Immigration Law in a Historical Context--The Texas Proviso

While re-reading my earlier post below, it strikes me how far and how quickly we as a country have traveled in what appears to be our mindset and general reaction toward the politics of immigration.  It doesn't take a legal scholar to observe the fact that the topic of immigration and "immigration reform" serves today as a prominent flash point in our greater social conversation.  Witness the fomenting of Lou Dobbs, and the extent to which both presidential candidates avoided the topic whenever possible during the general election campaign...and this with the Hispanic/Latino population emerging as one of the (if not THE) new, electorally-desirable political constituencies!   We could of course debate for days why and how the topic of immigration stokes the visceral fires that it apparently does, but that's not really the point of this post. 

The point of this post is to point out that it hasn't always been this way.  We haven't always had communities waiting with baited breathe, wondering whether their town would be the next torn apart by an ICE raid.  We haven't always had Minute Men independently patrolling the border.  We haven't always had employers caught on the one hand with barely-functioning H-2A and H-2B programs, and on the other with extremely aggressive worksite enforcement raids. 

In fact, until 1986 no law made it illegal for an employer to hire an undocumented worker.  Can you believe it?!  I986!  And moreover, in 1952 Congress actually passed a law which said that it was specifically NOT illegal to hire an undocumented worker.  (Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163)).  According to Stephen Yale-Loehr, this law became known as the "Texas Proviso", which meant that employers were free to hire whomever they chose, without having to verify an individual's eligibility to work.  If an unauthorized worker was among the ranks of their employees, nobody knew the difference and the employer was free to go about business as usual. 

Caveat:  I'm certainly not operating under the delusion that, from an immigration perspective, everything was great back in the 1950s or before.  In fact, opportunistic employers have taken horrendous advantage of undocumented laborers since the dawn of our modern economy.  To this very day we're still fighting the battle to make worksite conditions safer all over our country. Instead, my reason for highlighting the fact that it wasn't until 1986 that we had a law on the books criminalizing the hiring of undocumented workers is to bring some much needed perspective to our country's legislative approach to dealing with immigration.  As we move toward forming a plan for comprehensive immigration reform, we should keep in mind that our legislative framework for dealing with undocumented workers is fairly new, but in the relatively brief amount of time the laws have been on the books we've seen them act as a contributing cause to a great deal of human suffering and economic stagnation.  We've changed our immigration laws in the recent past and we can do so again--hopefully this time with common sense solutions that allow our country to once again remember that we all, at some time, were immigrants. 

Postville Update--HR worker Pleads Guilty

Yesterday Karina Pilar Freund, the former Agriprocessors' human resources employee, did in fact plead guilty.  However, as I had speculated, it sounds like Ms. Freund benefited from some degree of prosecutorial leniency.  Under the original conspiracy to harbor charge Freund could have faced a maximum of 5 years imprisonment.  Instead, yesterday at the Federal Courthouse in Cedar Rapids, IA, Freund pleaded guilty under an agreement with prosecutors to a misdemeanor count of aiding and abetting a pattern or practice of hiring undocumented immigrants.  I believe this would fall under the IRCA misdemeanor violations, probably 8 USC section 1324(a)(f).  According to her attorney, Mark Brown, Freund will now face a maximum sentence of up to 6 months in prison and a fine of up to $3,000.00 for each unauthorized immigrant involved in the offense. 

I certainly don't mean to create the impression that Freund is getting off lightly.  The open-ended "per unauthorized alien" nature of her fines could really add up.  And obviously, the prospect of any time spent in jail shouldn't be minimized.   To understate things a bit, prison isn't designed to be an enjoyable place.   Plus, the news articles indicate that Freund (along with other Agriprocessors officials) is scheduled to go to trial next April on more than 9,000 charges alleging child labor violations at the plant. 

ICE Raids: The Postville Fallout Continues

As we all know, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) raided the Agriprocessors kosher slaughterhouse in Postville, IA, in May 2008 and in the process arrested 389 allegedly undocumented workers.  Since that time details have emerged concerning the alleged criminal and immigration violations commited by the Agriprocessors' mid and upper level leadership.  Employees being targeted include the former CEO Sholom Rubashkin, former operations manager Brent Beebe and former human resources employee Karina Freund.  Two other former Agriprocessor supervisors have been indicted but are currently on the lam.  For various practice-related reasons I've made the editorial decision to largely stay away from this story, but I think it's time to now dive in as the pleas come rolling in and the trial dates move closer and closer. 

With indictments being brought against mid level HR employees and supervisors, this case serves as a perfect example of the treacherous web of immigration-related liability that can spread throughout a company.  As an HR employee or a supervisor of any level of a company operating with a high-risk workforce, you're simply deluding yourself if you believe that federal authorities are only interested in prosecuting the Big Bosses and CEO Muckety Mucks. 

To recap, the charges to date against the Agriprocessor workers include:  conspiracy to harbor undocumented workers for profit, harboring and aiding and abetting document fraud, aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft and bank fraud. 

In order to prove the conspiracy to harbor undocumented workers charge, the government will have to prove the following:  1) an agreement with at least one other person; 2) the harboring of at least one unauthorized alien; and 3) simply one act furthering the goal of the conspiracy.  The maximum period of imprisonment is 10 years, while the maximum fine on this charge is the greater of $250,000.00 or 2x the financial gain achieved through the conspiracy. 

As for the aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft charge, the government will have to provide proof of the knowing transfer, possession or use of a means of personal identification of another without lawful authority during the commission of specified felonies, including false presentation of citizenship, fraud, etc. 

Presumably none of these charges will be an easy lift for the government, but I think it's safe to say that the discovery process will shed some light on the direction this trial is headed.  Both sides are currently combing through an abundance of documents, including:  all Agriprocessors' personnel office files, 10 binders containing I-9 forms, 12 binders of grand jury testimony, electronic discovery that would equal 100 banker boxes if in paper form and at least 10 boxes of records on the bank fraud charges.  As a slightly modified version of the saying goes, the proof will likely be in the paper. 

Today news sources are telling us to expect Karina Freund, the former HR employee, to plead guilty.  Originally she was chaged with conspiracy to harbor undocumented immigrants and haboring, aiding and abetting the harboring of undocumenteds for profit.  I'll keep you posted on the specifics of Freund's plea, but I'm willing to bet we see some limited leniency from the government toward Freund in exchange for Freund's cooperation with the ongoing investigation and subsequent prosecution. 

As for the remaining defendants, U.S. District Chief Judge Linda Reade has indicated that the trial will start Sept. 14, 2009.  With that said, the prosecuting U.S. Attorney, Peter Deegan, has recently intimated that the investigation is ongoing and that there will likely be a superseding indictment with additional charges filed in January 2009. 

Whether you're an immigration lawyer, criminal lawyer, human resources employee or manager of any level, this impending litigation will serve as a case study in the potential modern day pratfalls and liabilities involved with the combination of an employment environment and a high-risk workforce.  Stay tuned...

 

Migrant Labor Feels the Squeeze in U.S.

This week our friends at The Economist take a look at the way the economy's downturn is affecting migrant laborers in the United States by viewing the dynamic though one man's eyes. Carlos Pirir, a Guatemalan, used to make good money at a high-rise construction job in downtown Miami.  According to Mexico's central bank, over 20% of Mexican migrants in America work in construction.  Now, with decently-paying construction jobs harder and harder to find, Mr. Pirir competes for labor jobs on a day-to-day basis .  Whereas Mr. Pirir used to send $600.00 per month in remittances home to his wife and seven children, now he is only able to afford $200 per month.  In fact, it should come as no surprise, but Latinos are among this economy's hardest hit.  Some economic statistics and the immigration-related impacts, as cited by The Economist:  

  • The unemployment rate among all Hispanics rose to 8.8% in October, well above the national unemployment rate of 6.5%;
  • The Mexican government said last week  that the number of its citizens who left to live abroad this year was down more than 40% compared with 2006; and
  • The American Border Patrol says it caught 18% fewer people in the fiscal year that ended in September than in the one before.

Apparently Mr. Pirir has seen enough.  He's saving money to pay for his return travel home to Guatemala.