Obama Orders ‘Softer’ Tactics in Anti-Immigrant Crackdown

by Lisa Luinenburg / August 2009

Despite repeated postponements of critical meetings and only vague references to immigration reform since President Obama’s inauguration in January, it seems that the debate over immigration policy is finally starting to heat up. Although the Obama administration has failed to lay out a specific timeline for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, the appointment of Janet Napolitano as the new head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has signaled a tactical shift in dealing with ever-mounting problems surrounding the floundering U.S. immigration system.

Congress has recently moved on several new initiatives as well, including increased funding for building a physical wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, and expanded use of the E-verify system, which is used to check Social Security numbers of new workers against a massive government database.

But what is the meaning of this shift? Under the Bush administration, massive workplace raids seemed to be the standard. Plants were raided by ICE agents, and workers who were caught were shuffled through the national system of detention centers before being deported. Bush also supported increased funding for militarization of the border and more Border Patrol agents.

It is clear that the Obama administration is focusing more on employer sanctions, but what do these actually entail and what will be their effects, intended or otherwise, on the immigration system here in the U.S.? And, how do employer sanctions fit into the larger plan for immigration reform and the Democrats’ strategy for pushing such legislation through Congress? The answer may surprise you. Let’s take a deeper look.

First, it is clear from Representative Gutierrez’s (D-Il.) tour of immigration reform “pep rallies” earlier this year that the Democrats are gearing up to push the legislation through Congress (whenever it is brought to the table). In order to gain bipartisan support as well as support from large sections of the American public for their Comprehensive Immigration Reform proposal, the Democrats need to make it clear that they are “cracking down” on illegal immigration through the use of stricter (and supposedly more effective) enforcement measures.

These recent “tough stance” initiatives include even more militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border, despite the past failure of such measures to stem undocumented migration flows. Napolitano recently launched an initiative to send an additional 360 agents to the border, supposedly to help stem the flow of illegal drugs and weapons into Mexico (The New York Times, April 6, 2009). The U.S. Senate voted in early July to require actual fencing (as opposed to technological and vehicle barriers) along 700 miles of the border. This initiative passed as part of a debate on a $42.9 billion measure to fund the DHS for the 2010 fiscal year.

However, similar initiatives in the past have failed to stem the flow of undocumented migration into the U.S., while non-governmental organizations like the Coalición de Derechos Humanos in Arizona have consistently documented increased deaths crossing the border as a result of the necessity to cross at more dangerous points. Both the SEIU and the AFL-CIO endorse increased border control measures as well.

Other “tough stance” initiatives include the expansion of 287(g), which deputizes local police departments to enforce immigration law, and Secure Communities, which will automatically check the immigration status of everyone in jail. On July 10, Napolitano announced that the DHS has granted 287(g) powers to 11 new jurisdictions. The Obama administration has pledged $195 million over the next year towards expanding the Secure Communities program, “with an eye towards establishing it nationwide by late 2012, when it is projected to cost about $1 billion a year” (The New York Times, July 26, 2009).

These expansions have already sparked heated debate. Both programs lack oversight and tend to encourage racial profiling and abuses, while breaking down trust between local police officers and immigrant communities. But these “tough stance” initiatives are only trade-offs to give the Democrats the bipartisan support they need to push through new enforcement-based legislation focusing on employer sanctions.

This brings us to our main point, which is the need for the new immigration reforms to appear more “humane.” Increased use of so-called “employer sanctions,” coupled with new “desktop raid” tactics, facilitate this shift in perspective.

In the past, large-scale workplace raids like those at the Swift meatpacking plant in Worthington, Minn., or at the Agriprocessors plant in Postville, Iowa, left families torn apart and whole communities destroyed. Huge public outcry and mass protests in the wake of these raids have left politicians gun shy. Even Gutierrez, in the midst of his vague and non-committal speech on Comprehensive Immigration Reform in Minneapolis in June, called for an end to the raids and deportations.

As part of the new tactical shift on immigration policy, the large-scale raids of the last few years have gradually given way to more small-scale home raids. These types of raids are more difficult to organize against and often pass under the public radar, receiving no media attention.

Appearing to crack down on employers also lends a softer face to raids. It makes reform look more humane and avoids political fallout and backlash from the public. Obama said in recent remarks that “the American people still want to see a solution in which we are … cracking down on employers” (Office of the Press Secretary, June 25, 2009).

This will supposedly lead to new “softer” enforcement tactics in the future, such as the recent “automated raid” at Overhill Farms just outside of Los Angeles. According to the Los Angeles Times (June 12, 2009), “an Internal Revenue Service audit found that 260 workers had provided ‘invalid or fraudulent’ Social Security numbers.” Although the IRS says that it does not mandate that employees be fired because of incorrect Social Security numbers, the company felt the pressure. On May 31, Overhill Farms decided to fire its 260 employees rather than risk prosecution under tax and immigration laws.

But these so-called “employer sanctions” in reality deeply affect workers and their families while employers tend to escape with a mere slap on the wrist. Although they have not at this time been deported, over 200 families affected by the Overhill raid were suddenly left without a source of income.

Silent raids still serve to terrorize the community. Visions of ICE agents and deportation centers in the aftermath of workplace raids have already been burned into the collective memory of the immigrant community. And it seems unlikely that the raids will stop any time soon. Operation Endgame, the program put in place to manage massive raids and deportations, is funded until 2012 (Monthly Review, January 2007).

The Overhill raid was just the first installment in a new government plan to utilize programs like E-Verify and I-9 audits. Both of these tools would require companies to check the social security numbers of new (and possibly even current employees) against a giant government database.

On July 1, Immigration Control and Enforcement (ICE) issued a statement on its website, saying that it was issuing Notices of Inspection (or I-9 audits) to 652 businesses nationwide. DHS Security Assistant Secretary for ICE John Morton said, “This nationwide effort is a first step in ICE’s long-term strategy to address and deter illegal employment.” The U.S. Senate has already given its approval to make the voluntary E-Verify program permanent.

Janet Napolitano announced on July 8 that she was endorsing a Bush administrative initiative that would make the E-Verify system mandatory for federal contractors and subcontractors. Mandatory use of E-Verify by government contractors would require some 170,000 companies to check the immigration status of new hires and potentially current employees as well (The Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2009). This new rule will go into effect on Sept. 8.

On July 9, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released a statement denouncing the Senate vote to pass an amendment by Senator David Vitter (R-LA). The Vitter amendment would require employers “to fire workers, including U.S. citizens, who are unable to resolve discrepancies in the Social Security records.”

The ACLU said that this vote could overturn Obama’s measure to rescind the infamously flawed Social Security no-match rule. The no-match rule required companies to issue notices to employees who were found to have a so-called “discrepancy” in the Social Security number they had given to the company when first hired.

The use of no-match letters under the Vitter amendment could result in the illegal firing of tens of thousands of legal U.S. citizens. This is because the Social Security database the government uses to check for discrepancies is rife with errors.

In 2007, a federal court blocked the use of the no-match rule as a result of a suit levied against the DHS by the ACLU, AFL-CIO, and the National Immigration Law Center. The ACLU states that “according to the Social Security Administration’s own Inspector General, more than 70 percent of the discrepancies in the SSA database belong to U.S. citizens.”

Despite these blatant flaws, it seems that the plan to use Social Security audits is steadily moving forward. American Apparel recently announced that some 1800 of its employees had been found to have Social Security discrepancies after a recent ICE audit (Reuters, July 2, 2009). This is the largest use of the new I-9 audit tactic to date, and only signals more to come.

The use of the new “automated” or “silent” raid tactic (as used in the Overhill Farm case) is an important part of the transition towards a national guest worker system. It allows employers to safely and quickly get rid of large numbers of undocumented employees while hiring new employees under the E-verify program (which automatically checks their Social Security numbers). Employers can therefore avoid any legal repercussions for themselves, while succumbing to increasing pressure (or even mandates) from the U.S. government to participate in employer sanction programs such as E-verify.

Participation in these programs makes it more difficult for employers to hire undocumented workers under the table in the future. If they want to continue to exploit cheap labor flows, their only option would be to participate in a national guest worker (or temporary work visa) program. It’s already becoming clear that such a guest worker program will likely be included in any proposal for Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation that is brought to the negotiating table in coming months. Senator McCain (R-Ariz.) has been particularly adamant that Republicans will not back any immigration reform legislation that does not include some type of guest worker system (The Hill, June 25, 2009).

Plans for a guest worker system will likely include an independent commission to oversee labor flows. The AFL-CIO and Change to Win state on their websites that they support the use of such a commission.

Essentially, the labor commission would act to regulate the flow of temporary workers into the United States. If a company were short on workers (or just wanted a cheap and temporary source of labor) they could apply to the commission, which would grant them permission to bring in a certain number of foreign workers on temporary work visas. These workers would be highly subject to exploitation, because they would depend entirely on their employers for their work visas. Any complaints about wages or worker abuses could become deportable offenses.

A guest worker system would essentially be a legalized system of indentured servitude for foreign workers, similar to the Bracero program which provided temporary agricultural workers from Mexico to the United States from 1942 to 1964. According to an article in Monthly Review (January 2007), “the bracero experience was characterized by poverty wages, substandard working conditions, social discrimination, and lack of even the most basic social services for braceros and their families.” This program is essentially the historical and legal precedent for the guest worker system of labor exploitation currently in the works.

So in reality, employer sanctions are just one more part of the plan to ensure cheap and “legal” labor flows to the U.S. made up of workers who are easily exploited. Analysts have already made it clear that the U.S. economy depends in large part on the cheap labor provided by the approximately 12 million undocumented workers who currently reside here in the United States.

Employers have traditionally hired undocumented workers under the table, paying them super cheap wages for long hours of labor. Workers under these conditions have little recourse to protect their rights as workers and as human beings. And the government’s new emphasis on the use of employer sanctions are only helping facilitate the transition to a new form of legalized exploitation under a guest worker system.

Other pieces of the upcoming Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation, such as the “path to citizenship” that Obama so strongly supports also help to channel workers into a new guest worker system. The so-called “path to citizenship” would probably be pretty stringent.

The Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005 and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (both supported by Senator McCain) included requirements such as proficiency in the English language and a wait of at least five years for processing of visa applications. They also required people to “go to the back of the line,” to go back to their country of origin, and to pay a $2000 fine and thousands of dollars in back taxes. Although they were never passed, these bills were the predecessors for today’s immigration reform legislation.

Furthermore, it is clear that employer sanctions and the guest worker programs that they support will be especially lucrative to big business (and especially devastating to immigrant families) in light of the severe economic depression we are currently slogging through. It just provides the ruling elite with one more tool to exploit cheap labor and keep their profit margins high (while ensuring their ultimate survival) during difficult financial times.

And most sadly, these new policies will only lead to increasing discrimination and racism against people of Hispanic descent. In a recent article (April 29), immigrant rights activist David Bacon reported that “four years after [the employer] sanctions began, the Government Accountability Office reported that 346,000 US employers applied immigration-verification requirements only to job applicants with a ‘foreign’ accent or appearance. Another 430,000 only hired US-born applicants.”

The use of racist xenophobia against Latinos living in the U.S. only serves to divide the American working class. The creation of a national system for temporary workers would only serve to create a group of second-class and disposable workers doomed to sell their labor for super-cheap wages.

We must come to realize that denying labor rights and equitable wages to undocumented workers only drives down wages and working conditions for all Americans.

It is clear that the government is especially adept at using Orwellian doublespeak. Phrases such as “I-9 audits” or “employer sanctions” make new tactics appear softer while hiding the reality of their devastating effects on families and communities. We must not be fooled by this tactic, but instead must reclaim the language for ourselves. An automated raid is still a raid, no matter how silent!

But we must not be silent. It is crucial that labor groups, immigrant rights activists, and the immigrant community and its allies join together to prepare a response, defense, and alternative plan to the Obama administration’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation. We must continue to oppose all government attacks on immigrants, while pressuring for a moratorium on raids and deportations and unconditional legalization for all undocumented people currently living in the United States.

It is also essential for us to study and recognize the roots of the immigration “problem” we face today. As David Bacon notes, “Employer sanctions have failed to reduce undocumented migration because NAFTA and globalization create huge migration pressure. … Ismael Rojas, who arrived without papers, says, ‘You can either abandon your children to make money to take care of them, or you can stay with your children and watch them live in misery. Poverty makes us leave our families.’”

Bacon helps us realize that unless we address the root causes of migration, more people will continue to come to the U.S. as a result of economic pressure and the lure of better wages. Only by changing U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America and working to reduce poverty in that region can we truly protect peoples’ indelible “right to stay at home.”

So which path will we take in the coming months? Will we allow the government to continue to criminalize and persecute undocumented immigrants? Or will we join together to defend our common rights as workers like we did in the mass protests of 2006, raising our fists and shouting, “An injury to one is an injury to all!”