Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 08-17-2019, 08:59 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
It's not even a hypothetical, in the real raid ICE's own documents state that the arresting officers believe "that the companies were “willfully and unlawfully” employing undocumented immigrants." I already quoted this earlier, it's not some big surprise that I was holding in reserve.
I don’t give a crap about what they believe; I care about why they believe it. If a cop arrests a guy and says it’s because he ‘believes’ the guy is guilty, that’s not nearly good enough; I want to know if he’s got evidence — I’m not saying it needs to be conclusive evidence, just some evidence — that it’s so.

They ‘believe’ it was done willfully? Hey, that and a nickel, pal.
  #102  
Old 08-17-2019, 11:29 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschrodinger View Post
I specifically said in my posts, if they were told to accept "whatever documents were presented," and "not to reject any documents." And I was refuting your suggestion that it was against the law to reject any documents. Is it your position that it is illegal to reject any documents, or that an employer has to accept all documents presented? Because if it's not, please don't make this into a semantics argument.
It's not a semantics argument, it is a legal argument.

I am not sure exactly what it is that you are quibbling here, so I'll unpack it and lay it out.

If someone presents a document that is on list A, then you have to take it. If someone presents a document from list B and from list C, then you have to take it. Those are the documents you must accept. If it's not on one of those lists, then you don't take it. If it is on one of those lists, you do. It is not up to the employer to decide which to accept and which not to accept.

If they are rejecting documents because they do not believe that they are genuine, then they must explain what exactly it is that they detected about the document that made it appear to be fraudulent. They can't just say, "I didn't think it looked real." If management is telling them to accept any documents unless the hiring manager can articulate exactly what it is that makes them doubt its authenticity, then that is following the law.

Sure, it is not against the law to reject a handwritten note from the employee's mother attesting that he is a citizen or an SS card written in crayon, and it would be against the law to take it, but that is not the sort of thing I thought was being referred to here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Only made it six words into my post, did we?
No, I read the whole thing. I was pointing out that the only people who would be arrested and possibly charged would be the low level managers who accepted the documents presented in good faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Unfortunately, I was at one point hired by a dishonest employer. I was paid above-board, but she paid a bunch of other people under the table hoping to do exactly what you outline.

Turns out there a BUNCH of things that will be accepted as proof of employment beyond paychecks and tax forms. Did this person ever sign to accept a shipment? Or several shipments? Are there people willing to testify that that person was there, working? Did they ever sign a time sheet? Did they ever sign anything? Are they on your security/surveillance system?

Sure, it's harder to make that case than for overt things like checkstubs and I-9's, but all of the above are admissible in court. As my former employer discovered to her dismay.
Yeah, sometimes they get caught, but as much of it as I see, and as long as some of these places have been in "business", it is a rather small risk. Interesting anecdote I heard from one of my employees who worked at an under the table groomer for a bit. An employee got bit, badly, and wasn't covered by worker's comp, as she wasn't technically an employee. That turned into a nightmare (that she deserved) for the owner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Seems like a ridiculous standard. How are you ever going to prove that somebody knew the person they were hiring was an illegal alien? Is this a crime that you can't be convicted of unless you decide to confess your guilt?

If we want to get serious about the hiring of illegal aliens, we need to enact a better legal standard. Something like reasonable grounds or due diligence.

But I doubt this administration really wants to get serious about the hiring of illegal aliens. They're just targeting Mexicans as political theater.
Yeah, you do have to prove that they knowingly did it. There are ways, if there is a memo that says, "Hire anyone, regardless of what paperwork they bring in, and just fake it." then that is a smoking gun that would be useable in prosecuting.

If the managers or owners were involved in a conspiracy to get fraudulent documents to these employees, then that is something that is also perfectly prosecutable. If they have a printing machine in the back popping out fake IDs and SS cards, then lock them the hell up.

But, to tell a hiring manager that they are breaking the law if they accept fraudulent documents, but also that they are breaking the law if they question documents presented in good faith that are reasonably genuine and relate to the employee is to put that person into an impossible situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
They need to prove due diligence.

If I suspect a paper bill to be bogus (I handle a lot of cash in my job) I have a series of steps to take to determine whether or not it is legit. If I follow all of those steps and it turns out it's a new and improved counterfeit I at least have a leg to stand on - see, I followed these steps and it all checked out, I could not know it was fake.
And the bank and any financial institution will be more than happy to provide you with training and supplies to do so. If you suspect that the bill is fake, and refuse to take it, if it turns out to be real, you suffer no more than a bit of embarrassment. (Speaking of which, fun way to get yourself banned from a bar, tell people that detecting counterfeit money is easy, as real money won't burn.)

But can you tell me what steps you would take to verify the authenticity of a 25 year old, slightly tattered certificate of live birth signed by a midwife from Otero County, New Mexico? If you refuse to take it, and it turns out to be real, you have broken the law and are open to a discrimination lawsuit.
Quote:
Likewise, IF the hiring manager actually examines the documentation given, uses e-verify, whatever else can be used, and it's just that good a fake then sure, let the guy/gal off the hook. That's the reason for copying ID's, asking for more than one, and so on. If all the steps were followed and a few slipped through out of hundreds of employees I don't see the company as doing any harm.
They don't ask for more than one. They ask for one item from list A, or one each from list B and C, and it is up to the employee to decide which to use.

If you ask for more than that, you are breaking the law.

Also, if you copy IDs, you must copy all IDs. Not just the ones that you think are suspicious.

Take a look at your SS card sometime, and without going into detail as to the process, tell me how hard you really think it would be to make a fake that appears to be reasonably genuine. Now look at your birth certificate, how hard do you think it would be to fake that? Sure, it's got a seal, do you know all the seals of all the counties of all the states?

So, someone hands you a School ID with a photo, and a birth certificate from New Mexico. What steps do you take next? Personally, I will follow the law and copy the relevant info from those documents into the I-9. Would you do any differently?
Quote:
But what was happening in this case was HUNDREDS of employees at one location either being unauthorized to work in the US or suspected of being so - that's not an accident. That's not one or two really, really good fakes, that, to my mind, is a sign that something is not right.

There should be files on the hiring process for all of those employees. They should be examined to see if there are chronic errors or fraud.
Sure, the files should be examined, and any chronic errors should be corrected and fined, and any fraud should be prosecuted. But, unless they were both knowingly breaking the law and phenomenally stupid, there would be little in the employee files that would indicate such.

But I wouldn't doubt that there are errors. There are always errors or missed reverifications. That's why there are HR companies that you can pay to audit your I-9's and find and correct them before they are found and corrected by someone that will fine you for them. While fines are an appropriate way to ensure that companies are doing due diligence and correcting most errors, criminal charges seem excessive.
Quote:
And yes, I am OK with the managers being perp-walked along with the peons in this particular case. As I said, let the lawyers sort it out later. Make an example of a few of these places and you'll have a hell of a lot fewer hiring managers looking the other way or getting lax.

Otherwise, the current administration are a bunch of bigoted hypocrites more interested in developing a scapegoat and favoring the rich and connected over everyone else in society.
Okay, so the investigation finds the "smoking memo", and it says, "Due to recent discrimination lawsuits that we lost, we are reminding hiring managers that they must follow the law, and accept any documents presented in good faith and that reasonably appear to be genuine and relate to the individual presenting them. You must err on the side of the employee, and I say this with only a small amount of hyperbole, unless it is written in crayon, you must accept it as reasonably genuine."

Who do you think should be locked up? The person who wrote the memo telling hiring managers to follow the law, or the person who followed it?

Now, as a speculative hypothetical, lets say that the hiring managers are still suspicious of these employees, so, while they accept the documents, they also forward them on to ICE. ICE then waits until they see that there are at least a few hundred potentially unauthorized workers before they conduct the raid. In that hypothetical, which, while is not necessarily or even likely to be the case, is not ruled out from the information that we have, would you still feel that some managers need to be perp-walked?
  #103  
Old 08-17-2019, 02:11 PM
eschrodinger's Avatar
eschrodinger is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 107
I stated the law, and provided a cite. You seem to be arguing that there is no way to comply with both immigration and nondiscrimination laws, and that is false. It may be difficult, but the way the laws are written it is not impossible. You are also just saying, without any citation or quoting statute or a case, that certain actions are discrimination, and you are making up legal standards that don't exist. (Where did your good faith standard come from?). You've also stated the legal requirement for what documents an employer must accept a couple of different ways. So, no, I'm not going to parse through your post and point out where you've mischaracterized what I said, and where you've misstated the law, or made up a legal standard that doesn't exist.

Do you have a cite for needing to explain exactly why a document is being rejected?

Also, no, you don't need a smoking memo to convict anyone. There are lots of ways to prove that people on the company side knew. I outlined several already. Other ways are if most of the hires never presented documents, or some documents were such obvious fakes that anyone would know they were fraudulent.

Last edited by eschrodinger; 08-17-2019 at 02:15 PM.
  #104  
Old 08-17-2019, 02:51 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschrodinger View Post
I stated the law, and provided a cite. You seem to be arguing that there is no way to comply with both immigration and nondiscrimination laws, and that is false. It may be difficult, but the way the laws are written it is not impossible. You are also just saying, without any citation or quoting statute or a case, that certain actions are discrimination, and you are making up legal standards that don't exist. (Where did your good faith standard come from?). You've also stated the legal requirement for what documents an employer must accept a couple of different ways. So, no, I'm not going to parse through your post and point out where you've mischaracterized what I said, and where you've misstated the law, or made up a legal standard that doesn't exist.
No, I am saying that you cannot comply with nondiscrimination laws and also be accountable the way that people in this thread want them to be held to account. The current laws are perfectly easy to comply with, it is the changes to the law that are being discussed in this thread that are problematic.

I didn't think I needed to cite anything, as all this information is actually in the cite that you already provided. This is all information that can be obtained on any copy of an I-9. Good faith is a very common standard.

I'm not sure what you mean by I presented it in a couple of different ways. I outlined what the I-9 says, and yes, it does have a couple of different ways to present documents. I have no idea what your complaint is here.

I unpacked your assumptions and mischaracterizations, and layed out what I am saying very clearly. Your post then goes and creates new assumptions and mischaracterizations out of whole cloth. I have no idea what you are even objecting to in my post, as your post doesn't address anything that I've said.

Of course you cannot parse through my post to point out where I've mischaracterized what you've said, I've not characterized anything you've said in any way, simply explained my position. And of course, you are not going to state where I've misstated a law, or made up a legal standard, because while you might like making that accusation, you actually cannot do so.
Quote:
Do you have a cite for needing to explain exactly why a document is being rejected?
https://www.uscis.gov/faq-page/i-9-c...s#t17077n46954
Quote:
You must examine the document(s), and if they reasonably appear on their face to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting them, you must accept them. To do otherwise could be an unfair immigration-related employment practice.
So, yes, unless you can point out what is wrong with it, you have to accept it. What other possible standard *could* there be?
Quote:
Also, no, you don't need a smoking memo to convict anyone. There are lots of ways to prove that people on the company side knew. I outlined several already. Other ways are if most of the hires never presented documents, or some documents were such obvious fakes that anyone would know they were fraudulent.
I outline a few in my post as well.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 08-17-2019 at 02:56 PM.
  #105  
Old 08-17-2019, 03:03 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
But can you tell me what steps you would take to verify the authenticity of a 25 year old, slightly tattered certificate of live birth signed by a midwife from Otero County, New Mexico?
Damifino - making that determination is not part of my current job. Yes, that is an issue. A very real one. It was just a couple months ago someone in the DMV accused me of having a fake birth certificate because mine is a 50+ year old piece of paper that shows its age, among other things. And I've encountered more than one person who thinks New Mexico or Hawaii aren't part of the US. Absolutely better training would be a plus, and in the case of birth certificates you have a kajillion different versions in every language in the world so really, I'm not that sure why they're accepted as proof of identity sometimes.

Quote:
Also, if you copy IDs, you must copy all IDs. Not just the ones that you think are suspicious.
Every job I've been hired at for the past... well, since the beginning of the 1990's, at least, has made copies of my identity documents. This is NOT a big deal, a lot of companies were already doing it before the law was passed.

Quote:
Take a look at your SS card sometime, and without going into detail as to the process, tell me how hard you really think it would be to make a fake that appears to be reasonably genuine.
Honestly, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about how to counterfeit identity documents. I'm assuming it would be easier than counterfeiting money.

Quote:
Now look at your birth certificate, how hard do you think it would be to fake that? Sure, it's got a seal, do you know all the seals of all the counties of all the states?
Oh, no, it's worse than that, my friend.

It's every county of every state AND the independent cities that are NOT located in a county (I was born in one of them - hence the occasional contention about my birth certificate as it does not list a county because I was not born in a county) AND the boroughs of New York City which also are a bit different AND the birth certificates of every protectorate/territory/etc. of the US AND the same for every single country/county/province/city/other administrative division on the entire planet. In all possible languages. Because you're talking about immigrants who, by definition, were born outside the US.

Quote:
But I wouldn't doubt that there are errors. There are always errors or missed reverifications. That's why there are HR companies that you can pay to audit your I-9's and find and correct them before they are found and corrected by someone that will fine you for them. While fines are an appropriate way to ensure that companies are doing due diligence and correcting most errors, criminal charges seem excessive.
I'm not talking about prosecuting for just a few errors in hundreds or thousands or more applications/hire files. I'm talking about blatant, repeated, systematic problems. ANY audit worth its salt will turn up errors, but there is a difference between "actual error" and "fraud".
  #106  
Old 08-17-2019, 03:23 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Damifino - making that determination is not part of my current job. Yes, that is an issue. A very real one. It was just a couple months ago someone in the DMV accused me of having a fake birth certificate because mine is a 50+ year old piece of paper that shows its age, among other things. And I've encountered more than one person who thinks New Mexico or Hawaii aren't part of the US. Absolutely better training would be a plus, and in the case of birth certificates you have a kajillion different versions in every language in the world so really, I'm not that sure why they're accepted as proof of identity sometimes.
It's not a part of a hiring managers job either.
Quote:
The standard is reasonableness. You are not expected to be a document expert.
As to the reason that they are accepted, well, that is in some cases, the only form of ID people have, and it is the first form of ID anyone has. SS cards may be more standardized, but it's not like they are actually hard to copy.

But, as it is accepted, and is on the I-9 list C, then you must accept it as an employer. And it is not proof of identity, it is proof of authorization. The identification from list B is the proof of identity.
Quote:

Every job I've been hired at for the past... well, since the beginning of the 1990's, at least, has made copies of my identity documents. This is NOT a big deal, a lot of companies were already doing it before the law was passed.
There is no law that requires keeping copies. The law has been for a while now that you don't have to keep copies, but if you do, you have to keep copies on everyone.
Quote:

Honestly, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about how to counterfeit identity documents. I'm assuming it would be easier than counterfeiting money.
I'd assume so as well. I'm just saying, it's not that hard to create documents that very easily pass the "reasonable" test.
Quote:

Oh, no, it's worse than that, my friend.

It's every county of every state AND the independent cities that are NOT located in a county (I was born in one of them - hence the occasional contention about my birth certificate as it does not list a county because I was not born in a county) AND the boroughs of New York City which also are a bit different AND the birth certificates of every protectorate/territory/etc. of the US AND the same for every single country/county/province/city/other administrative division on the entire planet. In all possible languages. Because you're talking about immigrants who, by definition, were born outside the US.
Yeah, so it makes it a bit hard to prove that someone was being fraudulent in accepting documents, as opposed to not recognizing that the seal of Greenlee County Arizona doesn't have enough tentacles coming out of its head.

Though I will say, as far as foreign birth certificates, as the point would be to be claiming US citizenship, they would be presenting you with US documents for that at least.
Quote:

I'm not talking about prosecuting for just a few errors in hundreds or thousands or more applications/hire files. I'm talking about blatant, repeated, systematic problems. ANY audit worth its salt will turn up errors, but there is a difference between "actual error" and "fraud".
I don't disagree, I just don't think that such fraud is likely to turn up in the employee files. Either they were doing the level of diligence that they are allowed to do, and a whole bunch of people took advantage of those low standards of proof of authorization, or they were doing something far more nefarious, conspiring with them to provide false documents, in which case, the records will be fine, and it will be other avenues to go after them for fraud and counterfeiting.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 08-17-2019 at 03:27 PM.
  #107  
Old 08-17-2019, 04:15 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 29,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falchion View Post
Joseph Grendys'
Thank you! I've been whacking that Koch brothers mole for a few days.
  #108  
Old 08-17-2019, 04:38 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschrodinger View Post
Do you have a cite for needing to explain exactly why a document is being rejected?
Here's what the USCIS has to say about the matter:

Quote:
Originally Posted by USCIS
You must examine the documentation your employee presents to complete Section 2 of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. You are not required to be a document expert. You must accept documents that reasonably appear to be genuine and relate to the person presenting them. However, if your new employee provides a document that does not reasonably appear to be genuine and relate to them, you must reject that document and ask for other documents that satisfy the requirements of Form I-9.
When completing section 2 of the Form I-9, I've only rejected photocopies except for one case where someone brought me a metal Social Security Card. The employee said that in his entire life I was the only person who refused to accept it as a valid document. He ended up using his birth certificate instead.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #109  
Old 08-17-2019, 04:46 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Though I will say, as far as foreign birth certificates, as the point would be to be claiming US citizenship, they would be presenting you with US documents for that at least.
What about American citizens born in another country - like John McCain (Panama)? If a birth certificate has information on the citizenship of a parent that might be pertinent to the question of whether or not someone is born an American citizen.
  #110  
Old 08-17-2019, 04:48 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
What about American citizens born in another country - like John McCain (Panama)? If a birth certificate has information on the citizenship of a parent that might be pertinent to the question of whether or not someone is born an American citizen.
Fair enough, not something I had considered.
  #111  
Old Yesterday, 01:21 AM
sps49sd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
The Fortune 500 company division I was once employed by had much of the physical labor jobs filled by undocumented Mexicans.

Step one was using a temp agency for most of them; they were removed from the documentation check right there.

We would generally shut down for 2-3 weeks at the end of the year for maintenance, improvements and such. We had a the time to work on idle lines, and more than half of everyone laid off would go home to Mexico for a while.

My first year one of the former temps, now 'real' employees, walked in to HR and said, effectively, this is my real name and info and here are my documents. With no questions asked, they made the change. It may have helped that he was popular and a hot runner. I don't know where he got the real, but not really his, original documents. But making a case for prosecuting the company does not sound easy.
  #112  
Old Yesterday, 06:29 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,706
If all these from-elsewhere people have such amazing, iron-clad, extraordinary fake documentation how does anyone have sufficient knowledge of their fraud to arrest them in the first place? Or is it just round up all the brown people and worry about that detail later?
  #113  
Old Yesterday, 07:45 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
If all these from-elsewhere people have such amazing, iron-clad, extraordinary fake documentation how does anyone have sufficient knowledge of their fraud to arrest them in the first place? Or is it just round up all the brown people and worry about that detail later?
My guess is Social Security numbers that don't match official records. That's hardly extraordinary documentation, but the employer won't necessarily know whereas it's a flag for the feds.
  #114  
Old Yesterday, 07:57 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,453
Also wearing ICE electronic-monitoring anklets while working is pretty good evidence for ICE.
  #115  
Old Yesterday, 11:12 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
So, we had some massive ICE raids recently, where hundreds of workers were rounded up and taken into custody.

Why weren't any of the employers/managers cuffed and perp-walked along with this? Hiring undocumented workers is illegal. If a company has hundreds of employees and one or two such people without permission to work in the US are on the payroll I can believe it was a matter of one or two slipping through the net intended to keep them out. But these companies had HUNDREDS of undocumented workers, that's not a particularly clever person evading the rules, that's blatantly breaking the law.

If the current administration was REALLY interested in dealing with illegal immigration they'd target the employers offering jobs just as aggressively as the people taking those jobs. If no one was hiring undocumented workers there would be less incentive for people to cross the border without permission.

But they don't.

Any takers on why?

Yes, I have my own theories, but I'd really like supporters of the current administration and its immigration stance to have a go at it. Please, explain why one set of lawbreakers were arrested and another set allowed to walk free.
Haven't really read through the OP, but the answer to this is complex. In some cases, companies pay workers under the table to avoid taxes. Certainly, regardless of whether those workers are legal or illegal, that company has some 'splaining to do. However, there is also a huge black market for illegal documentation that factors into this. I found this article that seems to address a lot of the OP:

Quote:
Q: How do undocumented workers get around these requirements and land jobs in the United States?
A: Sometimes they work under the table without documents. In that case, the employer won't report them for tax purposes. They can also buy fake "green cards" and fake Social Security cards in their own names from illicit vendors, or steal or borrow work documents belonging to a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.
According to Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute think tank in Washington, D.C, there's a large-scale black market for falsified identity documents to satisfy the paperwork requirements that undocumented immigrants need to get jobs. Falsely using another person's identity is a misdemeanor.
Quote:
He said many employers who'd like to hire a worker will look the other way if they're provided with fake Social Security numbers and other false documents. The employers aren't experts at verifying identity documents, and either can't tell or don't care if they are provided with fakes.
What's more, he said that an employer who suspects a job applicant is an illegal immigrant but can't prove it and doesn't hire the person for that reason risks a lawsuit for discriminating against someone on the basis of their national origin.
"Working in the United States is extremely valuable but government immigration laws make it very difficult for foreigners to do so lawfully," Nowrasteh says. "Most illegal immigrants have to work on a legal or false identity in order to earn a wage, which incentivizes identity loans and identity theft."
Quote:
Q: Are stolen identity documents taken from unwilling victims?
A: In many cases, the foreign workers have the owners' consent to borrow their identity papers to secure jobs, said Nowrasteh. Research on the issue by a University of Colorado scholar found that most immigrant farmworkers use borrowed identity papers arranged through a supervisor, friend, colleague or fourth party. The "identity loan" arrangement helps the worker get a job, and provides financial benefits for the donor when payroll tax deductions from the foreign worker's wages go into the donor's Social Security account and boost the donor's unemployment checks.
Quote:
According to the report by University of Colorado Anthropology professor Sarah Bronwen Horton, relatives often volunteer to share each others' documents.
"For example, an uncle who has legal status but has decided to depart for Mexico permanently may lend his nephew his Social Security number so that he can find a better job," her report said. "Or a daughter may find work using papers from her recently-legalized mother in order to boost her mother's Social Security account."
Her report said labor supervisors who help undocumented immigrants secure jobs sometimes force them to use documents supplied by the supervisors, which is called "working as a ghost." The supervisors can get kickbacks from the documents' owners, and also get away with wage and work hour violations.
"Under California law, for instance, farm workers are required to receive overtime for more than 60 hours a week," her report said. "But my interviewees said that employers universally require workers with loaned documents to labor without overtime pay on Sundays, which they call 'the day of the ghost.' "
Quote:
Q: How common is it for immigrants to work in the underground economy or use fake or stolen Social Security cards?

A: The Social Security Administration estimates that 1.8 million immigrants were working in the United States with fake or stolen Social Security cards in 2010, and predicts the number will grow to 3.4 million by 2040. It also estimates that 3.9 million foreigners worked "under the table" in 2010, and the number will rise to 9 million in 2040.

Quote:
Q: What are the penalties for violations?
A: Employers who hire undocumented immigrants may be subject to civil or criminal penalties that include a prison sentence of up to six months and fines that range from $110 to $16,000 for each unauthorized alien, depending on circumstances such as the number of prior offenses at the company. The unauthorized workers face deportation.
CE said it made 135 criminal arrests in work site enforcement cases in 2017, and had made 594 in 2018, as of May 4. Its administrative arrests were 172 in 2017 and 610 in 2018.
They agency says it collected $97.6 million from violators in judicial forfeitures, fines and restitution last year. It did not provide a 2018 total.

Quote:
Q: Why have those statistics climbed so rapidly since last year?
Trump's administration has increased its compliance efforts to "scare employers" and "try to identify and deport" illegal immigrants, said Nowrasteh. He says the Obama administration did plenty of I-9 audits, but didn't do as many workplace raids.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #116  
Old Yesterday, 05:37 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I don’t give a crap about what they believe; I care about why they believe it. If a cop arrests a guy and says it’s because he ‘believes’ the guy is guilty, that’s not nearly good enough; I want to know if he’s got evidence — I’m not saying it needs to be conclusive evidence, just some evidence — that it’s so.
So what you're saying is that if there's evidence that there are some people working illegally at a location, it's fine to arrest all of the brown people even if you end up having to release over half of them the next day when a judge actually examines your evidence, and even if there was zero evidence at the time of arrest of any particular one doing wrong. But if there's evidence that there are a bunch of people working illegally at the facility, there's absolutely no way that said evidence that's enough to arrest every brown person who works there is enough to arrest anyone in management at all, because clearly they must have no idea that over half of their workforce is working illegally?

Also while you may not give a crap what they believe, the standard for a legal arrest in the US is only 'probable cause', it doesn't actually require any evidence whatsoever. An arrest based purely on a cop observing suspicious circumstances (like a workplace where they're confident more than half the workforce is not working legally) or criminal behavior is fine, even though there isn't actually solid evidence of anything.
  #117  
Old Yesterday, 06:30 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
So what you're saying is that if there's evidence that there are some people working illegally at a location, it's fine to arrest all of the brown people even if you end up having to release over half of them the next day when a judge actually examines your evidence, and even if there was zero evidence at the time of arrest of any particular one doing wrong. But if there's evidence that there are a bunch of people working illegally at the facility, there's absolutely no way that said evidence that's enough to arrest every brown person who works there is enough to arrest anyone in management at all, because clearly they must have no idea that over half of their workforce is working illegally?

Also while you may not give a crap what they believe, the standard for a legal arrest in the US is only 'probable cause', it doesn't actually require any evidence whatsoever. An arrest based purely on a cop observing suspicious circumstances (like a workplace where they're confident more than half the workforce is not working legally) or criminal behavior is fine, even though there isn't actually solid evidence of anything.
But it’s not, AFAIK, actually against the law to employ folks who are here illegally; if the ‘suspicious circumstances’ give rise to confidence that illegal aliens make up half of the employees, then I get how that — by itself — lets us make a probable-cause argument to round up people we have reason to believe are illegal aliens (which is against the law), but I don’t get how — by itself — it lets us argue that we have good reason to believe the employers are actually breaking a law.

If the cop has reason to believe — I’m not just asking whether he believes it, I’m asking if he’s got reason to believe it — that the employers did it knowingly, then, sure, there’s an argument to be made, and I’ll make it. But if, when launching the raid, all he’s got reason to believe is that the employers were doing something legal? I get how an honest cop can swear, under oath, that he arrested those employees due to the circumstances; you can ask him if he already had reason to believe they were breaking the law, and he can say, what, ‘yes, there was evidence that maybe half of them were illegal aliens; saw it with my own two eyes, I did!’

But ask him, of the employers: did you have reason to believe they hired those illegal aliens knowingly? And he’ll say, what, that he has no idea? That he saw no evidence it was done knowingly, but went ahead with the arrest anyway?
  #118  
Old Today, 04:35 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
But it’s not, AFAIK, actually against the law to employ folks who are here illegally
Well, so you know in the future...

Yes, it IS illegal to hire people who are not properly authorized to work in the US. That means either they are a citizen, or they have a work authorization ("green card"). Otherwise, if you hire them you break the law.

8 U.S. Code § 1324a. Unlawful employment of aliens
  #119  
Old Today, 05:25 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Well, so you know in the future...

Yes, it IS illegal to hire people who are not properly authorized to work in the US. That means either they are a citizen, or they have a work authorization ("green card"). Otherwise, if you hire them you break the law.

8 U.S. Code § 1324a. Unlawful employment of aliens
"knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien"

You've been told this already in this thread and it's in your link. So it's not clear at this point if you don't understand it or are deliberately ignoring it.

Last edited by Ruken; Today at 05:26 AM.
  #120  
Old Today, 05:32 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,515
It's a fine line. If an employer brings people on through a temp agency and one or two employees fudged their credentials with the agency, said employer probably doesn't know that. However, if an employer has, say, a chicken processing plant and the feds come in and rouund up hundreds of line workers, that employer knew damn well what was happening. And in most situations the employees there will be too intimidated to fight back against shitty work conditions, and the employer allows the employment scenario to continue and make money, so a raid doesn't happen in the first place.

Last edited by bobot; Today at 05:36 AM.
  #121  
Old Today, 05:46 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
"knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien"
Yes, we know that the law is setup to let white business owners break the law with impunity, do you have another point to make?
  #122  
Old Today, 06:42 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Yes, we know that the law is setup to let white business owners break the law with impunity, do you have another point to make?
The law is set up to protect me from an employee committing fraud.

But of course "with impunity" is false. Employers are prosecuted. Although the numbers are farcical.
  #123  
Old Today, 06:44 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcWoman View Post
Every company I've worked for in the last decade (at least) has required that I fill out Form I-9 to attest that I'm a US Citizen (or green card holder)
No, that you're a US Citizen or US National or authorized to work in the USA; it is perfectly possible to be able to work in the US legally without being a green card holder. A "green card" is a specific type of document granted to certain types of foreign permanent residents: not everybody who's authorized to work has one, and not every foreign permanent resident is allowed to work.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #124  
Old Today, 08:31 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 432
Here’s an article from 17 August about the Mississippi chicken processing plant raids.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ed/2040080001/

I’m presuming that the ICE officers shared the evidence in the affidavits and reasons for conducing the raids with the local police department or sheriff’s office. If so, I think it’s pretty clear that if the police had probable cause to also arrest the hiring managers if they wanted to.

Quote:
But more than a week after the raids, there are no records of company officials charged with knowingly hiring undocumented workers. This is despite information in federal search warrant affidavits suggesting company officials knew their workers were undocumented.

Some managers knew workers wore ankle monitors to work as they waited on immigration hearings, the warrants say. One of the chicken companies was aware its workers used fraudulent Social Security numbers, a confidential informant told investigators. A human resources employee revealed an employee was hired on two occasions, under two different identities.

When a Guatemalan man encountered law enforcement in Texas, he admitted he had worked at one of the plants, Koch Foods, and reportedly said the plant knew about his immigration status and that there were “a lot of illegals working there."
  #125  
Old Today, 08:48 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
The law is set up to protect me from an employee committing fraud.
Exactly. The law is set up to keep the employer blameless.

It defies logic that millions of illegal immigrants have jobs and the employers don't know, it is simply very difficult to prosecute them when the law is designed to protect them.
  #126  
Old Today, 09:25 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
It defies logic that millions of illegal immigrants have jobs and the employers don't know
It is entirely logical. Employee shows the required documents and we fill out the form. What would defy logic would be punishing me for an employee's fraud.
  #127  
Old Today, 09:25 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
So what you're saying is that if there's evidence that there are some people working illegally at a location, it's fine to arrest all of the brown people even if you end up having to release over half of them the next day when a judge actually examines your evidence, and even if there was zero evidence at the time of arrest of any particular one doing wrong. But if there's evidence that there are a bunch of people working illegally at the facility, there's absolutely no way that said evidence that's enough to arrest every brown person who works there is enough to arrest anyone in management at all, because clearly they must have no idea that over half of their workforce is working illegally?

Also while you may not give a crap what they believe, the standard for a legal arrest in the US is only 'probable cause', it doesn't actually require any evidence whatsoever. An arrest based purely on a cop observing suspicious circumstances (like a workplace where they're confident more than half the workforce is not working legally) or criminal behavior is fine, even though there isn't actually solid evidence of anything.
You seem to be confused as to what "probable cause" means. First you say it requires no evidence whatsoever and then you say it requires less than solid evidence. The first description is absolutely wrong and the second is mostly wrong, depending on one's definition of "solid evidence." Just because PC is one of the lower standards of evidence (and not even the lowest) doesn't mean it requires no evidence or nothing beyond a hunch or suspicion (the closest to that being reasonable suspicion but notice the word "reasonable").

Probable Cause is usually defined as something like... "knowledge of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed and that said person is involved in the commission of said crime." Notice those first five words. That knowledge of articulable facts and circumstances along with a reasonable logical/causal connection to a crime is the evidence part. Since, you know, PC is a standard of evidence and the probable part refers to a factual determination of likelihood based on that evidence.

And unsurprisingly the PC for different crimes is different. Just because PC exists to believe that certain workers are in the country or working illegally does not imply that that evidence also serves as PC to arrest the owners for illegally hiring those workers. Similarly, the evidence of PC necessary to obtain a search warrant for illegal workers would not necessarily serve as PC to obtain and execute a search warrant on corporate offices where there is no evidence of the direct presence of illegal workers. As others have said this is how it generally works, law enforcement uses a "foot in the door" to hopefully gather more evidence. And in some situations this is the only practical way to go about it because of pesky things like "due process."
  #128  
Old Today, 09:34 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
It is entirely logical. Employee shows the required documents and we fill out the form.
So, you don't interview or otherwise check into the fitness for someone to work for your firm? You just hire anyone who can show you a document with a name on it? And this is true for the hundreds of thousands of employers who provide millions of jobs for illegal aliens?

Quote:
What would defy logic would be punishing me for an employee's fraud.
Anyone who hires hundreds of illegal workers should be punished. They cease to be victims and become willing participants in the fraud, if only because they deliberately avoid becoming aware of their workers status.
  #129  
Old Today, 09:36 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Exactly. The law is set up to keep the employer blameless.

It defies logic that millions of illegal immigrants have jobs and the employers don't know, it is simply very difficult to prosecute them when the law is designed to protect them.
No the law is set up like the vast majority of criminal laws in the US (and the UK, Canada, Australia, etc) in that it requires a criminal intent. That is the general rule in the US and all Common Law jurisdictions and exceptions are exceedingly narrow. A legislature, state or federal, cannot simply eliminate that requirement without likely running afoul of Constitutional Due Process guarantees. And in many jurisdictions even some strict liability offenses such as statutory rape or selling alcohol to a minor allow for a "good faith" defense based on fraud which is directly analogus to what's happening here and what the federal government allows with regards to employers.

So do you believe that all criminal offenses that require a criminal intent are set up that way so people can break the law with impunity or is this a special case for some reason?
  #130  
Old Today, 09:46 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
So, you don't interview or otherwise check into the fitness for someone to work for your firm? You just hire anyone who can show you a document with a name on it? And this is true for the hundreds of thousands of employers who provide millions of jobs for illegal aliens? ...
My understanding of the law l, and I believe it's been confirmed in this thread, is that employers are required by law to accept the documents as valid if they reasonably appear so. They're not, I think, allowed to "otherwise check into the fitness for someone to work for your firm", at least with regard to their immigration status.
  #131  
Old Today, 09:47 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
And in many jurisdictions even some strict liability offenses such as statutory rape or selling alcohol to a minor allow for a "good faith" defense based on fraud which is directly analogus to what's happening here and what the federal government allows with regards to employers.
Let's take the selling alcohol offense as an example.

Imagine that law without a requirement that the seller ID the buyer, just that they have to "knowingly" sell to a minor. The result is (the analogy with illegal labor) that you have literally millions of sales of alcohol to minors, with some liquor stores selling to hundreds of minors, with law enforcement punishing ONLY the minors, because they're the ones caught with alcohol. All with the liquor store owners rarely getting punished because they were "defrauded" by the minors, who told them they're over 21.

This is the law we have here, where employers are granted cover unless they violate the law in the most egregious and brazen fashion imaginable. Employers reap the benefits of low cost labor, and a labor force afraid to involve authorities in any illegal activity, and are shielded from prosecution by a law that requires they know something, but doesn't ask them to attempt to discover that information.
  #132  
Old Today, 10:06 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Let's take the selling alcohol offense as an example.

Imagine that law without a requirement that the seller ID the buyer, just that they have to "knowingly" sell to a minor. ....
That is indeed the law, that (at least in CA) if the Minor furnishes a reasonable looking ID. The same for the feds and hiring illegals- if you fill out the I9 based upon a reasonable submitted iD, you are in the clear.

https://www.shouselaw.com/furnishing...inor.html#3.2a

So your example is faulty.
  #133  
Old Today, 10:34 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Exactly. The law is set up to keep the employer blameless.

It defies logic that millions of illegal immigrants have jobs and the employers don't know, it is simply very difficult to prosecute them when the law is designed to protect them.
The law is set up by people who don't want to really deport workers, or affect business, so yes, that is correct.
  #134  
Old Today, 10:55 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
That is indeed the law, that (at least in CA) if the Minor furnishes a reasonable looking ID. The same for the feds and hiring illegals- if you fill out the I9 based upon a reasonable submitted iD, you are in the clear.

https://www.shouselaw.com/furnishing...inor.html#3.2a

So your example is faulty.
If half of a liquor stores customers are underage drinkers, then isn't that a pretty good indication that they're doing a poor job of checking for fake ID's? Your cite has an example of a store clerk being punished for inadequately inspecting a drivers license.

Quote:
As a result, the clerk was held liable for selling alcohol to a minor because the court could not conclude that she reasonably relied on a bona fide identification card
From post #124:
Quote:
Some managers knew workers wore ankle monitors to work as they waited on immigration hearings.
I think wilfully ignoring ankle monitors fails a due diligence test.
  #135  
Old Today, 11:16 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
If half of a liquor stores customers are underage drinkers, then isn't that a pretty good indication that they're doing a poor job of checking for fake ID's? Your cite has an example of a store clerk being punished for inadequately inspecting a drivers license.



From post #124:


I think wilfully ignoring ankle monitors fails a due diligence test.

Yes, as "Example: A liquor store clerk checked a minor's I.D. as he purchased two 6 packs of beer. The clerk neither removed the I.D. card nor asked the minor to remove the I.D. from his wallet where it was partially concealed behind a plastic window. The card purported to be a California I.D. card that was issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

Had the clerk removed the card, she would have seen that the card
had no magnetic strip on the back,
had print that was typewritten instead of computer generated,
had a raised photo which was separately attached instead of one that was computer generated as a part of the card, and
that the colors on the card were actually different than those that appear on California issued I.D. cards.
As a result, the clerk was held liable for selling alcohol to a minor because the court could not conclude that she reasonably relied on a bona fide identification card
"



No, since " ...as they waited on immigration hearings", that means they are not necessarily illegals.

Last edited by DrDeth; Today at 11:18 AM.
  #136  
Old Today, 11:16 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,962
Cheesesteak,

I think it's now fairly well-established that the law doesn't work they way you'd like it to, but I'm not sure you've even thought through the consequences of your apparently-preferred policy anyways. If ICE starts arresting CEOs and HR directors for hiring too many illegal immigrants, companies are going to react to that. They're going to stop hiring people that they think might be illegal immigrants. And in at least some cases they'll use factors for determining who might be an illegal immigrant that you (and I) would probably prefer they didn't. Your apparently-preferred policy would have the effect of harming minorities who are here legally.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; Today at 11:17 AM.
  #137  
Old Today, 11:34 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
So, you don't interview or otherwise check into the fitness for someone to work for your firm? You just hire anyone who can show you a document with a name on it? And this is true for the hundreds of thousands of employers who provide millions of jobs for illegal aliens?
If they can't show me the required documents, that is one reason I may not hire them. If they can show me the required documents, and they appear to be in order, I do not have grounds to reject them based on their immigration status.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Anyone who hires hundreds of illegal workers should be punished.
You have not justified this policy change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
They cease to be victims and become willing participants in the fraud, if only because they deliberately avoid becoming aware of their workers status.
Prove it.
  #138  
Old Today, 11:45 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, since " ...as they waited on immigration hearings", that means they are not necessarily illegals.
Based on the USA Today article, I'm presuming they don't have an Employment Authorization Document. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...ing-32297.html In a company where 50% of the employees were not authorised to work, it would be surprising if they were strictly by-the-book on those documents.

Regardless, the two pertinent facts are that ICE had evidence for the search warrants, and subsequently 50% of the employees were found to be unauthorised. At first glance, that seems to me like probable cause for arresting the hiring managers under the statute cited by Broomstick.

8 U.S. Code § 1324a. Unlawful employment of aliens
  #139  
Old Today, 11:53 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, since " ...as they waited on immigration hearings", that means they are not necessarily illegals.
No, but that might put into question whether or not the papers presented were legitimate. If they HAD legitimate paperwork when they were hired, why are they awaiting a hearing now? One might think that their uncertain immigration status would have been brought up at that time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Cheesesteak,

I think it's now fairly well-established that the law doesn't work they way you'd like it to, but I'm not sure you've even thought through the consequences of your apparently-preferred policy anyways. If ICE starts arresting CEOs and HR directors for hiring too many illegal immigrants, companies are going to react to that. They're going to stop hiring people that they think might be illegal immigrants. And in at least some cases they'll use factors for determining who might be an illegal immigrant that you (and I) would probably prefer they didn't. Your apparently-preferred policy would have the effect of harming minorities who are here legally.
In the 'rational immigration' thread, I detailed where my thoughts on criminal employer punishments fit into an immigration policy.

However, absent that, I still think it's racist as fuck to have an immigration law that makes <finger quotes> hiring an illegal immigrant <end finger quotes> a crime but sets the system up so that hardly anyone can be prosecuted for it, while the illegal immigrants themselves (any anyone nearby who's brown enough to pass) get rounded up by the hundred and thrown behind bars.
  #140  
Old Today, 11:58 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Let's take the selling alcohol offense as an example.

Imagine that law without a requirement that the seller ID the buyer, just that they have to "knowingly" sell to a minor. The result is (the analogy with illegal labor) that you have literally millions of sales of alcohol to minors, with some liquor stores selling to hundreds of minors, with law enforcement punishing ONLY the minors, because they're the ones caught with alcohol. All with the liquor store owners rarely getting punished because they were "defrauded" by the minors, who told them they're over 21.

This is the law we have here, where employers are granted cover unless they violate the law in the most egregious and brazen fashion imaginable. Employers reap the benefits of low cost labor, and a labor force afraid to involve authorities in any illegal activity, and are shielded from prosecution by a law that requires they know something, but doesn't ask them to attempt to discover that information.
You do realize, as with most legal language like this, that terms like "knowingly" when they appear in a statute are not given a colloquial or dictionary definition but a specific legal one don't you? And when analyzing cases under such a seemingly vague standard (knowingly, reasonable, whatever) that Courts have formulated numerous complex, multi-factor, multi-step legal tests for determining what exactly those terms mean in their respective contexts? This is not new stuff, our legal system has been working this stuff out for centuries and maybe the people who create and administer these laws just might understand the facts and issues better than you do. And maybe if we do need to change a law or procedure that input should come from people who understand how the law exists and functions presently before they advocate for some future change
  #141  
Old Today, 12:06 PM
Chisquirrel is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Cheesesteak,

I think it's now fairly well-established that the law doesn't work they way you'd like it to, but I'm not sure you've even thought through the consequences of your apparently-preferred policy anyways. If ICE starts arresting CEOs and HR directors for hiring too many illegal immigrants, companies are going to react to that. They're going to stop hiring people that they think might be illegal immigrants. And in at least some cases they'll use factors for determining who might be an illegal immigrant that you (and I) would probably prefer they didn't. Your apparently-preferred policy would have the effect of harming minorities who are here legally.
That's a funny way to say "stop bussing in illegal immigrants and then call ICE when they get uppity".
  #142  
Old Today, 12:10 PM
doreen is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Y



No, since " ...as they waited on immigration hearings", that means they are not necessarily illegals.
They may be permitted to stay at the conclusion of their hearing- but no one who is currently in the US legally should be waiting for an immigration hearing. It is possible for people with pending removal hearings to receive work authorization - but I would be very surprised if any of those placed on an ankle monitor had such authorization. One would think that those who qualified for employment authorization would be among those released on their own recognizance or on bond rather than ankle monitors. And if electronic monitoring as an alternative to incarceration wasn't closely associated with lack of work authorizations, then ICE wouldn't have used the information form those monitors to target raids
  #143  
Old Today, 12:14 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
This is not new stuff, our legal system has been working this stuff out for centuries and maybe the people who create and administer these laws just might understand the facts and issues better than you do.
Thus, when we have a law that criminalizes the hiring of illegal immigrants, AND millions of illegal immigrants are hired anyway, AND almost no prosecutions of employers happen, I'm forced to conclude that it is not an accident.

It is deliberate.

It is designed to allow business owners to profit off of illegal immigrant labor while facing little risk of prosecution. Back to the title of the OP, "Why Weren't Employers Arrested, Too?" It's because our laws were crafted to make sure they aren't arrested .
  #144  
Old Today, 12:30 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Thus, when we have a law that criminalizes the hiring of illegal immigrants, AND millions of illegal immigrants are hired anyway, AND almost no prosecutions of employers happen, I'm forced to conclude that it is not an accident.

It is deliberate.

It is designed to allow business owners to profit off of illegal immigrant labor while facing little risk of prosecution. Back to the title of the OP, "Why Weren't Employers Arrested, Too?" It's because our laws were crafted to make sure they aren't arrested .
You left off "for good reasons, just ones I can't see or understand"
  #145  
Old Today, 02:37 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
No, but that might put into question whether or not the papers presented were legitimate. If they HAD legitimate paperwork when they were hired, why are they awaiting a hearing now? One might think that their uncertain immigration status would have been brought up at that time.

In the 'rational immigration' thread, I detailed where my thoughts on criminal employer punishments fit into an immigration policy.

However, absent that, I still think it's racist as fuck to have an immigration law that makes <finger quotes> hiring an illegal immigrant <end finger quotes> a crime but sets the system up so that hardly anyone can be prosecuted for it, while the illegal immigrants themselves (any anyone nearby who's brown enough to pass) get rounded up by the hundred and thrown behind bars.
Do some people/corporations game the system? Absolutely. We all know that they do, at all levels. People ALWAYS game the system. But you seem to want to 'fix' this by taking out some important checks on our system, such as plausible deniability. I mean, you've been shown that there are, literally, millions of people who are using false identities to get around the system. They are either buying black market papers or using someone else's papers. What, exactly, do you expect employers to do? Assume the valid paperwork they are getting isn't valid? How will that help the majority of legitimate, legal citizen Hispanics?? It's, rightfully, on the employee to be providing legitimate paperwork. If they aren't, it's not on the employers to be digging into that to figure out if the paperwork is both valid AND legal, and the person presenting it is actually the person the paperwork is on. But if you start taking away plausible deniability on this the real effect will be companies will start questioning ALL Hispanics and their papers.

Screw that. It won't affect you, but it WILL affect me and my family if they start doing that. I have no problem that, if caught doing something like a supervisor providing false paperwork to an employee to bring them on you throw the book at that person...we all know that happens, and that person SHOULD be prosecuted. I'm good with a large fine or whatever to the company as well. Make an example of them. But what you seem to be suggesting undercuts our very legal system, and I don't think you even realize that.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #146  
Old Today, 02:47 PM
eschrodinger's Avatar
eschrodinger is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 107
This is a complicated law in a complicated area of law. It was linked earlier, but here it is again.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324a

There are exceptions and cross references, and defenses, and provisos about when defenses become unavailable. You cannot sum up what the law is with a sentence or two. It can be fun to play amateur prosecutor, but remember Dunning-Kruger. If you are not a lawyer in this field, you almost certainly don't know all of how this works. (I am not a lawyer in this field. I do know a lot about how some of this works. But not all of it.)

Some reasonably well-informed notes:
Local police wouldn't make the employer arrests. If there will be any, it will most likely be by federal agents after federal grand jury indictments. Those will come after the seized evidence has been examined, and, I predict, after some people who have intimate knowledge of the hiring practices have testified before the grand jury. Often there is no arrest and perp walk because, after an indictment is handed down, the person negotiates through their lawyer to turn themselves in.

The law contains a defense based on making good faith efforts to comply with documentation requirements, but that defense is unavailable if there is a "pattern or practice" of knowingly hiring ineligible workers, or if the employer has been informed of a failure to comply, and has not corrected it within 10 days.

Employers are informed of SSN issues such as apparent mismatches of information.

There is no requirement that an employer who is rejecting a document as not reasonably appearing to be valid or to relate to the person presenting it, tell the person specifically why it is being rejected. The employer is permitted to reject on that basis, and then ask if the person can present another document. The employer should probably document the issue in case of questions later, but no, I see no requirement that they have to point out, e.g., a typo in the spelling of the issuing state. ("Misissippi," e.g.).
  #147  
Old Today, 03:19 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Do some people/corporations game the system? Absolutely.
They aren't gaming the system, they are using it as intended. Everything happening is exactly what it's supposed to be.

Millions of illegal immigrants work for low wages.
Employers and the rest of the economy benefit.
Sweep up hundreds of illegal immigrants in well publicized raids.
Employers can continue to use this low wage/low benefit underclass of worker and threaten them as needed to keep them in line.
Illegal immigrants continue to enter the country with the prospect of employment, because they remain easily employable.
  #148  
Old Today, 03:53 PM
doreen is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Do some people/corporations game the system? Absolutely. We all know that they do, at all levels. People ALWAYS game the system. But you seem to want to 'fix' this by taking out some important checks on our system, such as plausible deniability. I mean, you've been shown that there are, literally, millions of people who are using false identities to get around the system. They are either buying black market papers or using someone else's papers. What, exactly, do you expect employers to do? Assume the valid paperwork they are getting isn't valid? How will that help the majority of legitimate, legal citizen Hispanics?? It's, rightfully, on the employee to be providing legitimate paperwork. If they aren't, it's not on the employers to be digging into that to figure out if the paperwork is both valid AND legal, and the person presenting it is actually the person the paperwork is on. But if you start taking away plausible deniability on this the real effect will be companies will start questioning ALL Hispanics and their papers.
I think you want to use a different phrase than "plausible deniability" - typically "plausible deniability" doesn't mean that I don't know the papers are fake. It means that I can deny knowing that they are fake and be believed because there is no evidence to prove that I knew they were fake - even though I did know. Or that I left or was sent out of the room when discussions about hiring illegal aliens started specifically so that I can truthfully and plausibly deny having been present for any such discussions. IOW, if I don't know it's because I made an effort not to know. I don't think that's what you mean.


I don't disagree with you about the effect of expecting employers to dig into every document - it probably would have the effect of making employers question documents provided by certain groups, just like the "ban the box" laws appear to be having an unintended effect of making it more difficult for certain groups to get hired. But I also want to point out that it's not terribly uncommon to hear about employers who hire some or all employees "off the books" to avoid paying payroll taxes, or unemployment/workers comp premiums getting fined. Somehow, I find it hard to believe those employers are meticulous about getting I9 documentation - but I never hear about anyone being arrested for hiring people who can't legally work. I don't recall any of the prominent people who hired those who couldn't legally work as household help getting arrested, not from Zoe Baird in 1993 to Heather Nauert in 2019. Now, some of the cases may have come to light after the statute of limitations had run out, but a couple of them were discovered within a year or two of the employment. It doesn't look to me like the reason employers don't get arrested is simply due to a lack of proof.

Last edited by doreen; Today at 03:57 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017