home

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

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    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