WWTBAM Bored

I've been trying to avoid all political posts on the Bored for the past six months or so, but one piece of today's news struck me. The arrest of nearly 700 undocumented immigrants (or illegal aliens, whatever your preferred verbiage) in Mississippi today is actually something I'm very much in favor of. Before our current resident of the White House, people could pretty much agree that one major problem with our immigration system was that employers relied on these people, so the executive branch was unwilling or unable to actually enforce the laws on the books. I do not agree with Trump's policies on immigration enforcement, but I wholeheartedly agree that we should be enforcing our existing immigration laws, regardless of how much it hurts businesses. In fact, we may not be able to arrive at agreement on new immigration laws (and I think they need updating badly) until and unless we discomfit the companies who make it possible for so many of these people (and they are people, let's remember) to exist here without consequences.

So instead of going after the undocs, go after the businesses that employ them.

Seems to me like that would solve three problems at once.

triviawayne wrote:So instead of going after the undocs, go after the businesses that employ them.

Seems to me like that would solve three problems at once.

I could certainly live with that.

I have always wondered why we haven't been fining businesses who employ folks they aren't supposed to. If jobs go away, wouldn't the supply of workers dry up some, and then we would be left with folks who are trying to get in only to escape death threats? Most of us would be OK with that, I'd guess.

mrkelley23 wrote:

triviawayne wrote:So instead of going after the undocs, go after the businesses that employ them.

Seems to me like that would solve three problems at once.

I could certainly live with that.

I could live with that as well. In fact I'm frustrated it is not being done. However, one problem is the verification process. There is a hidden economy in providing papers for illegals to pass I-9 verification. But, there are employers who blindly look the other way and they should be held accountable. Many of them large companies who will hire large labor forces from contractors "relying" on the contractors to verify eligibility. It's one of the unsaid things on the job. Plausible deniability. It needs fixed.

mrkelley23 wrote:The arrest of nearly 700 undocumented immigrants (or illegal aliens, whatever your preferred verbiage) in Mississippi today is actually something I'm very much in favor of. I do not agree with Trump's policies on immigration enforcement, but I wholeheartedly agree that we should be enforcing our existing immigration laws, regardless of how much it hurts businesses.

These businesses aren't the only ones getting hurt. There's a flip side to these arrests.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ha ... e-families

Dianne’s fiancé is the father to three children, ages 13, 15, and 19, with his ex-wife, who was also undocumented and worked at a separate food plant in the area. Not long after Dianne’s phone call with her fiancé, she found out that the kids’ mother was also arrested. Dianne, who requested her last name not be used for fear of consequences for her fiancé, sped to the local school, where she witnessed other adults coming to pick up children whose parents had been arrested. Some parents, she said, weren’t able to retrieve kids because they hadn’t been listed as authorized guardians.

On her way out of the school, she saw one girl looking confused, not knowing where to go because her parents had been arrested too.“They were crying. They were shocked. They’re just worried,” Dianne said of her fiancé’s children. “I’m just trying to stay strong for them. I’m trying to remain as calm as possible. It’s one thing to know this could happen but it is another to see it happening. This is heart-wrenching. They are scared.”

Meanwhile, Dianne spent Wednesday trying to track down attorneys to help her fiancé and figure out their next steps. Her fiancé’s children were quiet in the afternoon, eating lunch and asking Dianne to help get their parents out of detention. Their mother’s birthday is Thursday, and the children knew that she would be likely to spend it in detention. By late Wednesday, they had no idea where either parent had been taken. Dianne knew that some people would support the arrest of undocumented workers like her fiancé, but she wishes they could empathize. “He was trying to make a better life for his children,” she said. “You see these kids hurting and crying, knowing their parents aren’t coming home soon. I’ve seen that all day. People are freaking out.”

Ritterskoop wrote:I have always wondered why we haven't been fining businesses who employ folks they aren't supposed to. If jobs go away, wouldn't the supply of workers dry up some, and then we would be left with folks who are trying to get in only to escape death threats? Most of us would be OK with that, I'd guess.

Once in a while we do. But they tend to have enough money to hire lawyers who will defend their rights. The workers, who usually can't afford that, tend to be low-hanging fruit. --Bob

Ritterskoop wrote:I have always wondered why we haven't been fining businesses who employ folks they aren't supposed to. If jobs go away, wouldn't the supply of workers dry up some, and then we would be left with folks who are trying to get in only to escape death threats? Most of us would be OK with that, I'd guess.

I hope that Koch Foods gets a huge fine; they have a long history of worker abuse.

So how many employers did get arrested in yesterday's raids? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:So how many employers did get arrested in yesterday's raids? --Bob

None, but the feds carted off lots of records.

From an employer standpoint, it appeared to me that there were no consequences to the employees. It also appeared to me that the Federal INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) was dumping its enforcement responsibilities on to employees. When I-9 verification first came around, the local Human Resources group held a seminar to figure out how to comply. A couple of things stuck with me, and I don't know if they still apply. First, we were informed that if we made a good faith effort to check the documentation (usually a social security card and some sort of State ID, usually a driver's license), we would not be held responsible for phony documents. Second, we were told that the first violation if we failed to get proper documents, first offense was a $1,000 fine, second offense was $2,000, third offense and you go to jail. "You" as in the HR Manager (me), the person responsible for assuring that documents were presented and checked. One kid brought in his Ski Season Pass. Another kid brought in a mug the school or his family, I forget what, had made up with photos on them. We turned them down. Darn it, I liked the mug but couldn't take it.

We could be audited at any time, we were informed. My organization never was, but the ski area and a couple of local restaurants underwent the ordeal. The ski area passed, and I don't know what happened to the restaurants. Thinking back, I doubt any restaurant in town could pass at that time.

We had a follow-up seminar a couple years later, and the INS presenter told us that they were doing a nearly impossible job with inadequate resources. He didn't say it, but I think if asked he would have agreed that it was a way for the Feds to use employer resources to help with the enforcement. He also said that consequences to undocumented employees were significant, usually deportation as soon as possible.

As hard as it was for restaurants to get to full staffing then, it's even harder now with marijuana legalization. People think nothing of calling in because they're high or hung over, or not even calling in, just not showing up. All my friends voted Yes for recreational marijuana because of the tax windfall, but while the revenue is significant, IMHO it's not worth it. OK, end of digression.

SportsFan68 wrote:From an employer standpoint, it appeared to me that there were no consequences to the employees. It also appeared to me that the Federal INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) was dumping its enforcement responsibilities on to employees. When I-9 verification first came around, the local Human Resources group held a seminar to figure out how to comply. A couple of things stuck with me, and I don't know if they still apply. First, we were informed that if we made a good faith effort to check the documentation (usually a social security card and some sort of State ID, usually a driver's license), we would not be held responsible for phony documents. Second, we were told that the first violation if we failed to get proper documents, first offense was a $1,000 fine, second offense was $2,000, third offense and you go to jail. "You" as in the HR Manager (me), the person responsible for assuring that documents were presented and checked. One kid brought in his Ski Season Pass. Another kid brought in a mug the school or his family, I forget what, had made up with photos on them. We turned them down. Darn it, I liked the mug but couldn't take it.

We could be audited at any time, we were informed. My organization never was, but the ski area and a couple of local restaurants underwent the ordeal. The ski area passed, and I don't know what happened to the restaurants. Thinking back, I doubt any restaurant in town could pass at that time.

We had a follow-up seminar a couple years later, and the INS presenter told us that they were doing a nearly impossible job with inadequate resources. He didn't say it, but I think if asked he would have agreed that it was a way for the Feds to use employer resources to help with the enforcement. He also said that consequences to undocumented employees were significant, usually deportation as soon as possible.

Arizona has mandatory E-Verify for all employers, not that it works all that well.

Bob Juch wrote:Arizona has mandatory E-Verify for all employers, not that it works all that well.

Georgia has two types of E-Verify requirements. Any employer with over 10 employees must comply with E-Verify to get any time of business license or occupational tax certificate from any government entity. Also, any contractor supplying services over $2500 to any governmental entity must comply with E-Verify. Part of my job is to check that our contractors have filed the mandatory E-verify affidavit.

Looks like there may have been a very specific reason the workers at this particular plant were selected to be terrorized. They had just forced Koch Foods to settle a race and sex discrimination action for $3.5 million. My guess is that future workers in a similar position will think long and hard before pursuing their claims. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Looks like there may have been a very specific reason the workers at this particular plant were selected to be terrorized. They had just forced Koch Foods to settle a race and sex discrimination action for $3.5 million. My guess is that future workers in a similar position will think long and hard before pursuing their claims. --Bob

I read stories about this. I am skeptical.

1. The raids swept up 680 people in 7 different cities. Seven different plants were targeted, and at least three of them were operated by companies other than Koch.

2. It had been planned for over a year, predating the settlement.

3. I'm not an attorney, but to me, if a worker was a member of the class, they would still receive their settlement regardless.

4. According to your own link, the company in question is required to provide anonymous, bilingual reporting lines for employees. Certainly there may be a chilling effect, but no more so than the fact of being undocumented in the first place.

5. I'm also skeptical that the workers are the ones who took the initiative to file a class action lawsuit in the first place. Will this action have a chilling effect on the EEOC? Or the lawyers who filed the class-action? My guess is no.

mrkelley23 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Looks like there may have been a very specific reason the workers at this particular plant were selected to be terrorized. They had just forced Koch Foods to settle a race and sex discrimination action for $3.5 million. My guess is that future workers in a similar position will think long and hard before pursuing their claims. --Bob

I read stories about this. I am skeptical.

1. The raids swept up 680 people in 7 different cities. Seven different plants were targeted, and at least three of them were operated by companies other than Koch.

2. It had been planned for over a year, predating the settlement.

3. I'm not an attorney, but to me, if a worker was a member of the class, they would still receive their settlement regardless.

4. According to your own link, the company in question is required to provide anonymous, bilingual reporting lines for employees. Certainly there may be a chilling effect, but no more so than the fact of being undocumented in the first place.

5. I'm also skeptical that the workers are the ones who took the initiative to file a class action lawsuit in the first place. Will this action have a chilling effect on the EEOC? Or the lawyers who filed the class-action? My guess is no.

As for number 5, neither the EEOC nor the class action lawyers would have known about the issue if the workers hadn't come forward. This can't help but have a chilling effect on people who are considering coming forward.

And that's the point. It's not so much trying to reduce the payout from this lawsuit (although most settlements require class members to take some affirmative action to claim their money). It's trying to prevent the next one from occurring.

In an ordinary Administration, I'd accept the government's word that this operation has been planned for more than a year. But certainly not with this Administration. And if I were in Congress, I'd really want to know when and why that particular plant was added to the target list.

It seems to me that there's at least as much evidence of retaliatory use of federal resources as there was when Congressional Republicans decided to investigate the IRS's handling of non-profit status. So I hope that Congress (presumably the House) investigates and does so with vigor. --Bob

ICE raids: 300 people released amid outrage over Mississippi arrests

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49283157