August 9, 2007, - 3:33 pm

Stupid Headline of the Day; New Euphemism for Open Borders: “Immigration Overhaul”

From Today’s Wall Street Journal:

Proving Worker Status Poses Burden to Farms

Here are some other headlines that could have been written by the same person:

Showing Driver’s License to Police When Stopped for Speeding Could Burden Drivers

Showing Passport to Return to America from Saudi Arabia Could Burden Muslim Terrorists

Flushing Toilet After Use Could Burden Users

Using Fork and Knife At Restaurant Could Burden Eaters

So sad, too bad. So farmers–who’ve been using illegal aliens for years–are now having to prove they comply with U.S. law. Ditto for landscapers, according to the article. If we could insure that farm workers were just innocent Mexicans and not Muslims, like one of the ’93 World Trade Center bombers, who fraudulently use farmworker visas, I’d say leave them alone. But that’s not the case. And if ICE went after all Muslim illegal aliens and only left Guatemalan farmworkers, hotel maids, etc., I’d say go for it. But that’s not the case. In reality, we are still not tough enough. Not on any employer. Not on the group of illegal aliens who are co-religionists with the 19 9/11 hijackers, or as President Bush today absudly called them “19 kids”.
Here’s a little more of the whining, along with a new euphemism for Open Borders (“Immigration Overhaul”):

Employers warned of labor shortages, particularly in agriculture during the fall harvest, as the Bush administration appeared ready to implement new rules that would press employers to fire workers who appear to be in the U.S. illegally.
“With no expectation there’s a fall-back workforce, you’ll put employers in the position of either firing workers or losing their crops,” said Craig Regelbrugge of the American Nursery and Landscape Association, a trade group.
The administration is under pressure from voters, and particularly Republican conservatives, to show it’s tough on illegal immigration after an immigration bill supported by President Bush collapsed in the Senate in June. The administration’s apparent intention to proceed with the regulations, a year after first proposing them, was reported earlier by the Los Angeles Times.
The regulations will require employers to play a greater role in verifying that their workers are in the U.S. legally, potentially putting new administrative burdens on industries, particularly agriculture, health care and construction, that typically hire large numbers of immigrants.
In return for the increased records checks and a willingness to fire suspected illegal immigrants, the regulations offer employers “safe harbor” protections against prosecution for illegal hiring.
The Department of Homeland Security said it would implement the regulations “in the very near term,” without saying when. But if that happens during the harvest season, trade groups predicted huge problems for growers who already face labor shortages. An estimated two-thirds of agriculture workers are thought to be in the U.S. illegally.
The department first proposed the regulations in June 2006 but then failed to implement them while an immigration-overhaul made its way to the Senate floor. That bill collapsed in part because of a public outcry over the administration’s lax enforcement of immigration laws already on the books.
Currently, an employer reports a new worker’s name and Social Security number with the Social Security Administration, and if the two don’t match government records, the employer receives a so-called “no-match” letter. The department sends a similar letter if the worker’s name doesn’t match the identity document that the worker shows to prove he or she has the right to work in the U.S.
Employers aren’t required to act on those letters, so workers can present counterfeit or stolen Social Security numbers without much danger of being challenged by labor-hungry bosses.
Under the new regulations, employers would have to sort out the discrepancy by asking the worker for new identity and immigration documents. If the problem still isn’t resolved, the regulations say that “the employer must choose between taking action to terminate the employee or facing the risk” of prosecution. Employers who complete and document the multi-step verification process and still don’t discover that the worker is an illegal immigrant also wouldn’t be prosecuted under the department’s safe-harbor provision.
The new rules “will provide clarity for employers,” said Russ Knocke, a DHS spokesman. . . . Employers in industries that are highly dependent on immigrants predicted the regulations could lead to a slowing economy.
“Employers might have to start firing, and then you might have a workforce that’s barely adequate,” said Shawn McBurney of the American Hotel and Lodging Association.
The regulations also are likely to cause paperwork burdens for employers in low-skill industries, which typically have high turnover and attract immigrant workers. Those employers will be faced with sorting through the documents of workers suspected of being in the U.S. illegally, but also of workers who receive no-match letters because of clerical errors, name changes or records confusion.
The regulation could quiet criticism by Republican conservatives that the administration’s failure to enforce immigration laws is attracting some half million illegal immigrants yearly. . . .
But advocates of immigration overhaul contend that tougher enforcement will create labor shortages and drive illegal workers into the underground economy, but it won’t keep them from coming. Mr. Regelbrugge also predicted that employers would move more operations overseas or, as with agriculture, to Mexico and Canada. “Doing enforcement only is going to have tremendous downside consequences on the economy,” he said.

Yeah, like saving jobs for Americans and keeping criminals out of the country. That is a tremendous downside.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

15 Responses

Shamnesty may not have passed, but our enemy remains in Aggie/IT bills etc….these reforms get passed unnoticed which include fully trained Iraqi terrorists among the “we did it, must let them in” caqmpaign.
250 thousand per year….book it

akak on August 9, 2007 at 5:40 pm

>>Proving Worker Status Poses Burden to Farms<<
Throwing criminals and terrorists in jail poses burden to “overcrowded” prisons.
So, let them free!
The U.S. government -that is suppose to protect the American people by applying the laws and the Constitution- is using that same logic to circumvent and defy the laws and the Constitution.

Independent Conservative on August 9, 2007 at 5:55 pm

I was not allowed to work in Washington State without providing all sorts of proof that I was an American legal citizen. I also had to provide proof before I got my driver’s license.
If I have to do it, you illegals have to do cut that crap out. You aren’t special and do not deserve different easier rights than what I have just because you choose to break the law.

Highrise on August 9, 2007 at 6:43 pm

“Mr. Regelbrugge also predicted that employers would move more operations overseas or, as with agriculture, to Mexico and Canada. “Doing enforcement only is going to have tremendous downside consequences on the economy,” he said. ”
Exactly HOW does one move a field that is located in the US to Mexico or Canada? on August 9, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Sad to report that you can’t close the barn door after the cows got out and expect to contain them. You can’t close the borders after the government granted amnesty to the illegals twenty years ago. Our government failed to enforce our borders as promised after the first amnesty. All this enforcement noise from ICE is just political rhetoric to get Congress to pass ANOTHER amnesty bill. The illegals are here to stay and that is why former Customs agents hate being in ICE. The mission of ICE is to put political pressure on Congress to pass an amnesty bill. Then the illegals are legal and ICE has accomplished its mission. Cash rewards for all the morons in charge and on to being air marshals or FPS officers or some such…What a joke of an agency with clowns in charge.

FingerEleven on August 9, 2007 at 11:39 pm

We already import a lot of food from Chile. If Mexico didn’t have so many roadblocks allowing foreign investment many of these American farmers could move their farms south of the border. Importing from Mexico would be a shorter trip than from Chile. Piss off the Chileans, but, it might make a difference. Seems the only problem is the Mexican government.

John Cunningham on August 10, 2007 at 4:28 am

– “The new rules “will provide clarity for employers,” said Russ Knocke, a DHS spokesman. . . .”
Uh, let’s see; didn’t the laws under the Employer Sanctions provisions of IRCA 1986 state the relative same yet pretty much went down the tank because the government didn’t have the guts to levy the fines placed on employers subject to NUMEROUS man-hours spent by agents conducting the investigation(s)?
– “Employers aren’t required to act on those letters, so workers can present counterfeit or stolen Social Security numbers without much danger of being challenged by labor-hungry bosses.”
Of course not. Employers have been blowing off those spineless little threat letters because they know damn good and well that the Service never had the gonads to back it up and still don’t. Social Security doesn’t give a rat’s a** if there’s chingos of bogus SS #’s floating around or legitimate citizens having their SS#’s being used by illegals. As long as the money is rolling into the kitty they don’t care from where or how.
This fetid display of apathy and ignorance is merely a small taste of the BS propogated by the walking sphincters we have for “management?”.
– FingerEleven: Great post! Couldn’t agree more with you.

1shot1kill on August 10, 2007 at 8:18 am

This whole thing would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. Northern Mexico imports most of its food from the United States, so that sort of shoots down the idea of exporting the fields to Mexico, but any lie to make your point. NAFTA was suppose to move work to Mexico, but companies are closing down in Mexico because all the workers have moved to the United States. The agriculture department say 26% of the workers are foreign, the employers say 66%, which is it? I guess it depends on who is giving out the number and what they are trying to accomplish.

Burt on August 10, 2007 at 9:16 am

Here’s the link for our illegal Peruvian “friend” implicated in the schoolyard executions in Newark, NJ while out on BOND (YES, BOND!!!) for RAPING a FIVE YEAR OLD girl.
Hey, Chertoff, Myers and Torres – how do you explain away this one? We”ll be sued to the hills for this one, and rightfully so for our idiotic incompetence !!!
It’s gotten so bad that, in the most recent OI supervisor exam, they are dropping down on the score list to 84 to get people to go to HQ. Why? BECAUSE NO ONE WHO HAS ANY SELF RESPECT WANTS TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE UPPER MANAGEMENT IDIOTS RUNNING ICE RIGHT NOW !!! So, what are you going to be left with? Idiots promoting idiots to run the show, and more f**k-ups like above.
As for me, I’m taking positive steps to better myself in ways that do NOT involve ICE (e.g. graduate school, side business ventures, etc.). I can’t wait for the day I bail out of this sinking ship – retirement cannot come fast enough !!!

4EVERCUSTOMS on August 10, 2007 at 8:27 pm

If you wanted to be honest about it, you’d admit that nobody, even back in the good old Customs days that we both remember fondly, ever wanted to go the Headquarters. That’s why people were drafted back then, and that’s why people are most likely going to have to be drafted now.
It’s not about lowering the scores. You know as well as I do that the scores aren’t all-telling. There are many better qualified candidates with lower scores than many of the people that occupy the top of the list with the highest scores. It’s always been the way, since we went to tests, and “dialing for dollars (CAP 14) etc…”.
A HQS assignment is distateful for a number of reasons. Wearing a suit everyday, higher than normal cost of housing/living, expensive/long commute everyday (without a G-Ride), hellacious long hours, day in and day out, to name just a few. All that being said, we must staff our HQS adequately, so that the people there don’t have to kill themselves, and so that the normal knowledge transfer can take place.
Besides, who’s going to send out the gazillion HQS taskings if you and your friends aren’t there? LOL

EverVigilantSheepdog on August 12, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Hey 4EVERCUSTOMS, don’t be so quick to accept the blame on behalf of ICE for this one. If ICE has done anything right in the last few years, it is going after sex offenders (Operation Predator). Do you have any evidence Detention and Removal was notified and failed to detain this guy?

lsellers on August 12, 2007 at 9:08 pm

Thanks for your reply. Quite frankly, in my conversations with those declining the position – yes, a lot of it has to do with what you describe above, but now, coupled with the perception that HQ is a bitter and vindictive place giving out marching orders regarding what many perceive to be a too politically charged and failing mission, that is putting many over the edge in deciding against an HQ tour.
In fact, those declining have told me that they want to wait out the current administration and see if there is any significant change at the top (read: Myers, Clark and Forman) and mission focus before deciding whether or not to try again. And, as for those accepting, as one colleage who accepted told me: “Better to be the p**ck giving the orders than the a** on the receiving end” – nothing altruistic about wanting to better the agency or its legacy.
Isellers …
Nope, no evidence, but I think the Newark Star-Ledger reported that authorities had notified ICE of Caranza’s arrest at least one time before his arrest on the murder charge. If they come up with a detainer or other evidence of notification, ICE is TOAST in this one (Hope it’s not the case, believe you me).

4EVERCUSTOMS on August 13, 2007 at 2:11 pm

Perhaps you are right, and I’m not going to challenge you on it, because you are the one talking to these people.
My perception and experience with the 7th floor is diametricly opposed however, and I really believe DepSec Clark and Dir Forman are doing their best with the hand they’ve been dealt. We could argue this until hell freezes over, and probably never agree.
I just believe that this agency can only fail if you and I allow it to happen. I’ve never been a quitter, and don’t plan on starting now.
Take care brother,

EverVigilantSheepdog on August 13, 2007 at 8:49 pm

Thank you for your kind sentiments and deference – you speak with what appears to be a good amount of “inside” authority and, although I have not agreed with all that you have said, I respect you for voicing your opinions, and this site for permitting the free exchange of ideas.
Regarding HQ assignments … I view accepting any position that has the potential of shaping the future legacy of this agency VERY seriously, and, if I WERE going to apply for and accept a 14 at HQ, I would want to be sure it is for the RIGHT reasons – effective stewardship of resources (fiscal and human), and NOT for the selfish reasons of wanting to get ahead solely for my own benefit, or to to be the “p**ck, instead of the a**” (see previous post).
In addition, the HQ 14 or 15 of today WILL be the GS, ASAC, DSAC or SES-level SAC of tomorrow: I want to be sure I am prepared for those challenges, and that field-level agents will RESPECT me, not FEAR me based on grade or title. That appears to be an all-too-common problem in government, and in many corporate models.
Part of respect, besides innate knowledge, derives from the perception by the field that upper-level managers, ESPECIALLY at the HQ level, are not just spewing balls of disingenuous, irrelevant “crap” to further what many see as an increasingly bankrupt mission. Yes, we all get our marching orders to be sure, however HOW those orders are communicated to the field, in conjunction with treating the field with what appears to be long-overdue repect, will go a LONG way in ensuring that the rank-and-file doesn’t see local senior or HQ management as detached from reality and disengaged from whenceforth they came.
Just a thought …

4EVERCUSTOMS on August 14, 2007 at 10:57 am

I don’t disagree with anything you just said. You are absolutely correct. I just wish you could get a sense of the HQS that I know, and the people that are truly pulling the wagon up there.
I think your perception, and that of your friends might change. I’m not saying there aren’t chuckleheads in positions of power, because there are. Fortunately, they aren’t in all the positions, and the core group of SES’s and 15’s in HQS are doing the right thing for the right reason.
They may have to shovel some BS down to the field; no, they DO have to shovel some down to the field, but it’s not their idea. Those things are politically driven, and bigger than ICE/OI.
As NotAnAgent has artfully pointed out, we aren’t the only federal agency with problems, and we’re currently the youngest (pisses me off too:). We’re still working through those growing pains, but I’m confident that ICE can only fail if you and I allow it to do so.
Thanks for your reply. Work Safe Friend,

EverVigilantSheepdog on August 14, 2007 at 8:54 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field