be torn asunder.

Looking still further into the future is like peering into a moonless midnight. Nevertheless, we wonder: Is the worst possible fate for America to be a bilingual patchwork of antagonistic minorities---or is it the best we can hope for?

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA

An unsolicited, unprovoked, random act of transparency was witnessed at the last county commissioners’ meeting. Commissioner Warren asked if her comments could be included in the minutes.

An attendee informed her that there were no ‘minutes.’ The ‘minutes’ are a carbon copy of the agenda with four small changes: the name of the commissioner who made the motion; the commissioner who seconded the motion; ‘ayes,’ ‘nays,’ or abstained; motion carried or failed.

There’s no record of discussion by the commissioners or the public on agenda items or a record of any public comment.

Commissioner Warren was informed that she could not arbitrarily decide to include her comments without giving the public the same rights. Treasurer Benedict pointed out that the meetings were conducted according to Robert’s Rules of Order. An attendee stated that while Robert’s rules might organize how meetings are conducted, public bodies are controlled by the Sunshine Act and the Right to Know laws. Further comment on the issue of transparency and the necessity to comply with the Sunshine Act was heard from several others in attendance.

Every township and borough has public meetings. They all, to one degree or another, include minutes which reflect the decision making process of how our tax dollars are spent, and the input from taxpayers during meetings.

Proper minutes were kept of commissioners’ meetings until January, 2008. That is when discussion and public comment were excluded from the record, and only an amended agenda was published. Why?

Videos of commissioners meetings are available on YouTube.

Sincerely,

Bruce S. Paskoff

Montrose, PA