Mr. Strozniak in his opening paragraph writes about "serving the 11 million undocumented immigrants in anticipation of Congress passing the long-awaited comprehensive immigration reform bill".

Leaving aside the reality that in our current political climate, Mr. Strozniak's anticipation may be lengthy, let's cut right to the chase: Credit unions have no more business serving illegal aliens than they have serving money launderers. Both are illegal! That the current administration will more likely ignore serving the illegal alien than serving the money launderer does not make the former any more right.

There is potential for overlap between the two. How does a credit union perform its legal duty to affirm the legal identity of its customer in the case of an illegal alien? It cannot, for even if the illegal alien produces some sort of identification, by definition that identification is suspect.

If the illegal alien has sneaked across the border, we cannot be reasonably assured that he has not sneaked some sort of phony ID. One illegal activity tends to beget another illegal activity. Here the illegal migration and the money laundering may well mix. No credit union should go anywhere near that unlawful combination. It is a shadow world and credit unions have no business operating in that environment.

I have no hesitation whatsoever about serving the legal alien population, whether determined to stay permanently or not. Credit unions should include that population in their marketing efforts just as they should all other legal sectors of their market or potential market. The only limitation on such service should be that it does not expand to the point of infringing upon the rights and benefits of U.S. citizens.

For instance, no U.S. citizen should be precluded from serving in any job other than translator because he or she does not speak a non-English language; that is why we have translators. Otherwise, let's all be good hosts and hopefully add to our capital in the process.

Mr. Stozniak goes on to say in the middle of his article that "by refusing to accept other forms of ID, financial institutions are missing out on an opportunity to serve undocumented [i.e., illegal] immigrants."

Well, there are just certain opportunities which we have to forgo in a legitimate business. The credit union serving illegal aliens would be aiding and abetting the perpetuation of the aliens' illegal presence in the United States. No credit union has any duty whatsoever to provide services to illegal aliens, even if some members of the alien's family are members of the credit union.

In reality, the credit union has a duty not to serve the illegal alien. When Luis Pastor said, "When you are penalized for situations beyond your control or rejected from service, you get discouraged," he may have unwittingly hit the nail on the head where combatting illegal entry into the United States is concerned.

The illegal alien's situation did not evolve beyond his control until after he made the conscious and controllable (in most, admittedly not all, cases) decision to enter the United States illegally. As for discouragement, there is probably no better tool to dissuade aliens from illegal entry.

This is not the place to discuss why the United States cannot simply open its borders and let anybody come in who wants to come, including the more than one billion people in the world living below the absolute poverty level. Suffice it to say that the days when we were a nation of immigrants, when a German or a Norwegian or anybody else could come through Ellis Island and then simply melt into the Great Plains, are over for good.

This letter represents my personal views and has not in any way received the assistance, approval or encouragement of the HAPO Board, its chairman, or the CEO of HAPO CCU.

William R. Clark

Member, Board of Directors

HAPO Community Credit Union

Richland, Wash.

Editor's note: Neither Correspondent Peter Strozniak nor CU Times advocated for or against any position relating to immigration. The story instead sourced the opinions and actions of credit union leaders.

In reaction to Clark's letter, readers with opposing and supporting views weighed in on social media and on the CU Times website.

A reader named Michael wondered if Clark's letter was a sign that credit unions are deviating from their founding principles.

"It's a rather sad commentary to read that some leaders of our movement use politics to make a point," he wrote. "The point that should be raised here is why are so many leaders of credit unions are moving further and further away from the credit union's core mission, which is to serve and provide affordable financial services to those regardless of their circumstances."

Another reader who identified himself as ChrisCD backed Clark's position on not serving undocumented immigrants, saying, "It is an outrage that people come here and do what amounts to stealing of that which they did not earn. Illegals do not come here to become Americans. There are legal ways to become an American citizen. Those wishing to enter our country should follow them. Kudos to Mr. Clark for standing up for America."

Another commenter, wildwilly111, questioned Clark's position by providing a Wikipedia definition, "The illegal entry of non-nationals into the United States is a misdemeanor according to the Immigration and Nationality Act…" before writing this comment: Public intoxication is also a misdemeanor. Does your credit union revoke the membership [of] public intoxicants? [Does] it have a "no misdemeanors" membership rule?

Reader Gene Bomberg expressed disdain for Clark's remarks. "This opinion piece turned my stomach when I first read it this morning, and the feeling hasn't gone away. It's one of those reads that just feels wrong all the way to my core for so many reasons," he wrote.

Some of those "illegal" immigrants you wish to turn away are in fact mothers, fathers, and other family members to many military servants you laud. I think a far more constructive discussion involves a streamlined yet thorough process for turning an illegal immigrant into a U.S. citizen. Taking a position of encouraging further victimization of a class of human beings (further de-humanized by calling them "illegals") already being victimized is dead wrong," Bomberg suggested.

On CU Times' social media channels, the debate continued.

"If the illegal aliens are earning their money legally why not serve them?," Alan Knapp, compliance and risk assessment consultant at Knapp Associates, asked.

Daniel Morrisey, treasurer/CEO at the $2.5 million Queen of Peace Arlington Federal Credit Union in Arlington, Va., questioned the assumption of illegal activities.

"The author of this article seems to conclude that all such 'illegal immigrants' are guilty of a crime. In other words, they are all criminals. From what many folks tell me, a great number (perhaps the majority) of such immigrants are not committing or have not committed a criminal act," Morrisey wrote. "While use of the term 'undocumented' may seem to some as minimizing 'illegal' or 'criminal' actions or history, I believe it is more accurately describing or characterizing such immigrants."

Another social media follower wondered if Clark's views could create a public relations backlash for HAPO Community CU.

"A very unfortunate and sad opinion from a credit union board member. A remarkable opportunity for reputation risk considering HAPO's large geographic foot print that is very heavily Hispanic," the person wrote. "His comments won't sit well with credit unions and knowing the area, they won't sit well with a majority of the hundreds of thousand consumers living within their large community footprint."

John Schaefer, director of marketing and business development at the $148 million Pasadena FCU, wrote, "They're people. Credit Unions are People Helping People."