# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![DirkHardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@DirkHardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkHardly)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/161 "2019-08-20T15:17:48Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > Quick question: What is the lowest level law enforcement action that involves a person suspected of a crime being brought into custody? I know the television terms are detained, brought in for questioning, and “arrested under suspicion”, but I’m not sure what the proper actual term is. > > Next question: What is the threshold of evidence required for probable cause for the above law enforcement action for illegal employment of unauthorised workers, and how is that threshold different than the threshold required for an ICE raid? > > My view is that if there is suspicion and evidence that a company is illegally employing dozens of unauthorised workers, enough suspicion and evidence to raid that company’s factory floor and detain all its floor workers, that should also provide probable cause for a custodial action against the company’s hiring managers. I understand people saying that’s not how it’s done. However, I think the people arguing for the executive “perp walks” would like to know why it can’t be done. If the police and agents involved in the Mississippi raids had wanted to also go after the hiring managers, could they legally have done so? If not, why not? Generally speaking, taking someone into custody constitutes an arrest and would have to predicated on probable cause. I gave a pretty common textbook definition in post #127. And since PC is the standard for a search as well, as far as I know, the ICE raids are conducted under a search warrant upon a showing of PC before a neutral magistrate etc. As far as what constitutes PC well you’re talking about a practically infinite set of facts and circumstances. The details are everything. We don’t know what evidence there was for illegal workers on the site but it’s trivially easy to imagine a fact patterns where there is PC to believe that people are present/working at the factory illegally while not providing PC to arrest the employer. Once again these are different offenses. The fact that they both involve immigration issues doesn’t mean a whole lot past a certain point. For instance, what if ICE discovered an identity theft/fraud ring and through testimony and physical evidence was able to trace certain individuals to the factory? How about just a simple but proven relaible informant who reports that people are working illegally at the factory but has no information as to whether the employer is aware or indicates that they have been duped by identify fraud? How would either of those scenarios in any way provide PC that the employer knowingly hired them while being aware of their ineligible status? It would certainly provide the opportunity to check employment records and see if that occurred as well but it is the initial raid that is “the foot in the door” to gather that evidence. And once you have identified someone as probably being illegally present/working their actual physical presence at the factory really goes a long way in verifying that suspicion. But even if is proven that illegal workers have been employed that doesn’t necessarily mean in and of itself that the employer did so knowingly. And without further evidence of that element and the criminal intent involved it alone seems generally unlikely to provide the “substantial likelihood” necessary for PC for that particular offense. Plus, if you suspect you might very well find more or better evidence of illegal hiring during the initial raid (where the PC was much easier to obtain) why would the prosecutors not wait to gather and examine that evidence before proceeding? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/162 "2019-08-20T16:08:16Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > Except it IS mandatory in Mississippi. And that law was not followed. And there’s still not a single white person arrested in connection to it. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/163 "2019-08-20T16:42:35Z")
I hope nobody here entertains a request for a cite for a 10-year-old law. ---
**Author:** ![DirkHardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@DirkHardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkHardly)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/164 "2019-08-20T17:33:06Z")
I’ll just leave this here since it pretty much echoes what I and others have been saying all along: > [@](#): > > Cliff Johnson, director of the MacArthur Justice Center, told The Washington Post that in his experience as a former federal prosecutor and criminal defense lawyer, such cases are time-consuming. > > “Federal agents no doubt seized servers, hundreds of personnel files and thousands of additional documents to be analyzed and considered by agents and federal prosecutors,” Johnson said. “The fact that no corporate officials were hauled out in handcuffs on the day of the raid is not the least bit surprising.” > **[Investigators believe five poultry companies violated immigration law, search...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/15/investigators-believe-five-poultry-companies-violated-immigration-law-search-warrants-say/)** > > Unsealed documents detail trove of evidence, including videotaped statements by managers indicating they knew many undocumented immigrants had been hired. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/165 "2019-08-20T17:54:32Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > So why hasn’t a Mississippi law enforcement agency (local police, county sheriff) gone after the law breakers? I don’t qwhite know. The search warrants were issued after affidavits stating that company officials knew they were hiring illegal workers. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Cite? [http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2008/html/SB/2900-2999/SB2988PS.htm](http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2008/html/SB/2900-2999/SB2988PS.htm) ---
**Author:** ![DirkHardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@DirkHardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkHardly)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/166 "2019-08-20T18:07:12Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > I don’t qwhite know. The search warrants were issued after affidavits stating that company officials knew they were hiring illegal workers. Really? You don’t quite know? Numerous valid factual and legal reasons have been given repeatedly by multiple people in this thread. What else exactly are you looking for that would answer that question to your satisfaction? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/167 "2019-08-20T18:19:00Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > I hope nobody here entertains a request for a cite for a 10-year-old law. Why not? That’s pretty much how Great Debates _works_. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/168 "2019-08-20T19:00:06Z")
Johnson said. “The fact that no corporate officials were hauled out in handcuffs on the day of the raid is not the least bit surprising.” I agree, it isn’t surprising. The US Attorney has a [Press Conference](http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2019/aug/07/us-attorney-mississippi-aliens-employers-were-comi/). He says > [@](#): > > For those who take advantage of illegal aliens, to those who use illegal aliens for competitive advantage or to make a quick buck, we have something to say to you. If we find that you have violated federal criminal law, we’re coming after you Tough words. Yet he just conducted the biggest immigration raid in years and arrested 0 people who “take advantage of illegal aliens” and 680 of the people being “taken advantage of”. ---
**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 20, 2019, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/169 "2019-08-20T21:16:09Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Johnson said. “The fact that no corporate officials were hauled out in handcuffs on the day of the raid is not the least bit surprising.” > > I agree, it isn’t surprising. > > The US Attorney has a [Press Conference](http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2019/aug/07/us-attorney-mississippi-aliens-employers-were-comi/). He says Tough words. Yet he just conducted the biggest immigration raid in years and arrested 0 people who “take advantage of illegal aliens” and 680 of the people being “taken advantage of”. Of course, you left out the context of that quote, which explains WHY there were 0 arrests at the time, or at least presents a logical explanation for why that MIGHT be the case. Not sure if you did so because you didn’t read the rest, didn’t understand the point or were just being a bit deceptive by not actually quoting the key parts of the quote and just quoting one isolated and context free part of it. I assume you know folks can scroll up, so it must be one of the first two. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/170 "2019-08-20T21:20:11Z")
> [@galen\_ubal](#): > > Part of it is, I suppose, the nature of corporations. It’s awfully hard to pin anything on any one person. Corporations themselves can be prosecuted and charged with criminal activity. ---
**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 20, 2019, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/171 "2019-08-20T21:33:17Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Johnson said. “The fact that no corporate officials were hauled out in handcuffs on the day of the raid is not the least bit surprising.” > > I agree, it isn’t surprising. > > The US Attorney has a [Press Conference](http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2019/aug/07/us-attorney-mississippi-aliens-employers-were-comi/). He says Tough words. Yet he just conducted the biggest immigration raid in years and arrested 0 people who “take advantage of illegal aliens” and 680 of the people being “taken advantage of”. Who should have been arrested and perp walked at this time? Until an investigation is done, then they would just be randomly arresting people who may not have anything to do with the hiring process. The CEO’s are probably not even on site. They broke any laws, then sure, they need their day in court, but this really sounds to me like it is looking to salve outrage, rather than actually attempt to get justice. One question, would you rather see the CEO’s and managers that happened to be on site arrested and perp walked, or would you rather see no one at all get arrested, and everyone just keep doing their jobs? ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/172 "2019-08-20T21:44:37Z")
I wonder who profits from this raid. Maybe a competing chicken meat processing company leaned on ICE to hurt its competition? ---
**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 20, 2019, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/173 "2019-08-20T21:57:50Z")
> [@Maastricht](#): > > I wonder who profits from this raid. > > Maybe a competing chicken meat processing company leaned on ICE to hurt its competition? I wouldn’t be surprised if it comes out that few if any people at the plant are arrested, as it comes out that they were cooperating with ICE. It wasn’t that long ago that the plant lost some discrimination lawsuits. This raid gets rid of some of the “troublemakers”, and also cautions other workers to not assert their rights too much in the future. ---
**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 20, 2019, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/174 "2019-08-20T22:14:02Z")
One other example of how the existence of a search warrant does not mean that a person can automatically be arrested at the same time: a search warrant requires probable cause to believe 1. That evidence of a crime will be found; 2. In the specified location. Notice what is missing? Nowhere does it say who committed the crime. An arrest requires probable cause to believe that this person committed a crime. So, if the FBI knows that someone (they don’t know who) hacked a bank server and stole $1 million, they could presumably get a warrant to search for and seize the server, because it is evidence of a crime. And no one would expect an arrest, because they are still investigating to find out who did it. Here, the feds need to look at all of the evidence they have, develop more by talking to people, and then decide who to charge. Maybe they wind up finding evidence going all the way to the top, and get indictments against the highest officers of the company, and lots of others. Or, maybe the trail leads to a mid-level person who was profiting off of creating ghost workers, but those higher up were kept out of the loop, and only some of the lower HR staff were in on the fraud. They seized all that evidence for a reason. And I will again emphasize that one of the best sources of evidence about who knew what will be testimony from people involved. Which will get developed over time, and often via plea deals. So they might start with a person who signed some forms that they could go after because of the documents involved, but they’ll want to know what that person knows about the next levels up in management. Could they make an arrest of someone at the company the day the warrants were served? It depends on what evidence they already had, but maybe. But they would almost certainly harm the prosecution case by doing it. The federal law enforcement is no doubt working with Assistant US Attorneys to build the strongest cases they can. That means going slower. Also, I suspect ICE was in charge of the part involving arresting/detaining workers. And the FBI and Assistant US Attorneys are likely in charge of prosecuting the corporate actors. It reads to me kind of like, if the FBI raided a bar for organized crime records, but partnered with local police so the police would sweep up all the drunk drivers who cleared out of the bar. (I’m not equating unauthorized aliens with drunk drivers – just comparing a relatively lesser offense to larger ones that require more investigation.) I said it before, but I don’t think sweeping up and deporting all the workers should be a focus. I suppose they may have needed to make a record of who was unauthorized, but the brunt of this crime, if it’s going to be prosecuted, should be borne by employers in my view. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2019, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/175 "2019-08-21T00:58:06Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > I hope nobody here entertains a request for a cite for a 10-year-old law. Why not? A Local state that that supersedes a Federal law? Yep, i wanna see that. ---
**Author:** ![wanderer2575](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/2acd7d/32.png) [@wanderer2575](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wanderer2575)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2019, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/176 "2019-08-21T01:51:09Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Why not? A Local state that that supersedes a Federal law? Yep, i wanna see that. Lots of state and local laws supersede federal law, if they’re more advantageous to the employee. For example, state or local laws mandating a higher minimum wage than the $7.25 mandated by federal law. As for mandated E-Verify use, except in a few circumstances specified in executive orders (e.g. employees of government agencies, employees of private companies contracting to provide goods and/or service to government agencies), no federal law requires or prohibits its use. A state law requiring employer use of E-Verify isn’t superseding anything. But you say you wanna see the cite for a 10-year-old law? It’s Mississippi SB (Senate Bill) 2988, signed into law 03/17/2008. ---
**Author:** ![wanderer2575](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/2acd7d/32.png) [@wanderer2575](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wanderer2575)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2019, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/177 "2019-08-21T02:07:16Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > PDF: [https://www.e-verify.gov/sites/default/files/everify/data/FindingsEVerifyAccuracyEval2012.pdf](https://www.e-verify.gov/sites/default/files/everify/data/FindingsEVerifyAccuracyEval2012.pdf) > > “A 2012 audit commissioned by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) division of the Department of Homeland Security, which maintains E-Verify, found that the system had erroneously cleared nearly half of unauthorized workers because of document fraud.” > > But yes if employers aren’t using it despite state requirements, it’s going to do even less. Only a couple states require its use, which one can argue doesn’t help. But the more basic problem is that federal law, and most states’ laws, provide no protection to an employer firing an employee after E-Verify returns a nonconfirmation. An employer has protection if it fires an employee unable to produce documents to complete Form I-9; the law says the employee can’t be hired without it. Not so with E-Verify. If that fired employee sues the employer for wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, etc., that employer is on its own to defend itself. I imagine that makes employers very wary of taking adverse action of nonconfirmations. I wouldn’t be surprised if employer use of E-Verify is more about being able to point to all the positive confirmation results as evidence of their good-faith effort to be vigilant. ---
**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 21, 2019, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/178 "2019-08-21T03:27:54Z")
> [@wanderer2575](#): > > But the more basic problem is that federal law, and most states’ laws, provide no protection to an employer firing an employee after E-Verify returns a nonconfirmation. An employer has protection if it fires an employee unable to produce documents to complete Form I-9; the law says the employee can’t be hired without it. Not so with E-Verify. If that fired employee sues the employer for wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, etc., that employer is on its own to defend itself. I imagine that makes employers very wary of taking adverse action of nonconfirmations. I wouldn’t be surprised if employer use of E-Verify is more about being able to point to all the positive confirmation results as evidence of their good-faith effort to be vigilant. An employer cannot take adverse action based on a _tentative_ non-confirmation (TNC) result in E-Verify. When an employer receives a TNC they generally follow these steps: 1. Make sure the information entered on section 2 of the Form I-9 matches the numbers on the documents provided by the employee. (This is often the source of TNCs.) 2. E-Verify provides a nice little sheet the employer gives to the employee. The employer tells the employee that there is a problem with their employment authorization and gives them two options: Contact USCIS to resolve the issue or choose not to context the non-confirmation result. If option two is chosen the employer can terminate. The sheet includes a place for the employer and employee to sign. 3. Wait for E-Verify to notify you that the case has been resolved or the employee is not authorized to work. If the employee is not authorized to work you may terminate them. An employer who can show that they followed all the steps required of them in E-Verify will need not worry about taking adverse action based on the results received from the government. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2019, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/179 "2019-08-21T03:28:20Z")
> [@wanderer2575](#): > > If it is mandatory in Mississippi, that’s state law, not federal. ICE has no jurisdiction to go after an employer for failure to comply with state law. If the state doesn’t want to enforce its law, that’s on the state. ICE can choose not to cooperate with local authorities in investigating and prosecuting those who break the law. Would that make Mississippi a sanctuary state for people who choose to hire undocumented workers? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2019, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728/180 "2019-08-21T03:29:55Z")
> [@wanderer2575](#): > > … > > But you say you wanna see the cite for a 10-year-old law? It’s Mississippi SB (Senate Bill) 2988, signed into law 03/17/2008. **Chisquirrel** already cited it, in case you didnt see that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-raids-why-werent-employers-arrested-too/838728.md?page=10)