am not at all sentimental by temperament,rnyet I cannot avoid the tears whenrnmy husband reads to our children in Englishrnthe last verses of Longfellow’s poem,rnthe part where the lovers are finally,rnafter years and years, united.rnThe blindness of the English in Canada,rnwho complain of the cost of governingrnthe country in French and Englishrnwithout ever noticing the internationalrnprestige it attracts, is a root cause of ourrnbitterness against them. Once more, inrn1982, the English in Canada imposedrnupon us a constitution which we neverrnwanted. In vain did Rene Levesquernprotest to the premiers of the ninernEnglish-speaking provinces. Levesquernknew English, of course, because duringrnWorld War II he had enlisted in the U.S.rnArmy to avoid surrendering his right, as arnCanadian, to speak French. He preferredrnto enrich his life elsewhere with arnforeign language than to allow a foreignrnlanguage to be imposed on his ownrncountry.rnLiving in French among us is likernbringing the old soil of France here tornthis hostile climate. Quebec is a fragilerncountry. The Catholic Church knows it,rnand has always known it. The most recentrneffort of the federal government tornmake us knuckle under is a reference tornthe supreme court debate on whetherrnthe constitution of Canada gives Quebecrnthe right to secede. The government ofrnQuebec has refused even to appear beforernthe court, and we are consequentlyrndefended by a friend of the court namedrnby the court. But Jean-Claude Turcotte,rnCardinal-Archbishop of Montreal, hasrnspoken the truth of the matter aboutrnwhich we are more determined thanrnever. No matter what the judges say, thernpeople of Quebec will decide the futurernof Quebec, not the supreme court ofrnCanada.rnLooking out from the windows of ourrnlittle house, I see a countryside frozen forrneternity in great white waves of snow.rnFor our children, winter is not an obstaclernto playing outside, only an opportunityrnto enlarge their field of play. Whenrnthey arrived in the St. Lawrence Valley,rnthey had to learn French again. Theyrnlive now as if they were born here, inrnpeace and outside any shadow of worryrnabout their futiire.rnSylvie Fortin is a member of the QuebecrnBar. The original text in French wasrntranslated by her husband, an Americanrnlawyer and legal historian.rnPOLITICSrnThe Politics ofrnIllegitimacy Ratesrnby Joseph E. FallonrnSince the early 1960’s, compilingrnstatistics on illegitimacy rates in thernUnited States has been the official responsibilityrnof the National Center forrnHealth Statistics. However, the methodologyrnemployed by that federal agency torndetermine illegitimacy rates according tornrace has been inaccurate, classifying virtuallyrnall illegitimate Hispanic births asrnillegitimate “white” births. The result isrnan official illegitimacy rate for “whites”rnwhich has been deliberately inflated.rnSince most people assume “white” is arnsynonym for “European-American,” thernillegitimacy rate statistics—like FBI haterncrime statistics which classify most, if notrnall, Hispanic perpetrators of hate crimesrnas “white” — officially promote a falsernand biased view against European-Americans,rntheir culture, and their morals.rnThis flawed methodology stems fromrnhow the federal government treats Hispanics.rnAccording to Public Law 94-311rnof 1976 and Office of Management andrnBudget Directive No. 15 of 1977, Hispanicsrnconstitute a separate “ethnic” categoryrnand can be of any race. When itrncomes to identifying Hispanics accordingrnto a specific race, however, the federalrngovernment classifies most as “white.”rnPrior to 1980, separate illegitimacyrnrates for Hispanics were not recorded byrneither the National Center for HealthrnStatistics or any state government. Thisrnlack of interest in such a vital statistic wasrnremarkable for three reasons.rnFirst, federal authorities were alreadyrncollecting other related data on Hispanics.rnIn 1976, various Hispanic organizations,rnincluding the American G.I.rnForum, the Latin American ManufactiiringrnAssociation, the League of UnitedrnLatin American Citizens, the NationalrnCongress of Hispanic American Citizens,rnthe National Council of La Raza,rnand SER, lobbied for passage of PublicrnLaw 94-311. This law mandated “a Covernment-rnwide program for the collection,rnanalysis, and publication of datarnwith respect to Americans of Spanish originrnor descent” that would indicate theirrn”social, health, and economic condition.”rnSecond, contrary to the repeated assertionsrnof political and church “leaders”rnthat Hispanic immigrants are an asset becausernthey come from countries whichrnrespect family values, Hispanic countriesrnhave some of the highest rates of illegitimaternbirths in the world. According tornthe most recent statistics available (thernUnited Nations Demographic Yearbook,rn1975 and 1986; and 1990 data from thernStatistical Division of the United Nations’rnSecretariat), the illegitimacy ratern(the percentage of births to unmarriedrnwomen) in the Dominican Republicrnis 67 percent; El Salvador, 67 percent;rnGuatemala, 65 percent; Mexico, 28rnpercent (tabulated by date of registrationrnrather than occurrence); Panama,rn75 percent; Peru, 47 percent; andrnVenezuela, 54 percent.rnAnd third, the size of the Hispanicrnpopulation in the United States was dramaticallyrnincreasing as a result of thern1965 immigration act and subsequentrnlegislation which encouraged large-scalernHispanic immigration. Between 1961rnand 1980, of the nearly eight million immigrantsrnwho were admitted to the UnitedrnStates, more than two and a half millionrncame from Latin America (the 18rnSpanish-speaking states and Brazil).rnThis represented 33 percent of all legalrnimmigration for those two decades.rnAs a result of these massive levels ofrnimmigration, the Hispanic population inrnthe United States skyrocketed from approximatelyrnthree and a half millionrn(concentrated in the Southwest) —lessrnthan two percent of the total populationrn—to nearly 15 million (nationwide),rnwhich is more than six percent of the totalrnpopulation. Even taking into considerationrnan undercount in the I960 census,rnand changing definitions betweenrnthe 1960 and 1980 censuses, that was anrnincrease of over 300 percent.rnDuring those two decades (1960-rn1980), while local, state, and federal authoritiesrnwere recognizing Hispanics as arndistinct “minority” group eligible for affirmativernaction programs, the same authoritiesrnwere apparently registeringrnmost, if not all, illegitimate Hispanicrnbirths solely as illegitimate “white”rnbirths. Even when 22 states betweenrn1980 and 1991 began to document Hispanicrnillegitimacy rates for their respec-rn44/CHRONlCLESrnrnrn