# 1,200+ illegals arrested. Company employing them gets off. Huh? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 13, 2006, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039 "2006-12-13T23:43:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2006, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/1 "2006-12-13T23:43:32Z")
I don’t have a lot of time right now, but I saw this and thought I’d post it and see the responses later. It seems that after a ten-month investigation into illegal aliens and ID theft, ICE arrested over 1,200 illegals. Most arrests were for being here illegally, but some were for the ID theft itself. (All good in my book, the only room for improvement being the addition of a few zeroes on the number. I offer that in the spirit of full disclosure, knowing many here will disagree.) But here is the issue of the debate: The company employing these illegals—in direct conflict with the law—seems to be getting off with no penalties whatsoever. NONE. As can be seen [here](http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061213/D8M03JPG1.html): > [@](#): > > No charges were filed against Swift. Now, the investigation into the identity theft is still continuing, but how can the company get away with this. What’s that? Maybe they didn’t know? Well, that’s just what they would like us to believe: > [@](#): > > In a written statement, President and CEO Sam Rovit said the company has never knowingly hired illegal workers and does not condone the practice. Even if that is true, I don’t think it gives them a pass. But we have _this_: > [@](#): > > Immigration officials last month informed Swift that it would remove unauthorized workers on Dec. 4, \*\*but Swift asked a federal judge to prevent agents from conducting the raid, arguing it would cause “substantial and irreparable injury” to its business. > > \*\ ***The company estimated a raid would remove up to 40 percent of its 13,000 workers…** > > After a closed hearing, a judge on Thursday rejected Swift’s request, clearing the way for Tuesday’s raids at the plants in Greeley; Grand Island; Cactus, Texas; Hyrum, Utah; Marshalltown, Iowa; and Worthington, Minn. (bolding mine) So they would never knowingly hire illegals, but they DO know that a raid arersting illegals would remove up to 40% of their 13,000 workers? (a 5,200 estimate by the way.) WTF? Am I reading this wrong? Questions: How can the government turn a blind eye to Swift’s actions? If it does not, is ICE the one to go after them or is it some other branch? If the goal is to reduce immigration, which is not only a crime in an of itself, but one that spawns other problems like ID theft, isn’t the government obligated to go after the employer as well? If for no other reason than doing so is a much more effective means to stem the tide than going after 12,000,000 illegals individually? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/2 "2006-12-14T00:06:36Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] But here is the issue of the debate: The company employing these illegals—in direct conflict with the law—seems to be getting off with no penalties whatsoever. [/QUOTE] I am asking because I do not know. Is it against the law to employ illegal aliens? ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/3 "2006-12-14T00:09:52Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] I am asking because I do not know. Is it against the law to employ illegal aliens? [/QUOTE] Yes. Tris ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/4 "2006-12-14T00:15:43Z")
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus] Yes. Tris [/QUOTE] Could you flesh it out a bit? Federal law? State law? Is it a felony? Misdemeanor? What are the penalties? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/5 "2006-12-14T00:28:47Z")
The feds require employers to fill out an I-9 form ([a three page PDF](http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf)). If Swift has these documents on file, they’re good. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/6 "2006-12-14T00:49:33Z")
[QUOTE=Frank] The feds require employers to fill out an I-9 form ([a three page PDF](http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf)). If Swift has these documents on file, they’re good. [/QUOTE] NOT necessarily. That would at best provide a prima facie defense. Presumably the government could try and prove that Swift knowingly employed people who were providing false ID to meet the I-9 form needs. In answer to the OP, it is much harder to prosecute a case against the employer than it is to prosecute a case against the illegal alien. The illegal alien either does or does not have proper documentation; intent and knowledge are irrelevant. For the employer, intent and knowledge are relevant for successful prosecution. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/7 "2006-12-14T00:56:03Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] NOT necessarily. That would at best provide a prima facie defense. Presumably the government could try and prove that Swift knowingly employed people who were providing false ID to meet the I-9 form needs. [/QUOTE] Yes, that’s true, but how much of an onus is put on the employer to verify that the documents are not valid? Especially in the case of identity theft, where the documents would presumably be valid, even though illegally obtained? I should think that unless they could show that Swift knew the driver’s license was being passed by each new employee to the next guy in line, or was accepting black & white photocopies that were stuck in a baggie and ironed, they’d have a hard time proving that Swift should have known the IDs were false. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/8 "2006-12-14T01:23:25Z")
Other questions: Did Swift try to verify the SSNs, and if there were issues, did they follow up? What’s the verification process. (We discussed this before.) Is it that the SSN exists somewhere, or is there some attempt to match the sex and age of the applicant? Did Swift pay these people at the same level as the 60% legals, or is there an obvious correlation between immigration status and pay and benefits? I agree with the OP in general - there will be no decrease in the supply until the demand dries up due to penalties for not doing the proper diligence in checking papers upon hiring. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/9 "2006-12-14T01:30:42Z")
[QUOTE=Frank] Yes, that’s true, but how much of an onus is put on the employer to verify that the documents are not valid? Especially in the case of identity theft, where the documents would presumably be valid, even though illegally obtained? I should think that unless they could show that Swift knew the driver’s license was being passed by each new employee to the next guy in line, or was accepting black & white photocopies that were stuck in a baggie and ironed, they’d have a hard time proving that Swift should have known the IDs were false. [/QUOTE] True. But with the numbers involved here, that seems, IMO, an unrealistic defense. I think it more likely, again, based on the numbers involved, and the statements they made, that this passage might be applicable: (bolding mine) > [@](#): > > Conspiracy to commit crimes of sheltering, harboring, \*\*or employing illegal aliens \*\* is a separate federal offense punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 or five years’ imprisonment. Also, here is what the law states regarding the non-conspiracy charges: > [@](#): > > An employer has constructive knowledge that an employee is an illegal unauthorized worker if a reasonable person would infer it from the facts. Constructive knowledge constituting a violation of federal law has been found where (1) the I-9 employment eligibility form has not been properly completed, including supporting documentation, (2) the employer has learned from other individuals, media reports, or any source of information available to the employer that the alien is unauthorized to work, or (3) the employer acts with reckless disregard for the legal consequences of permitting a third party to provide or introduce an illegal alien into the employer’s work force. Knowledge cannot be inferred solely on the basis of an individual’s accent or foreign appearance. > > Actual specific knowledge is not required. For example, a newspaper article stating that ballrooms depend on an illegal alien work force of dance hostesses was held by the courts to be a reasonable ground for suspicion that unlawful conduct had occurred. Note that the three thresholds mentioned are connect by “or”. Based on this, it amazes me even more that Swift is not being held acountable. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/10 "2006-12-14T01:49:34Z")
Re: the issue of culpability by Swift: [Quote=linked article] Immigration officials last month informed Swift that it would remove unauthorized workers on Dec. 4, but Swift asked a federal judge to prevent agents from conducting the raid, arguing it would cause “substantial and irreparable injury” to its business. The company estimated a raid would remove up to 40 percent of its 13,000 workers. Greeley-based Swift describes itself as the world’s second-largest meat processor with sales of about $9 billion. [/Quote] I also read about this in today’s _Houston Chronicle_. While Swift may be beating the rap for the moment (I have a feeling that general public opinion may force the government to attempt filing charges after all) from what I read so far they’ve actually had to shut down the plants in question, and thus will suffer financially from their, let’s be charitable and call it rather loosely-controlled, hiring practices. Now I have never agreed with **Magellan01** ’s view of illegals being some sort of scourge of the nation, but fair’s fair. It simply is not credible that a company with the size and financial resources of Swift could manage to unknowingly hire illegals as more than 40% of its total workforce. I rectruit for a far smaller outfit and we incur no difficulty or significant financial impact in verifying whether our employees are here legally or not. I say throw the book at 'em, then go over and pick it up and throw it at 'em again. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/11 "2006-12-14T01:51:03Z")
Er, throw the book at Swift, in case that’s not clear. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/12 "2006-12-14T02:07:18Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] So they would never knowingly hire illegals, but they DO know that a raid arersting illegals would remove up to 40% of their 13,000 workers? (a 5,200 estimate by the way.) WTF? Am I reading this wrong? [/QUOTE] They can be aware of the statistical likelyhood of false identities among immigrants (thus the illegal part of illegal aliens). That is different than knowing who is providing false identification. American companies are not in the police business nor can they be. it’s illegal to ask many questions regarding employment on an application. Discriminatory questions about nationality, and arrest records are not allowed. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/13 "2006-12-14T02:31:25Z")
So basically what you’re trying to argue **Magellan01** is that if a prospective employee shows up looking for a job with all of his forms of identification in order, a valid SSN, a drivers license, what have you, they still shouldn’t be employed? Because they look like a Mexican? And how is this not, “Knowledge cannot be inferred solely on the basis of an individual’s accent or foreign appearance.” ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/14 "2006-12-14T03:29:28Z")
[QUOTE=Frank] The feds require employers to fill out an I-9 form ([a three page PDF](http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf)). If Swift has these documents on file, they’re good. [/QUOTE] In a nutshell, yes, but it’s rather more complicated than that - more details [here.](http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=0572194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=91919c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD) . If the documents presented to fulfill the I-9 requirements appear to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting them, employers are likely to be very careful about asking for further verification for fear of being accused of discriminating against employees on the basis of race and/or national origin. There is a 500-plus page book devoted to the ins, outs, and case law of completing the I-9 form, not to mention what is and is not acceptable to ask people in the course of completing it. Even the oh-so-oversimplified USCIS [employer I-9 manual](http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/m-274.pdf) is 36 pages long. Illegal discrimination against people who are, in fact, legally authorized to work in the U.S. is a real problem - so much so that there is [an office of the Department of Justice](http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/) devoted to educating employers about it. They also publish a handy [employer compliance guide.](http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/pdf/en_guide.pdf) There is currently no legal requirement for employers to verify the authenticity of documents presented for I-9 purposes, as long as they reasonably appear to be geniune. Besides, there are several thousand different formats for something as basic as a U.S. birth certificate; exactly how would employers deal with that under the current system? ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/15 "2006-12-14T03:42:00Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Could you flesh it out a bit? Federal law? State law? Is it a felony? Misdemeanor? What are the penalties? [/QUOTE] Federal law, specifically the Immigration and Nationality Act. The penalties even for minor paperwork violations can really add up, and if it’s determined that the employer has a pattern or practice of knowingly hiring unauthorized workers, there can even be jail time involved. Details [here.](http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/EIB111a.pdf) The Swift case ain’t over yet; I’ll be shocked if they get off completely scot-free. I bet there will be a substantial fine, at a bare minimum, provided the investigation isn’t completely botched. Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/16 "2006-12-14T03:58:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Did Swift try to verify the SSNs, and if there were issues, did they follow up? > > What’s the verification process. (We discussed this before.) Is it that the SSN exists somewhere, or is there some attempt to match the sex and age of the applicant? I am curious, too. From what little I have heard about it (I have done no research myself), it could be as little as Swift making an official data request like this: \*SSN of applicant: 123-45-6789 Name of applicant: Mlees Felony convictions: None Please verify SSN 123-45-6789 as current, valid, and assigned to Mlees. Please verify Mlees’ conviction record.\* That’s it. So, if someone dug my SSN out of some database somewhere, they can use it to apply for a job or a photo ID. What is further interesting is that the Social Security Administration does not tell ICE or the Homeland Security Department that there were 763 requests for verification on my SSN in the last 6 months… ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/17 "2006-12-14T06:50:26Z")
> [@](#): > > The company estimated a raid would remove up to 40 percent of its 13,000 workers… It seems that I heard after the raids that of the seven(?) plants raided, up to 10% of the force in each plant was nabbed. Given that the INS has a less than perfect track record, could Swift have simply been making the argument that 40%+ of their work force has Hispanic names and they feared a mass grab? Now, I suspect that Swift will actually be found to have been lax on their I-9s and that the Fed agents, today, were simply noting that Swift is not _currently_ being charged (until they can get the evidence from the arrested workers about how shoddy their papers actually were). ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/18 "2006-12-14T08:11:09Z")
[QUOTE=threemae] So basically what you’re trying to argue **Magellan01** is that if a prospective employee shows up looking for a job with all of his forms of identification in order, a valid SSN, a drivers license, what have you, they still shouldn’t be employed? Because they look like a Mexican? [/QUOTE] Uhhhhhh, no. That’s not what I’m arguing. And if you read the article you might have gleaned that the people arrested were not all Mexican. They also arrested illegals from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Peru, Laos, Sudan, Ethiopia and other countries. But since you’re having such a hard time understanding what evidently everyone else got rather easily, let me spoon feed it to you. There was a ten-month investigation into illegal immigration and identity theft, targeting Swift (as far as we know, possibly others). Over 1,200 illegals got arrested. Now even ignoring their claims about 40% being at risk of being arrested (for reasons offered by others), that’s an awful lot of people. That indicates to me willful disregard for the law. I suggest you read the portions of the law I cited. We have laws on the books to deal with this type of activity. Some of those laws address the illegals themselves. Other address the companies who hire them. Both laws are an attempt to help solve an illegal immigration problem. Dealing just with the illegals themselves is not nearly as effective and efficient as going after the employers. Ergo, my post and the questions I included. See how that works, now? As others have stated, we probably don’t have the full story now. If Swift did everything they were supposed to, maybe they’re off the hook. If not, they’ll hopefully got the shit slammed out of them in fines and possibly jail time if their behavior was particularly egregious or consipiritorial. Tell me, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that you don’t think that we should enforce our immigration laws. Is that right? If not, what, specifically, do you object to? ---
**Author:** ![Unregistered\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3da27b/32.png) [@Unregistered\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unregistered_Bull)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/19 "2006-12-14T18:47:21Z")
If the I-9s and documentation are all in order and Swift followed procedures correctly, then they ought to be fine. And it’s really not that big an “if.” It’s not suprising that the meat packing industry is going to have more I-9 fraud perpetrated against it. It’s an awfully hard job that doesn’t really require English language skills, just a good work ethic. It’s the type of job that attracts both illegal immigrants and legal immigrants and their descendants. I don’t find it outside the realm of possibilty that employee document fraud could be encountered and a large number illegal immigrants could be caught even without Swift breaking any laws or regulations. It could be the case that Swift didn’t follow correct enough procedures or outrightly disregarded them. But, from the information presented here, making an immediate judgement towards that seems premature. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039/20 "2006-12-14T18:56:57Z")
[QUOTE=Eva Luna] Federal law, specifically the Immigration and Nationality Act. The penalties even for minor paperwork violations can really add up, and if it’s determined that the employer has a pattern or practice of knowingly hiring unauthorized workers, there can even be jail time involved. Details [here.](http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/EIB111a.pdf) The Swift case ain’t over yet; I’ll be shocked if they get off completely scot-free. I bet there will be a substantial fine, at a bare minimum, provided the investigation isn’t completely botched. Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal [/QUOTE] Thanks. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-200-illegals-arrested-company-employing-them-gets-off-huh/384039.md?page=2)