# ICE Raids: Why Weren't Employers Arrested, Too? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2019, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728 "2019-08-16T08:55:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/101 "2019-08-17T13:59:29Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/102 "2019-08-17T16:29:31Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > 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. > [@begbert2](#): > > 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. > [@Broomstick](#): > > 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. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. > [@Broomstick](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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? > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/103 "2019-08-17T19:11:09Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/104 "2019-08-17T19:51:19Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > 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.](https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=819) 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. > [@](#): > > Do you have a cite for needing to explain exactly why a document is being rejected? [https://www.uscis.gov/faq-page/i-9-central-questions-about-documents#t17077n46954](https://www.uscis.gov/faq-page/i-9-central-questions-about-documents#t17077n46954) > [@](#): > > 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? > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/105 "2019-08-17T20:03:55Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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”. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/106 "2019-08-17T20:23:25Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > 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.](https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documents/examining-documents) > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/Greenlee_County%2C_Arizona_seal.png) 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. > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/107 "2019-08-17T21:15:18Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > Joseph Grendys’ Thank you! I’ve been whacking that Koch brothers mole for a few days. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/108 "2019-08-17T21:38:12Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > Do you have a cite for needing to explain exactly why a document is being rejected? Here’s what the [USCIS](https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documents/examining-documents) has to say about the matter: > [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/109 "2019-08-17T21:46:49Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/110 "2019-08-17T21:48:49Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![sps49sd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sps49sd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sps49sd)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/111 "2019-08-18T06:21:06Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/112 "2019-08-18T11:29:39Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/113 "2019-08-18T12:45:32Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/114 "2019-08-18T12:57:39Z")
Also wearing ICE electronic-monitoring anklets while working is pretty good evidence for ICE. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/115 "2019-08-18T16:12:37Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > 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](https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2018/06/q_a_how_illegal_immigrants_ski.html) article that seems to address a lot of the OP: > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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.” > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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.’ " > [@](#): > > 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. > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/116 "2019-08-18T22:37:56Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/117 "2019-08-18T23:30:13Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > 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?_ ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2019, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/118 "2019-08-19T09:35:21Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324a) ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2019, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/119 "2019-08-19T10:25:52Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > 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](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324a) “ **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. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2019, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/120 "2019-08-19T10:32:22Z")
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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728.md?page=7)