FACTOID (according to Inside Bay Area): In some crackdowns, fearful employees left their jobs on their own after being notified of a "no-match."* "The move came after the workers failed to verify their Social Security numbers, a document required by employers to prove their workers have the right to be employed in the United States."
From Inside Bay Area comes news regarding the uniform manufacturing company, Cintas:"In an apparent crackdown on illegal immigrants that may signal more to come, Cintas, the large uniform manufacturer, placed six employees from its San Jose plant on unpaid leave Monday."
Is it only "apparent" because that is what the company said? The company was following Federal guidelines in verifying social security numbers. Though this is a "news" article, the author editorializes with the use of this word.
It is only "apparent" because, "officials of UNITE HERE, the union trying to organize Cintas workers, accused the company of targeting employees involved in the union and jumping the gun on proposed regulation whose fate is uncertain in the new Democratic-controlled Congress."
Now here is a group that understands, along with Al Queda what the Democratic party is good for."Opponents, including Bay Area religious leaders that make up the Interfaith Council, say the proposed rule "opens the door to discrimination against immigrant workers" and turns employers into immigration police. The Santa Clara County Office of Human Relations "has concerns" about the proposal, said director Richard Hobbs."
Do you ever notice that it's the "possibility" of some abuse and not an actual abuse these groups use for their logic? This move by Cintas "opens the door..." Being that the author of the article doesn't discern between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants, we are left not knowing whether these "immigrants" are here legally or illegally. Is that just lazy, poor reporting or manipulation? I tend to lean in the manipulation direction; afterall, everybody is doing it.
Poor Elena, an immigrant (not sure which kind) originally from Michoacan, Mexico
believes this is discrimination because, "we were helping with union organizing."
Elena was one of 13 employees that "received letters from the San Jose plant manager. They said their Social Security numbers don't match government records." The letters gave them 63 days to straighten the situation out with the Social Security Administration. On a semi-partial-kind-of-in-the-way aside, I don't know that 63 days is enough time if you are dealing with a bloated bureaucracy, but no one has made this claim/accusation yet so it must not have been thought of yet.
Elena declined to "define" her immigration status; odd, no?
Jason Oringer, senior research analyst for UNITE HERE said, "what we disagree with is they're implementing a rule before it's law, that's illegal." But hasn't this obligation regarding verfication of SS numbers been on the books for quite some time now? I may be mistaken, but I thought this was an obligation that most employers chose to ignore and were allowed to do just that (enforcement first anyone). Oh, look near the end of the article....
"the (social security) administration issues tens of thousands of so-called "no-match" letters a year, to employees and employers. The letters are intended to correct discrepancies in records, and since 1994, have been used to track down illegal immigrants who use fake Social Security cards."1994? So what is and is not legal to Jason Oringer? Well for one, "illegal" immigration is legal.
Taking a step beyond the realm of "apparent" Oringer resorts to methods taken from the DeMediacratic party misinformation playbook: "This is not an issue about immigration status, this is an issue about benefits." Hey, it's a better claim than trying to support a ludicrous position of legitimizing an illegal activity, no? He is a union man too, so it's part of his job; if they have to reach out to the illegal community to build up their numbers and increase their power, they are going to do it.
Further instances of "what may, what ifs, and possibles?"
In an August resolution, the City of San Francisco said, "The new rule could lead to a large number of law-abiding workers losing their jobs due to employers misunderstanding the rule, or using it as a device to fire, intimidate, harass, or underpay employees.""COULD"..... so let's not go there. How about not worrying too much about that, but at the same time be prepared to kick some corporate *ss when they do break the law.
Remember my little "Factoid" at the onset of this post? Is it any wonder that the supporters of "illegal immigration" resort to misinformation in this debate, when those they might represent quit or leave a job when they receive a "no-match" letter? How do you defend that which is so obviously without merit based upon that being discussed? Twist, baby, twist....
More from the CAII:
CommonSenseAmerica, "Democrats: Illegal Immigration Not Important"
**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.**
