ICE Raids: Why Weren't Employers Arrested, Too?

[Ruken]

@D_Anconia

Why not? That’s pretty much how Great Debates works.

Because people who are ignorant about the basics* and* who take more time asking than it would take to punch
Mississippi e verify
into Google are highly unlikely to have anything remotely useful to contribute to the conversation. Best not to encourage participation.

[Wrenching_Spanners]

@eschrodinger

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.

Thank you for pointing out the difference between the two warrants and the probable cause requirements.

[Cheesesteak]

@k9bfriender

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.

There were 650 agents involved in this operation. Presumably one of them could have looked up the head of HR on Linkedin.

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.

I decided to look something up. It’s interesting and rather enlightening on how this whole process works.

Prior to this, the largest “single state” enforcement action was at Howard Industries, approximately 600 employees were arrested, most of them deported and a few charged with identity theft. Exactly one executive was charged with a crime. He pled guilty as did the company to an 8 year long conspiracy with

@ICE

In pleading guilty, the corporation admitted there was a conspiracy to encourage and induce illegal aliens to reside in the United States, even though the corporation knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that these illegal aliens lived here in violation of the law. The conspiracy also involved Howard Industries’ concealing, harboring, and shielding from detection illegal aliens, knowing and in reckless disregard of the fact that such illegal aliens had come to, entered, or remained here in the United States in violation of law.

The upshot is the executive got 6 months house arrest and the company paid $2.5m in a fine.

An executive spends 8 years committing literally hundreds of crimes, and his punishment is 6 months in his own home. The company spends 8 years profiting off of an illegal low cost labor force and they pay a one time fine equal to $4,166 per illegal employee. This is what justice looks like under our system.

[Kearsen1]

@Odesio

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.

Does that say what I think it says? The right to terminate or continue employment is on the employer. So basically as long as E-verify is used it doesn’t matter what the result is.

Good to know

[doreen]

@Kearsen1

Does that say what I think it says? The right to terminate or continue employment is on the employer. So basically as long as E-verify is used it doesn’t matter what the result is.

Good to know

I think that’s poor wording- I thought sounded strange, so I looked for more information. And everything I found says that the employer **must **terminate if the employee doesn’t contest the TNC or if the query results in a “Final Nonconfirmation” or face possible fines and penalties for knowingly continuing to employ an unauthorized worker - and the E-verify result is going to help prove the “knowingly” part.

** wanderer2575**, I’m not sure what you mean by this:

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.

If you mean an employee can sue for wrongful termination etc, and the company will have to pay a lawyer - that’s true for anything. You could refuse to hire someone because they can’t produce I-9 documents , they could claim it was discrimination and sue and the company still must hire a lawyer- the government doesn’t provide one. It’s not like the employee can truthfully say “I was fired because I chose to not contest the TNC” and win.

[Odesio]

@Kearsen1

Does that say what I think it says? The right to terminate or continue employment is on the employer. So basically as long as E-verify is used it doesn’t matter what the result is.

Good to know

I’m not a lawyer and I don’t always think to write in legalese but given the context of the discussion I thought my intent was clear. Good thing I’m not a lawyer I guess. The employer may face fines or other penalties if they continue to employ an individual after E-Verify shows they are not authorized to work in the United States.

[Sdowiat]

@bobot

So then why not just raid the offices and let production continue? The point, obviously, was to march all of the immigrants around.

No, only the immigrants who were employed there “Illegally”. The ones who were there legally were left completely alone.