ICE Raids Small-Town Colorado Dairy and Locks Up Undocumented Dads in the Name of National Security
Legal and illegal immigrants alike in Colorado's cow country are too scared to return to work after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested 11 workers at the Wildcat Dairy in Morgan County for using forged green cards. Of 60 workers, 20 were indicted by a Colorado grand jury as "egregious violators" for using forged documents to get work. While ICE still has warrants out for nine workers, 50 of Wildcat's 60 employees were so scared of being deported that they didn't return to the dairy after the raid.
Denver's Westword reported earlier this week on meetings being held by Colorado's Immigration Rights Coalition to ease concerns in the immigrant community:
"One of the CIRC people was watching the kids as the adults were in the meeting," CIRC's Damaris Cooksey recalls, "and she had them make a poster. She asked them, 'What would you want to tell your dad right now? What do you want to say to people about what's happened?' And these six, eight, twelve-year-old kids wrote, 'I love you. I miss you. I wish I could see you. It's not fair.' It was very emotional.
"What a quandary for a parent," she goes on. "How do you explain, 'Your dad's not a criminal, but you're not supposed to work here without these documents -- even though there's nobody here who would do this job if he doesn't.' How do you make a child understand something like that?"
ICE has a ready answer to that question. From an agency press release sent out after the raid:
Document and benefit fraud pose a severe threat to national security and public safety because they create a vulnerability that may enable terrorists, criminals and illegal aliens to gain entry to and remain in the United States. One of the ways ICE HSI addresses the infrastructure of illegal immigration is by detecting and deterring fraud before it erodes the integrity of the immigration process.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The biggest reason we'll never see real immigration reform is that it's a convenient excuse. There are so many people out there that think that "immigrants" are the cause of all this country's problems, and that if we could just "get rid of the immigrants" we'd be in a utopia without budget or debt problems.
After all, let the bears pay the bear tax. I pay the Homer tax.
"There are so many people out there that think that "immigrants" are the cause of all this country's problems ..."
The U.S. takes in more legal immigrants than all the other nations of the world combined. No one is complaining about legal immigration.
Is that in absolute terms or as a percentage of the overall population?
Every Pol needs a bogeyman. Scapegoats are good too. Bonus points when you can score the trifecta of foreign, poor and brown! Extra double bonus for "no speeky the English".
Actually, that's a good argument for liberal immigration policies. You'll always have a readily available population of scapegoats whenever the inevitable downturns come. It has worked for the whole history of the US. Look what happens when you don't have scary people from overseas to blame - Germany had to turn on their own religious minorities. Rwanda had to pit tribe against tribe. Run the list across the Mediterranean and through central Eurasia. No handy foreign bogeymen available so they turn on internal minorities - which only leads to never-ending sectarian tensions.
Much better to let in scary "others" and turn on them when the chips are down. That way the grudges go away much more quickly. When's the last you heard of dirty Irish prejudices? Or Italians? Or Chinamen? Or German? Once the crisis is over, it all dies down within a generation. You just gotta keep stirring the immigrant pot.
"Every Pol needs a bogeyman. Scapegoats are good too. Bonus points when you can score the trifecta of foreign, poor and brown! Extra double bonus for "no speeky the English".
I guess your "bogeyman" or "scapegoat" would be native-born, self-employed and white. Extra double bonus points for speaking english. Feel free to hate away, douchebag.
OK. Please explain how pointing out that some people use poor, foreign, brown people as scapegoats is scapegoating the native born, self-employed and white.
Yeah. Then in 40 years, we can be Germany. If we aren't already.
You know, if libertarians weren't so dedicated to policies that have already been shown to be miserable failures in every country they've been tried in, people might actually start taking them seriously.
People have the right to employ anyone they want to on whatever terms are mutually agreeable. That is all.
PS, go fuck yourself, you racist piece of shit.
You obviously do not follow state and federal employment law.
You know who else liked to scapegoat domestic minorities and foreigners?
FDR
While I agree with Cooksey's sentiment and would go further, supporting open borders for workers, she's wrong on the facts on "not a criminal". Our legislators have seen fit to enact laws that make it a crime to work without proper authorization from the feds. It is also a crime to falsify official documents. Committing crimes by definition makes one a criminal, even if the effect of the law in question is criminal....
Perhaps she should have chosen a more factual "not a bad person" as a descriptor.
+1000
"... even though there's nobody here who would do this job if he doesn't"
Complete bullshit.
Well, maybe not do the job at the wage he is willing to accept, so maybe only partly bullshit.
or maybe not do the job for below minimum wage without taxes taken out, because it's against the law.
If he is using forged documents, I would imagine he is working on the books (i.e. taxes withheld).
Quite possibly true in this case, but far from true in all cases.
If they're working with fraudulent documents (ie. A stolen SS number) they are most likely having taxes taken out. Particularly the kinds of taxes they'll never see the benefits from: SS and medicare
Damn, should have refreshed before I posted.
If they were legalized they would be able to collect SS and Medicare, even for the time that they spent working here illegally. Try to keep up.
Illegals Granted Social Security
Uh... that bill never became law. Try to keep up.
Oh, the hand-wringing of the cosmotarians - "How will we ever fill these jobs that need filling? There's nary an unemployed American in sight!"
Hey, they want to be Americans? There's nothing more American these days than being put out of work by our government.
WINNAH!
EVERYTHING is about national security. All civil rights protections you used to have, you no longer have. Check it out. Smash that door down!
DEY TURK UR MILK!
Someone has to say it.
Dey tuk er jerbs!!!
In Texas, 54 percent of legal immigrants and 70 percent of illegal immigrants receive welfare assistance, with illegal immigrants generally receiving benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children, according to the study, written by a think tank that favors reducing immigration into the U.S.
Overall, Texas tied with California and New York for the second highest immigrant welfare rates behind Arizona.
Houston Chronicle
Collecting the welfare that Americans refuse to collect.
Hey shithead, why not just get rid of welfare and then let these people who work for a living stay? Oh yeah, because you're a shithead.
Sure, you get rid of the welfare state and I'd be happy with open borders.
Hell, you don't even have to do that. You just have to say "guest workers" do not qualify for welfare and eliminate the "guest worker" quota in place.
That would be a solution LT. Conservatives don't want a solution, they want a wedge issue.
That's right, we like to divide the sane from the insane. No doubt on which side of that divide you'll fall is there?
So you admit you really aren't interested in solutions.
yeah, cause he's emperor for the day...sorry the welfare state isn't going away...not anytime soon.
And neither are illegal immigrants. Considering there's anywhere between 10 and 25 million of them (depending on the think-tank doing the counting), do you have any concept of the scope of the police state you would have to create to root them all out? And then to actually secure that border?
It'll actually be easier to convince people that welfare programs are going bankrupt, or to let those programs bankrupt themselves, than it would be to get rid of all the illegals. I would favor some program that legalizes all of them to work, but gives them a taxpayer ID number that makes them inelligible for welfare. Kill two birds with one stone.
That's funny... we seemed to control our borders just fine until the 1960's - and to the best of this old man's recollection we had a helluva lot less of a police state then.
Huh? The 60's had an incredibly porous border, only there were alot less people immediately on the other side of it.
Simple correlation = causation explanations that ignore other world developments and economic change in the US over the last 50 years are simple.
I can play this game, too. I seem to recall that there was no war on drugs yet, and the US was largely an industrial, rather than a (much lower wage) service-based, economy, whose border-states of Texas and Arizona weren't nearly as thriving and attractive to labor as they are today.
Oh...and I think part of your memory may be going, because I also seem to recall a pretty big farm workers movement led by a fellow named Chavez, which had huge numbers of illegals in it, and who primarily were farm workers (like many of them are today).
My memory is just fine, thank you. Chavez was opposed to illegal immigration.
Your memory is wrong about Chavez and UFW. They protested against illegal immigration because they believed that it undercut native workers and legal migrants. UFW was for limiting legal immigration as well, which would further squeeze the labor supply -- and therefore benefit UFW members, both native and migrant (who were already in the country).
Sorry, that was in reply to Jim.
Threaded comments, how do they work?
Chavez was opposed to illegal immigration. Now tell me with a straight face that those millions of people that he led, farm workers from Mexico, were all legal. That his organization correctly checked all of them. The question was, were we controlling our borders at the time, and the answer, as evidenced by the fact that you KNOW all of those farm workers weren't legal (unless you're willing to outright lie to make your point), is no, we were not.
It wasn't nearly as big an issue 1) before the Great Society created many more welfare programs than existed before, 2) the border states were large and economically thriving, attracting labor, 3) Mexico's economy hadn't taken the nose-dive in the 70s yet, 4) the US didn't have a service-based (and thus low-wage dependent) economy.
Look at the demographic and economic changes in the US and Mexico over the last 50 years. Your contention that somehow a poorly-funded, rustic border patrol in the 60s was holding back the same number of people who are trying to get across now, is absurd on it's face.
"...and to the best of this old man's recollection we had a helluva lot less of a police state then."
Well, sort of.
This is a silly red herring. Stop giving them free stuff.
That will be all.
We can't let people be free because welfare! Roads! Somalia!
So, is the answer to bust the ones that are working, and presumably less dependent on welfare? Even if we can't assume that (that working makes one use less welfare), the problem is still the welfare state, not the immigrants.
I promise to do my damnedest to raise a million dollars...it's all yours if you can get rid of the welfare state. So...you up to it?
See my reply above. Finding, ejecting, and keeping out double-digit millions of people is no easier, and in fact may be worse for freedom in a broad sense, than getting rid of the welfare state.
I certainly agree that starting a crusade to remove illegal immigrants is not the way to go. I was simply responding to the idea that while getting rid of the welfare state is a glorious idea, it's not going to happen, and that the problem is far from that simple.
As far as solutions, I favor something like what you propose, only I don't think it would be successful in large numbers. Force employers to have to pay the same for non-citizen workers as citizens, and I think the whole picture would change. A lot of the job sources would dry up, or even be taken by citizens. Additionally, part of why they can make a living on those reduced wages is because cities look the other way when 8 families live in a two bedroom apartment, or when a restaurant doesn't make food on the premises. Codes and regulations that citizens are subject to aren't enforced in many cases.
Again, I'd love to reduce or eliminate most of those regulations, as well as much of the taxation and minimum wage, it's just not going to happen.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I frankly don't care if 8 people share a 2-bedroom apartment...they should be free to do so if the landlord allows them. I see no moral obligation to follow a law which is in and of itself immoral (i.e. telling me how many people may live in a dwelling regardless of what the owner would allow, dictating where food served in a restaurant is created, telling me whom I may or may not contract with for needed work and at what price I may offer them, etc.)
If by agree to disagree you mean that I disagree with what you just wrote, I won't agree. 🙂
I agree completely with everything you just wrote. I don't care if they fill a shed with 4 high bunk beds and sleep in 8 hour shifts. It's not any of the governments business. My whole point was there is much more to the issue than it's all welfare's fault.
We need a police state until we can get rid of the welfare state.
Cool argument, bro
Not my argument. I didn't even propose a solution, I was simply pointing out the silliness of ignoring the problem because we have a welfare state, and shouldn't.
The children are U.S.-born.
"The children are U.S.-born."
Well, that makes it perfectly alright then.
Referring to a study about immigration by CIS is a little like pointing us to a study about race in America put out by the KKK.
For the sake of argument, lets say the study is perfectly legitimate and ignoring the fact that libertarians are against welfare in any form whether it be for citizens or immigrants (both legal and illegal). Could you provide facts regarding how much illegal immigrants contribute to the overall US economy?
Until you can, merely cherry picking articles and 'facts' that support your view makes you look like an ass.
"... merely cherry picking articles and 'facts' that support your view makes you look like an ass."
Now that you mention it, providing facts and articles to support my arguments seems like a waste of effort since you've managed to look like an ass without providing any evidence at all. The next time I want to look like an ass I'll simply adopt your positions and leave it at that.
Citing a study by CIS is hardly definitive. The FACT of the matter is that you can't say that illegal immigrants cost the US more than they generate in economic gains.
I argue the issue from the basis of freedom in terms of free association and movement. I believe in free trade in terms of goods, services, AND labor.
You're nothing but a conservative statist ass.
Che pulls up for the trey..... BANG!! AND THAT'S THE GAME!!!
"egregious violators" for using forged documents to get work.
How dare they commit the crime of being self-supporting?
And casting the votes that Americans refuse to cast.
Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, a Republican, told the panel that his department's study identified nearly 12,000 people who were not citizens but were still registered to vote in Colorado.
Of those non-citizen registered voters, nearly 5,000 took part in the 2010 general election in which Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet narrowly defeated Republican John Buck.
Colorado conducted the study by comparing the state's voter registration database with driver's license records.
The Hill
So?
"ICE Raids Small-Town Colorado Dairy and Locks Up Undocumented Dads in the Name of National Security"
Oh no! Teh Children!
If only there were some legal way of immigrating into the country and becoming a citizen.
For these folks, there effectively isn't.
Agreed, for unskilled labor it's very difficult. Maybe it should be, since we have no shortage of unskilled labor and don't particularly need to import it.
But that's beside the point, because our legal immigration system is a calcified relic run by incompetents. There's no earthly reason why it should take 6-10 years to get a green card, and the fact that we permit such a state of affairs is a disgrace.
If you want to make things better, focus on fixing that system, rather than ill-considered arguments contending that borders and immigration enforcement are somehow inherently un-American.
But if the presumption was that a person has a right to live and work in the US unless there is a specific reason that he can't -- rather than the other way around -- the bureaucracy would necessarily decrease by orders of magnitude per immigrant.
"Did you pass your background check? Good. Here's your visa."
"Note that this visa doesn't allow you any path to citizenship, and doesn't allow you or your citizen children any targeted welfare. Apply to the calcified relic visa department for those considerations."
"Agreed, for unskilled labor it's very difficult. Maybe it should be, since we have no shortage of unskilled labor and don't particularly need to import it."
I don't see why labor should be singled out for top down government management (Though I agree with MikeP that there's nothing wrong with a simple background check). Would you argue that we shouldn't be allowed to import cheap Korean cars because we're perfectly capable of producing enough cheap cars ourselves. The same argument could be made for any number of commodities.
When the odds of successfully doing so are similar to those of winning the lottery, there is effectively no legal way for an unskilled immigrant to come to the country.
You are supposed to be a journalist right? So how come you didnt get the facts correct and just made them up?
We live in CO. THe facts are 89 % of the workforce at this dairy was found to be illegal. 40 were let go as they "did nothing wrong" by ICE while the other 20 were indicted for id theft, etc.
As for Gessler; again you didnt get all the facts. THese 12000 people failed to check the box that says they are citizens and we cant check due to our state laws. So no one knows who they are; citizens or legal residents and they cant be asked.
New bumper sticker:
Every Time Mike Riggs Cries, An Angel Gets His Wings
How do you make a child understand something like that?"
I'd give em a bookmark to reason.com and a decoder ring.
I'm all for open borders and free flow of peeps, but this editorial is disingenous and hurts libertarian credibility.
I'll file this one under "why Libertarians will never win elections".
Where is Greggooooo! to tell us that libertarianism is about deporting brown skinned people?
If I listened to many lib's, of both stripes, I'd realize that many of my positions aren't possible without being clearly racist. I hear it over and over..I must hate brown people, or I'm anti-immigrant. It really makes your position look very stupid when you constantly fall back on mis-characterizing your opposition.
+1
OK. I believe you that racism has nothing to do with it in your case.
But the way I see it, there is a fundamental right for any employer to hire any willing worker on whatever terms are mutually agreeable. And any worker should be able to move to wherever he can get a job.
What do you see as a practical solution? Illegal immigrants are here, and it's just not possible to deport all of them. Document fraud is a problem, but that could easily be solved by just giving anyone a taxpayer ID and letting them use that for employment. I don't think it is possible to solve the problem through law enforcement.
Ideally, the solution is open borders and no welfare for immigrants. I can see that the open borders are not politically feasible, but why not no welfare for immigrants? That would be a good start and would take away a lot of ammunition from the anti immigrant crowd.
First, I think considering we are required to pay minimum wage, and take out taxes, that those laws need to be enforced. As well as laws on fire code, occupancy, health codes etc.. I don't think that it is beneficial to us as a society to only enforce those things selectively because we're too timid to face potential immigration issues. And, I think that if employers weren't hiring illegals, illegally, that many of them would go back home on their own.
For those that stay, I would support a guest worker program, that would restrict access to welfare programs.
I'm not quite ideallistic enough to say that I support completely open borders, but I would certainly support elimination of the welfare state, and greatly expanded opportunity to immigrate for both temporary worker status and citizenship. With the current welfare state, I believe we need strong immigration checks, and proof that those wishing to become citizens won't become a burden to the system.
Sounds reasonable. Not my ideal, obviously, but a million times better than anything I hear seriously proposed in Washington.
the truth is I just plain don't want poor brown people who have no skills and won't speak english to move en masse to my neighborhood. Raise your hand if you DO want that.
*Raises hand*
...and you're perfectly fine with using the violent coercive power of government to force you're will on anyone who disagrees with you, right?
It's where the statist left and statist right meet.
You're putting word in my mouth. That's not very nice. I like to keep my personal prejudices personal. I don't want to invoke government to do anything least of all keep the poor immigrants down. I just don't want to ever have to be within spittin distance of them.
Well, if it is actually your neighborhood (and not just a neighborhood in which you happen to live), then you should have the right to decide who gets to live there.
what about brown people with no skills but a strong work ethic? what if it was easy for you to start up a business and employee these workers for a low wage? there is always room for more people, the issue is the govt jackboot that stifles the formation of new sources of employment in the first place. you'd be better off and so would the brown ppl. and so would the rest of us, with a new competitor to choose from.
I like this idea! If only I could get past my intrinsic racism, if only.
I just plain don't want poor people who have no skills and won't speak english to move en masse to my neighborhood.
Skin color has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Although, I think a lot of the problems stem from the amount of immigration. When that many people come over each year, I think it slows down assimilation.
Still, I know that Borg can't be stopped !
If every single mexican on the face of the earth was forced to live in the united states... theyd still only be ~1/3 of the total population. And it would leave behind a beautiful, large, depopulated patch of prime real estate.
Mexico and the US should be one!
"Mexico and the US should be one!"
When the drug cartels who own Mexico's government finally kill each other off, the US should just annex the place and be done with it.
It's perfectly fine not to want that. What is not fine is seeking legislative fiat to prevent it.
For example, I would love to not have any overgrown, shitty-looking lawns in my neighborhood. But it is completely wrong for me to support city laws regulating this, because it is, in effect, my telling other people what they may or may not do with their property in order to suit my whim.
Agreed
What part of this word don't you understand? "illegal"
Dictionary.com ?adjective
1.
forbidden by law or statute.
The law is the law, right Damian? Now, do you have an argument as to why it should be illegal or are you simply arguing from a point of authority?
Would you have argued for the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act? After all, the law is the law.
No, because I oppose slavery and illegal immigration. Not because the law is the law but because of my PERSONAL BIGOTRY.
"The law is the law, right Damian? Now, do you have an argument as to why it should be illegal or are you simply arguing from a point of authority?"
The arguments for laws comprising our immigration system were made in open debate by members of a duly elected representative body. The authority for those representatives consequent actions was drawn from the consent of those they govern. How is it supposed to work in your fevered imagination?
The law is what guarantees your liberty and protects you from arbitrary action. I would very careful about promoting the idea that it can be ignored with impunity.
"Would you have argued for the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act? After all, the law is the law."
No, would you have argued that the Klan should be allowed to lynch black people? After all, stupid is stupid.
"The arguments for laws comprising our immigration system were made in open debate by members of a duly elected representative body. The authority for those representatives consequent actions was drawn from the consent of those they govern. How is it supposed to work in your fevered imagination?"
You're an idiot. For the first 100 years of US history there were no laws regarding immigration. The first laws regarding immigration came about much like laws regarding MJ and other opiates. They were based off racial fears directed mostly at the Chinese and Japanese.
"The law is what guarantees your liberty and protects you from arbitrary action. I would very careful about promoting the idea that it can be ignored with impunity."
Wrong again. The constitution is what is supposed to protect our liberty. It's designed NOT to keep teh immigrants out, but to keep statist pricks like yourself in check.
"The first laws regarding immigration came about much like laws regarding MJ and other opiates. They were based off racial fears directed mostly at the Chinese and Japanese."
You forgot the Irish and Italians. I guess that would undermine your "racial fears" argument.
Now, I wonder, why would the Chinese and the Japanese - and for that matter the Mexicans - leave their home countries, where people that looked just like them were in charge and where there were no white racists to fuck things up, and head in droves to the land of unimaginable bigotry? Hmmm, seems that someone has got a little work to do on their narrative.
"You forgot the Irish and Italians. I guess that would undermine your "racial fears" argument."
Damn you're an ass. There were never any laws restricting the immigration of the Irish and Italians. Again, the first appearance of laws regarding immigration were related to Chinese and Japanese, they later passed laws restricting immigration from S. Asia and the Philippines. The laws were based on race. They were therefore 'racist'.
http://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/USMigrat.html
"Now, I wonder, why would the Chinese and the Japanese - and for that matter the Mexicans - leave their home countries, where people that looked just like them were in charge and where there were no white racists to fuck things up, and head in droves to the land of unimaginable bigotry? Hmmm, seems that someone has got a little work to do on their narrative."
That's not my narrative at all. People come here for our relative freedom, but that doesn't make our original laws any less racist. My point has nothing to do with a narrative based on racism. It's merely a response to you're comment that because laws are created by an elected majority that they're therefore just and righteous. Remember, democracy is nothing more that two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Note that "bad thing that people should not do" is not part of that definition.
Is it the position of Reason that forging documents and identity theft are not crimes, if it's done in the context of illegal immigration? I favor changing immigration laws, but I don't think that gives a free pass to undermine basic rule of law. Forging documents and stealing identities is not a victimless crime.
Is it the position of Randomjerk that forging documents and identity theft are not crimes, if it's done in the context of fugitive slaves?
How about in the context of [text redacted by Godwin filter]?
Whether something is a crime or not is a question of pure positive law: does it violate the law?
Whether it should be a crime is a different question.
Whether you are justified in committing the crime is yet another question.
All true.
True no matter whether the law is a $5 fine for spitting on the sidewalk or a one-way trip to a [text redacted by Godwin filter] for forging documents to help [text redacted by Godwin filter].
Which makes the bringing up of that positive truth of what the law is utterly pointless in a normative argument.
Immoral laws not only may be broken without moral consequence: they should be broken. Saying something is against the law is not an argument for anything.
needs more [BRACKETS]
"Immoral laws not only may be broken without moral consequence: they should be broken. Saying something is against the law is not an argument for anything."
I agree.
"even though there's nobody here who would do this job if he doesn't.'"
Unemployment - apparently not over 9% anymore. Thank goodness for recovery summer!