ShareThis
by Arnold De Villa
July 1, 2011
Most recently, a news article and television coverage about an undocumented Pulitzer prized journalist, Jose Antonio Vargas, sparked touchy and thorny dialogue among pro-immigrant advocates, professional journalists, activists, and gossip mongers. The controversy spans between the spectrum of hazy immigration laws, journalistic objectivity, nationalism and the basic human need to survive. Vargas arrived in the United States from the Philippines when he was only twelve years old, worked his way through school, struggled to find a job, and eventually earned the highest recognition in Journalism as a Pulitzer award recipient. It was when he tried to obtain his driver’s license in High School that he realized his immigration documents were spurious.
After confronting his grandfather, his guardian in the United States, a life within the shadows of fear and survival started. He fought through the obstacles arising from the lack of legal status and focused on his need to immerse himself in the English language. Eventually, he reaped the fruits of his efforts. Despite all these, he concealed his legal status and continued using his fake documents (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/magazine/my-life-as-an-undocumented-immigrant.html).
As an advocate of the “Dream Act” and as a professional Journalist, the conflict between a job related mandate to defend and maintain an objective truth and a basic human need to survive within the American systems exceeded his rational sanity. “He snapped”. He had to reveal his immigrant status and disclose the skeletons of his burden. This he said in a Network News Channel interview, one of the many segments that went viral and sparked a national controversy.
Legalists accuse him of committing a crime. Compassionate individuals emerged and helped him. Rumor mongers and pseudo spies felt bad for not reporting his status before his own confession. And the immigration agents quickly stated that he probably will not be deported. Meanwhile, there are Filipinos, Filipino-Americans, and Americans with Filipino genes and non-Filipinos alike who are trapped within the dilemma of accusation and understanding, justice and sympathy, rage and compassion.
No one wants to be lied to. No one wants to intentionally dwell in the shadow of lies. Truth is undeniably liberating. Intentional lies are shackles to a smooth normal life. Yet we lie, in so many ways and in so many forms. “Tell that person that I am not here”, says the mother to a child who is opening the door to a pesky solicitor. The child opens the door, “My mom says she is not here”. The child told the truth. Who lied then and what for? We have so many friends working without necessary papers. We hold the truth. Or is it just minding our own business? Are we obliged to disclose the truth and portray the role of the Iscariot?
A lie, as defined from so many sources, is also called a prevarication, a type of deception with the intent to deceive others. It gets worse when the intent to deceive is intrinsically malicious, destructive or harmful. Although the defense or rationalization of a lie has generally never been considered appropriate, the concealment of truth, keeping mum, or hiding a secret seems to have been a preferred alternative. In this case, a lie has not been committed, but the truth has not been disclosed neither. When is the former or the latter a mandate? Can we ever justify telling a lie? Is there anything immoral in concealing the truth?
The do’s and don’ts to all these are probably as wide and far as the stellar components of the galaxy. If there is any way to simplify this complex matter, I would opine that truth should be maintained at all cost secondary to the attainment of a common good. Although lies cannot and should never be justified, the person who lies can only be understood and tolerated, perhaps even forgiven within a specific context. The human being is after all more important than his words. Remember that if lying and telling the truth are only relevant to people who can talk, then would it be right to say that people who do not communicate at all cannot tell the truth or lie? Oftentimes, the person lied to reacts irately because of an injured ego or a lack of intent to understand. When the benefits of not disclosing truth exceed the benefits of revealing everything, a moral justification seems to be in place. Hence, even when it is true that the lady dressed so elegantly looks like a monster, the rest of the party do not need to know or be made aware of that truth. If a chaotic public panic arises from disclosing the facts of a deadly virus before finding and disclosing solutions, then the temporary concealment of truth seems to be the better alternative.
Back to Vargas, how then do we stand? I believe that this case, high profile or not, warrants a public discussion, a town hall meeting if possible: to lessen the gray area of our plight as immigrants, to understand those who are within the same situation, to enable actions that could alleviate the pangs of being without a legal status, and perhaps to activate certain steps that could help amend the flaws of current American immigration policies.
How would we respond when asked about Jose Antonio Vargas? What should we do regarding the newly arrived son of a neighbor who came in with fake papers? He lives in an apartment yet enjoys the benefits of a discounted tuition fee from a nearby community college funded through taxes derived from our hard earned labor? To tell the truth or not, to lie or not to lie – these are the questions. Where are the answers?