Immigrants: we don't need them, we don't want them, and we don't like them. Let's boot them back to where they came from, pronto.

The aliens flood into our cities, disrupting our lives and adulterating our culture. These invaders are not interested in our traditions or even learning our language. Their principal concern is how we can cater to their needs and meet their demands.

They have no desire to assimilate, rather they form enclaves, ghettos, zones where their native way of life is transplanted in our country.

As if that's not more than enough, they take advantage of welfare benefits and low-cost medical care, paid for by tax paying citizens.

Who are these unwelcome intruders, these insufferable newcomers into our country?

They are us.

The “our country” is Ecuador, and the “insufferables” are Americans in Ecuador. That's right; those “disruptive” migrants are Americans in Ecuador.

A city with a shopping list of complaints is Cuenca, typical of many metropolitan centers in Ecuador that are being overrun by retirees from the States.

These migrant Americans are ordinary, well-to-do folks with dependable incomes from retirement, social security, investments and bank accounts with plenty of zeros from the sale of houses and properties.

The pensioners are looking for a home where their retirement incomes will stretch further abroad than in their homeland. And they found it in Ecuador.

A two bedroom two-and-a-half-bath apartment can be found for under $400 a month. Want to go upscale? Less than $1,500 a month---that's for all living expenses---can buy an upper-class lifestyle.

The parallels between the expats in Ecuador and U.S. border crossers from South America are like train rails. But there is one striking difference; the newcomers to Ecuador come with a pocketful of dollars. They are an unsettling but economic plus.

On the flip side are impoverished settlers seeking refuge in the U.S. from war-ravaged countries in the Middle East. They are a liability. Other than that, the parallel holds.

The point is this: The United States can expect the same behavior from South American immigrants as the American's exhibit in Ecuador. That's anything but encouraging. It shows there will always be unbridgeable differences.

George Washington will never replace Simon Bolivar, who freed Ecuador from Spanish rule. Neither will the Fourth of July ever supplant the Tenth of August, Ecuador's Independence Day. To some extent, one group will remain foreigners while the other company will be branded, gringos.

To prevent a bad situation from deteriorating further, this writer proposes a five-point plan to control immigration:

(1) Immigrants, including refugees, are not to exceed 270,000 per year.

(2) A preference system for immigrants from certain ethnic groups which are deemed to be desirable.

(3) Immigrants with special skills will be exempted from quotes and admitted without restriction

(4) Deport immigrants or naturalized citizens engaged in or suspected of subversive activities and bar same from re-entry into the country.

(5) Citizenship will be granted to those who (a) have good character, and (b) have resided in the United States for five years. Non-citizens may not receive government welfare.

Draconian. Unconstitutional. Discriminatory. Unworkable. Wholly unacceptable. Such legislation will never be writ into law.

But it already has.

All five points of “my” immigration control plan have been established law for 65 years.

The five points are spelled out in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. We have only to enforce these federal laws, passed by Congress.

One of the sponsors of the 1952 Act, Patrick McCarran (D), speaking before the Senate in 1953 said, “I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the flickering light of humanity will be extinguished.” McCarran continued with “Today, as never before untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe, Asia, [and the Middle East] will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States.”

McCarran's words are more prescient today than when he spoke them 65 years ago.

Sincerely,
Bob Scroggins
New Milford, PA

There's a heartbreaking trend around the world:  Democracy is disappearing.  In Turkey, Erdogan used an inept coup attempt as an excuse to seize dictatorial powers and jail tens of thousands.  (The coup may have been a put-up job by Erdogan himself.)   But now the amazing accomplishment of Ataturk has been erased.  Hungary is ruled by an aspiring autocrat, and even though Hitler left the country nearly bereft of Jews, Jews are getting the blame for every gripe Hungarians have.  Democracy is shaky in Poland, where the court system is under attack and the Church is powerful and medieval.  Venezuela is a shambles, as every autocracy deserves to become.  And in the Philippines, the foul-mouthed thug Duterte encourages shooting people on the street like dogs, without due process.

The USA led the way in Democracy, and for over two centuries was a shining example to the world.  We're shining no more.  Our elections are rigged (and NOT by or for the Democrats).  We have a would-be Dictator in power who shows all the inclinations of the type.  He attacks and undermines the judiciary.  He attacks the media, whose Constitutional role is to keep him in check, and pretends their truths are lies.  (And his followers believe every lie he utters.)  He chafes at any restriction on his power.  And, he demonizes others-- the "Jews" of American Fascism are Liberals.  (Sometimes they're both.)

Just look at his telltale actions.  He's cozy with Putin, and said he was "honored" to meet him.  He spoke in Poland, in a Bannon-written speech much praised by Far Rightists, yet never mentioned Democracy.  And rather than shunning the murderous Duterte, he actually invited him to desecrate the White House with his presence.  Well, it had already been desecrated, and very recently.

The saddest thing is that he maintains a solid core of supporters who either do not recognize that he is undermining Democracy, or who fully recognize it and are perversely loving every transgressive minute of it.  The same people have the conceit that they're "more patriotic than thou", but they have betrayed their country, and deserve the condemnation of those who, more quietly and with more dignity, are the real Patriots.

Sincerely,
Stephen Van Eck
Rushville, PA

I have always been interested in water. A basic life necessity, and also one of the most potent tools in the Mother Nature box. It is amazing when one thinks one drop at a time creates a crevice, in any kind of natural material.

This week I was wandering around, looking at water and the men and equipment who are working around the roads and bridges. They are working under the watchful eyes of several inspectors, and not an agency was missed. Added to the white hats were the project managers, engineers and company inspectors, foreman and crew. That is quite a lot of folks standing around, admiring the work.

I visited one site and I admired the beauty of the bluestone. As I was chatting with an inspector, I inquired if this beautiful stone was to be used in the swale. With the volume of water that comes off the mountain, this is an excellent choice of material, and specific to this area. I cannot even begin to tell you my astonishment at the reply.

This highly educated engineer looked at me and said: No, we can't use rock in the swale way. The state has decided that rock is not a natural material, and that there would be grasses planted there. My expression said it all. I reminded her that as an engineer who drove the road, she had to see the whole road is damaged. She agreed. I asked her what state agency, who works around water, would even think that rock is not a natural material? Seems the edict comes from the fish and game commission.

I am very disappointed that a state agency would not educate its agents that the problem of water is often times the fine rock, called sand, and rock material. If they are stretching the vague meaning of the Pa. Code, then the logic is this material came from a different site source. Foreign.

Now this is not to say that grasses do not have a place in filtering runoff water.  So doesn't a well placed bale of straw. This is not the case here. This site is the lowest level that water seeks. It drains into a tributary that goes into the river, that flows to the Chesapeake Bay. It seems to me, that if the Bay Environmentalists want the bay to clean up, maybe they should come up to the area they have so much interest in and really get an education in how lack of maintenance doesn't seem to be working for the citizens of the Susquehanna county, or the waterway they are protecting. They should also quit developing around the bay.

If you read the Pa. Code, you will note that every stream, creek and river in the state, whether it deserves it or not, are all coded HQ/EV. We have low standards for water ratings. But we do have government and other environmental groups who do have a vested interest and tons of money involved.  I have no less than 5 offers to be a member of a 501(c) money grab to save the wild life foundations. Another inherent problem with water in this area is beavers. Heaven help you if you so much as request a have-a-heart trapping done. The fish and game man will come, and fine you into a 3rd job, and confiscate your property. It is also a way to control your areas of population. If you are declared a flood plain, everyone gets a chance to buy flood insurance, even if you live on top of the mountain, or you have FEMA buy you out and relocate you. I do not think this is good policy. It is a liberal idea, and like most liberal ideas, does not work.

When you have agents, representing the state and therefore its citizens, not knowing that rock is the only material that lasts, may not be the best agency to be involved in water matters.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Allen
New Milford, Pa