ICE Agents Raid Processing Plants

[dawgfan]

Because any smart manager or any manager following the advice of a descent lawyer would advise such

Exactly. I wouldn’t want any government agents coming into my house or my business to search through my things even though I wouldn’t have anything to hide.

 

[Fremont]

Because any smart manager or any manager following the advice of a descent lawyer would advise such

Sounds like the good solid thinking used by the lawyers and executives at Enron.

“We know what we are doing. Who cares if it is legal or ethical? We are getting rich so let’s keep the details buried.”

 

[a_cermak]

Sounds like the good solid thinking used by the lawyers and executives at Enron.

“We know what we are doing. Who cares if it is legal or ethical? We are getting rich so let’s keep the details buried.”

Or just exercising their rights? Remember rights? As in you have the right to contest a supoena.

The big question I have is will this affect meat prices? I read an article about a Tyson’s Chicken plant in Georgia recently that was having trouble getting employees after a raid. ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2006/11/25/1126METstillmore.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13

In another piece on the same thing, the reporter was interviewing a couple of women who had gone to work there. They both intended to quit as soon as they got new jobs because the work was so hard and disgusting.

Granted they can get employees if they upgrade the plant, raise wages and benefits and cut productivity targets, but this will undoubtedly have a price effect that will be felt throughout the economy. Is this a good trade off?

I can see it both ways. On the one hand, the laborer is worthy of his wages so the meat processing plants have been stiffing their workers in wages for years with the effect being that predominantly illegals will only accept the job. On the other hand, by raising prices you may price an entire sector of the nation out of meat.

 

[dawgfan]

Sounds like the good solid thinking used by the lawyers and executives at Enron.

“We know what we are doing. Who cares if it is legal or ethical? We are getting rich so let’s keep the details buried.”

Enron? – scratches head and wonders what comparison is being made.

I think the least of Enron’s problems was a suspicion of hiring illegal workers.

I, for one, am a big believer in the bill of rights which prohibits illegal searches and seizures.

 

[rlg94086]

I, for one, am a big believer in the bill of rights which prohibits illegal searches and seizures.

Me too! Now, what does that have to do with this raid?

 

[dawgfan]

Me too! Now, what does that have to do with this raid?

Means that I haven’t seen anything yet that makes this more than speculation

That’s all fine and dandy, but if the employer knowing skirts the law, as I believe happened in this case, they should be prosecuted don’t you think?

I wouldn’t just invite any governmental agency into my home or office without them having a valid reason to be there.

Don’t get me wrong. If they did knowingly hire those guys without getting any documents, I say prosecute them according to the law if they have the proof. I think that is a reprehensible thing. But as an employer if I see what looks to be valid documentation from my years of experience, I can’t apply no more scrutiny to someone that gives me papers that says his surname is Sanchez than I would do to someone whose surname is Smith.

 

[rlg94086]

Means that I haven’t seen anything yet that makes this more than speculation

No comprende. What does that mean? Are you saying your earlier statement doesn’t apply to this case and you are just speculating?

dawgfan:

Don’t get me wrong. If they did knowingly hire those guys without getting any documents, I say prosecute them according to the law. I think that is a reprehensible thing. But as an employer if I see what looks to be valid documentation from my years of experience, I can’t apply no more scrutiny to someone that gives me papers that says his surname is Sanchez than I would do to someone whose surname is Smith.

I agree, and I jumped the gun on my statement because I only scanned the article initially. Upon reading it more thoroughly, I see that Swift claims to have done their due diligence in reviewing applications, but they claim that the program they are using may be flawed:

“Swift has never condoned the employment of unauthorized workers, nor have we ever knowingly hired such individuals,” Swift & Co. President and CEO Sam Rovit said in a statement.
Since 1997, Swift has been using a government pilot program to confirms whether Social Security numbers are valid. Company officials have previously said one shortcoming may be the program’s inability to detect when two people are using the same number.

Now, whether they turned a blind eye to known violators is unknown and would be difficult to prove in court, so it would be unfair of me to assume this is the case.

 

[dawgfan]

No comprende. What does that mean? Are you saying your earlier statement doesn’t apply to this case and you are just speculating?.

I was using your quote.

:

I agree, and I jumped the gun on my statement because I only scanned the article initially. Upon reading it more thoroughly, I see that Swift claims to have done their due diligence in reviewing applications, but they claim that the program they are using may be flawed:

Now, whether they turned a blind eye to known violators is unknown and would be difficult to prove in court, so it would be unfair of me to assume this is the case.

I think we are in agreement.

 

[rlg94086]

I was using your quote.
I think we are in agreement.

I’m glad we are in a agreement, but I’m still confused by your comments about illegal search and seizure.

You said

I, for one, am a big believer in the bill of rights which prohibits illegal searches and seizures.

I asked

what does that have to do with this raid?

and you responded

Means that I haven’t seen anything yet that makes this more than speculation

What does that mean? Do you or don’t you believe there was illegal searching and seizing by ICE in this case? I don’t see how your belief in prohibiting illegal search and seizure appies to this raid on Swift. It looks to me like everything was done with proper warrants.

 

[dawgfan]

I’m glad we are in a agreement, but I’m still confused by your comments about illegal search and seizure.

What does that mean? Do you or don’t you believe there was illegal searching and seizing by ICE in this case? I don’t see how your belief in prohibiting illegal search and seizure appies to this raid on Swift. It looks to me like everything was done with proper warrants.

It was my personal opinion in response to earlier threads that I read to be that just because Swift didn’t want the government to come in that automatically is a presumption that they are doing something illegal.

If Swift did not know they had illegals working for them why did they go to court to try to stop the raids?

Because any smart manager or any manager following the advice of a descent lawyer would advise such

Whether or not I have anything to hide or not, I just wouldn’t want any agency busting down my door without a warrant. I wouldn’t just invite them in to my place of work without approval granted by an independent judge. From everything I’ve read this action was done appropriately.

 

[rlg94086]

Whether or not I have anything to hide or not, I just wouldn’t want any agency busting down my door without a warrant. I wouldn’t just invite them in to my place of work without approval granted by an independent judge. From everything I’ve read this action was done appropriately.

Okay. Now I comprende.

 

[Lance]

Or just exercising their rights? Remember rights? As in you have the right to contest a supoena.

The big question I have is will this affect meat prices? I read an article about a Tyson’s Chicken plant in Georgia recently that was having trouble getting employees after a raid. ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2006/11/25/1126METstillmore.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13

In another piece on the same thing, the reporter was interviewing a couple of women who had gone to work there. They both intended to quit as soon as they got new jobs because the work was so hard and disgusting.

Granted they can get employees if they upgrade the plant, raise wages and benefits and cut productivity targets, but this will undoubtedly have a price effect that will be felt throughout the economy. Is this a good trade off?

I can see it both ways. On the one hand, the laborer is worthy of his wages so the meat processing plants have been stiffing their workers in wages for years with the effect being that predominantly illegals will only accept the job. On the other hand, by raising prices you may price an entire sector of the nation out of meat.

The cost of meat going up a few dents a lb. in no way justifies hiring illegals and not giving them health insurance and other benefits. Lets put the cost of illegal immigration out front where everyone can see it. If my taxes and medical insurance go down by $800 a year and the cost of my meat goes up by $100 getting rid of the illegals is a good idea. food including meat is cheap in America, we pay much less percentage of our incomes for food than most other countries.

 

[Fremont]

Or just exercising their rights? Remember rights? As in you have the right to contest a supoena.

The big question I have is will this affect meat prices? I read an article about a Tyson’s Chicken plant in Georgia recently that was having trouble getting employees after a raid. ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2006/11/25/1126METstillmore.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13

In another piece on the same thing, the reporter was interviewing a couple of women who had gone to work there. They both intended to quit as soon as they got new jobs because the work was so hard and disgusting.

Granted they can get employees if they upgrade the plant, raise wages and benefits and cut productivity targets, but this will undoubtedly have a price effect that will be felt throughout the economy. Is this a good trade off?

I can see it both ways. On the one hand, the laborer is worthy of his wages so the meat processing plants have been stiffing their workers in wages for years with the effect being that predominantly illegals will only accept the job. On the other hand, by raising prices you may price an entire sector of the nation out of meat.

We are getting off topic here. I hope we can get back on track.

That being said, sure there are rights. Every company doing illegal activities has the right to hire as many attorneys as they want to fight a search warrant. Every murderer, every thief, every rapist, etc. has the right to hire as many attorneys as they want to fight a search warrant. That does not make their behavior right.

The price of products is no justification for illegal behavior IMO. But there are many who share that view.

150 years ago that argument was used to try to justify the retention of slavery. Around 100 years ago that argument was used to try to justify the retention of child labor. Earlier in the 20th century that argument was used to fight against labor unions. More recently that argument has been used to argue for the legalization of various street drugs. That argument has been used consistently to fight against minimum wage laws.

The bottom line is that Swift knowingly broke the law by hiring illegal immigrants.

It is my hope that Swift will have severe fines imposed and at least some of the culpable Swift executives will do some jail time.

 

[Fremont]

Enron? – scratches head and wonders what comparison is being made.

I think the least of Enron’s problems was a suspicion of hiring illegal workers.

I, for one, am a big believer in the bill of rights which prohibits illegal searches and seizures.

Illegal searches and seizures? Where did that come from?

From all I have read a perfectly valid warrant was served as part of the raids on Swift facilities.

 

[dawgfan]

Illegal searches and seizures? Where did that come from?

From all I have read a perfectly valid warrant was served as part of the raids on Swift facilities.

Both issues addressed in Post #30

 

[Fremont]

Both issues addressed in Post #30

Maybe so, but I do not see it.

I see nothing about illegal searches or seizures.

I have seen nothing about any court ruling that the raids on Swift were illegal or that ICE did anything improper.

More power to ICE.

No matter what the final outcome for Swift at least there are now many illegals out of action.

 

[dawgfan]

Maybe so, but I do not see it.

I see nothing about illegal searches or seizures.

I have seen nothing about any court ruling that the raids on Swift were illegal or that ICE did anything improper.

More power to ICE.

No matter what the final outcome for Swift at least there are now many illegals out of action.

I don’t get it.

I thought that I explain the confusion that I started. Do you want me to say it over and over and explain it on 100 more posts?

Yes, I’m glad that there are now actions taken to prevent illegals from getting away with working under false or stolen documents. I do not approve of companies that hire illegal workers and I support efforts to stamp this behavior out.

The part about the searches and seizures was in response to the post about presumed guilt of Swift just because they wouldn’t want government agents walking around their premises disrupting their business. Should I assume that you must be guilty of something because you would refuse to let an agent into your house and search through your things WITHOUT proper court approval?

Maybe the post was bad on my part and I could have better thought out my response, clarified myself or used different language.

Bad, Bad me :tsktsk: for making a stupid quote that I should have thought out better.

Now, does anyone else need me to post that again or was that rebuke of myself sufficient?

 

[dawgfan]

The bottom line is that Swift knowingly broke the law by hiring illegal immigrants.

Proof please.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The bottom line is that Swift knowingly broke the law by hiring illegal immigrants.

Yes, show us some facts

 

[Fremont]

Proof please.

That is not my job.

The facts will come out in the litigation.

I will keep my fingers crossed that there will be significant fines and that some Swift executives will do some jail time.

Further I will hope the illegal immigrants who used stolen social security numbers will be forced to pay back all of the monies they were paid while using that SS number as well as get a good part of the 15 year prison term, both of which are the penalty for such an offense.

So far at least we can enjoy the fact that there are a large number of illegals that are out of action and no longer violating the rights of innocent Americans.