ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration launched investigations of hundreds of businesses around the country Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration enforcement on the employers who hire illegal workers.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement has begun notifying businesses of plans to audit their I-9 forms — employment eligibility do ents that employers fill out for every worker — the agency told members of Congress in an e-mail Wednesday.
Immigration officers served "Notices of Inspection" to 625 businesses, the Homeland Security Department said. By comparison, 503 such notices were issued to businesses last year, the agency said.
Employers are required to keep the I-9 forms and must check the authenticity of do ents provided by the employee. The Homeland Security Department said it would not release the names or locations of the businesses that are being audited because of the ongoing investigations.
"ICE is committed to establishing a meaningful I-9 inspection program to promote compliance with the law," John Morton, Immigration and Customs Enforcement director, said in a statement. "This nationwide effort is a first step in ICE's longterm strategy to address and deter illegal employment."
President Barack Obama has said his administration's strategy for stemming illegal immigration would focus on employers who hire illegal workers.
The Bush administration was criticized for deploying armed agents to raid businesses and arrest workers suspected to be working illegally. Critics said the Bush administration did not do enough to go after the employers.
The Obama administration has been trying to build its credibility on immigration enforcement to boost the chances of passing an immigration reform bill in Congress. The administration has doubted whether it has enough votes right now to pass immigration reform. But some members of Congress emerged from a meeting with Obama last week saying immigration reform could be done by the end of the year or early next year.
The I-9 audits are certain to cause concern among employers who have complained that identifying illegal workers is fraught with problems, from recognizing fake iden y do ents made to look authentic to risking violating anti-discrimination laws.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has said investigations will focus on businesses that knowingly hire immigrants who cannot legally work in the U.S.
"Employers want the rule of law. They want a level playing field, but it has to be combined with being able to get the workers they need in a legal, reliable way. That's what we are looking for in immigration reform," said Tamar Jacoby, president and CEO of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national group of employers who support immigration reform.
The group wants lawmakers to craft immigration reform legislation that will make it easier for businesses to hire temporary workers.
ImmigrationWorks USA recently lobbied Capitol Hill on immigration reform. A handout distributed to attendees was called, "Don't Wait for ICE to Knock on the Door." It gave tips for preparing for immigration audits and work site investigations.
When you go after the workers it hurts the business too. The only other alternative is non-enforcement. I'll go out on a limb and say you would probably be against that too.
IMO cracking down on employers and/or workers is valid from an LE POV. But both strategies are held up by backlog on the immigration docket right now.
As a matter of resources, there's only so much enforcement we can responsibly do, while detaining such a great mass of violators for years before any dispositive hearing.
Thing is, when you crack down on employers, you reduce the demand for illegal workers. The idea of this method if they will go back home when they cannot find work. It's called self-deportation. It is cheaper this way than deporting people who just come back anyway.
As for hurting business... Too bad. There are free methods out there for employers to verify the legal status of workers. Employers who don't use this system are either lazy, or would rather have a blind eye to hiring labor at a reduced wage. This makes them more compe ive at the cost of those who only hire legal workers. Is that right?
Supply and demand is a natural law. When you have millions of people entering our workforce, the wages go down for the job types affected.
I substantially agree with that. Again the practical limit to LE is the already cloggo legal process.
I feel bad for the children of illegal immigrants. Let's face it, Mexico sucks. If I were in Mexico, I'd probably be willing to risk deportation/arrest/bad stuff to come over here too to provide for my family, so I don't blame them too much.
Still, I'd much rather have THIS method applied than a 'door-to-door' type method applied.
I don't blame them either. However, we do need to keep immigration controlled to keep from being overwhelmed. I say make it impossible for illegal immigrants to find work, and they wont come. At the same time, increase legal immigration substantially.
i actually agree with that he's doing here. go after the businesses. the with them. it's called illegal immigrant for a reason. illegals should work on becoming legal, legally. problem solved.
i guess my hackery is wearing off
I agree this is a right step. I wonder how long it will really last, or if it's just more hot air.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-01-2009 at 03:36 PM.
Plus, with unemployment at 10% the Feds can make some headlines and fine, jail, and generally demonize "evil" businessmen.
Yep. The unemployed citizens right now don't like the fact that their job skills might be one that might be in compe ion with illegal workers.
we should've been doing this a lonnnnnng time ago. i can see them pushing this for a while. if they continue to toot their horn over cap and trade, the stimulus, global warming, etc then they can sure as believe in this, but...................
everyone needs a little grounding.
A bad idea IMO, but I live in Texas. I'd miss em. I think most of Texas would.I say make it impossible for illegal immigrants to find work, and they wont come.
Once, I was a boy proud to live between two unfortified borders. No more.
There's still a lot of exchange between Texas and Mexico for good and for ill. I appreciate the real culture, the real manners and the real hard work. And the real family values. Compadrazgo is no joke, like it is here.
Or RC values, for that matter.
For the record, I'm against the elimination of the free movement of trade and labor across the border.
Cut down on it some? Why not? Even though it's mildly anti-business, it pleases a silent but significant minority of otherwise solidly conservative middle-brow bigots and xenophobes who join a timorous *pro-security*, anti-business left in the political consensus authorizing LE crackdowns on employers, or mass deportations of brown people.
Ick.
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-01-2009 at 11:38 PM.
WH, what is wrong with not allowing illegal activity? Can't legal immigration suit the needs?
In Texas? I would say no. Finger in the wind, right?
It connotes mistrust and disrespect. It's un-neighborly. It's also contrary to the custom.
Elimination is not the way to go IMO.
Wouldn't you consider businessmen that screw American citizens over by hiring illegals evil and worth being demonized?
I think that was his point, and at the same time, they can make points with the public.
There are a lot of jobs that simply wouldn't get done if employers depended on hiring locals. Picking strawberries is one of them. Don't try to tell me that "if they paid enough" they could get someone to do it...maybe they could, but then they couldn't sell their strawberries for enough to break even...
That's not true. They used to do it in Oregon long ago, before they made welfare pay so well.
Besides, how can you make that blanket statement without actually calculating the costs.
Key is, you offer these jobs to welfare recipients that are able to work. If they refuse, they don't get welfare, or partial welfare.
Welfare entails agricultural peonage to assure the full benefit...Key is, you offer these jobs to welfare recipients that are able to work. If they refuse, they don't get welfare, or partial welfare.
...please tell me more, Profe, before I die laughing. That's feudalism by proxy.
That was one of many examples. Point is, we shouldn't pay people to sit on their asses. If people are not willing to work the jobs available, then them. They don't need assistance from the taxes I pay.Welfare entails agricultural peonage to assure the full benefit...
...please tell me more, Profe, before I die laughing. That's feudalism by proxy.
What please, are the others? I can't wait to hear...That was one of many examples.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
