Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, December 08, 2019

ICE's focus on workplace enforcement -- targeting both immigrants working illegally and their employers -- has intensified in the past two years. Homeland Security Investigations, the ICE arm that carries out criminal investigations, opened 6,812 new workplace cases in the 2019 fiscal year, up from 1,701 during fiscal 2016.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

It's a good start.

#1 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-12-08 03:30 PM | Reply

Abolish ICE!

--Sanders, Warren, et al.

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-08 06:13 PM | Reply

INS performed the mission better than ICE.

ICE was part of Bush's massive FDR-style expansion of Federal government, which was the only reason the Bush economy added jobs.

ICE is a big mistake.

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-08 06:18 PM | Reply

Abolish ICE!
--Sanders, Warren, et al.

Make America Cruel Again!
--Trumperphluffers

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-08 06:28 PM | Reply

ICE increasingly targeting employers is a good thing

#5 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-08 06:29 PM | Reply

@#5 ... ICE increasingly targeting employers is a good thing ...

Yup.

I hope they continue to increase the employer-targeting this time. The last time I saw headlines like this one (article is pay-walled, btw, could only read the first paragraph), the effort seemed to have fallen flat.

In addition to the targeting of employers, things I'd also like to see:

1) employers advertising locally for employees

2) employers providing competitive, living wages to the employees

3) employers providing a safe work environment for the employees (illegal immigrants were known to be afraid of filing complaints about unsafe workplace conditions because of fear of being deported in retaliation)

But yes, in agreement with #1 also, this effort looks to be a good start.

#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-08 06:48 PM | Reply

Good. I thought the radical left was clamoring for more employer enforcement.

#7 | Posted by willowby at 2019-12-08 07:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I thought the radical left was clamoring for more employer enforcement."

Radical?!? When did enforcing the laws as written become radical? And why would you be an apologist for those who encourage what you pretend to be against?

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-08 07:12 PM | Reply

"Radical?!? When did enforcing the laws as written become radical? And why would you be an apologist for those who encourage what you pretend to be against?"

#8 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-12-08 07:12 PM | FLAG: Hey Spicoli, never heard of sanctuary cities? That's an example of the the radical left and written laws.

#9 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-12-08 07:50 PM | Reply

"The last time I saw headlines like this one (article is pay-walled, btw, could only read the first paragraph), the effort seemed to have fallen flat."

Yeah...it almost seemed like the local cops owned by the local Chamber of Commerce tipped off the local businesses. Go figure.

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-08 09:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

"never heard of sanctuary cities? That's an example of the the radical left and written laws."

I don't belong to the radical left. Nor are others breaking the law a reason to allow wanton lawbreakers. "Jimmy did it first" expired when you were five.

Back to the question: why are you suddenly an apologist for those who encourage what you pretend to be against? Don't deflect this time.

#11 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-08 09:48 PM | Reply

"never heard of sanctuary cities? That's an example of the the radical left and written laws."

Federalism is not a radical left idea.
If it were, JeffJ wouldn't support it.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-08 11:10 PM | Reply

Going after the employers. Lefties clamor for this, or at least pretend to.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-09 09:33 AM | Reply

--Lefties clamor for this, or at least pretend to.

A few fraudsters pretend to, to give themselves political cover, but most of them want to abolish ICE and not enforce immigration laws at all.

#14 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-09 09:37 AM | Reply

"Lefties clamor for this,"

Why don't you?

If you deport one illegal, you open up a newly-vacant job opportunity. If you arrest the hirer, the reason for migration lessens.

Why don't you "clamor" for a fix that actually addresses root of the problem, and instead blame those who do?

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-09 12:03 PM | Reply

@#9 ... never heard of sanctuary cities? That's an example of the the radical left and written laws. ...

The city of New York, quite frankly, is quite tolerant of undocumented immigration.... I happen to agree with that. I think New York City should not deal with undocumented immigrants in a harsh way. I think they make a big contribution to the life of the city, and we're much better off being sensible and practical about it.
-- Rudy Giuliani (WABC, 2001)

#16 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-09 12:06 PM | Reply

"Lefties clamor for this,"

Why don't you?

I do. I think it needs to be part of a 2-pronged approach to eliminate the carrot for coming here illegally.

This needs to be done in conjunction with ZERO government benefits for illegal aliens. Take away the employment opportunities and the remaining lure is for people to come here to become wards of the state.

Eliminate the government benefits alongside a hard-core approach toward employers and I'm all in.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-09 01:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"This needs to be done in conjunction with ZERO government benefits for illegal aliens."

Setting aside the Constitutional problems with your police state fantasies:

Say an illegal alien has measles.
You don't want us to cure that.
You want him to spread disease in our country.

It's beyond belief you think that's a good idea.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-09 01:10 PM | Reply

@#17

A hard core approach towards employers needs to be the mainstay policy because we need to wean our economy off of the use of illegal immigrants. That is not going to be an easy task, nor is it going to happen quickly.

And I remain to be convinced that the corporations and companies that hire illegal immigrants want to do that. They have grown too accustomed to the cheap, non-complaining labor force. In the red-state meat-packing areas, it is going to be quite the shock when employers need to start hiring the always-complaining Trump supporters. ;)


#19 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-09 01:14 PM | Reply

--A hard core approach towards employers needs to be the mainstay policy because we need to wean our economy off of the use of illegal immigrants.

Which Democrat candidate is proposing that? The answer, of course, is none. They would be vetoed by the Left

#20 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-09 01:23 PM | Reply

Republicans see wealth as synonymous with righteousness.

That's why they can't go after illegal employers.

Of course, since illegal employers have the wealth to acquire good legal representation from people like RightOCenter it's also harder to go after illegal employers.

And, it's undeniable that going after illegal employers is bad for the economy.

Going after illegal employers is just another example of the type of anti-business government regulation that Republicans reject on ideological grounds.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-09 01:23 PM | Reply

#18 I was speaking about public education, welfare, food stamps, etc.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-09 01:38 PM | Reply

"it is going to be quite the shock when the always-complaining consumers have to start paying significantly higher prices at the store when packing plants stop using immigrant labor"

ft

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-09 01:41 PM | Reply

Not spreading measles to the citizenry because we treated an illegal who had measels is a tremendous act of welfare.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-09 01:42 PM | Reply

-Which Democrat candidate is proposing that? The answer, of course, is none. They would be vetoed by the Left

I'm surprised they aren't at least lying about it. It's such a hot spot for the extreme left (who have no idea how the food supply is managed)

Pat Buchanan was pretty passionate about this issue. The left hammered him for it.

Nobody is going to go there......

#25 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-09 01:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If you are going to get pedantic, I'm done.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-09 01:47 PM | Reply

"I do. "

Riiiiight. That's why you speak of it in derogatory words.

"This needs to be done in conjunction with ZERO government benefits for illegal aliens. "

If you want to include vaccines on that list, or your actions will purposely lead to an uneducated populous, count me out.

"Eliminate the government benefits alongside a hard-core approach toward employers and I'm all in."

Interesting how you'll pretend to be against one if you can't get the other; frog-marching employers would help regardless if other steps were taken as well.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-09 01:51 PM | Reply

"It's such a hot spot for the extreme left (who have no idea how the food supply is managed)"

Trump's tariffs are intended to bring about a "management change" on the food supply.

The new owners will be a lot more Chinese and Russian than the ones we have now.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-09 01:52 PM | Reply

"Interesting how you'll pretend to be against one if you can't get the other"

It's also a complete departure from his "No Spending On New Government Programs" ideological tenet.

It's like talking to grandpa with dementia.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-09 01:54 PM | Reply

When did enforcing the laws as written become radical? #8 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-08 07:12 PM
Because of DACA, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications August 15, 2012.

#30 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-09 02:03 PM | Reply

Interesting how you'll pretend to be against one if you can't get the other;

Did I say that?

frog-marching employers would help regardless if other steps were taken as well.

#27 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I agree and while I think what is optimal is a 2-pronged approach as mentioned above, focusing on employers is a good start and if we don't get the crack-down on government benefits along with it, I'll still take it.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-09 02:10 PM | Reply

"Because of DACA"

DACA doesn't protect illegal employers.

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-09 02:22 PM | Reply

"When did enforcing the laws as written become radical?"

I loosely followed this when it was happening but I was under the impression that law enforcement in Arizona was being forbidden to enforce federal immigration laws.

en.wikipedia.org

#33 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-09 02:25 PM | Reply

@#20 ... Which Democrat candidate is proposing that? ...

Your comments seem to have an obsession with Democrats and what you imagine they will and will not do.

A monsters under the bed type of thing.

To answer your question, I did not say anything about which candidate (Democratic or Republican) was proposing what.


#34 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-09 02:27 PM | Reply

--Your comments seem to have an obsession with Democrats and what you imagine they will and will not do.

Obsession? There are only 2 possible outcomes of the next election, and no Democrat who proposes "frog marching" employers stands a chance of winning the nomination. They would rather abolish ICE. So what's your point?

#35 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-09 02:36 PM | Reply

the safest place for a politician to stand on this issue is to pretend want to get tough on employers.

to actually get tough means pissing off a group of employers and even harming illegal immigrants.....nobody wants to do that. That's a losing strategy.

#36 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-09 02:44 PM | Reply

@#35 ... Obsession? ...

Yup.

I was speaking more of your comments in general, rather than any individual one.

I don't know if you intend it or not, but sometimes they are quite humorous to read when they are read in the light of that obsession. :)


#37 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-09 02:46 PM | Reply

@#36 ... the safest place for a politician to stand on this issue is to pretend want to get tough on employers....

I somewhat agree because I doubt it would ever happen to the extent that it needs to happen. So it is easy to be in favor of something you don't have to follow-through upon.

That still leaves the underlying elephant in the room --- how do you wean an economy off of using illegal immigrants?

#38 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-09 02:49 PM | Reply

"When did enforcing the laws as written become radical?"

When the enforcement actions taken by the enforcers are radical, dummy.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-09 02:53 PM | Reply

"how do you wean an economy off of using illegal immigrants?"

More to the point, what are the actual benefits of doing so, and what are the actual costs, and is doing so a net gain or loss.

The right-wing economic geniuses can't tell you.

Because it's not about the economy.

It's about white nationalism.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-09 02:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"how do you wean an economy off of using illegal immigrants?"

Amnesty

#41 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-09 03:03 PM | Reply

@#40 ... Because it's not about the economy.

It's about white nationalism. ...

I wish I could categorically disagree with your comment.

But I cannot.

#42 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-09 03:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#38 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Lamp, I get the feeling you and others on this thread believe that large corporations are going around hiring illegal immigrants.

Let me be clear, they aren't.

They contract out to "small" ethic companies to give them warm bodies, to fulfill a task, say Janitor, or work in the cafeteria et al.

They do this because

1. Cheap.
2. They don't need to deal with Unions.
3. They don't need to deal with immigration issues.

These small "ethic" corporations (Russian, Chinese, Hispanic, Indian) then hire warm bodies (of the same ethnicity) and fake authorizations, upon which if caught the small corp just dries up, the Federal Government can't track them down and when they do, a new small "ethnic" corporation spings up to supply the large corporations contract.

Its whack-a-mole, with the only victim being the poor.

When People complain about Unions dying they can look know further than large numbers of CHEAP unskilled labor crossing the border on a daily basis.

More to the point, what are the actual benefits of doing so, and what are the actual costs, and is doing so a net gain or loss.
The right-wing economic geniuses can't tell you.

Wages, you complain about income inequality ... yet here is the answer... but you want to claim its white nationalism.

It would be funny if it weren't so destructive to the unskilled labors ability to extract wages from corporations.

#43 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-09 03:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#43 ... Let me be clear, they aren't. ...

Even in your scenario, I'd say that the large corporations know exactly who is being hired and why.

However, I did make the point to use the word "companies" in addition to corporations. For example, in #19 I wrote...

"...And I remain to be convinced that the corporations and companies that hire illegal immigrants want to do that. They have grown too accustomed to the cheap, non-complaining labor force....

One layer of separation does not absolve the corporations of the effects of hiring illegal immigrants. If the corporations wanted to assure that the companies they hire do not use illegal immigrants, that can easily be put into the contracts with those companies. And audited. And enforced.

While that one layer of separation may give corporations deniability, it does not prevent their hands from getting dirty.


#44 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-09 03:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I do. I think it needs to be part of a 2-pronged approach to eliminate the carrot for coming here illegally.

This needs to be done in conjunction with ZERO government benefits for illegal aliens. Take away the employment opportunities and the remaining lure is for people to come here to become wards of the state.

Eliminate the government benefits alongside a hard-core approach toward employers and I'm all in.

Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-09 01:04 PM | Reply |

And watch the economy take a nose dive.

#45 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-09 03:44 PM | Reply

@#43 ... but you want to claim its white nationalism. ...

Not solely, but at least partially.

Given the person who is the architect of the Trump Administration's immigration policy, it is difficult to see how White nationalism is not one of the reasons behind the current crackdown on immigrants.

Given that Pres Trump himself has White Nationalist tendencies and even uses it to keep his base engaged, it is difficult to see how White Nationalism is not one of the reasons behind the current crackdown on immigrants. Gotta stop the invasion.

So if Pres Trump wants me to believe that White Nationalism is not a part of his immigration policies, then he should rid his administration of the White Nationalists.

#46 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-09 03:45 PM | Reply

Not solely, but at least partially.

You don't talk to immigrants that have gone through the process do?

Do you claim those immigrants are "white nationalists"?

#47 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-09 03:56 PM | Reply

I'd say that the large corporations know exactly who is being hired and why.

They may or may not know, they don't care and are absolved by plausible deniability.

You got anything else?

One layer of separation does not absolve the corporations of the effects of hiring illegal immigrants.

It does.....

Because now, what you are implying is that its the burden on a corporation to check every employee of every supplier.

In case you didn't know its an impossible task, and not their responsibility.

#48 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-09 03:59 PM | Reply

Workplace enforcement is a million times more effecting than building a stupid wall. But you can't get morons to chant "Inspect the workplace! Inspect the workplace!"

#49 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-09 04:19 PM | Reply

In case you didn't know its an impossible task, and not their responsibility.

#48 | Posted by AndreaMackris

It's IMPOSSIBLE for corporations to not work for subcontractors that prove they dont hire illegal immigrants? IMPOSSIBLE???

Your faith in what corporations can accomplish when they want to is pretty bad.

#50 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-09 04:21 PM | Reply

*work WITH, not work FOR

#51 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-09 04:22 PM | Reply

@#48 ... They may or may not know, they don't care and are absolved by plausible deniability....

They don't want to care because to care would affect their profits.

Plausible deniability does not absolve them, it just gives them a flimsy excuse to explain their dirty hands.

... Because now, what you are implying is that its the burden on a corporation to check every employee of every supplier. ...

Not implying that at all.

The corporations have contracts with those they outsource to, those contracts specify no illegal immigrants.

Then there are random audits, spot checks.

Not every employee needs to be checked. Not every contractor.

If that is done routinely enough, then the subcontractors will get the message. I've worked for corporations which had similar contracts on suppliers, and random spot checks were done to assure the terms of the contracts were followed. It is nothing new to corporations.

Once again, the corporations do not want to do this because they like the cheap labor.

#52 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-09 04:32 PM | Reply

"You don't talk to immigrants that have gone through the process do?"

I talk to mom now and again.

"Do you claim those immigrants are "white nationalists"?

Mom doesn't want a Wall, or brown kids in cages, so no, I don't call mom a white nationalist.

I call you a white nationalist, Andrea, a mattress.

And I'm being very, very kind to you.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-09 08:25 PM | Reply

Some leftists, but no Democrat candidates, for obvious reasons, are honest enough to admit the real agenda of their pro-immigration policies: demographic replacement.

twitter.com

"When we get to 2042 or 2045, whatever you wanna use, we actually will not be suffering from what other countries like South Africa have which is having the numbers but not having the power," Dianis said. "People say that demographics aren't destiny, well we are trying to make it destiny."

#54 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-09 08:46 PM | Reply

Unless you're a Russian immigrant that he wants to impregnate.

#55 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-12-09 09:10 PM | Reply

#54 | Posted by nullifidian

Maybe white families wouldnt be dwindling if your party wasn't dedicated to sucking up all the wealth from the middle class and they could still afford to have kids, educate them, have good healthcare, afford a home, and save for retirement. Your plutocrat puppetmasters have made life so hard for the middle class, that they are not having as many kids. Don't whine about it while you vote for the rest of their agenda.

#56 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-09 09:22 PM | Reply

if your party wasn't dedicated to sucking up all the wealth from the middle class

Speaks, the wealth is in the blue states .... The middle class is leaving the blue states

Your plutocrat puppetmasters have made life so hard for the middle class, that they are not having as many kids.

I actually believe this is a different issue, it has to do with modernization and humans realizing they don't need to have kids.

IMO we are following the Japanese ... Given climate change, I am surprised you think this is a bad thing.

Mom doesn't want a Wall, or brown kids in cages, so no, I don't call mom a white nationalist.

Makes sense to me ... my immigrant friends wonder why we don't stop them at the border like most every humane country in the world.

I call you a white nationalist, Andrea, a mattress.

Thats because you have nothing else, its what the mind does when it can't comprehend, or defend its beliefs, its categorizes and name calls.

And I'm being very, very kind to you.

What you really mean is being kind to yourself. Because that is what this statement really means. Your ego is bruised because you have no reply, so you have to name call to categorize me, I understand, then you need to feel better about yourself.

This is exactly what dehumanization looks like, and exactly what the Nazi's did ... you need help .... you are the worst kind of evil, the kind that thinks they could never commit evil.

#57 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-09 11:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If you go to Mexico, or any other developing country, I would definitely recommend avoiding ice.

#58 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-12-09 11:06 PM | Reply

IMO we are following the Japanese ... Given climate change, I am surprised you think this is a bad thing.

#57 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Yes if we keep electing morons too corrupt and stupid to fix emissions, then the only other solution is to have less kids. Or we could just stop voting for repubs and have a future with cleaner energy AND kids.

#59 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-10 01:16 PM | Reply

"This is exactly what dehumanization looks like, and exactly what the Nazi's did"

You want undesirables taken from their parents and put in camps.

I don't.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-10 03:14 PM | Reply

"you are the worst kind of evil, the kind that thinks they could never commit evil."

You don't think taking kids from their parents is evil.

I do.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-10 03:15 PM | Reply

"you are the worst kind of evil, the kind that thinks they could never commit evil."

Like when I said I voted for the lesser evil, that was me saying I could never commit the lesser evil?

Just stop.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-10 03:16 PM | Reply

you are the worst kind of evil, the kind that thinks they could never commit evil.
#57 | POSTED BY A, MATTRESS

The xenophobic, white supremacist, habitual liar, greedy fkkking Trump supporter is calling someone else evil?

Mattress. You're an objectively horrible human being.

#63 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-10 03:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--Mattress. You're an objectively horrible human being.

#63 | Posted by ClownShack

Your felonious imbecility makes you the perfect DR left representative

#64 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-10 03:55 PM | Reply

Your felonious imbecility makes you the perfect DR left representative
#64 | POSTED BY NULLI

Felonious imbecility? Thanks ignoramus. I'll take that as a compliment from an empty shell of a poster like you.

Remember when you used to have worthwhile posts to read?

I don't either.

#65 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-10 04:23 PM | Reply

Remember when you used to have worthwhile posts to read?

I don't either.

#65 | Posted by ClownShack

I do. It was back before he signed up for the trump cult fox news lobotomy.

#66 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-10 06:45 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort