Thread: Employer Sanctions Collapse Even Further in 2004

http://vdare.com/rubenstein/051101_nd.htm

November 01, 2005

National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
Employer Sanctions Collapse Even Further in 2004
Last year I reported the Bush Administration’s extraordinary abandonment of the effort to punish employers for using illegal aliens. Worksite arrests had fallen by a factor of some 97 percent since 1997.

Another year’s data is now in, and the Bush Administration’s response has been remarkable: worksite arrests have fallen by a further two-thirds.

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Bush Administration just plain doesn’t intend to enforce the law against illegal immigration.

But, although it may be hard to remember now, the primary purpose of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act was to end illegal immigration. IRCA imposed fines of up to $10,000 for every illegal alien hired by U.S. employers. It stipulated that repeat offenders could be jailed. These tough measures reflected the belief that employer sanctions were the only way to stem the tide of illegals.

That was the plan. Rarely can the gap between policy and performance have been greater.

Today, the INS/Homeland Security’s employer-sanctions program has all but disappeared. Here are the key indicators: [Table 1.]

Worksite arrests of illegal alien workers:


1997: 17,554
1999: 2,849
2000: 953
2001: 735
2003: 445
2004: 159


Even in cases where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has evidence implicating employers, the agency tends to back off if the employer pleads ignorance or fights the fine. That’s why of the 3,064 workforce investigations closed last year, fines were imposed in just 3 (three!) of them – one out of one thousand. . By contrast, fines were imposed in about 11 percent of closed investigations in 1997.

Notices of intent to fine employers:


1997: 865
1999: 417
2000: 178
2001: 100
2003: 162
2004: 3

The low priority accorded to workplace enforcement is clearly evident in the skewed allocation of ICE investigative personnel.

In fiscal year 2004 ICE dedicated about 90 full-time equivalent agents to worksite enforcement, and 2,430 to “all other� investigative areas. Between fiscal 1999 and 2004 the percent of agent work-years spent on workforce enforcement declined from about 9 percent to 4 percent.

So what do ICE agents do? Since 9/11 INS and then ICE have apparently focused their cadre of worksite investigators primarily on identifying and removing illegal aliens from critical infrastructure sites such as airports and nuclear power plants.

That makes some sense: illegals employed at such sites are easily blackmailed by terrorists. But why not hire more agents?

Moreover, indifference to non-security related workplace enforcement was evident well before 9/11. As seen in the table, worksite arrests peaked in the late Clinton years.

Ironically, the displacement of U.S.-born workers in the wake of the recent hurricanes has further reduced the probability of worksite enforcement. In September DHS announced that for at least 45 days it will not punish employers who hire Hurricane Katrina victims who cannot prove that they are legally in the country.

Ironically, almost half (17 of 37) of Republican lawmakers polled by the National Journal in July listed immigration as the issue most on the minds of their constituents.

Maybe they need to take a trip down Pennsylvania Avenue.

Great article Brian!!

Just further evidence that the Wackident is NOT Watching Out for US!!

What a Pathetic and Dangerous Joke on US.

I wonder what the numbers are for 2005? I know one thing they can't get much lower.

I heard that the Wal-Mart case was one of three. But I don't know if that was a holdover from 2004 or they had 3 again this year. Would be interesting to find out.

It says in the article that in 2004, there were 3 "notices of intent to fine employers".

But how many were actually fined?.. And were they fined $10,000 ?

I thought I read somewhere on these forums that actual fines were a big ZERO for 2004... Is that right?.. Does anyone know?

All I know is that earlier this year, probably from investigations started last year, Wal-Mart was fined $11,000,000 and the subcontractor fined $4,000,000. This was for "Northern European Illegal Immigrants" employed by the contractor for which Wal-Mart was also held culpable.

Those are large fines... If Walmart was fined $10,000 per illegal, then they must have hired 1100 illegals... (Though, the fines are not much for a company that makes billions in profit each year.)

What I read is that Walmart originally claimed they didn't know... They did their Scooby-Doo impersonation, "well, how was I supposed to know?"

But in wired-tapped conversations, federal investigators found out that Walmart executives did know.

Corporations love hiring contractors, because then they can avoid any responsibility for breaking labor laws... Companies should be held responsible for what their contractors do... If they can't trust the contractors, then they should do the work themselves.

This applies to other matters too... For instance, there was an article posted at ALIPAC which described how EXXON contracted flu shots to some other organization, which in turn, contracted the work out to some doctor that was NOT accredited to practice medicine in the state...The doctor used pure water instead of flu vaccine.

I read in the article that not long ago Exxon hired people directly to perform the flu shots... But now, they use contractors, which makes it cheaper and I don't think they are held responsible for what the contractors do.