"The federal government was storming the factory with one hand while writing checks to it with the other"

I've taken the above quote from one of the best articles on the New Bedford raid, written by Aimee Molloy at Salon.  It does a good job of tying everything together months after the chaos.  I highlight it because it conveys what still astonishes me today about the New Bedford raids:  The federal government paid migrants to manufacture gear for U.S. soldiers at the same time that it plotted to deport them.  In fact, it was the lucrative government contracts that resulted in the swelling of migrant workers at Michael Bianco Inc.  According to Molloy:


In theory, the government had information suggesting there were migrants employed illegally in the factory since 2002, but the Social Security Administration (SSA) is not allowed to share this information with other federal agencies due to privacy laws.  What is shocking is the complicity of Pentagon officials in the years before the factory was raided.

"A Pentagon official visited the factory as often as four times a week and even had an office on-site"

While the SSA is not allowed to share information with other federal agencies, it is unbelievable to me that Pentagon officials were a regular presence at the Michael Bianco factory at the same time that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) plotted to raid it.

The ICE began looking into the MBI began in May of 2006 (the factory was raided in March of 2007).  In August of 2006, one month after the official ICE investigation began, the Army awarded MBI another contract, this time for an unprecedented $138 million.  Even though the Pentagon was constantly monitoring the factory, and ICE had began an official investigation, the U.S. Army was still pumping enormous amounts of money into this machine of migrant exploitation. 

At this point, in August of 2006, there was no excuse for the government to be supporting the factory at the same time that it set migrants up for what Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick would refer to as a "humanitarian crisis".

"We'd see him all the time," said Juan Tum, a Guatemalan who, along with his wife and brother, was arrested and detained during the raid. "He'd come and tell us we shouldn't complain about the work because it was better than being in Iraq."

Above, a worker described the Pentagon official's reaction to the working conditions at MBI in another precious gem from the Molloy's Salon article.  If illegal employment wasn't enough to set off the government to the problems with awarding MBI contracts, the working conditions should have been.

In the Department of Justice press release (pdf) the charges against MBI owner Francesco Insolia.  Following are the "severe working conditions" migrants endured:


The Molloy lays out pretty clearly that Pentagon officials knew about these conditions long before the raid.  But, at least it was better than Iraq, right?

"Humanitarian Crisis"

On March 6, 2007, an operation that took 11 months of planning, involved hundreds of agents, and eventually ended up transporting migrants hundreds of miles by bus and thousands of miles in government aircraft, ended up being a disaster.  ICE won't reveal how much the operation cost, just as they keep so much additional information from the public (any agency in the U.S. as secretive as ICE should raise significant questions).  Still, if U.S. taxpayers knew how much was spent on an bungled raids like these, you can bet anti-migrant advocates wouldn't have much justification for the policies they advocate.

The Salon article describes the debacle:

Despite the significant resources committed to these efforts, people question whether ICE is capable of handling mass arrests and deportations in a safe and humanitarian manner. Tum and others interviewed by Salon describe the scene at MBI that day as one of horror and confusion. "When the agents entered, people started screaming, and I thought there was a fire," he said recently. "The secretary announced over the P.A. system that nobody was to move ... but I saw people running toward the back exit, and it was like a stampede. Some fell and people got hurt." Those unable to prove legal status were shackled and kept inside the factory for nine hours, during which time they were given no food and, because the factory was considered a crime scene, no way to contact their family.

Amid the commotion, some of the workers were unable -- or perhaps unwilling -- to let ICE agents know that they had children at home, and local activists and attorneys report that nearly 100 children were left stranded with baby sitters or in schools and daycare centers after one or both of their parents were detained. Community groups and relatives scrambled to locate children, and a local church put out a call for donations of diapers and food. That evening, a breast-feeding infant whose mother had been detained ended up in the E.R. with pneumonia and possible dehydration.

Harry Spence, the commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Social Services at the time, testified at a state hearing that those problems could have been avoided if federal authorities had better coordinated the raid with state officials. His agency did not learn about the location of the raid until the morning it occurred, and state child welfare workers were initially denied immediate access to Fort Devens. When they were allowed into the military facility the following evening with a list of people they had identified as having childcare issues, they discovered that more than half of the detainees had already been flown to Texas. "Children were placed in significant jeopardy as a result of the decision not to allow us access," Spence testified. "All we were asking was that the law be enforced in a way that ensured the safety of the children."

The workers and their attorneys say that in Texas many people were denied due process -- to which even illegal immigrants have the right under the U.S. Constitution. Lawyers who flew to Texas to interview detainees found that 54 people who had signed a waiver saying they would not appeal their deportation did not understand what they had signed. Some believed it was a request to speak to an attorney. One man who had won an order from a federal court temporarily blocking his deportation was deported anyway. An ICE official later said it was a case of mistaken identify (sic).

Afterwards, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick described the situation in New Bedford as a "humanitarian crisis" and U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy compared the devastation to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

"I believe that [ICE] conducts these raids in a way that people are purposefully unable to exercise their rights," says Laura Rotolo, an attorney with the ACLU of Massachusetts who interviewed some detainees at Fort Devens. "They transfer people across the country before they can speak to anybody, and then when they are given a bond hearing in Texas, asking to be released before trial, they must prove they are not a flight risk and that they have ties to the community. Of course they have no ties to the community in Texas."

Molloy describes the raid better than I ever could.

"The owner...never spent a night in jail"

Despite all of the suffering the migrants had to go through and are still going through, the owner of MBI, Francesco Insolia, has never had to spend a night in jail.  While 200 workers were in detention, Insolia made money off of lucrative government contracts.  He even asked permission to travel to Puerto Rico and Panama.  His only penalty was $45,000 in fines.

The Pentagon was never held accountable for granting MBI the money and it continued to work on a $64 million job to stitch military backpacks.  ICE was never held accountable for bungling the operation.  Despite complicity and mistakes all around, it was only the migrants that suffered, the eternal scapegoats for the "American Nightmare".

I apologize for the length of this post.  Molloy's Salon article has been the inspiration for much of the post up until this point.  I've quoted so extensively from it because it's the most significant piece on the New Bedford raids and I don't think it's well-researched conclusions have gotten enough attention.

This is also the first time that I've attempted to write an all-encompassing post on New Bedford and as long as it is already, I could write a book about this.  I will now focus on the aftermath of New Bedford.

"ICE says its a law enforcement agency, not a social service agency"

Back in July, the Department of Homeland Security defended it's actions during the raid:

"I strongly reject the argument that we did not make extraordinary efforts on the humanitarian side," says ICE spokesman Marc Raimondi, who declined to provide other ICE officials for interviews. "We take great care in conducting enforcement operations with dignity and respect for those detained."

But ICE spokesman Marc Raimondi changed his tune in his most recent interview Claudio Sanchez on National Public Radio.


Instead of arguing that ICE did a good job with humanitarian efforts Raimondi is now arguing that humanitarian considerations are not part of ICE's mandate.

The NPR report in which Raimondi is quoted describes how several hundred children, many of which are U.S. citizens, have stopped going to school because of the fear migrant communities in New Bedford are subject to, now.  I guess that isn't ICE's concern though, since it's not a social services agency.

"Stop the Raids"

Still, the raids continue.  Even as ICE works behind a wall of secrecy it's clear that the mishandling of the New Bedford raid reflected a larger systemic problem with ICE's operations.  Just yesterday the New York Times published an editorial entitled "Stop the Raids" after ICE grossly mismanaged another operation in Long Island, New York.

New Bedford reflected more truths than I can ever hope to convey in one blog post.  Chief among those truths is that we are all complicit in the illegality which migrants are being punished for.  Whether it's the cents shaved off of our produce, the backpacks U.S. troops wear, the millions in government money that supported this operation at the same time that they destroyed it, the Pentagon's complicity in worker exploitation, ICE's botched operation, or the policies that have forced migrants into the U.S. in the first place.  Ultimately, U.S. citizens bear some responsiblity for all of these injustices. 

Migrants, however, are the ones that are paying for it.

Sadly, the anti-migrant online machine has been at it again.  About two-thirds of the messages I've seen say he deserves to be deported and have all of his money taken from him, in harsher terms, obviously. 

Pedro Zapeta had worked for 11 years on less than $6 an hour in hopes of one day returning to Guatemala to build a home for his mother and his sisters.  He had $59,000 with him when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement took it all away for failing to fill out the form you need to declare you're carrying more than $10,000.  They assumed he was a drug dealer until lawyers went through the pay stubs he meticulously saved to prove he had earned every last cent.  He even earned a generous $0.25 raise.

Now the Internal Revenue Service wants not only the $59,000 he's taking back with him, but the $10,000 that have been set up for him in a trust fund by well-wishers who found out about the story last year through CNN or the Palm Beach Post. Now, I'm not expert, but using this federal income tax witholding calculator, assuming Zapeta earned a maximum of $1500 a month, he can't owe more than $25,000 in taxes.  That is an amateur rounding up as much as he can, especially considering Zapeta was working on poverty wages and would probably not be taxed at all if he were legal.

I'm not going to use this post to argue about broken, complicated, and unjust immigration laws, I'm not even going to appeal to sympathy.  It's clear to me that for anti-migrant advocates, as soon as Zapeta chose to stay in the U.S. illegally (that's a civil offense by the way making it the equivalent of going 60 mph on the freeway) he ceased to be a human being to them.  It's not even worth appealing to their sympathy.  I won't even mention how hypocritical it is to consume cheaper goods at the same time that you condemn the people that provide them to you.

What I will say is that here you have a man, that a year ago was prepared to leave the Unwelcoming States of America to build a home for his family in what is likely a very poor region in my home of Guatemala.  People pay Habitat for Humanity to do this themselves!  Not only would he have built a home but the money he was bringing back very likely would have supported more poor Guatemalans, and kept them from leaving in to the U.S. the first place.  It was a win-win situation.

Now he's been in the U.S. for another year, wasting countless dollars in the court system and legal fees.  Guatemala has not only lost a happy home, the U.S. is wasting tax dollars and what little international political capital it has to take a Guatemalan dishwasher's money and donations.  I guess the wars in the Middle East are forcing the U.S. to resort to desperate measures (1 in 2 of Zapeta's dollars would go to the U.S military after all).

I am glad that despite losing all of this, Zapeta has kept his dignity:

Robert Gershman, one of Zapeta's attorneys, said federal prosecutors later offered his client a deal: He could take $10,000 of the original cash seized, plus $9,000 in donations as long as he didn't talk publicly and left the country immediately.

Zapeta said, "No." He wanted all his money. He'd earned it, he said.

If anyone is interested in helping Pedro Zapeta out, I'm told that a trust fund has been set up for him.  Send checks to Robert Gershman's office.

1675 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
Seventh Floor
West Palm Beach, FL 33401

I'm sure they'll gladly sift through all the migrant hate mail they'll receive for your support.

I'm glad that Joe Biden mentioned the town in this New York Times article.  After Riverside, New Jersey, implemented a local anti-migrant ordinance, it wreaked havoc on the town.  Migrants left in droves and businesses suffered.  So, recently Riverside decided to repeal the ordinance, making it an example for all local towns that follow the same path.

I personally laid out my view on sanctuary cities in this post:

I won't dwell too much on sanctuary policies, but they are absolutely necessary for local and state police to protect local residents.  If migrants can't go to local law enforcement officials, they can't report on crimes committed against them, or by other people.  Fostering trust with migrant populations actually makes cities and towns safer and more lawful.  Even the Association of Major Cities Police Chiefs agrees that local officials should not enforce federal immigration law.  If you have a problem with it, take it up with them.

It's also important to state that sanctuary city policies do not violate federal law, they just clarify that local law enforcement should not be enforcing federal law.

iPol has a transcript of the debate.  Here's the sanctuary city section of it:

RUSSERT: Before we take a break, I want to go to Allison King of New England Cable News, who has been sifting through thousands of questions from across the country, in New England and here in New Hampshire.

Allison, a question, please.

KING: Thank you, Tim.

Dozens of cities around the country, including several here, right here in New England, have been designated as sanctuary cities. These are communities that provide a safe haven for illegal immigrants, where police are told not to involve themselves in immigration matters.

Would you allow these cities to ignore the federal law regarding the reporting of illegal immigrants and, in fact, provide sanctuary to these immigrants?

KING: Governor Richardson, let's start with you.

RICHARDSON: You asked me because I am the Hispanic here, but
I'll answer.

(LAUGHTER)

The answer is yes. The problem we have is the lack of a comprehensive immigration policy. This is a federal responsibility. But what we have, because of the dysfunctional relationship between the Congress and the president, there is no comprehensive immigration bill. We need to fix the immigration system that is broken.

We need to find ways, number one, to increase security at the border with more detection equipment, more border patrol -- not this silly wall.

Secondly, those that knowingly hire illegal workers need to be punished.

Third, a foreign policy relationship with Mexico where you say to Mexico, "Start giving jobs to your people; at the very least, don't give them maps on the easiest place to cross."

And, lastly, a legalization program -- earned legalization, not amnesty, not citizenship, but a process where they can earn their way into America.

RICHARDSON: They can do it by learning English, by paying back taxes, by passing a background check, by paying a fine for having come in here illegally. Then get behind those that are trying to get here legally. And then increase the legal immigration quota, the H1B
visas.

But what you don't do is basically deport everybody. That makes no sense. That's not America. That's not going to work.

Is the outline that I gave you messy? Yes. Is there going to be more bureaucracy? Yes. But the problem is cities and communities are being victimized by the failure of the Congress and the president...

KING: Time is up, Governor Richardson.

RICHARDSON: ... to reach a resolution.

KING: I'd like to hear from Senator Biden. Would you allow these cities to ignore the federal law?

BIDEN: The reason the cities ignore the federal law is the fact that there is no funding at the federal level to provide for the kind of enforcement at the federal level you need.

Pick up the New York Times today. There is a city not far across the river from my state that imposed similar sanctions.

BIDEN: And what they found out is, as a consequence of that, their city went in the dumps -- in the dumpsters. Stores started closing, everything started to happen and they changed the policy.

Part of the problem is: You have to have a federal government that can enforce laws. This administration has been fundamentally derelict in not funding any of the requirements of immunity -- even enforce the existing law.

And last point I'll make is, Rudy Giuliani doesn't know what the heck he's talking about. He's the most uninformed person in American foreign policy and now running for president, number one.

(APPLAUSE)

And, number two, these guys, the -- anyway...

(LAUGHTER)

KING: So, yes or no...

(LAUGHTER)

BIDEN: I wish I'd get to talk about something I know about like foreign policy. You ought to count me in on this debate a little bit.

KING: So, Senator Biden, yes or no, would you allow the cities to ignore the federal law?

BIDEN: No.

KING: OK. I'd like to hear from Senator Dodd -- New Haven, Connecticut, is on that list of sanctuary cities.

DODD: I think in circumstances -- you have to here.

DODD: And, again, New Haven, Connecticut, was a good example here, where there was a cooperative effort with the local police departments and others to deal with health issues, crime problems and the like.

The Immigration Service came in an raided basically homes in that community, causing a great deal of disruption, disrupting the relationship that was being developed with community leaders, including the local police, and dealing with matters in that community.

We need to step back. What's been said by Bill Richardson and Joe Biden is correct here. This was a failure of leadership again at the national level. We had an opportunity to draft an immigration law here that would have put us on the right track.

I certainly endorse everything Bill said here in terms of the provision. I think all of us do here, the general provisions.

We're a nation of immigrants here. We have succeeded in no small measure because we have been a welcoming people here. We also understand we cannot tolerate 400,000 to 500,000 people coming to this country as undocumented workers each year.

We need to have a far better system in place that stops that flow coming in, to deal with the 12 million to 20 million who are here illegally.

If in the meantime here we're dealing with children, we're dealing with crime problems, we're dealing with health issues at the local community, then you need to allow these locals communities to do that.

DODD: If it means temporarily engaging in a sanctuary protection here, then so be it if that protects our country.

In the meantime, we need to have national leadership, a president who would be able to bring together the Congress and could pass the kind of immigration laws that we, frankly, don't have on the books today.

KING: Thank you, Senator.

Tim, back to you.

RUSSERT: I'll get all the candidates on record. Just -- anyone
here who would close down these sanctuary cities, not allow them to
exist?

KUCINICH: I...

RUSSERT: You would allow these sanctuary cities to exist?

KUCINICH: I would like to say that we're forgetting who we are as Americans, Tim. You have to remember the message of the Statue of Liberty. That is who America is -- "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses." We're forgetting that. We should be talking about canceling NAFTA and WTO, giving workers' rights a premium in negotiations with Mexico. It's a new direction.

RUSSERT: The question is: Would you allow these sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?

KUCINICH: You know what? The federal law -- there's a moral law here.

RUSSERT: All right.

KUCINICH: And the moral law says that the immigrants are being used and mistreated.

RUSSERT: Senator Obama?

OBAMA: The federal law is not being enforced not because of failures of local communities, because the federal government has not done the job that it needs to do.

RUSSERT: But you would allow the sanctuary cities to exist?

OBAMA: What I would do as president is pass comprehensive immigration reform, and the federal government should be doing what it's supposed to be doing, which is controlling our borders, but also providing a rational immigration system, which we currently don't have.

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, would you allow the sanctuary cities to exist?

CLINTON: Well, in addition to the general points that have been made that I agree with, why do they have sanctuary cities? In large measure because, if local law enforcement begins to act like immigration enforcement officers, what that means is that you will have people not reporting crimes, you will have people hiding from the police. And I think that is a real, direct threat to the personal safety and security of all the citizens.

So this is a result of the failure of the federal government, and that's where it needs to be fixed.

RUSSERT: But you would allow the sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?

CLINTON: Well, I don't think there is any choice. The ICE groups come in and raid individuals, but if you are a local police chief and you're trying to solve a crime that you know people from the immigrant community have information about, they may not talk to you if they think you're also going to be enforcing the immigration laws.

CLINTON: Local law enforcement has a different job than federal immigration enforcement. The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.

RUSSERT: Real fast.

GRAVEL: Real fast. This whole nation should be a sanctuary for the war -- for the world, and bring the people in.

What's going on? Again, we're in fantasy land. We're talking about a problem -- we're scapegoating the Latinos of our society because we as a society are failing in education, we're failing in health care, we're failing in our crumbling infrastructure, and we're failing by invading countries and spending our treasure.

That's what's wrong. And so I'm ashamed as an American to be building a fence on our southern border. That's not the America that I fought for.

(APPLAUSE)

RUSSERT: Thank you, Senator Gravel.

Panic - A sudden, overpowering terror, often affecting many people at once.

I bring this to light because I was recently criticized for making the connection between the death of Maxsuel Medeiros on September 11th, and the terror that millions of migrants are living with in the United States. 

Normally, criticism doesn't bother me.  This time, however, the criticism came from respected friends, as well.  I think Roy Beck's statement above proves not only that this terror exists, but also that prominent anti-migrant advocates are encouraging it. 

It is also important to state that if my initial claims weren't wrong, I probably should have worded them differently.  It's very difficult to prove that someone actually died specifically from terror, and I shouldn't have written it that way.  I have never pretended to be right all the time, and I enjoy growing along with my readers and pro-migrant friends.  This is a case where I should explicitly state that the wording of my post was wrong. 

For those of you that haven't heard, it appears that Maxsuel Medeiros, a migrant who died in State Police custody, and Edimar De Araujo, both had cocaine in their systems when they died.  The Boston Globe published a report shortly after the death of Medeiros, and the Rhode Island Medical Examiner, Thomas Gilson, concluded that De Araujo died from a lethal drug combination.  Karen Lee Ziner's relentless reporting on De Araujo continues to be amazing.

That being said, I feel like the place in my heart that my post came from was right.  I still stand behind this statement.

Medeiros represents the millions suffering from ubiquitous migrant terror in the U.S.

While I might not be able to prove that Medeiros and De Araujo died specifically from terror, I do think their cases represent the larger terror that millions of migrants suffer through in the U.S. everyday.

With Medeiros, the Massachusetts State Police could have done a much better job of communicating with migrant communities to prevent the spread of a panic.  I'm also almost certain that if Medieros had known his rights he would not have been picked up by the State Police. 

With De Araujo, some questions still remain unanswered.  Karen Lee Ziner reported that Immigration and Customs Enforcement might not have followed a procedure that could have saved De Araujo's life.  I reported on it in the last post.

Either way, both of them were performing the everyday task of riding in a car one moment, and they were dead the next.  This represents a real fear for every migrant in the U.S.  At any moment their lives can be changed forever for arbitrary, everyday, reasons.  It's happening right under the noses of progressives that don't care, and anti-migrant advocates are actively encouraging this terror. 

It's the fact that you can get detained for riding in a car, for opening the door when it's your constitutional right to keep it closed, for picking up your children at school, for going to work, that makes the death of De Araujo and Medeiros so horrible.  I don't think anything encapsulates this better than this quote from De Araujo's sister:

Yesterday, I was wondering how I was going to tell my mother Edmar was going to be deported.  Now, I don't know how I am going to tell her Edmar is dead.

Blogs like Anchor Rising can take potshots at pro-migrant advocates all they want, but they're on the wrong side of justice.

I applaud the DMV and Commissioner Swarts for making this commonsense change that deals practically with the reality that hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants live among us and that allowing them the opportunity to obtain driver licenses in a responsible and secure manner will help increase public safety. After a comprehensive review, DMV has developed changes that will increase the security of our license system by obtaining better and more verifiable information from applicants, which will decrease the number of uninsured drivers on the roads, lower auto insurance rates for all drivers and, when necessary help law enforcement agencies in their investigations.

Chung-Wa Hong of the New York Immigration Coalition wrote this in an op-ed for the New York Daily News:

What could he possibly be thinking? Especially at a time when party leaders are advising their members not to touch immigration issues, other than to act tough?

Well, the move shows the governor is thinking.

He is forming policy based on reason and fact, and not following the trend of too many of our elected officials, who are guided by rhetoric, misconceptions and fear and the urge to pander.

However critics of the plan may try to spin it, the governor is taking a tough stance. By expanding access to driver's licenses, he's ensuring that our roads are safe. A study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that unlicensed drivers are almost five times more likely to be in a fatal crash than drivers with a valid license. And he's also helping law enforcement by making it easier to locate those individuals who may pose a real threat.

Spitzer's new policy will bring much-needed change. It shows the governor is brave enough to admit that tying license eligibility to immigration status has undermined the state's compelling interest in ensuring public safety.

Yave Begnet, who has been doing excellent work over at his blog, debunked one of the few criticisms of this positive development: this is a positive, rather than a negative, development for national security.

Yave Begnet has also correctly asserted that it won't be long before migrants start moving within the U.S. to deal with the radical changes in U.S. policy.  A driver's license is enough to make a lot of migrants move to New York, that's for sure.