Illegal Immigrant Sob Story: A Challenge to Our Government to Uphold the Law?

Today the New York Times posted yet another immigration sob story but this time with a new twist: the brave, heroic illegal immigrant protagonist is none other than the article’s author and employee of the New York Times! (Cue the pounding, screeching, emphatic horror music!)

It’s true, apparently this article was written by a man, a Mr. Jose Antonio Vargas, who claims he is not only an employee of the NYT but also an illegal immigrant who just happened to just wake up and decide to “come out” by admitting his status as an undocumented worker… oh yes, my pun is intended, considering he does actually narrate about his homosexuality somewhere around page 3, so correction: Mr. Vargas admits his identity as a gay undocumented, illegal immigrant working for the NYT.  My apologies.

I admit, having recently read the media’s recent debaucle involving the scammed identity of that gay, kidnapped blogger girl in Damascus, I’m still a little leery of this man’s immigration and employment status with the NYT.

If he does exist, his article is bold. It’s shocking. It’s controversial and relevant to the mainstream media’s agenda.  Beyond that though, it’s nothing more a drawn-out admission of illegal activity!  In fact, his disclosure admits his repeated failure to not only turn himself in as an illegal immigrant but also reveals his failure to rectify the situation by applying for legal status or returning to his native homeland.

I think this author is expecting a pat on the shoulder for being “brave,” but I’m pretty sure it’s just sheer stupidity. He seems intelligent enough given his multiple (supposed) encounters with the law and years spent lying about his immigration status to know that his confession should have some ramifications.

Aside from the fact that true bravery would have involved him turning himself into the local authorities (instead of just blogging about his life and waiting to see if our system isn't so broken that someone actually comes to catch him), he has now just given the Feds a perfect excuse to come after his employers under violation of Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A) with 5 years in jail and a fine of $250,000 dollars... Though, I’m sure we can all place solid bets on whether any federal authorities will follow up with the New York Times on the legal ramifications of their knowingly employing an illegal immigrant.

I’ve read sob stories before.  Those weepy, mopey, cry-me-a-river narratives that just drag the reader along in some sappy attempt to get the reader so misty-eyed that their reasoning skills are fogged up worse than a windshield on a rainy morning are beyond obnoxious. (Hey, that guy likes bacon cheeseburgers too; he must be just like me!) They appeal to our pity, but that line of logic just doesn’t pass when we’re dealing with solid facts on real issues… like the real, tangible problems and consequences of illegal immigration.

If I tottered over to Germany and demanded a job because I was “hard-working” and just aching to live the German dream without any paperwork (which, of course, means driving a BMW down the autobahn while trying not to get any schnitzel sauce on my lederhosen), the Germans would tell me to take a hike.

I don’t want to hear illogical sob stories woefully reminiscing about long-lost descendants who came to this country 200 years ago on a boat as *gasp* an undocumented immigrant.  That system might have been A-OK for groups of people who came here 250 years ago to literally fend for themselves with no government assistance or subsidies. Unfortunately, fast forward to the 20th and  21^st centuries, and our country now has larger social obligations that require accountability.  Yes, these social obligations, when funded by the U.S. taxpayer, are beholden to regulation and documentation for the protection of the citizens of this country.

Our education, health insurance, social security and retirement and other systems - our government now is responsible for dishing out numerous free lunches, free health care, free retirement packages, free cell phones, free laptops, free educations, and any other free luxury you can think of to those citizens who can’t otherwise get them by their own means.  Furthermore, our law system is designed to protect the rights and benefits of said citizens.  It’s hard enough staying accountable to the citizens of our own country without having to worry about the stragglers wandering in from the rest of the world.

Note: when I refer to “citizens,” I refer to the actual legal, Constitutional definition, not Mr. Vargas’ loose, heartfelt, brotha’-from-anotha’-motha’ interpretation implying that anyone who believes in “hard work, self-reliance, love of [our] country” is a citizen of the U.S.

Therefore, my question is: what is Mr. Vargas’  true purpose in writing this article?

Sure, he’s managed to completely disregard all the hard-working immigrants, who spend their hard-earned resources, time, and money to obtain citizenship the legal way, but just spitting on their American Dream certainly couldn’t have been his goal.  After all, he seems so nice. So hard-working. So honest.  (Gosh darnit, I just really want to like him.) 

No, that can’t be his reason, especially considering that Mr. Vargas questions what will happen next. What will the consequences be, he wonders? In fact, he even goes out of his way to specifically mention that no names have been changed – that all information is verifiable.  He’s taken no effort to conceal either his or the identities of those around him, claiming: 

All the people mentioned in this article gave me permission to use their names. I’ve also talked to family and friends about my situation and am working with legal counsel to review my options. I don’t know what the consequences will be of telling my story.

Here’s another can of worms for you to consider: whose identity has Mr. Vargas effectively stolen for all these years if all of his documents, including his social security papers, are fake?

This article is a challenge: a challenge to the public, a challenge to authorities, and a challenge to the Department of Homeland Security.  Mr. Vargas is flaunting his illegality for the world to see.  Will the federal government take action or shirk its constitutional responsibility to the citizens of this country? Will it turn a blind eye to the laws that have been broken both by Mr. Vargas and the New York Times?

Like it or not and whether intentionally or unintentionally, laws have been broken.

Reason, justice, and the rule of law dictate that corrective action will be taken, but instinct tells me otherwise.

~Gee

Illegal Immigration - Discriminating Against the Protection of U.S. Citizens

You may recall from last month that Arizona signed into law a bill now requiring immigrants to carry their registration documents at all times (and likewise requires police officers to question an individual if there is reason to suspect the person is in the country illegally).

Despite the fact that this populous-endorsed law is simply a state-level version mirroring an ignored federal law, a select few politicians and Hollywood celebrities have since then been protesting Arizona’s decision by attempting to undermine the law as racist and discriminatory.

I’d like to first and foremost respectfully remind these politicians that their only responsibility as an elected public official of the United States is to protect and serve U.S. citizens.

Illegal immigrants choose to violate our laws for a variety of reasons: convenience, unwillingness to forfeit citizenship to their native country, lack of opportunities to earn money in their home country, etc. Their violation of our laws does not just stop at failing to fill out some immigration paperwork.  They reap the benefits of our federal and state resources (roads, schools, hospitals, fire and police services, etc.), yet they do not pay into the tax system. They fraudulently obtain jobs using stolen social security numbers, drivers’ licenses and forged birth certificates. It is stealing.

Does a thief have the right to break into someone’s home and steal the homeowner’s money and property, simply because he is less fortunate? No, because the ends do not justify the means, which is why it is our elected officials’ constitutional responsibility to take action and implement measures that counter and prevent these crimes. 

Our elected officials should follow suit with Arizona by enabling police officers to get the information they need to deport illegal immigrants. We need to bury this "discriminatory" nonsense about whether or not it's humane for officers to discern the citizenship status of an individual.  Furthermore, our elected officials need to protect employers by re-instituting e-Verify and allowing employers to verify that their employees have not fraudulently used the social security number of another individual. Speaking of theft, we should deport all illegal immigrants in jails.  The U.S. taxpayers should not be burdened with jailing (housing, feeding, and caring for) criminals from other countries.

Our politicians need to further remove the entitlement argument from their vocabulary. We, the U.S. citizens, do NOT need immigrants to do our "dirty work," and the recent recession is proof of this.  With the significant job shortage, Americans have been desperate to do whatever it takes to provide for themselves and their families, whether it meant providing lawn care services, cleaning houses, waiting tables or flipping burgers at McDonalds.  The U.S. does not need to employ the rest of the world when our own citizen population unemployment rate hovers around 10%.

Given our politicians’ Constitutional obligation to protect the property and identity rights of their constituents, how is it racist to expect them to fulfill this duty?


When I travel out of the country, is it racist and discriminatory for me to be required to carry a passport with me through the other countries? No, it isn’t, because my passport is the paperwork not only allows my entry into another country but is my proof of citizenship to the U.S.A. and legal form of international identification.


When I purchase a bottle of wine at the grocery store, is it racist and discriminatory for the cashier to be required to check my driver’s license and ensure I am over the age of 21?  No, it isn’t, because my driver’s license legally proves my age and ability to purchase alcohol.

When a police officer stops a driver with slurred speech and poor hand-eye coordination, is it racist and discriminatory for the officer to give a blood-alcohol test, ensuring the driver is not placing innocent lives at risk by driving while intoxicated?  No, it isn’t, because a driver displaying common physical traits of drunkenness makes that person an obvious suspect for drunk driving.

On a different note, trust California to try and turn an issue into a boycott fit for …well, a Hollywood movie.  California, a state that ironically bears the burden of hosting nearly 3 million illegal immigrants (yet still scratches its head as to why it can’t come close to balancing a budget), is attempting to institute a financial blow to Arizona via their boycott against Arizona products.  Well, let's see if they stand behind their decision, now that Arizona is considering boycotting California by completely cutting off all economic dealings between the states – including the power supply that Arizona’s utilities companies provide to California residents.

Well, I think I speak on behalf of both Elf and myself when I say that a vacation to Arizona sounds very appealing right now.


~Gee