Skip to comments.Company Audits Up, Illegal Worker Arrests Way Down Since 2008
Posted on 08/23/2010 6:21:25 PM PDT by Doogle
The Obama administration said it would focus its enforcement of illegal immigration laws by targeting workplace activities, but a recent report shows that while audits of employers are slightly up over the Bush administration, worker arrests are down drastically since the end of 2008.
Under Obama, employer audits are up 50 percent, fines have tripled to almost $3 million and the number of executives arrested is slightly up over the Bush administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Hate to defend Obama, but this is not a bad approach. Making an example of the employers who hire illegals is much more effective that arresting individual illegals (and letting the employers off the hook).
Barry and his comrades were using Bush’s “numbers” and claiming them as their own. Damn liars. Since the muslim rose to power, those numbers have fallen off dramatically.
If illegals are not deported, they just move on to another job with new phoney papers. The “new “ approach is just a new tax on business ,without offending Mexicans too much.
What if the companies raided are those that do not pay the illegals what Obama deems a fair wage or they are companies that Obama considers enemies of his agenda?
What makes more sense here considering the handling of this specific issue along with all others -that Obama is strong on the agenda of the people -stemming and reversing the tide of illegal aliens OR that Obama selectively enforces that which promotes his own agenda -"amnesty"?
since when is it impossible to do both...
Rather, over the last year of the Bush administration. Bush's record for immigration enforcement during his first seven years was abysmal. Even Bill Clinton did a better job enforcing the immigration laws than Bush.
Got some numbers?
You wanted “Change” America.
How do you like it?
I wouldn't be so haughty about George "I never met an illegal alien I didn't love" Bush's record on immigration enforcement. His record is clear --he loved Mexicans more than he loved Americans.
During his first four years, Bush not only didn't enforce the immigration laws, but also ordered immigration enforcement to be virtually shut down.
Under Bush, worksite arrests of illegal aliens fell some 97 percent, from 2,859 in 1999 to 159 in 2004. Investigations targeting employers of illegal immigrants fell more than 70 percent, from 7,637 in 1997 to 2,194 in 2003. Arrests on job sites fellprecipitously, from 17,554 in 1997 to 445 in 2003. Fines levied for immigration-law violations fell from 778 in 1997 to 124 in 2003. Notices of intent to fine employers fell from 865 in 1997 to just 3 in 2004.
Given Bush's poor record during his first term, the half-hearted effort during his second term looked statistically fantastic. Can you say, legacy-building?...
In contrast, when the Bush Administration began enforcing immigration laws, the number of worksite arrests jumped from 845 in fiscal year (FY) 2004 to 6,287 in FY 2008,and 276,912 illegal immigrants were deported in FY 2007.  Proillegal immigration groups did not like those actions, but these figures are not "merely looking tough." (See: Time to Stop the Rush for "Amnesty" Immigration Reform
Are you making-up numbers and passing them off as Heritage’s? That’s mighty poor form.
Yeah. I never cease to be amazed of how many stand up to defend Bush's record on immigration.
Instead of building on past progress, over the past year the Obama Administration has reversed a number of effective interior enforcement efforts begun under the Bush Administration. Secretary Napolitano has argued, "We have replaced old policies that merely looked tough with policies that are designed to actually be effective." However, the numbers suggest otherwise. The number of worksite arrests is down "by more than 50 percent from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal 2009." Specifically, "administrative arrests of violators of immigration laws fell 68 percent from 2008 to 2009, criminal arrests fell 60 percent, criminal indictments fell 58 percent and convictions fell 63 percent." Secretary Napolitano has pointed to increased efforts to target criminal illegal aliens as proof of her tougher policies, but in 2009, the number of criminal arrests of foreign nationals is up only slightly from the numbers of arrests in 2008 and 2007.
In contrast, when the Bush Administration began enforcing immigration laws, the number of worksite arrests jumped from 845 in fiscal year (FY) 2004 to 6,287 in FY 2008,and 276,912 illegal immigrants were deported in FY 2007.  Proillegal immigration groups did not like those actions, but these figures are not "merely looking tough."
De facto Catch and Release. Until the second term of the Bush Administration, illegal immigrants caught inside the United States were given an order to appear in court and then released back into society until their court dates. Predictably, most never appeared in court. The Bush Administration replaced this failed "catch and release" policy with a "detention and removal" construct that focused on detaining apprehended illegal immigrants until they were processed for removal.
Even though this next document is in favor of so-called "Comprehensive Immigration Reform", the numbers they present do show what I'm saying. Namely, immigration enforcement under Bush fell dramatically, and never came back up to what they were before he took office.
In other words, you made up the 97% number, thanks.
Yep. Just like always. /s
Why are you ignoring Bush's record on immigration?
Of course, if you really wanted to prove me wrong, you could simply post Bush's record.
But what about the illegals already here? ICE still has a habit of simply releasing illegals, who then change identities, forge new papers, and rejoin the workforce. It's very possible they'll get caught again, and their employers fined again (and again, and again).
Pretty good scam, huh? Why fix a problem when you can profit from it? The concept sounds familiar...
I’m not ignoring a damn thing. If Bush’s numbers on the issue are so bad, you shouldn’t have to make them up out of whole cloth, that’s all.
If I'm so far off-base you should have no problems posting the numbers to prove it.
Let's see just how great he was compared to his predecessor and his successor.
Prove it, or STFU. I'm not here to give you a foot massage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.