A Naturalized Citizen's View of Immigration (legal or otherwise).

Jose  Vargas, the former Washington Post journalist, wrote an article in
the New York Times magazine on June 22, 2011 that is pertinent to the action  by the Obama administration this past week (with his Department of Homeland  Security giving 800,000 illegal immigrants the opportunity to remain  in this country with no actions to be taken to deport them).

Mr.  Vargas was in a conference room at the American  Immigration Lawyers Association outfitted with a projector and  screen, Vargas watched Obama's speech with seven or eight other young,  undocumented immigrant activists there to cover the announcement by President Obama.

I point  to this particular issue as nothing has transpired via the U.S. Government to act  on his admission (and yet, his story goes to the heart of what is the  problem regarding the on again / off again aspect of Immigration Policy of  the Federal Government). The fact he was covering the story (and as  far as we know, still doesn't have a Social Security card or adequate identification) leads one to think that the  Administration isn't serious about accountability.

Mr.  Vargas admitted that he has been an illegal immigrant in the US for 18  years (and he  detailed who helped him regarding his network of supporters).

I have a  different opinion as to their role. I think they broke the law by  helping him.

It is  THAT simple.

These  people were in positions of power and responsible to others for being honest. The Washington Post is a public company. They have an  HR
department. Mr. Vargas acknowledges "paying state and federal taxes,  but...
using an invalid Social Security card and writing false information on  [his]
employment forms". Not only is that breaking the law, that is engaging  in
Identity Theft. The Social Security number is most likely assigned to
someone. Has Mr. Vargas investigated if he has caused another person  harm
due to his actions? Assistant Managing Editor, Peter Perl represented  the
interests of the Washington Post and their shareholders (and exposed the
company to possible liability for having employed an illegal alien).  Instead
of doing the ethical thing by reporting this to his superiors, he
perpetuated the problem and justified it. Ethics is supposed to be at  the
heart of every editor and reporter. That seems to not be the case at not
only the Washington Post, but also the Huffington Post and the New  Yorker.

The Secret Service was given Mr. Vargas' Social Security number when he
covered/visited the Whitehouse, and yet nothing obviously was done to
actually check that number (otherwise, wouldn't this deception been  exposed
then)?  So, how hard would it be for a terrorist to use such a path to
become a journalist and gain access through his employer to get into the
White House?

I admire Mr. Vargas' tenacity to become a contributing member of society  (it
is to be commended), but he doesn't understand why his decision at the  age
of 16 to not deal with his situation head on has hurt his effort at  being
taken seriously regarding this situation. I abhor his deceitful efforts  to
live / work in this country (with the help of so many) while he  pretended to
be an ethical journalist (his body of work now becomes suspect, because  if
he lied to become employed by a public media company in the city where
America's federal government would fall under his reporting, it means he
doesn't understand boundaries or the rule of law... or chooses to only
observe those laws he agrees with). There is no other way to put it.

I am a legal immigrant (my parents legally moved here from Norway and I
still have those documents to this day). I served in the U.S. Marine Corps
honorably for over 6 1/2 years. I went through the extensive process to
become a U.S. citizen and became on in 1983. When I applied for work at my
present company, my citizenship certificate was not accepted as proof of
citizenship (and I had in fact, supplied a copy directly to the company
handling the HR function at that time). Instead, I was required to  provide
my Social Security card. The former is harder to get than the latter,  and
yet a U.S. document with a seal imprinted on it and a serial number wasn't
enough (but a Social Security card was). This wasn't my company's fault.  It
was the flawed system put in place by our legislators.

I am now getting very upset at the "pro-immigration" groups that use  human
misery as a cause/excuse to bypass our nation's immigration policies  (and
established rule of law). Mexico has immigration standards absolutely
draconian (by ours and other countries standards) and yet, the President  of
that country speaks in our capital about how the U.S. is acting horribly  when
a state has to implement a law because the federal government won't  enforce
our border)? A Guatemalan sneaking into Mexico could be jailed for up to two
years, pay a large fine, and be banned from ever re-entering the  country.
Why are Americans the bad guys for doing what every country tries to do
(control the flow of humans entering their country)? Because the U.S. is
considered a better place to live by those wanting to move here does not
mean that the whole world gets a path to citizenship (by having used  many
deceitful and shady means to enter the country).

I remain upset as to what illegal immigrants (and their supporters for
Amnesty) are doing by using the term "comprehensive immigration reform"  (and turning the term into something it isn't supposed to be). Amnesty is NOT
"comprehensive immigration reform".

If U.S. Rule of Law means nothing and U.S. border security means nothing (by  the example illegal immigrants give us... the law is meant to be broken so
immigrants crossing the border illegally can find a better way of life  and
bypassing the route that legal immigrants take). So to them, any human  being
going through our border without permission should get the path to
citizenship because they believe it is the "humane thing to do." If that  is
the case, are we actually then actually an extension of every country in  the
world (with our country being the only one not allowed to have border
security and an immigration policy that keeps a limit in said  immigration)?

Will I again be called a racist or anti-immigrant for having this  viewpoint
by those who think the rules do not exist for them? I remember the  comments
by readers when my last letter was published by the Chicago Tribune last
year. I am not insensitive to the many harried situations immigrants
desperate for a better life have endured. But where does one draw a  line?
The pro-amnesty promoters will not budge in their efforts (and will not
negotiate for a working guest worker program that will possibly make a  path
for a few immigrants who could use that process to become legal  immigrants).
Congress makes this harder by not acting in any manner (and the federal
government then picks and chooses when it will enforce federal law).

Sanctuary Cities make the situation harder because the illegal immigrant
knows it can take advantage of lax policies in local governments. Mr.  Vargas
himself used the Internet to find a state that would issue a driver's license
(that had minimal requirements regarding paperwork needed).

At the end of the day, Mr. Vargas should be deported (he may be a gifted
writer, but he broke the law). Mr. Perl should be fired from his  position of
responsibility at the Washington Post given his exposing his employer to
possible liability issues regarding Mr. Vargas' employment with the firm.  An
effort by the U.S. government should be made to make the Social Security  card
holder (who might be affected by the use of that person's number) has  not
been affected by Mr. Vargas' duplicity.... mainly because the Secret  Service
had the opportunity to expose the issue over three years ago when putting  Mr.
Vargas through their security procedures. The Secret Service should also
review their procedures for vetting journalists and other visitors to  the
White House.

Steinar Andersen

Huntley