home

Immigration Raids: 1,000 ICE Agents Hit Greeley, CO

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:11:50 PM EST
Tags: immigration raids (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Can it really take 1,000 federal agents to arrest undocumented workers at one meat-packing plant? According to the Washington Post, the answer is yes:

About 1,000 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents with search warrants entered plants owned by Swift & Co., of Greeley, Colo., charging that "large numbers" of workers illegally assumed the identities of U.S. citizens or legal residents by using their Social Security numbers to get work, ICE officials said.

Company and union officials said agents, some dressed in riot gear, locked down six beef and pork processing plants early in the morning, segregating workers into groups of citizens and non-citizens after questioning. Some illegal workers were bused to detention facilities hours away, labor officials said.

This was big news in Colorado today. 9News (KUSA) set up a hotline for families of those seized so they could find out if their loved one was among those herded up like cattle and whisked off to detention facilities.

The Government is claiming this is an identity fraud mission. Baloney. These workers didn't make the documents, they purchased them. A subpoena or search warrant on the employer would have yielded the documents and then they could have gone after those who provided them.

This is America?

From the Denver Post:

More than 100 relatives, friends and Greeley-area residents with ties to Swift workers gathered just outside a chain-link and barbed wire fence surrounding the plant. Some of them held signs: "Don t take my parents at Christmas", "Presents not tears at Christmas", "Tears and fear: Immigration is here" and "We are a compassionate people!"

< Court: Skilling Must Report to Jail Immediately | Christmas Trees Return to Seattle Airport >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Immigration Raids: 1,000 ICE Agents Hit Greeley, CO | 88 comments (88 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Those with accents denied due process (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Dave Barrett on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:48:58 AM EST
    I have talked to people with relatives who worked at the raided Swift plant in Marshalltown, Iowa.  When the workers were separated into groups of legals and illegals it was done, by necessity, on the basis of appearence and accent -- since any documentation that the workers might have had on them was suspect.  The group who were suspected illegals, including some citizens and legal residents, were put in chains and told to phone home to have someone bring documentation proving their legality.
      This is illegal, of course.  Hispanics in this country, especially if they speak English with an accent, are being denied due process and considered guilty until they prove their innocence.  
      You may say that in the current situation with an estimated 10 million illegal immigrants, most of them Hispanic, that we cannot afford to give due process to Hispanic citizens and legal residents.  Well then, at the very least we need to amend the oath that elected officials take to uphold the Constitution.  Perhaps we can change it to have them say "I will uphold the Constitution of the United States except when dealing with Hispanics with an accent."

    Dave - I have a certain amount (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:50:08 AM EST
    of sympathy, but how else would you do it?

    Let everyone go and tell them to show up with proof?

    Now that would work well. (sarcasm alert)

    It appears to me that by holding them for a reasonable period of time to allow them to bring proof is a commonsense reasonable thing to do.

    The real truth here is that this is the result of allowing huge numbers of illegal aliens into the country.

    Parent

    Commonsenseless. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:39:13 AM EST
    holding them for a reasonable period of time to allow them to bring proof

    Now that would be be a nice trick. What are they, magicians? They can be in two places at once?

    Innocent till proven guilty? Naaaaah. Other way round, right Jim?

    I have a certain amount of sympathy Heh. You're trying to make another funny?

    Parent

    edger (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:18:58 PM EST
    It may shock you to find this out but the police can arrest and hold you for a certain amount of time before they charge you.

    During this time they can investigate further. If they allow you to have someone else bring proof of your innocence that seems fair to me.

    Parent

    And it could have waited til after Xmas (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:30:56 AM EST
    The official line (from the WAPO article):

    Company and union officials said agents, some dressed in riot gear, locked down six beef and pork processing plants early in the morning, segregating workers into groups of citizens and non-citizens after questioning.

    The truth (from you talking with people with relatives working at the plant):

    the workers were separated into groups of legals and illegals it was done, by necessity, on the basis of appearence and accent

    The raid was a blatant epispode of racism, and probable intentional fearmongering, under the cover of enforcing immigration law.

    And it could have waited til after Xmas. They could still have been working there, and the company would still have been operating. Creating some hardship and misery at Xmas was obviously part of it.

    "do unto others, blah, blah, blah, blah..." while "celebrating' the birth of Jesus.

    Jesus.

    Parent

    No again (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:27:00 PM EST
    Uh, no. If the illegals were not available, tne employers could not lower wages.

    Now, I grant you that if the jobs weren't available the illegals would be here in smaller numbers, which is the reason I favor shutting down the borders and putting employers in jail.

    And this statement is obviously incorrect:

    the workers were separated into groups of legals and illegals it was done, by necessity, on the basis of appearence and accent

    How can you tell an illegal  mexican vs a legal immigrant mexican using appearance and acent?

    And if you can miss Xmas, don't do the crime.

    Parent

    She was just askin' for it (none / 0) (#82)
    by Sailor on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:09:14 PM EST
    If the illegals were not available, tne employers could not lower wages.
    Of course! ... the rich folks seeking further profits weren't to blame, it was all them dam poor hungry folks that was just trying to put food on their families! Of course.

    Parent
    Lock up the employers (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Kevin Hayden on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:32:36 AM EST
    Who benefits? The employer, who should also be arrested. Put a few plant mangers and BOD members in jail and they'll start policing themselvds.

    The immigrants don't lower the wages, the employers do. Only when I see real efforts to jail the employers will I find it acceptable to also go after the immigrants. Anything else is a class-based system, which is morally wrong and legally biased.

    I don't know if this particular employer is guilty of anything. But thousands of others are and aren't being prosecuted.

    And pulling aside the legal immigrants in the sweep is wholly unacceptable. It points to poor policicing and is blatantly racist.

    Kevin (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:34:54 PM EST
    Again. If the labor is not available, the price won't drop. That's standard economics, supply and demand and the basis for all labor payment or purchasing apples.

    Now, are the employers taking advantage. You bet they are, and that's why I favor putting them in jail. And closing the border. All at the same time.

    Parent

    The captives were sorted by skin color (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by scribe on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:30:42 PM EST
    in the Utah raid.  Light-skinned persons were presumed citizens, and got blue bracelets to ID them as such, while darker-skinned persons were presumed non-citizens.

    Of course, that resulted in at least one citizen with dark skin being swept up into the non-citizen line.

       If only for a few minutes, Maria felt like an "illegal alien" in her homeland - the United States of America.
        She thought she was going on break from her job at the Swift & Co. meat processing plant here on Tuesday, but instead she and others were forced to stand in a line by U.S. immigration agents. Non-Latinos and people with lighter skin were plucked out of line and given blue bracelets.
        The rest, mostly Latinos with brown skin, waited until they were "cleared" or arrested by "la migra," the popular name in Spanish for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), employees said.
        "I was in the line because of the color of my skin," she said, her voice shaking.  "They're discriminating against me. I'm from the United States, and I didn't even get a blue bracelet."
        Maria was one of hundreds of plant employees targeted by federal agents. But she and her husband were the lucky ones - later Tuesday, they returned home to their three sons.

    While Maria and her husband were sent home, presumably because they were able to "prove" their legality, one is compelled to wonder exactly what happened to all those carried off to "undisclosed locations"....

        Women were crying as they were handcuffed with plastic ties and put on the buses. Some weren't allowed to get their belongings from their lockers. Maria, who declined to use her last name, argued with an agent because she was getting the coat for her 34-year-old niece, Blanca, who was arrested.
        "She [the agent] told me, 'Do you think it's going to be cold in Mexico?'" Maria said, holding back tears. "I've never seen people get treated como animales."

    Well, when you turn their treatment over to federal agents, they get treated worse than animals.

    For Maria, it's not about immigration status, it's about "being brown."
    She said she hopes the authorities are not targeting Latinos.

    I think it's clear her hopes were dashed....

    jeralyn (4.50 / 2) (#3)
    by cpinva on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:51:57 AM EST
    it's a two pronged mission:

    1. secure the illegal immigrants, and question them as to the source of the false documents they presented to the employers.

    2. secure the false documents themselves from the employers. as well, i assume the employers will be on the hook too, since my professional experience has shown me that most of those fraudulent docs are obviously bogus, and the employer reasonably should have suspected.

    1,000 agents, for six plants? since you fail to really give us an idea of the size of the plants, i can't really judge whether that's overkill or not. however, given the size of most of the big packing plants i'm familiar with in my neck of the woods (smithfield, etc) 200 per might not be too many.

    i await "the rest of the story" to explain why this is such a horrible thing, which clearly, from the tenor of your comments, you think it is.

    i am curious: why is the enforcement of our immigration laws anathema to you?

    As for me.... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:11:28 AM EST
    I only see the "enforcement" coming down on the most powerless among us....

    I'll repeat what I said to jarober...Does "kicking the dog" make you feel good inside?  Do these working people really deserve chains and cages in your eyes?

    Parent

    "obviously bogus" (none / 0) (#13)
    by roy on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:16:49 AM EST
    What fake documents would the employer have on hand?  I've had to show a state ID (and maybe an SS card, it's been a while) to start work, but those aren't particularly hard to fake, and the employer only kept a black & white photocopy anyway.

    The documentation requirements are very different for people working on a visa, but presumably the workers and their document suppliers went with the easier route and faked citizenship.  The article doesn't specify.

    Parent

    Illegal employment (none / 0) (#32)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:20:04 AM EST
    cpinva, I think you're right on about this, including your desire to wait and see if the amount of agents used was reasonable.

    First, it is illegal to use fake ID. That is identity fraud for which people must be held liable, be that white, black, hispanic, or any of the various other categories we've created for ourselves.

    Second, it is illegal to create and sell fake ID. That is also identity fraud and it is to be hoped that ICE is trying to find these folks too, regardless of their race or ethnicity.

    Third, it is illegal to knowingly employ illegal immigrants. ICE should be taking a good look at Swift to ensure that it has followed the law.

    There is nothing wrong with the nature or timing of these raids--with the exception that 1,000 agents sounds like quite a mobilization. This type of raid has been conducted and upheld by the courts on more than one occasion.

    Furthermore, claiming that laws should be suspended until after the holidays is laughable because such an act gives law enforcement too much discretion about when to ignore law and it sets a terrible precedent as to the flexibility of criminal law.

    Not content to merely oppose the laws as they exist right now, some commenters here seem to think that law enforcement should have the discretion to ignore criminal laws in respect for religious and secular holidays. I disagree. Law enforcement should not tailor its activities to respect the holiday enjoyment of criminals.

    Finally, criminal law itself is neutral as to the time of year in which some acts are criminal. Attempting to adjust the law so as to exempt holidays (or whole holiday seasons in this case) from acts of law enforcement would be the same as offering a "get out of jail free" card for certain criminal acts during certain times of year. Notwithstanding, that tailoring laws for holidays is bound to end up in another fight over the Establishment Clause.

    Parent

    They're (none / 0) (#34)
    by aw on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:20:50 PM EST
    some criminals.  Bah humbug.

    Parent
    Yeah! (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:37:43 PM EST
    Put bars on the windows....barricade the doors...

    The meatpackers are on the loose!!!  It's a regular crime wave!!!...lol

    Parent

    It's just a little illegal? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:07:56 PM EST
    It's difficult to determine if you are opposed to enforcing the law for "little" crimes or just opposed to enforcing the law through the use of handcuffs and holding cells.

    Either way, I disagree with you. I'm in favor of enforcing laws and I'm not opposed to using handcuffs and holding cells to do it.

    Parent

    Then (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by aw on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:14:21 PM EST
    why aren't you agitating for going after the criminal-in-chief?  Why not start at the top instead of the bottom.

    Parent
    They're not... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:19:11 PM EST
    ...so defenseless at the top, aw. Gabriel needs some easy targets to cut his teething on.

    Parent
    When did you stop beating your wife? (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:12:10 PM EST
    aw, I could ask you why you seem to be agitating for going after the criminal-in-chief rather than other crimes. Why not start at the bottom instead of the top?

    The answer to the issue you raise (if not your question which suffers from a false dichotomy) is that we should go after all criminals, not just the bottom and not just the top, but both and every criminal in between.

    It's ICE's job to worry about immigration crimes. It's not their job to prosecute "criminals-in-chief." I'm not sure why you have the idea that ICE should wait to do its job until such time as someone else (who?) does theirs. That seems like nonsense.

    Parent

    Gabe (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:25:56 PM EST
    It took you all day just to find two points to miss?

    And they were the same point, Gabe.

    Parent

    Allow me to clarify.... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:36:33 PM EST
    I'd get the "little crimes" that aren't really crimes off the books to alleviate some of this confusion as to who needs to be chained and caged.  The word "criminal" has lost all its bite when it is used to describe Jose the underpaid meat packer or Kdog the reefer smoker.

    Give me a week and I'll get the list of crimes down from several dictionary sized volumes to a pamphlet.

    Parent

    Kdog, he's just... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:10:46 PM EST
    ...practicing his law studenting idea of impartial jugdeship, dreaming of some day in a galaxy far far away being nominated for the supreme court by his fantasy of a supreme ruler over the land.

    IOW... he's just a little stuck, you know? ;-)

    Parent

    Americans For Filthy Barracks (1.00 / 2) (#2)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:32:17 AM EST
    Relax. Bush is on your side, supporting illegal immigration just as much as "liberals" do. These raids are almost certainly just for show and a tactic to get the "comprehensive" "reform" he wants.

    And, bear in mind that those who oppose raids such as this are automatically supporters of illegal immigration and all of its associated abuses. The only way to prevent illegal immigration - and those associated abuses - is by enforcing our laws, which frequently means conducting immigration raids. In other words, there is no magical way to oppose both illegal immigration and immigration raids.

    Another recent raid highlights some of those abuses that illegal immigration supporters support:

    The man who hired him was a private contractor, and the free room turned out to be in barracks owned by Crider. Inside the filthy two-bedroom units, men and women sleep on mattresses on the floor and toilets overflow. Crider officials said they plan to shut the barracks. The barracks used to be filled with illegal immigrants. Now the tenants are all African-Americans.

    Liberals support humane conditions and treatment (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:50:54 PM EST
    Those who support treating illegals like sh*t are those who carried out these raids and the EMPLOYERS who treated them as such.  No liberal -- NO LIBERAL -- supports the exploitation of workers, much less undocumented workers scapegoated on the alter of our gluttonous appetites for everything.

    Get your definitions straight.  Liberals support housing, decent wages, health care and education for the least among us.  

    Making up false positions while yapping out of your patooty doesn't qualify as logic or reason.

    Parent

    Your image is wrong (1.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jarober on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:07:29 AM EST
    In fact, they are criminals.  But then, TL continues to be baffled by the "illegal" part of "illegal alien".

    You're skipping. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:12:22 AM EST
    Time to get a new turntable, jarober.

    Parent
    Jarober.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:08:13 AM EST
    Does "kicking the dog" make you feel all warm and tingly inside?

    Do the men who pack and process our meats at half the wage they were making for the same job 20 years ago really deserve chains and cages in your eyes?

    Parent

    Kdog... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:40:43 AM EST
    jarober continues to be baffled by the "injustice" part of "racism".

    Parent
    Or.... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:47:29 AM EST
    just baffled in general:)

    Parent
    Heh! (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:50:16 AM EST
    You have gift... for stating the blatantly obvious. ;-)

    Parent
    Point (none / 0) (#52)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    out the racism please.

    Parent
    look at my comment #47 on this thread (none / 0) (#53)
    by scribe on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:02:56 PM EST
    the ICE agents sorted captives by skin color, OK?

    Racist enough for you?

    Parent

    Scribe (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:29:10 PM EST
    Racism? It's not happening. Nope. Librul fantasy.

    Parent
    nope: (none / 0) (#75)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:02:35 PM EST
    I consider racism the belief that one group is genetically superior or inferior to another.  Like I said, point out the racism.  

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:09:50 PM EST
    You wouldn't see it anyway.

    Parent
    Actions Wile... not beliefs. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:15:31 PM EST
    But you missed it the first 15 times too.

    Parent
    Wile (none / 0) (#54)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:28:02 PM EST
    Read Dave Barrett's comment # 5 also.

    Parent
    ICE (none / 0) (#1)
    by bronco214 on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:34:49 PM EST
    From what I know, this is the largest sweep since shrub has been in office. My guess is that Swift either didn't donate enough to the repugs or they donated too much to the Dems.

    These laws are being abused by politicians (none / 0) (#4)
    by plumberboy on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:43:48 AM EST
    The reason I think this is such a terrible tragedy is that these laws are being abused by politicians and goverment officals.The raid could've waited until after the holidays.The fact of the matter is a lot of illegals have being working here for many years not bothering anyone and no one seemed to care now all of sudden they want to ripe these people's lives apart,and we have to punish these people immediately and harshly cause they are such a great menace to our society.They are probably doing a job no one else would do for the wage there employer could afford.The fact most of the job's and services they fill Americans wouldn't do for that wage.These tough on crime right winger's are all about looking good they could care less about this country or the lives of people living in it,when their corporate buddies get caught it's all about compassion.

    Huh???? (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:56:23 AM EST
    The raid could've waited until after the holidays.

    Huh?? Should we also ignore other crimes?

    plumberboy, the meat packing industry used to be unionized and paid excellent wagdes. The availability of illegal aliens has destroyed these jobs and crippled the unions. In the meantime, meat prices have not come down and the rancher/farmer prices have not gone up.

    Who benefits? The employer, who should also be arrested. Put a few plant mangers and BOD members in jail and they'll start policing themselvds.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:30:33 AM EST
    The raid could've waited until after the holidays.

    Huh?? Should we also ignore other crimes?

    How about just ignoring and/or missing any other points made today too, Jim? Why should today be any different after all?

    Huh?

    Parent

    You're no liberal (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:06:37 AM EST
    edger - You are becoming the world's greast Yada Yad Yada...

    Now,try and show us you can read. Note the comment I quoted.

    Note it is wanting the raids put off until after the holidays.

    Note that I am pointing out the lack of logic.

    Note that I then point out the damage caused by illegal aliens to real live Americans who used to have jobs, unions that used to be able to represent the workers, and how neither the food grower or consumer benefits.

    As a person who is always crying about rights, I find it amusing that you are not concerned about them.

    But you are not. You are only concerned about the Left being in power, and your hatred of Bush. This is about nothing but politics to you.

    You're no more liberal than Bush.

    Parent

    I guess it was too hard a question. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:16:49 AM EST
    Why should today be any different after all?

    Apparently it's not going to be. ;-)

    Parent

    Oh, Edger (none / 0) (#36)
    by aw on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:30:09 PM EST
    Note that I then point out the damage caused by illegal aliens to real live Americans who used to have jobs, unions that used to be able to represent the workers, and how neither the food grower or consumer benefits.

    Can't you see how the illegals did this.  They busted up the unions.  I'm sure business tried to fight them on that, but the illegals are just too powerful.  And the food growers!  Those poor things, just powerless in the face of such an onslaught, when they always wanted to pay Americans at least the minimum wage.  What's a poor agribusiness to do?  

    Do you see the difference and the logic, Edger?  I  feel like such a fool now.


    Parent

    I keep trying, aw (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:24:00 PM EST
    But somehow I just can't seem to get it, no matter how may times ppj tries to explain it to me. I must be funda-mentally challenged, or something.

    Parent
    Grrrrrrrr (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:03:06 PM EST
    aw - I try and I try, but in your case, and in edger's, it may not be possible.

    Think of it this way.

    You have a business. You want to get rid of the workers. So you get rid of the workers.

    But there is no workers to replace them.

    Guess what. You're out of business.

    Parent

    Just can't get no (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by aw on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:33:17 PM EST
    satisfaction.

    Parent
    Think of it this way, Jim. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:59:18 PM EST
    You have a business competitor you want to get rid of. So think and you think and... ah ha! The workers! So you call in some favors and get rid of his workers!

    And there is no workers to replace them.

    Guess what? He's out of business!

    Pour me a drink, will you? We'll celebrate good ol' down home fair competition, rethug style.


    Parent

    edger - So you call in some favors.... (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:47:34 PM EST
    Well, you did post on how 9-11 was conducted according to a script.

    You have become so paranoid that you aren't rational.

    Parent

    Arresting the employers (none / 0) (#12)
    by roy on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:07:59 AM EST
    Who benefits? The employer, who should also be arrested. Put a few plant mangers and BOD members in jail and they'll start policing themselvds.

    From the article, it looks like the employer made a good faith effort to verify that the workers were legal.  They even participated in a voluntary program to get extra verification from the government.  The government failed to alert them to the fact that the workers were illegal.

    Arresting employers who make a reasonable effort is A) unjust on its face, and B) going to encourage employers to make unreasonable efforts like avoiding hiring anybody with an accent.

    Parent

    roy, you may be right. (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:10:48 AM EST
    But somehow I don't think Swift really busted their hump in this matter.

    And if you want to say the Feds didn't do thier part, I won't argue.

    That we need a federal ID card that is difficult to forge and difficult to get is obvious.

    We also need to put people who buy an illegal one or provide one, in jail for a long time.

    Parent

    Good faith? (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:14:57 AM EST
    Roy...really think so?  To me, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that, with the wages these plants pay, that their workforce will be predominantly illegal aliens.

    I think they went through the motions and turned a blind eye.

    Parent

    Know what happens when you assume? (none / 0) (#28)
    by roy on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:34:59 AM EST
    ... their workforce will be predominantly illegal aliens.

    Around 13,000 people work at those plants, and the feds arrested "hundreds".

    I think they went through the motions and turned a blind eye.

    You can read about their policies here, with the obvious caveat that this is what they say they do.  But then there's this:

    That greater scrutiny has its pitfalls. Swift settled Department of Justice charges several years ago that it more closely scrutinized job applicants who looked foreign and asked for additional documents from them.

    So the government leans on them for trying too hard, and now they've got people (not necessarily you) saying they should be arrested for not trying hard enough.  I'm glad I'm not a business owner.

    Parent

    Good points Roy.... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:00:40 AM EST
    I'm not saying without question the owners should be arrested, I just think if anybody should be arrested it should be the owner.

    If it's a choice between jailing Jose the Meatpacker and doing nothing...I'd rather the feds do nothing.

    I'm sure my working-class bias is showing...not the first time.

    Parent

    kdog - The wages didn't use to be low (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:49:55 PM EST
    and the working conditions bad.

    It is the use of illegal aliens that enabled the plants to break the unions and lower wages and benefits.

    Now you claim to be for the working guy. How about some symopathy for them and not the illegals and companies??

    Parent

    From the post (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:43:05 AM EST
    Baloney. These workers didn't make the documents, they purchased them.

    So the purchaser, knowing that the documents are fraudulent and illegal, have done no wrong??

    Wow - ;-)

    But..... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:17:29 AM EST
    people have to eat....If forged documents are what it takes to put food on the table, then that is what it takes to put food on the table.

    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#30)
    by sparky on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:09:52 AM EST
    You might want to rethink that statement. With that logic, commission of any crime is ok, so long as you have to eat. Somehow, I don't think too many people will go along with that notion.

    I am not in a position to say whether the government is just engaging in PR at the expense of illegals. It's certainly a possibility, though in that case the post-election timing seems odd. Nor do I think that corporations that engage in some form of conscious avoidance should be let off the hook. But I think there is a valid distinction between identity theft and working, and if it's a felony for citizens to buy ids stolen from other citizens I have a hard time seeing how there should be an exception for non-citizens. I also don't understand how seizing the bogus documents in the personnel files will lead to the sellers.

    Parent

    I'm cool with it.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:29:46 PM EST
    I guess I equate using a fake SS card to get a job in the same criminal category as jaywalking, performing oral sex in Alabama, or smoking a doobie....though technically a "crime", it's not the worst thing in the world and certainly does not warrant chains and a cage.

    I mean, these guys aren't armed and holding up liquor stores to feed their families...they are going to work.  I don't think we should chain people up for that....I'm weird that way.

    Parent

    iow, they had no choice? (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:39:53 PM EST
    I mean, these guys aren't armed and holding up liquor stores to feed their families...they are going to work.

    Of course they, generally, were/are very well able to go to work and "feed their families" in their own native countries, but chose to come here illegally anyway.

    Parent

    What do you think globalism is? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    You can't want a world where everyone is competing with everyone else for basic necessities, and then complain when that competition produces inevitable results -- that is, people who don't prevail in the competition.  When competition is all we have to offer, then those who don't "win" are simply forgotten.  

    Try to imagine a life other than the easy one you have.  Try really hard.

    Imagination is more important than knowledge, as Einstein astutely said.

    Parent

    It's that god damn.... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:14:50 PM EST
    human instinct to make a better life for yourself and your family...what to do about it?

    Not "no choice", but definitely a no-brainer.

    Parent

    Exactly, kdog... (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:28:35 PM EST
    ...and to continue on that slippery slope, I'll bet that could be one of Ken Lay's rationalizations for his illegal activities as well. Probably also for the guys who stole my CC# last summer. Etc.

    Jus' tryin' to make a better life, how can you fault someone for that?

    How do you decide where it ends?

    Parent

    Jose the Meatpacker to Ken Lay? (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:35:17 PM EST
    That slope is damn slippery.  I don't think Jose conned anybody out of their 401k, or stole anyones cc.  

     

    Parent

    Jus' (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:24:42 PM EST
    tryin' to make a better life, whether legal or illegal, how can you fault someone for that?

    Parent
    Better life (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:44:20 PM EST
    Jose the meat packer who just got dragged off the job in cuffs is working his arse off for a better life....Ken Lay stole for a better life (like it was so bad before he started stealing), the cc thief steals for it too.

    There is the difference...all Jose the meat packer did was hop a fence and use a phony piece of paper.  He earned every penny he got....can't say the same for the other 2 examples you gave.

    Parent

    iow, the difference (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:10:32 PM EST
    is that when kdog decides a criminal activity is OK because you're just trying for a better life, well then, it's OK. When kdog decides it's not, it's not. End of story.

    Nothing really to argue about, it's your opinion. I have a different one.

    btw, I agree with your comment above regarding overusing words such that they lose their bite.

    Kinda like reflexively slapping the word "racist" on someone who - in an industry that has essentially zero illegal immigrant black, white and Asian workers, but has many illegal immigrant Latino workers - makes a broad initial guess, subject to confirmation, as to a worker's legal immigration status based on whether they look black, white, Asian or Latino.

    Parent

    Disclaimer.... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:09:12 PM EST
    Absolutely...all in my humble opinion.  I should cut and paste it to all my comments:)  Humble and admittedly out there at times.

    Curious as to yours sarc...does Jose the meat packer deserve to be chained and caged in your opinion?  Is what he did so terrible in your eyes that he must be caged to protect the rest of us from harm?  Was a 1000 man raid a prudent action by our govt.?

    Am I reading you right, are you with Gabe on this?  Every arrestable offense in the massive volumes of criminal code...no matter how mundane, non-violent, or victemless is to be enforced equally with chains and cages?  

    We've all got our pet peeves...one of mine is the zeal in this country to slap the cuffs on people when it is not necessary.  I guess I give it more weight than most...in my mind it is severe.  And on the rise.

    Parent

    Can't you see what the long term effect is? (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:53:50 PM EST
    kdog - The point is that the illegal aliens are helping destroy middle class jobs. That means regular hard working americans are loosing the ability to support themselves and their families.

    Do you not understand that this leads to divorces, alcoholism, and violence?

    Can't you see what the long term effect is?

    Parent

    It's Jose's fault Daddy drinks too much? (none / 0) (#81)
    by roy on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:07:39 PM EST


    Parent
    kdog (none / 0) (#85)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:00:55 PM EST
    Whether you agree or not, the US's sovereignty - and every country's sovereignty - is important. Often vitally important.

    Compared to some, I've not travelled all that much, but I have been through Central and South America and much of Europe. All those nations were very adamant that foreigners enter their countries legally.

    imo, to suggest that we should not care much if/when millions of foreign nationals defy, disrespect, ignore, whatever, our country's sovereignty and travel 1000's of miles w/in our borders with impunity, is naive.

    I think someone who enters my (or any other) country illegally should be treated pretty much the same as someone who enters my home illegally - whether that person entered my home illegally to steal my 401k or CC#, or just to catch the latest episode of "The Office."

    Parent

    Thanks.... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:06:12 PM EST
    and yes we do disagree.

    Parent
    Jim at 6:56:23 (none / 0) (#26)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:59:33 AM EST
    Was that really you or is Andreas messing with me this morning? You had a lapse of reason there. Nice going!

    I absolutely agree. Organized workers and workplace enforcement will remove a significant incentive for illegal immigration to th US. Between what you opined and revalidating the SS ID system illegal immigration would become a non issue. There's just one problem. Business makes policy.

    I'm fairly neutral on the raids, but I would posit the following questions:

    I wonder how Swift will be punished? Maybe if I scour the back page of the Sunday business section for the next year, I'll find their slap on the wrist in a business brief.

    Where are these detention facilities and what are the conditions there? Yeah, I understand what ILLEGAL means (twits). Do you know what FAIRNESS and COMPASSION mean? (quick, get the blinders). How long will they be "detained"?

    How do we straighten out the issue of the SS ID system? With so many thefts or losses of our SS #'s, they seem rather irrelevant. I know that if someone wanted to steal my identity, it wouldn't be difficult. Fortunately my credit sucks so bad that even Capital(ist)One won't give me a card. But they send me an offer EVERY F***ING DAY!

    Aw shucks che (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:11:47 PM EST
    does this mean we do lunch??

    I think I have made the "employer" wrong point a bunch of times.... To lapse into psycho babble, what we have are two co-dependent enablers. Neither could not exist in their current state without the other.

    As for the ID, we need a national one that is very hard to duplicate.

    Capital(ist) One could do it in 15 minutes...

    Parent

    Roundup (none / 0) (#31)
    by Adams on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:16:21 AM EST
    This pushes immigration reform back to the front burner.  It will be interesting to see if Dems can exploit a very weak President who is closer to their view than to the whacko fringe, led by Tom Tancredo, in his own party.  Of course it's a human rights issue.  But it is also a very significant business issue.  Those of us who have criticized Ken Salazar as a DINO on other issues need to get behind him on this one.  The timing may be right.

    With a different perspective:

    Detaining large numbers of people for questioning and screening.  Using military tactics on citizens, legal residents, and illegals alike.  Overwhelming police show of numbers and potential force.  Denial of intent to terrorize and dehumanize:  We're only doing our public duty, enforcing the law.

    Weakening of habeas corpus protections, officially sanctioned torture, abrogation of obligations under Geneva Conventions and other treaties.

    Tick, tick, tick.

    Human Rights Issue? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Horace on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:11:43 PM EST
    Unless you're willing to challenge our immigration laws, laws consonant with all other Western nations, as violations of human rights, then I'd drop that argument if I were you.  Our immigration laws were enacted by our Congress who serve at the will of the people.  Our immigration laws are well-intentioned, as they are designed to deny immigrant status to those who would likely become wards of the state, i.e. partake of social benefits primarily designed for the poor.  This is a wise policy and has served us well.

    Those who would change the law to give exception to roughly 7 or 8 million Latinos are thoughtlessly putting the welfare of foreigners above the welfare of their fellow citizens.  No other Western nations have been so foolish, so why should we make that mistake?  While illegal aliens cannot legally partake of welfare benefits, except on behalf of birthright children, you'd be a fool to believe that the illegal alien advocacy groups wouldn't be happy to direct these people to their new citizenship benefits.  Latinos typically have large families, and would likely be eligible for supplemental income benefits, including Earned Income Tax Credits and food stamps.  Amnesty for illegal aliens would pose a cruel burden on the middle income taxpayer who would have to make up for the new burden.

    Parent

    Liberty and justice for some (none / 0) (#48)
    by aw on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:48:28 PM EST
    I'm from the United States, and I didn't even get a blue bracelet."

    When you're brown, your citizenship will always be in question in your own country.  And some people are okay with this.

    What should employers do? (none / 0) (#49)
    by roy on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:48:50 PM EST
    To those who say the employers should be held more accountable for knowingly employing illegal workers:

    What, specifically, should employers do to ensure that their workers are legal?

    WAR (none / 0) (#50)
    by atlanta lawyer on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:55:18 PM EST

    Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Wednesday the investigation uncovered a "disturbing front" in the war against illegal immigration

    I must have missed it.  Who declared "WAR" on illegal immigration? I'm having a hard time keeping up with all the WAR.  We're engaged in a WAR on drugs, we're in a WAR in Afganistan, WAR in IRAQ, both of which are apparently important in the GLOBAL WAR against terror, and a WAR for civilization, and now there is a WAR on illegal immigration?  (Though it seems we're no longer fighting the WAR on poverty.)  I was suprised that, after Katrina, Bush never declared WAR against hurricanes. (Tell me that makes less sense than a war on terror.)
    During WWII, many ordinary Americans had to sacrifice for the war effort.  All we have to give up is a little freedom, (several thousand lives), believe what they are telling us, not critique or ask tough questions, and we get not just one WAR, but . . . I've lost count. What a bargain! Don't worry, our grand children will foot the bills for all these WARS.

    Link (none / 0) (#51)
    by atlanta lawyer on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:56:42 PM EST
    Sorry,
    accidentally deleted the link

    http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Immigration

    Where's... (none / 0) (#57)
    by desertswine on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:10:33 PM EST
    They didn't happen to find Osama bin-Laden in Greeley, did they?

    Gas, Beef, and Pork (none / 0) (#65)
    by ding7777 on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:05:26 PM EST
    They said that the six plants involved in the raids make up all of the firm's beef processing capacity and 77 percent of its pork production.

    Within the tightly interconnected farm and meatpacking industries, there was concern Tuesday that the impact of the raids would quickly ricochet.

    "Any time you shut down a production facility, the supply starts getting backed up," said Bill Hammerich, chief executive of the Colorado Livestock Association in Greeley.

    "Producers can handle a week of down time, but beyond that we are dealing with a perishable product that is going to continue to put on weight, grow fatter and get marked down in price," he said.

    The Illinois Farm Bureau, citing trade sources, reported on its Web site that cattle and hogs were being turned away from the Swift plants, and that some cattle were "being reloaded and sent back to the feedlots."

    link to article

    ding (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:16:40 PM EST
    Too much supply is not unusual this time of year. The producer has to decide if they want to sell now, or feed the animals...

    I would guess that the future price of feed and energy is forecasted for a sharp rise..

    At least that's what farmes used to do...

    So this will just increase the problem...

    Parent

    Is there anything (none / 0) (#83)
    by Pancho on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:33:24 PM EST
    that we CAN do to fight illegal immigration and the associated crimes such as identity theft?

    Sure there is. (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 10:39:27 AM EST
    1. Jail the employers who knowingly use illegal aliens. This will mean a real effort to have Federal ID cards that are very difficult to forge. And to have a the government effectively and rapidly verify status.

    2. Jail all illegals who have forged ID cards, along with those who sold/manufacture same. Say maybe, five years for first offense purchasing, 15 years for selling/manufacturing.

    3. Arrest all illegal aliens and deport them immediately.

    4. Remove the right to have the child used as a crutch to bring the parents. This will require that laws be changed.

    5. Demand that all law enforcements agencies arrest and turn over for deportation all illegal aliens they come in contact with. No exceptions. Those local governments who don't comply lose all federal grants associated with law enforcement.

    6. Shut down the border. Period. Completely. Use aircraft, National Guard, and/or US military, etc.

    Start all of this at one time, with emphasis with items 1 and 6.

    Which of these (none / 0) (#87)
    by Pancho on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 10:46:47 PM EST
    will the ACLU and Talkleft crowd be OK with? That was my point.

    Parent
    Middle-way Plan (none / 0) (#88)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:23:15 PM EST
    jim, I think we should label your plan the no-tolerance-kick-em-to-the-curb plan. I advocated a middle-way back in October. I think it will be much more palatable for moderates and even some liberals (not to mention be fairer for the illegals). It didn't get much attention back then, but since at least two of you are looking for ideas, here's mine.

    Oh, and I cannot take full credit for it. My liberal car-pool buddy and I managed to come up with a compromise plan that we both could live with. The more I thought about it, the less it felt like I was compromising on anything significant. This is that plan (from my October post):

    (1) We have to admit that there is a problem. This is a bigger issue than many believe. First, many businesspeople rely on off-the-books labor and therefore will resist any reforms that place their business model in jeopardy. Second, many liberals truly believe that an "open borders" policy is the best policy. This group, relying, I guess, on the "World Community" idea, will also resist any action which appears to limit the free movement of people across the borders.

    Both groups are missing or disregarding important concerns. First, having an illegal shadow population is bad for the illegals because they don't have the same access to social safety nets and legal protections that citizens do. Second, the trans-border movements of this large group of people provide cover for more nefarious criminals.

    (2) We have to do something about illegals that are already here. Either we get them some of the protections of citizens, or we get rid of them entirely. I would argue that the second course is not practical or desirable and that therefore we have to do something to bring them into this society. Failure to assimilate this population will give us a result something like what France is seeing: violent unrest among groups that have been segregated from society and who have no hope of a change in their status.

    I don't particularly care what this looks like (I mean, whether it's a blanket amnesty plan or graduated amnesty or even something more clever), but it will not work unless we simultaneously address issue (3). Also, whatever we decide to do, we should not incentivise illegal behavior over legal applications for citizenship. IOW, our solution must be better than the current situation, but not as progressive as granting automatic citizenship. Otherwise we disincentivise the legal processes we've established for entry into this country.

    (3) We have to do something about those trying to enter illegally. We should be trying to keep that population of illegals from growing. If we decide to embrace our immigrant population and give them legal protection and status, we run the risk of encouraging more illegal entry. Since we know that our current border regime is not up to the task of preventing border crimes, we have to make some changes.

    Fences and an increased security presence address the problem directly, assuming they are used effectively. The incentive to cross can also be reduced by increasing penalties and enforcement for those who employ illegal labor. These folks are crossing the border to get to jobs. Jobs where they are afforded less than legal protections. Remove the jobs, and we will have removed the incentive.

    So, from the above, my ideal border and immigration reform package would contain:
    Granting of some legal status and protections to current immigrants.
    Outlawing (no, really, we mean it this time) of illegal immigration by which I mean, no further legal status and protection will be granted to future illegal immigrants, only those who are currently here.
    Increased border enforcement.
    Increased enforcement and penalties for employing illegal labor.

    Parent

    Immigration Raids: 1,000 ICE Agents Hit Greeley, CO | 88 comments (88 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment