Immigration Raids Leaves Dozens of Kids Stranded

The feds have gone and done it again, this time in New Bedford, Mass.

Dozens of young children were stranded at schools and with baby sitters after their parents were rounded up by federal authorities who raided a leather goods maker suspected of hiring illegal immigrants, authorities said Wednesday.

Immigration officials said 327 of the 500 employees of Michael Bianco Inc., mostly women, were detained Tuesday by immigration officials for possible deportation as illegal aliens.

About 100 children were stuck with baby sitters, caretakers and others, said Corinn Williams, director of the Community Economic Development Center of Southeastern Massachusetts.

"We're continuing to get stories today about infants that were left behind," she said. "It's been a widespread humanitarian crisis here in New Bedford." (my emphasis)


So, what happens to the kids?

Authorities released 45 detainees who were sole caregivers to children. No more releases were planned, said Marc Raimondi, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Eight pregnant women were also released for humanitarian reasons.

Those still in custody were given the option of letting their children stay with a guardian or putting them in state care, Raimondi said.

State care? Who pays for that? These workers were employed, paying taxes and paying their own way. Now, the state will have to assume the cost of caring for them. What sense does that make?

Let's legalize the undocumented workers and be done with these raids.

< Stephen Colbert on the Libby Verdict | Surging the Surge: More of the Same That Isn't Working >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Are these.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:26:56 PM EST
    the family values I keep hearing our leaders wax poetic about?

    If we insist on doing undocumented immigrant round-ups, shouldn't we at least take the time to make sure the children are taken care of?

    Strange days...strange days.

    Ironic (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:31:25 PM EST
    That many of the kids are citizens, being born here.

    Full story? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:38:27 PM EST
    These workers were employed, paying taxes and paying their own way.

    Got any proof for that assertion, TL? I doubt very much that an employer that imposed $20 fines for bathroom breaks and confined laborers to sweatshop conditions was paying them well or bothering with taxes.

    Investigators said the workers toiled in dingy conditions and faced onerous fines, such as a $20 charge for talking while working and spending more than two minutes in the bathroom.

    This is why immigration reform is important. Encouraging illegal immigration puts people in positions like this where they are exploited because they cannot turn to the authorities for help.

    Seal the border. Regularize the status of those who are here. End shadow populations now.

    Re: Full Story? [there is even more] (none / 0) (#4)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:54:12 PM EST
    It is amazing how this comes full circle. Immigrants toiling in dingy conditions so our freedoms can be protected from terrorists around the world.

    Authorities allege Insolia oversaw sweatshop conditions so he could meet the demands of $91 million in U.S. military contracts.
    ...Michael Bianco Inc., founded in 1985, specialized in manufacturing high-end leather goods for retailers including Coach Inc. (COH) and Timberland Co. (TBL) before landing a $9.4 million military contract in 2003 to make survival vests. From 2004 and 2006, it won $82 million in military contracts to make products including lightweight backpacks. An Army spokesman did not return a call seeking comment about the status of the contracts.

    Figures (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:59:13 PM EST
    They have to cut corners in order to pay all those high end Blackwater mercs.

    Clarify? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:04:51 PM EST
    You mean Bianco cut corners to under-bid the competitors? How is that the military's fault (or the Administrations)?

    Clarification (none / 0) (#14)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:13:09 PM EST
    I just find it ironic. I didn't say it was anyone's fault. I am merely making an observation, not blaming anyone or maybe blaming everyone.

    legal and illeegal immigration, freedom, protection of freedoms, terrorists, fighting for our freedom, removing dicatators who suppress freedom, vast military industrial congressional complex, military contracts, profits, sweatshop, and full circle back to the lowly immigrants toiling in dingy conditions.

    Ironic, don't you think?


    Thanks. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:39:18 PM EST
    I see your circle, Peaches, and I understand how you move from one item to the next in your list, though I don't make the same automatic connections that you do.

    Is it ironic? Well, no, I don't think so. The fact that a military supplier illegally employs laborers is not ironic.


    But.... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 05:04:35 PM EST
    a military supplier running a sweat shop is ironic....since our military is supposedly spreading freedom and our way of life around the world.  I thought our "way of life" included laws against sweat shops.

    Irony (none / 0) (#18)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 05:04:17 PM EST
    Maybe this will help.

    I think the irony comes about from equating the free market with individual freedoms. We were founded as a nation devoted to the liberal Renascence that proclaimed individual freedoms would be held in higher regard than social customs and the devotion of an individual to society and community in general. There has been some backlash and arguably some detrimental fallout to socities from this revolution, but as a product of the revolution, I for one am happy with my individual freedoms. However, as we place the freedom of the market ahead of individual liberties, we see more and more instances such as the Bianco Co incident in question - where individual liberties and dignities are sacrificied over the pursuit of maximizing profits. Most likely, instances such as these are so common that Irony is not an apt description. But throw in the fact that the market was created through a gov't contract and the gov't  is the modern founder of democracies and the gov't contract was for the military, and the military is presently engaged in a war establishing democracy in the ME, and corruption and profiteering run rampant in the present campaign, while we prisoners are tortured...

    Well, I think Irony might not quite capture incongruities and contradictions inherent in our model for a modern democratic society.


    This was not a free market. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 05:38:28 PM EST
    Let's be clear. This was not a free market situation and your representation of it as such is misleading (though I know that was not your intent). There are a few reasons this is not a free market situation.

    First, Bianco was not a market-participant operating in the same manner as its competitors. It used illegal practices to get an advantage. Its competitors were handicapped by (mostly) necessary and reasonable limits on businesses. Because it was able to operate in this manner it acquired undue profit. But this certainly wasn't operation of a free market system.

    Second, the illegal laborers were not market-participants operating in the same manner as their competitors. Simply put, laborers "sell" their labor in exchange for wages. In this case, these particular laborers did not have the some freedom to engage their potential employers in bonafide negotiations as every other laborer. The  laborers also suffered from the problems associated with asymetrical information. They could not make reasonable, informed decisions about their market participation because of their illegal immigration status. The ability to make such decisions is a key part of free markets. Therefore, their relationship to Bianco was also not a free market system.

    Peaches, I know libs are supposed to be skeptical about free markets, but you jumped the gun in this case.

    I definitely want to comment about "equating the free market with individual freedoms," but I have class right now. The short, conclusory, no-explanation version: Free markets do more to promote individual freedoms than any other economic model.


    Gabe, (none / 0) (#43)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:22:44 AM EST
    Yes, there are regulations in place and laws that make the labor practices going on at Bianco unlawful. But a "free market" asks for a little regulation and enforcement of gov't laws as possible. If laws protecting individual liberties and human dignity are in place in one country, then the the free market (pursuit of maximum profits) dictate that the country pursue moving to a country without the regulation or laws in place. I think everyone understands that gov't is there to regulate the market to prevent such practices as Bianco. But, when laws are not enforced then entreprenuers will test these laws in the pursuit of profit. Sometimes, this results in the arrest of the lawbreakers.

    What I think some people wonder is if the crackdown and arrest of the lawbreakers at Bianco was the result of or the intention of the gov't to protect individual liberties or if it was merely political pressures for crackdowns on illegal immigrants motivated by the popular disapproval of these individuals in America. There is no denying that this happened in America. I am merely pointing to an irony, and not suggesting that the solution is either the opening of the borders to an international labor force, nor closing them completely.

    To say I jumped the gun is to ignore a fact about free markets. Markets are human inventions. A free market is one where the pursuit of profits is of primary importance. Every regulation makes a market less free. When free markets are conflated with individual liberties in the American model for democracy or given importance over these liberties - human dignity and individual freedoms suffer. Bianco is one example, (and not a singular example by any means) what results from this conflation in America.


    let's get real (none / 0) (#5)
    by profmarcus on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:55:21 PM EST
    if you're going to send a message, arrest and detain those who are hiring illegals and exploiting their hard work... don't put the punishment on those who are simply trying to make a better life for themselves by taking advantage of a porous border kept that way on purpose by those seeking an ever-renewable source of the cheapest possible labor... and, for god's sake, don't punish the children...

    And, yes, I DO take it personally

    Read the article. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:03:08 PM EST
    If you'd read the article (or if TL had posted more of it, hmmmm) you'd know that they also arrested the owner, three managers, and another person who got fake IDs for the laborers.

    As for your "porous" border observation, I agree. Close it up. If we want immigration, let's do it the legal way.


    prof (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:03:25 PM EST
    Company owner Francesco Insolia, 50, and three top managers were arrested.

    Borderline Wrong (none / 0) (#9)
    by BorderlineWrong on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:04:20 PM EST
    US immigration has been a concern of mine for quite some time.  I am American and my wife is from Venezuela... so I am very familiar with the racial profiling that occurs when crossing US Borders.  This country is far from being the "land of the free".  I created a 5 minute short film that deals with the anxiety and frustration created when passing through US Customs. Please view and share comments:


    what charges (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jen M on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:04:41 PM EST
    were brought against the employers?

    If the workers had fake ID (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:05:28 PM EST
    wouldn't they then be criminales?

    Pun. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:11:18 PM EST
    Was that meant to be a bad pun?

    (shrugs shoulders) I don't get the pun (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:28:03 PM EST
    TL often posits that the illegal immigrants have broken no laws (along with some equivocation re: civil and criminal law) and, therefor, "No Somos Criminales."

    Several of us in the past have pointed out fraudulent IDs are criminal and the TL-linked article suggests they had such fraudulent IDs and therefor are in fact "criminales." "Son Criminales."

    I would imagine any number of acts they committed while using these fraudulent IDs were also criminal.

    Kids getting stranded is no small issue, however. When criminal parents are arrested for other non-immigration crimes, is the same guardian/state choice given for their children?


    Aight. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:35:26 PM EST
    I called it a pun because in your first comment you were writing in English, but referred to these folks as "criminales" without quotations or apparent irony.

    I didn't know if it was a typo or a pun.

    [And yes, I know it's probably insensitive to banter about it.]


    Ok, I get it now (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 05:05:28 PM EST
    Aight? Are you from back east originally?

    Nope. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 05:19:19 PM EST
    You're the second person in two days to ask after my use of "aight" (which I use in speech occasionally). I'll tell you what I told her: it ain't eastern or, at least, only eastern. "Aight" is in common usage throughout parts of the central U.S. in the south including Texas and Oklahoma (the two states I am originally from).

    Aight (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 05:36:51 PM EST
    Oh, I get it! (none / 0) (#23)
    by fafnir on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 05:38:02 PM EST
    The feds were supposed to hang around the plant waiting for the illegals to return for their arrests after having made appropriate care arrangements for their anchor babies and children. Pathetic, TL.

    You don't get it. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 05:44:53 PM EST
    fafnir, we all know that I disagree with TL on immigration, but you've got this very wrong. Babies and children cannot be "anchors" for illegal immigrants in most cases because USC children cannot petition for their alien parents or brothers or sisters until they are 21 years of age. Congress specifically placed this restriction on the family preference groups because of the concern for "run the border" pregnancies.

    Is this the country you really want?..... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 05:47:34 PM EST
    What if it happens to you?...link

    You make it sound like the feds were arresting axe-murderers...aka real threats.


    An assignment for Jeralyn! (none / 0) (#27)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 06:37:36 PM EST
    Maybe she could ask those parents what they were thinking coming here illegally with children or having children while here illegally. Doesn't that make them irresponsible parents? Wouldn't (oh, just as an example) middle-class Americans be held to a higher standard? Should TL continue to support the MexicanGovernment sending us the population they won't support in order to bring in money? Aren't those who support IllegalImmigration being UsefulIdiots for the corrupt MexicanGovernment?

    that makes it ok (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jen M on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:35:19 PM EST
    to hold law enforcement to NO standard re: children

    They care less about the children (none / 0) (#31)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:01:32 PM EST
    This is about getting amnesty and blocking the enforcement of our immigration laws.

    its also about (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jen M on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 05:07:19 AM EST
    law enforcement procedure

    Hmm (none / 0) (#29)
    by jarober on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:05:52 PM EST
    Perhaps Jeralyn can explain which part of the criminal code we should ignore - crossing the border illegally is ok by TL - what other parts of the code  do you - as a member of the bar - advocate ignoring?

    Another question - should a hit and run driver with kids be left alone?  How about a shoplifter?  Someone who drives under the influence?  Is having children a free pass to ignore whatever laws TL deems unjust?

    Jeez..... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:12:57 AM EST
    All I'm saying is the authorities should give some thought to the children before they arrest people at the drop of a hat.

    Illegal aliens are CRIMINALS (none / 0) (#30)
    by DrEdFeraco on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:26:54 PM EST
    As a liberal I support the arrest of these vile illegal aliens.  These people are criminals and do NOT belong in the USA nor do their criminal alien children.  It is beyond time for the USA to deport every illegal alien (they are ALL criminals) and the law should be changed to disallow their offspring from becoming citizens.  American citizens are not allowed to benefit off crime, likewise, illegal aliens chould not be awarded a free pass to their offspring hatched in the USA, via free healthcare paid by the USA Taxpayers.

    Get out of our country now!

    bingo (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jen M on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 05:11:15 AM EST
    illegal aliens chould not be awarded a free pass to their offspring hatched in the USA,

    And here we have the core of the debate.

    Humans aren't hatched.


    There is something vile... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:14:02 AM EST
    here allright....but it ain't the immigrants.

    I wonder (none / 0) (#32)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:47:28 PM EST
     how long the owner and his/her managers spent in jail before posting bond? With 91 million in your coffers, I suspect not long. And what will be the punishment? A huge fine? So what? Worst case scenario, file bankruptcy and walk away from it all. Jail time? Are you kidding? Should that occur, we spent 91 mill of tax money and get nothing. The free market aspect that Gabe Malor describes is irrelevant to the discussion. This business violated so many immigration, labor and human rights laws that they should lock up the owners and throw away the key.

    I mean really. Who's the bigger problem here? The immigrants, whose negative effect on our economy in 5 years is equal to one month's allowance for Iraq, or the US businesses, who cart them in by the truckload, and treat them like a commodity?

    Lonewacko (none / 0) (#33)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:54:20 PM EST
    This is about getting amnesty and blocking the enforcement of our immigration laws.

    Yes that's exactly what the Bush administration wants and what the big businesses do, in that order.

    Anyone know (none / 0) (#34)
    by bx58 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:55:35 PM EST
    how much Vicente Fox is worth these days?

    It's a given Mexican Presidents retire with a few hundred million in the bank, and that ain't pesos.

    Just curious.

    Last I looked. (none / 0) (#35)
    by demohypocrates on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 12:07:24 AM EST
    We have a nation.  A nation has borders.  Why have things gone beyond that simplicity?

    Now we have have people defending others for violating our borders by saying - how dare you hurt the little people.  Keep up the border fences,

    I'm assuming... (none / 0) (#36)
    by TomStewart on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 02:02:47 AM EST
    that the employer was thrown in jail as Well? If you want to stop the illegals, go after the employers, the people who not only attract them here, but recruit them across the border.

    Exploitation (none / 0) (#39)
    by jarober on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:16:51 AM EST
    What this post really shows is that TL is ok with the exploitation of labor.  Native born or naturalized citizens getting shut out of low-skill jobs - TL is fine with that.  Having people illegally here get paid sub-minimum wage, get exploited over working conditions - TL is also fine with that.

    I find it hard to see the difference between TL and your garden variety 19th century factory owner.

    thats why (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jen M on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:36:59 AM EST
    the employers should be prosecuted too.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 12:56:27 PM EST
    Company owner Francesco Insolia, 50, and three top managers were arrested.

    I, for one, .... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 01:33:48 PM EST
    am anxious to see who the feds crack the whip down harder on...the owner or the workers.  

    That will be a clue as to who they are really after.


    How are going to decide? (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 02:07:54 PM EST
    If the workers are illegal, I assume they'll be deported, end of story. No?

    Meant to say something like (none / 0) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 02:08:47 PM EST
    How are you going to decide who gets the whip cracked on them harder?

    Meant to say something like (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 02:08:55 PM EST
    How are you going to decide who gets the whip cracked on them harder?

    For example.... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 03:01:34 PM EST
    Say all the immigrants get deported, and the charges against the employer get dropped...an instance like that would show me that the arrest of the owner was just for show.

    Or on the flip, all the immigrants get to stay and appeal to INS for residency, while the owner gets tried and sentenced to the max...that would show me the owner was the target and the immigrant arrests were for show.


    Well, here, it looks like the "whip" (none / 0) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 04:32:31 PM EST
    is being cracked on the illegal immigrants with a fairly wide range of intensity - some will be deported fairly quickly, probably the ones w/no kids here, etc., and the ones with kids have been released where they will likely quickly disappear into the ether.

    So how do you decide the "whip" is being cracked on the owner and his mgt staff enough?

    Personally, I think he should be charged and if convicted be sentenced appropriately, but I'm trying not to make any mystical value judgments based on my biases.

    As an side, they gave out the biz owner's home address and zillow has his almost 5000 sf home on 1 acre at about 630,000K.

    Stunning to me, as that's about the value of a decent condo here in SoCal...


    Good question..... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:02:05 PM EST
    I'd be surprised if the owner ever gets put on trial...a deal will get ironed out and the owner will stay free, maybe a fine and/or probation.  That's my prediction anyways...the arm of the law will come down hardest on the workers.  Time will tell though...

    I can't hide my bias on this one brother (duh)...I've worked next to and broken bread with too many immigrants to not comment on what I see as unjust treatment.

    It could be people in my community next.  I'd hate to see that.


    I hear you except (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:15:27 PM EST
    the arm of the law will come down hardest on the workers.
    that, in the case of the many illegal immigrants in this case who were released and who will most likely disappear into the "ether", the arm of the law has come down on them very softly.

    True.... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:24:25 PM EST
    some were let go for humanitarian reasons, it could have been worse...The ones locked up in Texas right now will probably have gotten the worst of it, if you go by time locked up, when all is said and done.

    Right on (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:34:51 PM EST
    YAY!!! (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jen M on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 02:44:02 PM EST
    oh... sorry

    I wonder if better provisions were made for their kids.


    More news (none / 0) (#53)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 02:52:43 PM EST
    Jen, you might want to read this article. It is the latest I could find.

    Key excerpts:

    The company's owner, Francesco Insolia, 50, and three managers are facing federal charges of conspiring to hire illegal immigrants, but said it appears the illegal immigrants rounded up at the plant seem to be receiving the harshest treatment.

    So far, officials said, 150 of the detainees have been flown to holding facilities in Texas, where they will remain until deportation proceedings are completed, a process that can take several months. Patrick said 26 people remain at Fort Devens who are either minors, pregnant women or sole caregivers of their children.

     About 60 of the detainees were released for "humanitarian reasons," including medical and child care issues. Most of those rounded up were from Guatemala and El Salvadore.

    I'm a little curious about the numbers. They don't add up to 327, the number detained in the raid. I wish the journalists involved would notice things like that and ask about it.


    Good for the Governor.... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 03:09:12 PM EST
    It's rare when I feel the need to pat a politician on the back...but kudos to the Gov. for speaking out against the feds.  I especially liked it when he said he didn't understand the feds "race to the airport."  Whats the rush?  Something to hide?  The immigrants are people with families...not freakin' air freight.

    Thanks Gabe, for the link.


    maybe (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jen M on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 03:35:46 PM EST
    they had green cards?

    Maybe, but I doubt it. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 04:03:00 PM EST
    That could be, but why would ICE have bothered to grab the ones with green cards in the first place?  They didn't just grab everyone at the factory. My understanding is that they sorted them according to status first. Presumably, USCs and LPRs were free to go.

    ah ok (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jen M on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 04:37:20 PM EST
    I figured they just rounded everyone up to sort out later.

    That is a weird.  Can't reporters do math anymore?


    My Point is... (none / 0) (#46)
    by jarober on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 02:02:54 PM EST
    If you favor allowing illegals in, then you are in favor of this kind of exploitation - because, people being people, they will take advantage of the fear illegals have of being deported.  If you want such exploitation to end, don't advocate for "solutions" that will encourage more illegals to enter.  Rather, advocate to make it easier to increase the level of legal immigration.

    Makes sense.... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 02:09:19 PM EST
    to save the immigrants from exploitation in the workplace we must chain them, cage them, and leave their children abandoned.

    Yep...makes sense.


    Agree (none / 0) (#51)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 02:37:42 PM EST
    I agree with this. Facilitating shadow populations means accepting, advocating for, and even incentivising the exact harms that we would like to avoid: (1) a ghetto-ized group of people who are less able to rely on the government and the social safety net; and (2) the criminals that prey on them or use them for cover.

    End shadow populations now: seal the border; regularize the status of illegals currently in the United States; and reform our immigration system. Implimenting any fewer than all three of these courses simultaneously will fail to address the problem.


    sigh (none / 0) (#54)
    by jarober on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 02:58:12 PM EST
    kdog, you miss my point (and Gabriel explained it very well).  Illegals become a shadow population who are ripe for exploitation.  It doesn't matter that you oppose their exploitation; the fact that you want to look the other way and allow them in means that you are tacitly allowing it to take place.  The other side effect is that their exploitation removes low skill jobs from the market that legal citizens (with lower skills) have access to.  When you accept the entrance of illegals, you simply must accept the fact that many employers will take advantage of them.

    I get it..... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 03:18:07 PM EST
    I do understand how shadow populations are exploited.  I don't like it either.  I agree we need serious immigration reform to let more people in legally.  We need to make sure immigrants know they can call the authorities and report workplace exploitation without fear of deportation.

    Don't you see my side?  How slapping chains on the very people being exploited is morally reprehensible?  Shipping them to Texas, potentially abandoning their families...can't you see how f*cked up that is?  Not in my name bro.


    again... (none / 0) (#58)
    by jarober on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 03:21:11 PM EST
    Then answer my first question, kdog: Which minor violations of the law should parents get a pass on?  Shoplifting?  Moving violations?  What?  If you break the law, there are consequences.  If you advocate a system where laws are selectively enforced, you generate both unfairness and disrespect for the law.

    Barking up the wrong tree.... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 03:33:03 PM EST
    with the "respect for the law" bit....I stopped respecting the law a long time ago.

    But to answer your question, I'm not saying give them a pass (though I would like that very much, Gabe's link said 60 people got a pass for humanitarian reasons)...I'm saying lets at least make sure no children get abandoned before we slap the chains on an immigrant, a shoplifter, what have you.

    Im mean what is worse...an immigrant or a shoplifter on the loose, or a latch-key kid coming home from school to find his parents missing?  I say the latter.

    Now....if a madman with an uzi is shooting up the place, then I could understand the madman's kid getting abandoned in the confusion.


    Update..... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 01:53:04 PM EST
    This story on raids currently underway in Arizona includes an update on the New Bedford crisis.

    At least one mother who was shipped to Texas is heading back to New Bedford after her abandoned daughter called a state hotline.  

    Err..... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 02:00:21 PM EST
    Make that a bakers dozen heading back to New Bedford, including the mom.

    Well, it seems pretty clear that (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 03:09:45 PM EST
    the feds tried but failed at keeping every one of the sole-providers from being separated from their children. They should be rightly criticized for this.