Reply
Tue 4 Nov, 2003 10:05 am
Is any one else curious or is it just me. Last week or was it the week before the INS raided and rounded up approx 300 undocumented aliens working as porters at Walmart stores. They did it with much fan fare. Considering that there are in the neighborhood of 13 million undocumented aliens in the US and at any time in the cities of the US a raid would net hundreds why the small targeted raid. And why the fanfare.
Has the INS decided to do the job they are funded to do. Or is it just a hiccup to show they are alive?
Wal-Mart Receives Target Letter From U.S.By CHUCK BARTELS
Associated Press Writer
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said Tuesday it has received a "target letter" from the U.S. Attorney's Office saying the world's largest retailer allegedly violated federal immigration laws.
"The company is the target," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mona Williams said. She said company executives are not the subject of the inquiry.
On Oct. 23, federal agents arrested about 250 allegedly illegal workers in a 21-state sweep of Wal-Mart stores. The raids focused on floor cleaners employed by companies Wal-Mart hired for the work. Ten of those arrested were Wal-Mart employees hired as the company moved to bring its floor cleaning in-house.
Wal-Mart received the letter Friday, Williams said, adding the grand jury will look at whether the company "violated federal immigration laws in connection with the use of third-party floor cleaning contractors."
"Wal-Mart was not surprised by this formal notification since it is in keeping with comments made by federal officials after the raids," Williams said.
[]Federal prosecutors in Pennsylvania are handling the case.
Wal-Mart expects the grand jury to begin its hearing in mid-December, Williams said. "This notification gives us time to provide the U.S. Attorney's Office information we feel supports our position."
Shares in Wal-Mart fell 34 cents to $58.70 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
Wal-Mart says it pledged its cooperation since it first learned of the raids. That day, the company instructed store managers to preserve any relevant records. It also has said it would review all of its domestic employees - more than 1 million people - to ensure each has legal status.
"We do not know if the grand jury hearings will result in any indictments, however we are in ongoing talks with the U.S. Attorney's Office and are confident we will have the opportunity for full and complete discussion before any decisions are made," Williams said.
After the sweep, the workers were taken to local immigration offices. Some were released, but those with criminal records were detained, authorities said. The workers came from 18 nations.
Arrests were made in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.
Wal-Mart had sales last year of $244.5 billion. The company has 1,494 discount stores, 1,386 Supercenters, 532 Sam's Clubs and 56 Neighborhood Markets in the United States. It employs about 1.1 million people in the United States and 300,000 in other countries.
Well of course Wal-mart hires illegals, who the hell else can afford to work for the peanuts the worlds biggest company pays.
Ceili
And so apparently does everyone else. However, that is not the question. Not who they targeted but why the sudden awareness. What are they trying to prove? Has Rip Van Winkle awoken or just turned over in his sleep?
Two words: "pub"and "licity." The administration has to remind people how much "safer" we all are now, what with an election coming up next year!
They need to jump around a lot after the debacle of the box-cutter plantings on airplanes ... this looks like something is doing their job.
Ah, the INS. Quick war story from my misspent youth of practicing law.
I used to handle the defense end of insurance matters. You know, trips and falls, auto accidents, that sort of thing. Lots of undocumented folk would sue (and so did documented folk, of course). So one standard question, regardless of the person's appearance or accent was, "Are you a US citizen?" People used to volunteer all sorts of interesting stuff (a lot of plaintiffs' attorneys don't know how to prepare their clients for depositions). The questions were perfectly legitimate because usual stipulations in New York allow no objections at a deposition, except as to form. So the questions were allowed.
Now, keep in mind, depositions are taken under oath, with the same perjury penalty as in open court. Whenever we found an illegal, we'd call the INS in Riverhead, NY and tell them we had sworn testimony that a person was in the US illegally.
Sworn freakin' testimony!!!
And yanno what the INS did?
Absolutely nothing. Every single time. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
I'm not saying that illegal aliens don't have the right to sue - they do! But they don't have the right to stay here in the US. As an officer of the court (every attorney is), I was under an ethical obligation to report them. But the INS, apparently, had no such obligations to actually do anything. Sad, really. We'd hand them this information on a silver platter, and they'd just drop it in the circular file for all I know.
So it comes as no surprise to me whatsoever that the INS is trumpeting small actions in an effort to appear relevant and useful. They need a good overhaul, a good database, and a good management team. And that's just for starters.
That reminds me of the Social Security Administration, Jespah. After the close of the previous two tax years, I have been challenged by SS on employee names not matching SSNs. On the response form, there is a toll free number to call ". . . if you have questions." After two years running, I have determined that while it is, indeed, a number for asking questions, it is clearly not a number for receiving answers.
This activity of their's is an attempt to uncover illegal aliens and others using bogus SSNs, by the way. They have challenged one employee two years running, and still don't seem satisfied. So what? This is a case in which you must do what is required, but what isn't required is not permitted. It is almost as if these agencies were put in place to consume time - theirs and ours.
Jespah,
Don't you find it a bit of a legal conflict of interest for a defense attorney in a civil suit to have the plantiff deported?
This not only poses an ethical problem. It also would have a chilling effect on the legal system.
I for one would protest this as a civil rights violation if the INS deported folks based on testimony taken under oath for another legal procedure. It is a gross violation of privacy.
Brown
These people are here illegally. They IMO should be treated as criminals. They are violating the laws of the US. You insist that they be given the protection of our laws and I would insist that they obey them first.
ebrown_p wrote:Jespah,
Don't you find it a bit of a legal conflict of interest for a defense attorney in a civil suit to have the plantiff deported?...
Not at all. I'm an officer of the court and required to report illegal conduct. And it doesn't take away anyone's ability to sue. You don't need to be in the US (and you don't need to be a citizen) to file a claim.
Au,
The immigration laws are a trainwreck. They are basically unenforceable. They also are often inhumane. I believe very strongly that humanity is more important that legalism.
I have broken laws. That does not make me a criminal.
Jespah will agree. The protection given under our laws is guaranteed. You do not lose your constitutional and legal protections even when you have broken a law.
I have to wonder what does make one a criminal, then.
interesting question Roger, we have an issue here with a county clerk handing out literature at his county office of a religious nature stating that good christian citizens have a moral obligation to disregard legal proceedings if it contradicts religious teachings. Its my understanding that he is using his elected office to suggest that (his)religion over-rides our legal system.
Roger,
That is an interesting philosophical discussion I guess.
I make a distinction between a bank robber and someone who slips across the border.
To me there is a big difference since one is a violent act with a clear intent, the other is often a person who deperately wants a better life for their family. Immingrants (even those who came without permission) have contributed to and become a part of society.
I guess technically I am a criminal.
Jespah, The legalistic argument is flawed.
I believe that your decision to report the plantiff was a political decision.
In some states there are still anti-sodomy laws. Let's assume you are practicing law in one of these states and under sworn testimony the plantiff says he is a practicing homosexual.
Would you feel the same compulsion to report him for his criminal acts?
Would you have the same indignation if he were not punished?
Brown
We are back to the same argument. You believe it is acceptable to break the law if you do not believe in it. The law is the law like it or not. As far as illegal aliens go you would let them stay while I would deport them all. We have a right to determine who enters our boundaries. Just as you have the right to determine who enters your home. Do you allow strangers to move in and stay in your home simply because they are seeking a better life??
Au, I present the same challenge to you.
You say "The law is the law like it or not".
Do you feel the same way about anti-sodomy laws. Do you think we should put homosexuals in jail for their "crimes"?
I contend that a little humanity, tolerance and common sense are called for.
The vehicle for changing the law is petitioning the Legislature. I'm sworn to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. That doesn't leave room for picking and choosing.
And no, reporting the illegals wasn't political. I was fulfilling my ethical obligations.
Don't like the law? Then work to change it, but in the meantime it has to be enforced.