The left- and center-blogospheres are jam-packed with approving links to the story of Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer-winning journalist who today “outed” himself as an illegal alien in the pages of the New York Times. Vargas was sent to California by his Filipino mother at age twelve. He was raised there by his (naturalized) grandparents, and did not discover he was in the country illegally until he brought his green card to the DMV at age 16 and was told it was a forgery. He reports he has kept his secret until now.
Liberals are coming out of the woodwork to call Vargas’ confession — meant to spur that “national conversation” about immigration that is perpetually just around the corner — courageous and pioneering. It is certainly the former, and may turn out to be the latter. But in their rush to praise Vargas — who is thoroughly culturally American and has “contributed” to American society with his journalism — they conveniently leave out that at the beginning of his story is not one but a series of crimes. Vargas entered the country illegally after his grandfather paid a coyote $4,500 to smuggle him in. The grandfather then obtained a fake passport and green card for Vargas, which they used to acquire a valid Social Security card. But that card, which subjected Vargas’ right to work to the approval of the then-INS, was illegally doctored, allowing Vargas to secure job after job for more than a decade by showing nothing more than a photocopy of a fake document.
The first part of Vargas’ story — a kid living and loving America for years before his shocking discovery that he has been made complicit in a crime — does indeed elicit sympathy. It’s stories like these that make me open, at least in principle, to something like a narrowly-tailored version of the “DREAM” Act. But the second part of his story, in which a fear- and shame-driven Vargas, with the aid of his family, perpetuated and compounded those crimes (Vargas eventually got around to what you might redundantly call fraudulent tax fraud, repeatedly reporting himself as a citizen rather than a “permanent resident”, when in fact he was neither), elicits from me nothing like the outpouring of support Vargas is already enjoying on the Left.
Punishing a minor by removing him from the culture he’s adopted as his own, for the crimes of his parents, does strike me as fundamentally unfair. But what liberals leave out of this story, time and again, is a competing — and in my view overriding — unfairness. Reihan has arguedrepeatedly, and effectively, that we should treat access to the U.S. economy, not to mention its extensive welfare state, as a scarce resource. We can debate and debate the best way of distributing this resource– from “not at all” to “come one, come all” and everywhere in between. But distributing it based on who manages most successfully to violate the law, at the expense of would-be immigrants who are honoring the process, is surely not a valid option.
I look forward to the A&E movie. It will end with him in jail for his crimes, pending deportation.
When the movie is released on DVD, make sure to include an alternate ending wherein Jose continues life in America - a forgiven tax cheat living happily ever after. This would be for the Open Borders crowd so they can indulge in [even more] fantasy.
As for battling this bullhockey strategy, every story like this needs to be countered with dozens of stories involving the typical realities of illegal immigration. Stuff like fraud, human trafficking, drug smuggling, identity theft, wage suppression, entitlement leeching, tax dodging, rancher shooting, gang warring, public school destroying, non-English speaking mayhem. Just for starters.
If they are going to trot out these clearly atypical cases like Vargas, they can reap the whirlwind of reality, in return.
I have just as much compassion for innocent children as the next person, but I also understand that this country doesn't have an endless supply of money and other resources to care for all those children, legal or not, who shouldn't be punished for their parents' choices. Illegal immigrants, single mothers, absent fathers, drug addicts, school dropouts, welfare parents. Where does our responsibility end and theirs begin?
The comments on youtube are surprisingly against this guy. In the end he was a law breaker and a fraud. I think the American people are becoming fed up with this, as evidenced by the youtube comments which are frozen right now. Usually a sign of very heavy traffic.
Tearing down the Statue of Liberty would probably stop encouraging them illegals from wedging their way in.
Also anyone who's ever got a speeding ticket ought to lose their license no-questions-asked--because it is a crime and a driver who speeds is a traffic criminal.
Of course we need laws - that's not his point. His point is that laws are not inherently just and good nor are all lawbreakers guilty of a moral offense.
The punishment for any law must always fit the crime and the motive for said crime must always be taken into account.
In most cases with illegals, their motive for breaking the law is noble, not malevolent. It is extremely noble to want to be an American. Thus, when considering a punishment we should take into account their noble motives, which is why a small fine sounds about right.
If you don't agree then you should have no problem with deportation as the punishment the next time you speed.
1. Deport him.
2. Let him apply for residency like everybody else who is trying. In other words, back of the line buddy.
3. Do not penalize him for the illegal actions of his parents. Just treat his application like every other non-criminal who is OUTSIDE the country.
And another thing--if his grandparents were naturalized citizens, couldn't their grandson have just VISITED them instead of being smuggled in? Something here doesn't pass the smell test.
We need transferrable citizenship.
Then a guy like that could take the place of somebody who says they want to move to Canada when Republicans are elected.
I just checked, and apparently 94 million people live in the Philippines. Got that? They LIVE in the Philippines. That is to say that if Vargas is sent back it is highly likely that he will be able to live there just fine, as well. Perhaps he won't be living there under the most desireable conditions, but then my suburban tract house is not as desireable as one of John Kerry's wife's mansions.
Sure, if he's returned he'll have to adapt to a different culture. But given our current immigration policy, Americans apparently aren't entitled to a stable, unchanging culture either, so why should this guy be? For him it will be a new, exciting, multicultural experience. In the leftist worldview isn't that a good thing?
BTW, Vargas's Pulitzer Prize was for journalism related to the Virginia Tech shootings, a massacre perpetrated by an immigrant. So in his case it's especially hard to make the case that 'all the immigrants are above average,' unless you include Seung-Hui Cho's above average death toll.
Vargas made a preemptive strike by playing the Sodomite Card, as well, to garner maximum defensive positioning that he is being persecuted for being gender incompetent.
He is playing a game of chicken with Americans who are not infatuated with "awards" in journalism.
An economy is not a scarce resource; labor is. Steep tariffs and government quotas on imported labors are just as economically beneficial as the same for steel and oil.
This assumes that those labor widgets (I prefer to think of them as human beings and fellow citizens) are not co-owners of the tens of trillions in assets owned by the American state and its federal, state, and local governments. Increase the population and you diminish the value of the asset, sometimes dramatically, to any given individual.
Under free trade conditions, labor living overseas is perfectly free to compete with labor in the US. You don't have to move the people.
But wait... Capital is a scarce resource, too. Why limit the amount of capital (represented by money) available in the system? Just print as much as is needed to improve the economy!
``...the U.S. economy [...] a scarce resource."
Sure is, nowadays.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI look forward to the A&E movie. It will end with him in jail for his crimes, pending deportation.
When the movie is released on DVD, make sure to include an alternate ending wherein Jose continues life in America - a forgiven tax cheat living happily ever after. This would be for the Open Borders crowd so they can indulge in [even more] fantasy.
As for battling this bullhockey strategy, every story like this needs to be countered with dozens of stories involving the typical realities of illegal immigration. Stuff like fraud, human trafficking, drug smuggling, identity theft, wage suppression, entitlement leeching, tax dodging, rancher shooting, gang warring, public school destroying, non-English speaking mayhem. Just for starters.
If they are going to trot out these clearly atypical cases like Vargas, they can reap the whirlwind of reality, in return.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have just as much compassion for innocent children as the next person, but I also understand that this country doesn't have an endless supply of money and other resources to care for all those children, legal or not, who shouldn't be punished for their parents' choices. Illegal immigrants, single mothers, absent fathers, drug addicts, school dropouts, welfare parents. Where does our responsibility end and theirs begin?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe comments on youtube are surprisingly against this guy. In the end he was a law breaker and a fraud. I think the American people are becoming fed up with this, as evidenced by the youtube comments which are frozen right now. Usually a sign of very heavy traffic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTearing down the Statue of Liberty would probably stop encouraging them illegals from wedging their way in.
Also anyone who's ever got a speeding ticket ought to lose their license no-questions-asked--because it is a crime and a driver who speeds is a traffic criminal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, because we don't need pesky things like laws.
Libertarians. Sheesh.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course we need laws - that's not his point. His point is that laws are not inherently just and good nor are all lawbreakers guilty of a moral offense.
The punishment for any law must always fit the crime and the motive for said crime must always be taken into account.
In most cases with illegals, their motive for breaking the law is noble, not malevolent. It is extremely noble to want to be an American. Thus, when considering a punishment we should take into account their noble motives, which is why a small fine sounds about right.
If you don't agree then you should have no problem with deportation as the punishment the next time you speed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1. Deport him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse2. Let him apply for residency like everybody else who is trying. In other words, back of the line buddy.
3. Do not penalize him for the illegal actions of his parents. Just treat his application like every other non-criminal who is OUTSIDE the country.
He should be prosecuted for all of the document frauds he's personally responsible for.
It'd also be worth finding out if he illegally registered to vote, and illegally voted.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll his naturalized grandparents would have had to have done is to adopt him and he would have not only been legal, but a citizen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd another thing--if his grandparents were naturalized citizens, couldn't their grandson have just VISITED them instead of being smuggled in? Something here doesn't pass the smell test.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood point. His grandparents could have adopted him, as mentioned below. Something more to this story...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe need transferrable citizenship.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThen a guy like that could take the place of somebody who says they want to move to Canada when Republicans are elected.
I just checked, and apparently 94 million people live in the Philippines. Got that? They LIVE in the Philippines. That is to say that if Vargas is sent back it is highly likely that he will be able to live there just fine, as well. Perhaps he won't be living there under the most desireable conditions, but then my suburban tract house is not as desireable as one of John Kerry's wife's mansions.
Sure, if he's returned he'll have to adapt to a different culture. But given our current immigration policy, Americans apparently aren't entitled to a stable, unchanging culture either, so why should this guy be? For him it will be a new, exciting, multicultural experience. In the leftist worldview isn't that a good thing?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBTW, Vargas's Pulitzer Prize was for journalism related to the Virginia Tech shootings, a massacre perpetrated by an immigrant. So in his case it's especially hard to make the case that 'all the immigrants are above average,' unless you include Seung-Hui Cho's above average death toll.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVargas made a preemptive strike by playing the Sodomite Card, as well, to garner maximum defensive positioning that he is being persecuted for being gender incompetent.
He is playing a game of chicken with Americans who are not infatuated with "awards" in journalism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAn economy is not a scarce resource; labor is. Steep tariffs and government quotas on imported labors are just as economically beneficial as the same for steel and oil.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis assumes that those labor widgets (I prefer to think of them as human beings and fellow citizens) are not co-owners of the tens of trillions in assets owned by the American state and its federal, state, and local governments. Increase the population and you diminish the value of the asset, sometimes dramatically, to any given individual.
Under free trade conditions, labor living overseas is perfectly free to compete with labor in the US. You don't have to move the people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut wait... Capital is a scarce resource, too. Why limit the amount of capital (represented by money) available in the system? Just print as much as is needed to improve the economy!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"An economy is not a scarce resource"
Then why is there only one American economy, and why do so many people want access to it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse