I think that if the employee has come around with three different Social Secuirty cards with different names, I don’t think you would be successfully sued if you said no thanks the fourth time.
Personally, my position is that no one should have been arrested. Trying to get the employers arrested too seems to be moving in the wrong direction.
And how often did that actually happen?
You know they have more than a SS card, they also have a photo ID. If I were to say, “No, you look like a guy I had to let go last week, and even though all of your documents are in order, and they seem to reasonably relate to you, I am going to deny employment anyway based on my suspicion that you are not authorized”, then I am the one in the wrong legally.
I think someone upthread mentioned being a flight risk: we already know who the employers are, we know where they live; we could look up plenty of stuff before that raid, as a matter of public record; the cops can presumably collect that guy at will, if the evidence turns up, by just showing up at the house where his mortgage payment matches his SSN or whatever. If this story ends with the authorities learning that it was done knowingly, then it can presumably lead right into a feel-good story where the guy’s name and face are broadcast when he’s arrested.
But if half of the employees picked up in the raid did turn out to be illegal aliens (and a solid tip, or something, to that effect sparked the raid), then it’s maybe not as easy to say we should’ve raided the place for mere info today and then collected those illegal aliens next week; we don’t know who they are beforehand, and collecting them a week later is a weird challenge if they’re, uh, undocumented.
Even leaving that aside: as far as I can tell we had enough evidence and a good reason to round up various employees right then; and we can readily round up the employers as soon as there’s enough evidence (a) not just that illegal aliens were working there but that (b) the employers knew about it.
I’m not asking, here, for conclusive evidence. I’m asking: is there any evidence that this was done knowingly? Because if it wasn’t done knowingly, then near as I can tell the employer hasn’t actually broken a law yet and so shouldn’t be arrested yet.
Mental states like “knowingly” are usually proved by circumstantial evidence, but in a case like this one, there may also be a chance of getting more direct evidence. I agree with what has been said about arrests not typically happening at the same time that the warrants are served. White-collar cases are often worked for a while to see what evidence they have, and what they can get from lower level people. So after analyzing the evidence they have, the feds might start talking to the hiring staff who reviewed the documents for I-9 forms. If they hear that those people were pressured from higher up not to reject any documents, or that the hiring staff told higher ups about problems with workers not being verifiable, or worries about ICE raids, then you start to have direct evidence of a knowing mental state. Maybe the higher ups also rejected proposals for improving the verification system. Combine that with any prior enforcement action revealing a high number of workers who were ineligible to work, and I think you’d have a very strong case against whichever higher ups were involved. (And might be able to work those into evidence against people higher up still). There is also the much less satisfying possibility that the feds could charge the company itself with crimes. That would just result in fines, most likely – and resignations, presumably.
On the topic of what mental state ought to apply – there are two in between knowingly and strict liability that could easily make it simpler to get employers without removing a mental state requirement altogether: recklessness and criminal negligence. Both of those would eliminate an ignorance defense that is based on just turning a blind eye. Failing to take reasonable steps, or to make sure the steps were being followed might be enough, at least if you also knew you were likely to have lots of ineligible applicants.
Finally, just my personal opinion – ICE should not focus on detaining workers in these scenarios. If you want to enforce these laws, the most effective thing to do is will be to make employers do their part well. And perhaps the mental state should be lowered to recklessness or criminal negligence. If you consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that your company is hiring ineligible workers, or even if you just fail to take reasonable steps to prevent that, I think that ought to be enough. I agree that the current laws and policies seem to put all of the onus on the workers, who have the least power in the system.
Except they weren’t treated accordingly - the peons were rounded up and put in detention, the managers and owners weren’t. Guess rank really does have its privileges, like being able to break the law without consequences.
Arrest all the brown people even if half of them turn out to be legal residents or citizens who did nothing wrong.
All to ensure that other brown people who committed the crime of working at a job without the right paperwork can’t get away.
And what about the case that they may have been required to not reject any documents because that is the law?
Tough cookies.
Hiring someone not authorized to work in the US is a crime. Belief has nothing to do with it, it’s the law.
If they had gone into the employee files, and arrested any manager that signed off on a fraudulent I-9, would that satisfy your need to see people handcuffed here?
Belief has everything to do with it. If you 'believe" that they are not legal, yet they have documents that reasonably seem to relate to them, by denying employment, you are breaking the law.
If someone presents proper documents, and they reasonably appear to relate to that individual, what would your next step be in verifying their authorization status?
Cite? I see where the law spells out the “knowingly” part; am I maybe looking in the wrong section? By all means, show me what you’re seeing.
If they didn’t go after the companies yet because they’re not a flight risk, then why did they go after the employees? Illegal aliens are the exact opposite of a flight risk. You want them to leave the country. Them leaving the country is the optimal outcome.
At least, that’s if you believe the purported reason for the laws. If the real reason is that you just want to oppress brown people by whatever means possible, then you’d do exactly what ICE did here.
That is not the law. They are required to examine documents to determine if they reasonably appear to be genuine, and relate to the employee. If an HR person is raising questions about documents, and her boss tells her to drop it and accept whatever is presented, then her boss is ordering her to break the law (and is also breaking the law.)
Oh, I agree with that. Like I said, I don’t think that anyone should have been arrested, as no one broke any laws that I would endorse.
I just object to the idea that in order to be fair, they should have arrested the managers and owners as well, that’s going in the wrong direction.
Sounds like a damn fine start, though obviously further investigation would be merited if there was reason to think that the decision to break the law was handed down from above.
ETA: Oh, and to be clear I don’t think that people should be arrested for the fun of it. Arresting should only happen for a reason, and “substantiated suspicion of committing a crime” sounds like a valid reason to arrest somebody to me. (“Having brown skin” not being a substantiated reason.)
The hell you say - these are the guys renting corporate jets and taking foreign vacations, yes?
If they’re not fleeing it because they know that under the current administration they are highly unlikely to be arrested in the first place. That would be a problem if a couple of them were arrested - the rest would flee like scattering geese because they have the resources to do just that.
I know in at least a couple instances that the big wigs were at corporate headquarters in another state, but I don’t see that as an obstacle to the Federal government enforcing Federal law, and immigration law is Federal.
Depends on what kinds of questions they are raising. If they are raising questions like, “This appears to be drawn with a crayon”, then I agree. If they are raising questions like, “I’d rather see a birth certificate than a SS card”, then they are breaking the law.
As what you cited says
So, unless there are reasonable questions, then raising them is against the law.
Okay, so the people who would be arrested would be your low level managers who have no choice but to accept documentation that is reasonably genuine and relating to the employee.
No upper management, no owners. Only people who did their jobs according to the law.
That seems to be how we handle drug violations in poor and minority neighborhoods in this country, and apparently how we’re now handling suspected immigration offenses, so… why not?
Maybe it would prompt a change in how “strict liability” suspects are handled that would be an overall positive change.
You know, if someone passes a fake piece of currency where I work we don’t get to say “whoops! - convincing counterfeit, pass it on!”. We have to turn those puppies in to the bank and we take the loss. It’s a risk. Maybe if there were actual punishment for this sort of thing the hiring people would actually look carefully at the ID’s presented. If, say, 1% slip through (scattered all over a company, not concentrated in one plant or department) give the employer a pass but if you get over a certain amount no, it’s not an accident. Someone is trying to cheat.