Employer enforcement increases dramatically
posted at 10:42 am on July 21, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
In his second term, George Bush has taken employer enforcement on illegal immigration a lot more seriously than during his initial term. After four years of inconsequential numbers of arrests and prosecutions, ICE reported a 50% increase in 2005, followed by a 500% increase in 2006 over 2004 numbers. In 2008 so far, the number has almost exceeded all of 2006. Despite this success, most of these arrests involve only the illegal aliens and not the employers, although that could change:
A three-year-old enforcement campaign against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants is increasingly resulting in arrests and criminal convictions, using evidence gathered by phone taps, undercover agents and prisoners who agree to serve as government witnesses.
But the crackdown’s relatively high costs and limited results are also fueling criticism. In an economy with more than 6 million companies and 8 million unauthorized workers, the corporate enforcement effort is still dwarfed by the high-profile raids that have sentenced thousands of illegal immigrants to prison time and deportation.
Stewart A. Baker, assistant secretary for policy at the Homeland Security Department, recently told immigration experts the disparity can be traced to ineffective policies that need to be addressed by Congress.
“Companies tell me, ‘We have an immigration system that allows us to hire illegal workers, legally,’ ” Baker said. Asked to defend President Bush’s track record, he said, “Why are employers not punished more often? Because the laws we have don’t really authorize that.”
Still, those numbers have also increased, if not quite at the same rate as administrative detentions of illegals. ICE has put more effort into its investigations, and they have begun using tactics usually seen in mob infiltrations. They have used wiretaps and informants to catch employers and unions engaging in conspiracies to evade immigration enforcement and illegally employ ineligible workers.
Critics use the disparity in numbers to suggest injustice. In one of the larger raids in the upper Midwest, ICE arrested almost 400 suspected illegal workers in May and have already convicted most of them on charges relating to fraudulent documentation. Only 3 supervisors at Agriprocessors got arrested, though, and the firm itself continues its operation. However, ICE can only arrest those individuals for whom probable cause can be shown — and it’s a lot easier to arrest people who are in obvious violation of the law than it is to prove conspiracy to break it. It’s one of the reasons why low-level members in organized crime and drug rings get arrested but the bosses usually do not. That doesn’t make enforcement in those cases unjust, but it requires better tools and better resources to go after the bosses.
One such tool is e-Verify. Three states make it mandatory for hiring workers. A failure of an employer to use e-Verify in those states would almost immediately implicate the executives of a firm rather than just low-level supervisors, and once the firm uses e-Verify, they cannot pretend not to notice the illegal status of its applicants. The “no-match” letters provide similar grounds by informing employers when new hires may be using fraudulent Social Security numbers, but these have been stalled by federal lawsuits.
We need to get serious about enforcement. Bush has given ICE a good start, but until executives start believing that they risk jail time for themselves, employers will not end their practices of illegal hiring.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
There is an election in 2012. Maybe we can get serious by late 2013.
thuja on July 21, 2008 at 10:47 AM
A bone to angry conservatives in light of the election and McCain’s lack of credibility on this issue, a lack which is well deserved and entirely appropriate.
If McCain actually wins, enforcement will go out the window right away.
Muswell Hillbilly on July 21, 2008 at 10:48 AM
si
deedtrader on July 21, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Sic’em!
Taking away a few swimming pools and vacation homes is the sure fire way to jump start illegal immigration enforcement.
Nothing says stay home like a not hiring sign.
Limerick on July 21, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Unions HUH, I thought they were for the American worker.
joeswampy on July 21, 2008 at 10:53 AM
.
The increase from zero is easy. Typical of a bureaucracy, they will take a long time figuring out how to do their job.
Right_of_Attila on July 21, 2008 at 10:54 AM
What’s the rush, Jorge? You’ve only been in office 7 1/2 years.
Travis Bickle on July 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Immigration restrictionists need to be clear about the best way ahead: vote for McCain, but if he actually wins, make no mistake that he is your enemy (better than Obama, but not by much).
During his term, everyone who cares about slowing/shutting down immigration needs to be aware that MCCain will need to be hounded and called to task at every turn by the grassroots in order to keep him even barely in line. Recall that he sees himself as a one-termer anyway. Even during this election season, he still finds it hard to make noises that anti-immigration folks consider palatable, and he still can’t help himself from implying that anyone who doesn’t want to flood the country with 150 million Latin American peasants is a despicable racist who doesn;t deserve to be argued with, just insulted and ignored.
Muswell Hillbilly on July 21, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Oh my god, they are enforcing laws already on the books! Go figure….
patrick neid on July 21, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Build fences, not bridges. Are you listening, JMac?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 21, 2008 at 11:04 AM
FIFY
Darksean on July 21, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Frankly, I think it’s all show and tell, until he, McCain, or Obama, can actually open the borders completely.
It’s a “lull-the-idiots-asleep” tactic, then turn around and actually IMPORT them, pass the DREAM Act, and move ‘em to the front of the line on everything!
Sorry, ‘ain’t fooled at all!
Dale in Atlanta on July 21, 2008 at 11:08 AM
And you base this claim of yours on what?
According to this website, McCain:
Voted in favor of funding state and local law enforcement assistance in enforcement of Federal immigration laws
Voted on Senate floor in favor of amendment to increase interior enforcement in 2007
And while McCain is by no means exactly where he should be on this issue, lying about him is not going to convince others here, especially when your lies are debunked.
wise_man on July 21, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Upper Midwest?
Come on, you can say it: I-O-Wah. There you go. :D
Vatican Watcher on July 21, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Watch out, they are BLOWING SMOKE UP YOUR HINEY’s… 12-20 million estimated, they pull a raid, round up 200-300 and your PANTIES get all wet… COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM??? Only one I will accept, EMPLOYER SANCTION LAW, and stringently ENFORCE it. That would even send A THRILL up my leg…
pueblo1032 on July 21, 2008 at 11:53 AM
“And while McCain is by no means exactly where he should be on this issue, lying about him is not going to convince others here, especially when your lies are debunked.”
Hey “wise-man,” for one thing, I made a comment about the likely action McCain would take in the future, which was based on a long line of statements and actions McCain has made in the past. So it’s regretful that you don’t know what the word “lie” means.
But regardless, McCain has been 1) against building the fence again and again, and only caved in grudgingly to appease whom he considers to be rubes, 2) was in favor of amnesty (and still is), and 3) was in favor of social security for illegals while they had been illegals.
Pointing to a couple votes in 2007 (election season) does not change an overall record.
Muswell Hillbilly on July 21, 2008 at 11:54 AM
McCain’s “Overall Record” is a “B”.(82.16) A lot better than Obama’s.(7.67)
Please do the courtesy as to provide the links to all of the votes that McCain wanted to dismantle enforcement.
wise_man on July 21, 2008 at 12:03 PM
And I gave you two of his actions, Voted in favor of funding state and local law enforcement assistance in enforcement of Federal immigration laws and Voted on Senate floor in favor of amendment to increase interior enforcement in 2007. But hey, don’t let his actions get in the way of your opinion of what McCain is “Likely” to do.
wise_man on July 21, 2008 at 12:05 PM
What are the real numbers? A 500% increase is nothing to crow about if the 2004 prosecutions totaled about 10 (which is probably close to correct). Going from 10 prosecutions to 50 is still a drop in the ocean.
Cicero43 on July 21, 2008 at 12:06 PM
I am against illegal immigration and want all of our laws enforced. The magnet drawing people to break our laws is the main problem. We can deport those we find, we can deport the convicted criminal elements but until the MAGNET loses it’s attraction, the problem will continue. The magnet is the employers. Without the possibility of earning money to support their families with them or waiting at home for wired funds, few would try to immigrate illegally. Employers need to be fined severely so there is loss instead of profit in hiring illegals. Only then will the situation change.
Pat in NC on July 21, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Funny, I noticed in this entire post and subsequent thread, nobody proposed that government should seize control over businesses that violate immigration laws.
This is a major difference between us and the hard left’s candidate Barack Obama.
When democrats get outraged, they instinctively turn toward state confiscation and control (but don’t call them socialists!). But when republicans are outraged, we look to enforce laws already on the books through democratically elected public officials.
Sadly, many on the hotair community are so filled with hatred for John McCain over his tactical approach to immigration that they can’t see this more fundamental important philosophical difference between liberalism and conservativism, and it is this philosophical difference that very well might save America from passing into history as a failed experiment.
jeff_from_mpls on July 21, 2008 at 12:51 PM
so in three states you must be in a computer database to get a job?
How Orwellian.
RMC1618 on July 21, 2008 at 12:57 PM
How about McCain-Kennedy?
Johan Klaus on July 21, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Since we’re talking about immigration here, it might be useful to point out that McCain’s overall record on THIS issue is a D with F‘s and F-‘s in some of the most crucial areas (having to do with amnesties, visas, and chain migration).
Obama’s is a D-.
Just sayin’.
Redhead Infidel on July 21, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Most people do not hate John McCain, they just want the law enforced.
Johan Klaus on July 21, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Yes, this is indeed true.
And the person who is elected will become president of the United States, and Amnesty and his disgraceful record on this issue is one of many issues that the President will be in charge of. Some people here don’t seem to be capable of seeing the big picture.
wise_man on July 21, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Please. There is a ton of hatred of McCain on this site and other conservative pages.
I would think that conservatives would have a better chance of seeing the law enforced with McCain than from Obama, who comes from a sanctuary city himself.
wise_man on July 21, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Wrong. According to your logic, a non vote for McCain is a vote for Obama. Applying that logic to a vote in the Senate, a non vote for an issue is a vote for the opposition.
Therefore, since McCain skipped 10 votes out of 25 in 2007, his actual conservative record in 2007 was 8/25, or 32%.
Want to apply this logic to his entire career record?
fossten on July 21, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Good point. Which means more and more industries will hire illegals causing wages to drop in more industry sectors…
In my area, illegals are not just employed in the service industries, fast food places, or landscaping. Rather, in my county, employers at decent-paying blue-collar, manufacturing firms are hiring illegals, causing even those wages to drop over time.
Without employer jail time, illegal immigration will continue to flourish. And more illegal immigration means
more hospitals financially closing their doors.
Illegal immigration is the quickest way to the establishment of Socialized medicine and left-wing economics in the USA.
ColtsFan on July 21, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Not true, as I’ve stated over and over again.
If McCain becomes President, he has stated (to La Raza… a racist organization), that Comprehensive
AmnestyImmigration Reform would be his first act in office.The Senate Republicans would then be caught between a rock (McCain) and a hard place (Democrats), trying to force them to vote for amnesty. A Democrat President would make it easier for Senate Republicans to vote against the proposal.
dominigan on July 21, 2008 at 1:54 PM
In the 2000 US election, George Bush won with 271 electoral votes to Gore’s 266. Had Gore’s own state of Tennessee, which had a margin of victory for Bush of 3.86%, then Al Gore would have been president. Bush got 1,061,949 votes. Gore got 981,720, with a difference of 80,229 votes.
If about 40 thousand or so republicans decided it wasn’t worth it, and/or abut 40 thousand more democrats or independents got out the vote, then these individuals would have indeed swayed the vote in favor of Al Gore. And he would have been the one to respond to 9/11. Care to speculate what a Gore presidency would have been like? Saddam might have gotten the UN to drop all sanctions against him. Who knows what else could have or have not happened.
Later in 2004, the vote was 62,040,610 for Bush, 59,028,444 for Kerry. All of these people lined up and their votes were counted. Especially in the areas that mattered the most, people who vote for a candidate, such as for Obama, or not for another candidate, such as McCain, will be tallied up and in each state, that state’s electoral vote will go for that candidate.
All of the votes for Obama will be counted against all the votes for McCain. If you and more like you who think the same don’t bother to vote, and your vote could have made a difference to keep Obama out of office, then yes – your non vote for McCain will contribute to helping Obama win.
These are the facts of how our election process functions.
Now that you know, you have the choice on what to do.
Do you want Barack Obama to be the next president, fossten? You can answer this with a yes or no. Much like the election ballot is either for one or the other.
wise_man on July 21, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Oh, and just to correct the context…
Much more accurate.
Also, I don’t hate McCain. I just haven’t seen a real reason to vote for him. I’ve voted the last few Presidential elections “against the worse of two evils”, and look where its gotten us. No more. I’m a conservative first and a Republican second. It’s my vote, and it absolutely disgusts me the way some people are trying to bully me into voting the party line instead of giving me solid reasons to vote for the candidate.
dominigan on July 21, 2008 at 2:00 PM
In case you haven’t heard, dominigan, the election is now down to two people. Either McCain or Obama is guaranteed to be the next president.
Do you want Obama to be the next president?
because there is something that you can do about it,
and it consists of voting for someone.
wise_man on July 21, 2008 at 2:09 PM
The government also needs to shut down the H1-B scams as well and actually force some companies to hire American High tech workers.
dogsoldier on July 21, 2008 at 2:10 PM
One step in this direction was the recent $1 million fine against the owner/company of 11 McDonald’s franchises in Northern Nevada.
In 11 stores, over 50 illegal immigrants were arrested recently. 2 executives risk prison time on 1 felony count each, and the company has to pay the fine.
Maybe they and other stores will think twice before having an average of 5 illegal immigrants employed at each franchise….
cs89 on July 21, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Learn to read context before you rant. You merely proved my point.
fossten on July 21, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Nothing of what I said was incorrect. Its too bad you didn’t like it or want to think it proves your point.
wise_man on July 21, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Wize_man, I don’t want to vote for Obama, and I couldn’t vote fore Cap’t Amnesty either. I am sick and tired of having to hold my nose and vote for candidates I don’t like.
If I go ahead and vote for McCain, that will just encourage the RNC to do more of the same and continue to float lame candidates.
If McCain grants amnesty, it will flood the electorate with millions of voters that cheated their way here, and their corruption world view will reflect in the future votes they cast for the next 100 years.
Obama won’t pass amnesty because he is a lightweight and the conservatve dems will help block it. The political dynamic is far different with McCain in charge.
Obama damage short term, McCain damage long term. Obama wins, better Republican candidates. McCain wins, SOS.
saiga on July 21, 2008 at 4:34 PM
e-Verify should be mandatory. It is so easy to use that not using it is crooked
Many years ago, long before Bush, I knew someone involved in Federal data collecting who was instructed to re-weight data collected. The reason given by the economist requesting the weighting of data was a ridiculous number of people in the fairly large sample over the age of 105 or under the age of 5 yet working and paying taxes. It made the sample look fishy so the solution was to weight out that factor. Why did they not take a different sample? Guess it was hard to shake those SSN’s from the workforce data. Wonder why?
In government if it looks bad change the focus on the lens
entagor on July 21, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Nothing of what you said was even relevant to my post, except for proving my point. Sorry you can’t read.
fossten on July 21, 2008 at 9:55 PM