Employers of illegal aliens better get their act together because lawyers are catching on to them and seeing a new source of revenue. As I reported a few days ago, Zirkle Fruit in Washington state ended up settling with workers for $1.3 million admitting that they drove legal workers wages down intentionally by hiring illegal aliens.
Now lawyers are taking things to a new level and will be using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute. emphasis should be put on the Corrupt Organizations part of the aforementioned statute as any business hiring illegal aliens is violating federal law and therefore should be considered corrupt.
The nice thing about this statute is that if you are currently engaged in this practice you better get a jumpsuit ready because you can be put behind bars for life!
Dallas Morning News
Employers who hire illegal immigrants to depress wages have something new to fear: Employees who use racketeering laws to take them to court.
Now note that it is clearly pointing out illegal aliens because later in this article all the illegal alien proponents and race card players come out of the shadows trying to say it is an attack on Hispanics, which is clearly untrue. It is an attack on lawbreakers of all races and nationalities that are here illegally whether they are Russian, Italian, Mexican or Canadian.
A law originally conceived to hammer the Mafia – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute – is now being swung against employers at chicken-plucking plants, apple orchards and janitorial firms.
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear a Georgia racketeering case involving carpet giant Mohawk Industries Inc., its employment practices and allegations that it used labor recruiters in Brownsville.
The case is being closely watched by many employment law specialists – particularly in areas such as North Texas with large illegal immigrant populations – because it could trigger a rash of costly suits against businesses that depend on illegal labor.
And there you have it! Stop hiring illegal aliens and you won't have to worry about RICO or any other lawsuit regarding your hiring and tax evasion actions.
The plaintiffs in the Georgia case – four women who are suing as a class – argue that Mohawk conspired to artificially and illegally depress wages by hiring illegal immigrants. Mohawk has vigorously denied any illegal conduct.
The Georgia case was made possible by a 1996 change to the RICO statute that includes those who knowingly hire illegal workers. It gives workers the right to sue – and for triple damages.
Now comes the BS from proponents of illegal aliens, are you ready for it? Re-read the statute above and note the Corrupt Organizations
part again because nowhere does it say anything about the statute being a mafia only item.
For the last few years, immigration lawyer Mira Mdivani in Overland Park, Kan., has been warning corporate clients of possible use of the RICO statute.
"They looked at me and thought I was crazy," Ms. Mdivani said.
"I don't think that any of these employers in their worst dreams have thought that hiring workers, when they can't get enough American workers, would be characterized as Mafia-like activity."
Another "jobs Americans won't do" argument and this regarding the harsh environment of making carpet, you know where you have to work in 120 degree weather for 12 hours out in a field...
And the race card...
Because so many of the RICO suits are brought in areas that hire large numbers of Hispanics, Mr. Morillo said the issue should be of concern to the Hispanic community as a whole.
Mr. Cook, the plaintiffs' attorney, countered: "I am not anti-Hispanic. Hell, I'm not anti-anything. This is bad business."
Business groups are clearly worried.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a brief in support of Mohawk. So did Associated Builders & Contractors, a powerful trade group.
"This case is about RICO, which was initially used to go after the mob, and now it is being expanded by smart plaintiff lawyers to go after employers who have nothing to do with the mob," said Amar Sarwal, general counsel of the National Chamber Litigation Center, the public policy law firm of the U.S. Chamber.
Susie Morrissey, a Dallas janitorial firm owner who's familiar with the Wal-Mart case, said she is careful to check documents before hiring anyone. She recently denied a job to an applicant who was using the Social Security number of a person who had died in 1968.
Illegal immigration penalizes employees or employers who "play by the rules," she said. "I think it is a great thing that these employees are suing, as it brings to light things the general public doesn't know about it."
To Amar Sarwal above, just because a statute was first used to go after the mob doesn't mean it was only put in place for that purpose. The statute clearly states that it is to end corruption and I'd surely argue breaking federal law in order to make a buck is pure corruption.
Finally something is being done about the practice of hiring illegal aliens -- and not by our spineless politicians -- but by some lawyers. Who would have thought?
La Shawn Barber
"race card players"
Aside from the economic benefit argument, which is more than debatable, this is about the only thing they have. But it largely still works, so why not use it?
"an attack on Hispanics, which is clearly untrue"
De jure, no; de facto, and practically speaking, yes, since they make up the majority of illegals (Mexican nationals foremost).
But consider this: all evidence clearly shows that, when compared to the native population, Hispanics are, on average, 1) significantly more likely to commit a crime, especially a violent crime, and 2) significantly less likely to succeed academically, e.g. to attend college. And this is true even after several generations of 'assimilation'. This prompts an obvious question: How can it possibly make sense for a nation to import, en masse, a population of people with such a comparative profile? A profile which is, of course, explicitly connected to race/ethnicity.
In addition, if you look at the current Census Bureau projections, unless immigration is curtailed Whites will be less than 50% of the US population by 2050 or so. This prompts another question: Is a majority white America not worth preserving? If you think it is not, why not? Clearly taking the position that America's demographic heritage as a majority white nation is worth preserving is not at all unreasonable; what sort of nation permits its own demographic destruction in this way? Do you think Mexicans would allow "gringo" to similarly overwhelm?
So the issue of race/ethnicity is inextricably tied in with (mass, uncontrolled) immigration today (not to mention nationhood) -- you cannot (entirely) separate them, or ignore this reality and be fully intellectually honest about the entirety of what is happening.
So IMO the fact most illegals are non-white is a legitimate reason to advocate action against illegals, e.g. more aggressive enforcement of immigration law, as well as the curtailment of legal immigration. Because IMO a majority white America is worth preserving.
If you agree you better work up the courage to more openly address this aspect. And soon.
Posted by: eh on February 16, 2006 11:22 AM
"an attack on Hispanics" is untrue because if they are legally here there is no attack being made on them. I don't care if you're white, black, brown, red, yellow or green, if you're here illegally you deserve to be thrown the hell out.
As to your assertion that a "White America" is worth preserving, I'll raise your bet and note that the majority of people are becoming mixed.
In my opinion it's not a "White America" that needs to be preserved it's an optimistic American spirit with our penchant for innovation and our drive that needs to be preserved. Now you may say that's being deteriorated slowly due to the influx of uneducated peoples who don't want to assimilate -- and I would agree with you on that -- but there are plenty of Chinese, Japanese, European and other immigrants throughout history that have come here and had that spirit.
It's the slacking losers who come here looking for a handout and ignoring our laws that we need to toss out. That includes the freeloaders on welfare that have been on it for generations and continue to spit out 10 kids when they can barely afford to eat, thus having a great chance of their offspring also being poverty stricken, uneducated, disrespectful and in general a nuisance with no drive and none of that American spirit that those of us who love America aspire to.
Posted by: Digger on February 16, 2006 12:33 PM