Moderatelad
Brother did you read the full article?
This is the attrition program that you said would work.
It is just a drop in the bucket of what is to come if we do not turn away from it soon.
It is not just about Latinos breaking our laws.
It is about us respecting the law as well.
It is about the inalienable rights of all people.
This program is hateful.

Moderatelad you have the time to read the whole article. Please take the time to think through its implications.

Posted by: wayne | July 15, 2008 11:28 AM

Moderatelad, your whining about wanting to protect those immigrants who "did it legally" is insincere. You have been on this blog long enough to know that there is no legal avenue for the undocumented immigrants to enter the country. Don't keep saying that they need to enter by the rules--they have no rules that allow them to enter.

Posted by: Don | July 15, 2008 12:08 PM

DITE
It is a fact that if you are from a Latin American country the avenues for you to legally come here are nil.
The only ones who can come are those who are highly skilled and or educated. If there were legal means of entry do you actually think they would dare the Southwest's deserts?

If Mods grandparents came here legally they did so without the restrictions our current system entails.
To compare the two is to obscure the need for reform.
The fact that a Canadian could be put in to the same bind as a Latino is also obfuscation. Two wrongs do not make it right of course.
The real problem is the completely un-American nature of this program. Herding people, going through the "legal" motions, the framing of people as criminals, etc.
As the complete article states very very few these people have "stolen anyone's identity," they crime they are often charged with. They are guilty of nothing requiring this response. Our unwarranted fear is our only excuse.

Posted by: wayne | July 15, 2008 1:23 PM

"It is a fact that if you are from a Latin American country the avenues for you to legally come here are nil.
The only ones who can come are those who are highly skilled and or educated."

Either you are using hyperbole, or you are contradicting yourself.

"If there were legal means of entry do you actually think they would dare the Southwest's deserts?"

They brave the Southwest desserts because it is a cheaper and more expedient way to enter the US. You could also say, "If there were legal means to buy bread why would people hold up convenience stores?"

"The fact that a Canadian could be put in to the same bind as a Latino is also obfuscation."

That sentence doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: DITE | July 15, 2008 1:49 PM

Moderatelad,

What do you make of the fact that so few employers where these roundups have taken place have been charged with anything? Is it merely that the employers were all working in good faith with the government, or is there a problem that needs to be addressed? I mean, breaking the law should be punished on both ends, shouldn't it?

Posted by: Don | July 15, 2008 2:44 PM

Thank you for this insightful post. I have worked in Federal Court along the U.S. Mexico border defending undocumented aliens who sought to enter the US illegally. I know firsthand what a disgrace the courts can be.

To those who are dismissive of the content of this post and the interpreter's comments about the proceedings, I have just a few questions:

1) Isn't a solid Chrisitan ethic to have fair proceedings even for those who have broken the law?

You may deplore the "crimes" that were committed but why must you defend the indefensibly unfair proceeings?

2) Do you not realize that allowing judges to circumvent due process is bad for all of us? Today it's the undocumented immigrants in Iowa. What will it be tomorrow?

"I believe that some countries that handle immigration and illegal immigration in a very different manner and less compassionate way the the US does." Moderalad

Why must you aim for the lowest common denominator to justify bad behavior on the part of our elected and appointed authorities. Don't you see that that drags us down closer to those who do not respect human rights rather ant uplifting us?

Posted by: JamesM | July 15, 2008 3:54 PM

"You can immigrate from any country to the US - there are limits and you will also have to allow yourself to be place on a list and called on in turn. But many do not want to wait so they break the law in order to get here."

If the line is over a decade long can you realistically refer to it as a line, or is it just a legal paper fence?

Is there any line, no matter how long, for poor Mexican citizen without a high school diploma?
If you know of one, please tell me about it.

Posted by: wayne | July 15, 2008 5:51 PM

"Most conservatives favor harsher punishments for businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants. It is very difficult, however, to punish companies when false documents showing citizenship are provided."

Living in the Midwest we get a bit more of the local news of the region than perhaps the rest of the nation does. If you have had a chance to follow the aftermath of the Postville, IA raids then you know that the talk around here is about comments made by the management of the plant concerning their treatment of these illegal workers.

Unfortunately there is a long track record of ignoring the actions of employers in incidents like this. Even though employees had identical SS numbers (something that any computer or manual payroll system should have caught) the management looked the other way.

There are calls for increasing the penalties, both criminal and civil, against employers who hire illegal immigrants. More often than not it is conservatives who speak against these initiatives.

Posted by: Don | July 15, 2008 6:26 PM

"If the U.S. were put to this test based on our treatment of immigrants, how would we fair?"

Fair?

Fare.

"I'd venture to say we're in danger of flunking"

Spelling? for sure!

It ain't just the immigrants that need an edyurcation, fokes!

Posted by: canucklehead | July 15, 2008 6:45 PM

the two comments posted directly above (at 6:26 and 6:33 PM) under the name Don were not my comments. Neither is the response to Moderatelad made at 2:44 this afternoon.

The comment made under the name Don at 12:08 PM was mine.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | July 15, 2008 7:13 PM

That's OK. I was thinking of changing to Buckeye Don (see my comment early this morning on Shane Claiborne's "Advise Everyone" thread), but I'm not sure I want to sound that partisan--at least not most of the time.

:-)

Don

Posted by: Don | July 15, 2008 9:30 PM

I think it's silly to quibble about who is living legally on stolen land.

Posted by: Robb | July 15, 2008 10:32 PM

"1) Isn't a solid Chrisitan ethic to have fair proceedings even for those who have broken the law?"

Yes, but fair according to whom? Dr. Camayd-Freixas or the defense attorneys and the other people with actual law degrees that worked this case? Again, they were advised correctly to take the 5 month deal. It was in their best interest.

"Do you not realize that allowing judges to circumvent due process is bad for all of us?"

Yes, but what does that have to do with these legal proceedings?

Posted by: DITE | July 15, 2008 11:24 PM

DITE
The person who wrote the original article is a court interpreter and a trainer of such. He knows what due process looks like. James is an attorney and agrees with the author.
Do you have similar credentials, experience and/or training to base your argument with them on?

To me the whole thing looks like it had speed and publicity as its only goals and justice went out the door. "Kangaroo" would be the only proper adjective to describe a court like this one.

This is the problem with this approach to "solving" the immigration debacle. We lose ourselves, our values, and our morals. It is cruel but if we are not careful and stop these kinds of actions, it will not be unusual.

Posted by: wayne | July 16, 2008 10:23 AM

As I reread the past posts, it seemed to me that most of us had not taken the time to really read Dr.Camayd-Freixas' report, which can be found at the link at the bottom of the article. DITE blows this off as: "Dr. Camayd-Freixas' essay is not really about the "flaws in the "fast track" legal proceedings." He mostly talks about the back stories of these illegal immigrants. He speculates on the economic impact of this raid and even finds space to discuss US foreign policy in Latin America in the 1980s. He knows that the lawyers defending these criminals were right to advise them to take the deal. I hate to be cynical, but this essay reads like he is looking for a book deal."
I will give DITE the benefit of the doubt that he didn't just skim this fourteen page report, but since he seemed to have missed large portions of it, and for those who haven't had a chance to delve into it, I really feel like there are some points about the "fast track" system that need to be examined. Even if illegal immigration doesn't pertain to you, be aware that precedents have been established here that could have an impact on any of us in the future.

From the report by Dr. Camayd-Freixas:
(Describing the meetings between the defense and the accused)
"The purpose was for the attorney to explain the uniform Plea Agreement that the government was offering. The explanation, which we repeated over and over to each client, went like this. There are three possibilities. If you plead guilty to the charge of "knowingly using a false Social Security number," the government will withdraw the heavier charge of "aggravated identity theft," and you will serve 5 months in jail, be deported without a hearing, and placed on supervised release for 3 years. If you plead not guilty, you could wait in jail 6 to 8 months for a trial (without right of bail since you are on an immigration detainer). Even if you win at trial, you will still be deported, and could end up waiting longer in jail than if you just pled guilty. You would also risk losing at trial and receiving a 2-year minimum sentence, before being deported. Some clients understood their "options" better than others." (My comment: a majority of the accused were Guatemalan who didn't speak English and had Spanish as a sometimes moderately understood second language, after their own local dialects.)

' "Knowingly" and "intent" are necessary elements of the charges, but most of the clients we interviewed did not even know what a Social Security number was or what purpose it served. This worker simply had the papers filled out for him at the plant, since he could not read or write Spanish, let alone English.'

"...immigration lawyers were alarmed that the detainees were being rushed into a plea without adequate consultation on the immigration consequences. Even the criminal defense attorneys had limited opportunity to meet with clients: in jail there were limited visiting hours and days; at the compound there was little time before and after hearings, and little privacy due to the constant presence of agents. There were 17 cases for each attorney, and the Plea offer was only good for 7 days." (This is an important point. The government was not required to present proof of illegality until ten days after the arrest. The fast track made sure that this wasn't a problem, since they didn't have proof to work with.)

"It works like this. By handing down the inflated charge of "aggravated identity theft," which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 2 years in prison, the government forced the defendants into pleading guilty to the lesser charge and accepting 5 months in jail. Clearly, without the inflated charge, the government had no bargaining leverage, because the lesser charge by itself, using a false Social Security number, carries only a discretionary sentence of 0-6 months. The judges would be free to impose sentence within those guidelines, depending on the circumstances of each case and any prior record. Virtually all the defendants would have received only probation and been immediately deported. In fact, the government's offer at the higher end of the guidelines (one month shy of the maximum sentence) was indeed no bargain. What is worse, the inflated charge, via the binding 11(C)(1)(c) Plea Agreement, reduced the judges to mere bureaucrats, pronouncing the same litany over and over for the record in order to legalize the proceedings, but having absolutely no discretion or decision-making power. As a citizen, I want our judges to administer justice, not a federal agency. When the executive branch forces the hand of the judiciary, the result is abuse of power and arbitrariness, unworthy of a democracy founded upon the constitutional principle of checks and balances."

"...if the Social Security number belonged to someone else, you were charged with identity theft and went to jail; if by luck it was a vacant number, you would get only Social Security fraud and were released for deportation. In this manner, out of 297 who were charged on time, 270 went to jail. Bothered by the arbitrariness of that heavier charge, I went back to the ICE Search Warrant Application (pp. 35-36), and what I found was astonishing. On February 20, 2008, ICE agents received social security "no match" information for 737 employees, including 147 using numbers confirmed by the SSA as invalid (never issued to a person) and 590 using valid SSNs, "however the numbers did not match the name of the employee reported by Agriprocessors..." "This analysis would not account for the possibility that a person may have falsely used the identity of an actual person's name and SSN." "In my training and expertise, I know it is not uncommon for aliens to purchase identity documents which include SSNs that match the name assigned to the number." Yet, ICE agents checked Accurint, the powerful identity database used by law enforcement, and found that 983 employees that year had non-matching SSNs. Then they conducted a search of the FTC Consumer Sentinel Network for reporting incidents of identity theft. "The search revealed that a person who was assigned one of the social security numbers used by an employee of Agriprocessors has reported his/her identity being stolen." That is, out of 983 only 1 number (0.1%) happened to coincide by chance with a reported identity theft. The charge was clearly unfounded; and the raid, a fishing expedition. "On April 16, 2008, the US filed criminal complaints against 697 employees, charging them with unlawfully using SSNs in violation of Title 42 USC §408(a)(7)(B); aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 USC §1028A(a)(1); and/or possession or use of false identity documents for purposes of employment in violation of 18 USC §1546."

And for those who are wondering what the big deal is for the accused to be convicted of a criminal offense, when really the charge should have been civil (being in our country with no documents), the criminal conviction has permanently closed the door to their ever coming here legally. This includes people who have American citizen spouses and children who are citizens here. Because of the criminal conviction, there is no recourse to even eventually returning home. There were a good portion of those who were railroaded on the "fast track" who needed to know this, but were not given time or opportunity to consider the ramifications.

Yes, this report had a lot to say about the ways this governmental agency circumvented the meaning and letter of the law.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 12:30 PM

Canucklehead
I do beg your pardon but in this context I really think it should be, Señor Don Blue Jacket Hussein

Posted by: wayne | July 16, 2008 4:11 PM

It might be that white, flag-waving male "America" (that subset of the human race that was also born here), has the legal right to tell everyone but those with the correct ancestry and birth status to get the hell out and don't come back, and don't let the door bounce off your ass.

But in that case, it's only fair for Americans to get our butts out of every other country on Earth ourselves.

Every time I browse by here, it's the same old disgusting behavior - some sort of neanderthal version of "conservatism" bubbling up its hatreds, intolerances and gross ignorances, all with a dollop of cruelty and inhumanity.

If these are Christians, no wonder after 2,000 years it's the same old vile mix of I ain't my brother's keeper, I'm his murderer.

Yadda yadda.

Posted by: Guns God and Gays | July 16, 2008 11:44 PM

The point, I think, is not to accuse Moderatelad of actual laziness, but to show how absurd it would be to do so - thereby debunking the argument that these hardworking Third World innocents who themselves are being exploited and punished have somehow deprived Americans of their rights to work.

It's called satire, I think.

I believe anyone who can offer "Blessings" so callously and cruel in their disregard can't just invoke a kind of disinterested pose which can't be called to account.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | July 17, 2008 2:53 AM

The day after the raid, a call went out for volunteers to show up at the National Cattle Congress to work both as translators and as 'gophers' for the attorneys. A dozen or so folk showed up, including myself (a Presbyterian Church[USA] pastor with some Spanish learned in a 4 year stint with the US Immigration Service in '78-'81) and another Presbyterian pastor colleague who serves an immigrant community in the Central part of the state, who is himself a documented immigrant. We were moved back and forth (in our own cars) by the Security Services (a fearsome looking group that maintained practically Guantanemo-level security, hands often on their weapons while holstered) and informed that the translation services had been outsourced already. We finally gave up and disbanded, many returning to the hispanic community center back in the downtown.

Of course, those detained wouldn't know to feel this way, but if it were I, I would want a translator NOT hired by the prosecution, wouldn't you?

Posted by: Paul Uzel | July 17, 2008 11:00 AM

To respond to Moderatelad on this comment:
You do not know what myself and my family do or how hard we work. Yes we are blue and white collar workers. But there are citizens out there that might be more than willing to take on those jobs and they should go to US Citizens first.

I do believe that your family works hard just as mine does but I don't think that any of us are willing to get out there and pick fruit. Let's be serious, these are jobs that any US citizen would scoff at.

Like someone else mentioned, I think corporations are one of the culprits here. They are willing to hire people to do cheap labor. They could care less about the value of a human life as long as their work is done. It's supply and demand- uncocumented worker needs a job, corporation needs cheap labor.

Also Moderatelad you mentioned that someone should show people in other countries how they should come here legally. The US only gives out a limited number of visas per year. It costs money to get into this country.Do you think a peasant who is willing to cross the border illegally has the money to fill out the proper documents and if they did what are the chances he/she will be accepted? That is why they do it.

I am not saying that crossing the border illegally is correct but once these people are here we can't treat them like animals. They are humans and they are God's children too. US prisoners receive better treatment than undocumented workers.

I think we need to separate our feelings of Americana and patriotism from our faith. God is not partial to Americans. He is partial to humanity. The underlying feeling in American Christian culture is that God loves the US more than any other country, therefore we have the right to treat people wrong.

Yes patriotism is good but before that we are citizens of God's kingdom. This comes before loyalty to anyone or anything.

Illegal immigration is a huge problem but I think we can start making a dent in the issue by changing our own attitudes about how we view ourselves and others.

Posted by: storm | July 17, 2008 12:34 PM

"Do you think that the people that my parents church helped get here had all the money they needed to pay their way - no they did not. We all pitched in to make it happen. So - why can't people that believe these people should be allowed into the US put together an organization that would come to these peoples assistance to get them here 'Legally'?" Moderatelad

Your post betrays a profound ignorance of the law and of the numerous organizations out there trying to help these people.

Posted by: JamesM | July 18, 2008 6:11 AM

Mod
This program is certainly one anybody could support or, so I would hope anyway. I applaud you.
We have tried many ways of achieving legal status for people. A few work but it is less and less.
It matters a great deal what country a person is immigrating from. If the are from Mexico or a country south of our border it can be impossible. If they are unskilled and or uneducated, it is also.
Immigration is not something that can be lumped into a one size fits all description or solution.
Was this family from a country in the Western Hemisphere? Were they unskilled? How much education had they achieved? Why did they wish to come here? Was it an emergency? Was their life in danger? Did they just need to come for a brief stint to earn some money and then go back?
I must tell you that in twenty five years of doing this I have never once met an immigrant who came here for the social benefits they could get. That seems to be a second generation thing. First gen Hispanic immigrants, with very few exceptions come here solely to work.
Legality is important as well as securing the border, but solving this problem is going to take much more than just getting Christians to pony up some money and volunteering some time. If it were that easy I assure you I would not be wasting my time writing this reply to you.

Posted by: wayne | July 18, 2008 4:36 PM