It's funny how spinning a story is used to pull at the heart strings and push a specific POV. We obviously are cold and inhuman to deprive workers, who have some pointless and unimportant issue with their paperwork, of the ability to feed their families. So when border enforcement is pushed, certain political persuasions say its the greedy employers hiring "undocumented workers" that is the problem. Forget the draconian border enforcement. So you go after the greedy employer and it now is shutting down a company that helps workers put food on the table. I guess that beats writing the truth of, "I want illegals to be employed in America by any means".

Fyi, in my opinion punishing the employer is the best way to curb illegal immigration. Short of an iron curtain and extraordinary inspection measures of all traffic on the border, cutting off the supply of employment will have the most positive effect. When the cost to a company for hiring illegal workers is greater than the benefit to hire them, this problem will start to subside. Until then we can always hope Mexico's government starts to run their country with the best interests of their people (and commensurate with their significant wealth).....hey, it could happen...

Like I said - once unemployment hits 10%, people are not going to tolerate illegals having "their" jobs.

It's beginning.

That's a pretty impressive example of liberal doublespeak. If unemployment goes much higher, we're not just going to see federal crack-downs. We're going to see beatings and houseburnings of hispanics. Which really sucks for people with brown skin who arne't illegals, because they'll be caught up in this via guilt by skin color just like japanese-americans were in WWII.

My husband is hispanic, and his family has been in Texas since before it was Texas. He HATES illegals.

What part of the word "illegal" is unclear to this guy? Oh wait, he sugar-coated that one, didn't he?

I agree with TW. Hit the employers in the wallet, HARD, and this will come to an immediate halt.

Wait a minute... sweatshops that hire illegals are now paying a "living wage"? But... but... we were just told a few months ago that the minimum wage had to go up because the previous value wasn't anywhere close to being a living wage! In fact, we were told that, to be a living wage, it needed to be a lot higher! $20 per hour at least!

But now sweatshops that pay below minimum, with no benefits, are now paying a "living wage"? Why -- it's an economic miracle! Somebody call Walter Williams and tell him he's got it all wrong! I'm going to quit my job right now and go look for work in a sweatshop!

What TW said.

Why do we talk about this situation as if these poor people through no fault of their own suddenly landed in LA without some kind of mystical and elusive "document"?

"once unemployment hits 10%..."

Actually Brian, male unemployment in the US is already 11%, and rising:

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/86224/

That's as may be, Martin, but people don't hear that figure. Remember, the bulk of people in this country get their news from the New York Times and CNN. They don't know that this time it wasn't "women and minorities hardest hit".

All they know is that the aggregate unemployment number is at 9.8%.

When that hits 10, since it's a nice round number, people will start to freak.

It's important to read the whole thing to find what is going on behind the scenes. These were "documneted" workers, using suspect documents... If the docs and stuff were forged or whatever isn't mentioned. Thing is, the papers were somehow not in order... in a way identifiable to the employer. Else, why let them go? The company has to do due dilligence, and Amy mentioned it. What is exactly required for a green card employment, I dunno. But if those papers are in order, the employer doesn't have to do a background check or anything. They can't tell if the documents are legit, if they look like they are in order.
So for what reason would an employer sweat it? If they were cutting corners, or allowing a guy to present papers with a name Rafaelle Lankewicz born in 1980 when he's an old guy, with a smile and a wink.

In any case, there is a lot more going on here, than the times reports. If these were all good workers making $12/hr, and being there a long time than a business wouldn't want to lose them, because of the retraining costs, and so forth. Unless they were using them until the music stopped, and then kicking them out. Are we sure the government is being the big bad wolf here?

OK - this one got me fired up enough to email the author, as follows(without pausing for spell-check):

"Mr. Rutten -

I read your article with interest, having been steered to it by todays blog at www.advicegoddess.com. You wrote about "American Apparel workers [who] were found to be using identity documents that federal immigration authorities have deemed illegitimate."

I focus on one of your closing statements: "But legally coercing companies to fire workers who've been on the job and paying taxes for, in some cases, more than a decade is far worse than folly."

I'm genuinely curious - is your underlying point [which appears to be against requiring employers to comply with the law] that workers whose 'documents are deemed illegitmate' (a curious phrase) be provided time to go home and get together their "legitimate' documents, lest they be fired for merely having a stale passport, expired driver's license, etc.? Or are you suggesting a statute of limitations for enforcing our country's laws against illegal immgrants - e.g., if one manages to elude the law for a decade, including by providing forged documents, one gets to stay even though one's legally required documentation is "deemed illegitimate" by the enforcing authorities (and thus, I presume, is here illegally)? - is the payment of taxes enough to render any other crimes "okay?"

If that's the implication of your column, what sort of a break do you suggest I get if I am pulled over fopr speeing and the officer / courts deem my driver's license, car registration, and/or proof of insurance to be "illegitimate?" Should the facts that I've been here a while, have a family, and pay taxes constitute a sufficient defense to any penalties the law imposes? What if I decide to move to another state and ply my profession without obtaining the requisite license there?
Respectfully" etc ...

There is another phrase to watch for. Any time you hear "doing jobs Americans just won't do", call the liar out immediately.

Illegals work in a system outside of employment agencies. Those jobs do not show up at your local jobs center.

There are hard workers coming to this country. That's not the issue. You should spit on the liar who impugns them by making them the focus of a problem which is not theirs in the making.

"That's a pretty impressive example of liberal doublespeak. If unemployment goes much higher, we're not just going to see federal crack-downs. We're going to see beatings and houseburnings of hispanics. Which really sucks for people with brown skin who arne't illegals, because they'll be caught up in this via guilt by skin color just like japanese-americans were in WWII."

That really what is likely to happen, because we're that stupid. What we should be doing is beatings and house burnings of employers. Leave the facotries and such in place; they have some value.

Here's a sign of hope: Last year ICE raided the biggets kosher slaughter house in the country. They rounded up 400 illegals and charged 300 of them with various felony violations stemming from identity theft (fraudulent SSNs mostly) - never planning to actually prosecute, but as leverage for informtion on who sold them the documents (clue: they were connected to the employers). Heat-breaking stories of physical and other abuse of the workers. Long story short - the market for the slaughter house's meat collapsed. No one was willing to pay the xtra money that was supposedly ethically slaughtered. They closed early this year, out of business.

"There is another phrase to watch for. Any time you hear "doing jobs Americans just won't do", call the liar out immediately."

That argument is an argument for socialized slavery - no one has to acually own the slaves because the whole system keeps them down and exploited. Citizen people want to get paid for their work. Illegals would like this too, but the employers use thier lack of status as a tool of intimidation (Translation: the enforcement efforts often backfire because they enforce low wages and make hiring illegals that much more profitable, which intensifies efforts to recruit them.)

Tim's job is probably pretty safe, so it's easy for him to gas on about these hard working folks. American Apparel does pay better than the sweatshops, but these aren't union garment worker wages. Those aren't ever coming back.

Jim writes.....>>>That argument is an argument for socialized slavery - no one has to acually own the slaves because the whole system keeps them down and exploited. Citizen people want to get paid for their work. Illegals would like this too, but the employers use thier lack of status as a tool of intimidation

There are several issues behind the scenes that have always troubled me about all the hiring of illegal workers. First, we enable the Mexican government to continue to do wrong by their own people by simply exporting the product of their appalling policies/corruption. They need to stay in Mexico thereby putting added pressure on the Government to change. Second, the fundamentals behind hiring an illegal worker. Basically it is a company saying, "The illegal is desperate for money! And since they are here illegally and in their own country they get squat, we can give them practically nothing to do what we need done". I'm just not sure how you could feel good about that. Third, how it skews what is supposed to be the process of supply and demand of workers and how it affects their wages. If company X can't get American workers to do the job at the offered wage, they need to pay a higher wage. Consumers will then have to pay more for their products. So companies will have to figure out better processes to produce the goods cheaper (to charge a lower price for the goods). Isn't this how it is supposed to work?

American Apparel does pay better than the sweatshops, but these aren't union garment worker wages. Those aren't ever coming back.

So rather than the jobs going overseas (and not to Americans), we have the jobs staying here and not going to Americans. But all the social costs associated with those people stays here to be borne by the US taxpayers instead of, say China.

Brilliant!

"Consumers will then have to pay more for their products."

heavens, TW, how naive cvan you be! The god-almighty consumer actaully having to pay a fair price for the crap they consume? The consumer actually having to paysomething like the wage they work requird to make the product they are buying?

You can't be serious. The consumer is a sacred cow! She is the engine of all progress and the source of all good! What a bitter, evil-minded person you are even to suggest such a thing!

TW writes: "First, we enable the Mexican government to continue to do wrong by their own people "

Well, you know what the method for fixing that is. But at this point in time there is no politican anywhere, Democrat or Republican, who is going to back that idea. The worldwide mainstream media would destroy that politican in a heartbeat. No matter how good or bad an idea it might be.

"Third, how it skews what is supposed to be the process of supply and demand of workers and how it affects their wages. If company X can't get American workers to do the job at the offered wage, they need to pay a higher wage. "

I think you've got the market relationship backwards. It's not that the labor demand is outstripping the supply; it's the exact opposite. There's a worldwide glut in unskilled labor. I figure that the current real market value to a U.S. employer for unskilled labor is in the $3-5 per hour range. The problem is, the American citizen cannot legally work for that wage, and the American employer cannot legally pay him that wage, even if the two agree to it. (So much for sanctity of contract...) Add to that the disincentive for low-wage work that welfare provides, and it leaves the employer who actually needs unskilled labor with the choice of hiring illegals or moving the jobs offshore.

I'm not in favor of hiring illegals; I think the government is right to crack down on that. But I suffer from no delusions that doing so will open up more jobs for Americans. The days of unionized jobs paying $25/hr plus great benefits to unskilled, uneducated workers are long gone. Any future legislation to further increase the minimum wage should, if the legislators are being honest, be titled the "Illegal Aliens Full Employment Act".