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, Illinois