Hotel owners face prison, fines for hiring undocumented workers

[pstokely]

Source: KMBC

Prosecutors said Munir Ahmad Chaudary, 53, and Rhonda Bridge, 41, both of Overland Park, Kansas, paid the undocumented workers at the Clarion hotels at 7000 W. 108th St. in Overland Park and at 11828 NW Plaza Circle in Kansas City less than other employees. The couple also didn't pay Social Security, workers compensation and unemployment insurance for those workers.

An advocate for immigrants said people who take jobs under these circumstances don't want to rock the boat.

"A job you know that is secure, that you know you are going to get paid, regardless of what that pay is every week, is a security, it is a type of security, so you are not going to jeopardize it and lose the job," said Lynda Callon of the Westside CAN Center.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Kansas Department of Revenue began investigating the couple in late 2011. The following June, an undercover agent posed as an undocumented worker to get a job at the Overland Park hotel. Investigators said he told the employers that he wasn't authorized to work in the United States and was hired anyway.

Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/hotel-owners-face-prison-fines-for-hiring-undocumented-workers/26828448?absolute=true&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=kmbc#!baGIIf

[doxydad]

1. That's how the system changes.

TY for the post.

[sendero]

2. Well I consider this a blatant case of selective enforcement..

.... because I could drive into Dallas and show you 1,000 businesses that are doing that, tomorrow. It's EVERYWHERE.

[DeSwiss]

33. +1000

It's P.R. Bullshit.

[7962]

3. And THAT is how you make an impact on illegals. Hit the businesses that profit from them.

Its ridiculous that business isnt the main focus.

[customerserviceguy]

4. While it's been shown to be impossible

for the states to regulate immigration, it's still completely within their power to determine their tax structures. That makes the cure simple in the states that have an income tax. No deduction on an employer's tax form for wages paid that are not accompanied by an eVerify certification for the worker they're paid to.

It then becomes simple: Either verify your workforce, or pay taxes on what you pay them under the table at your own (presumably high) tax bracket.

[Igel]

7. Probably won't work.

DOJ will file suit saying that it's essentially an attempt at controlling immigration. Now what matters is the letter of the law, not it's intent. Unless the letter of the law is met, then it's the spirit of the law is what's really important. If that's met, then the ultimate effect of the law, regardless of letter of the law or intent of the law, is the important thing. It's a shifting standard, and you go for what you can get the court to accept because our legal system is based on winning is everything. (Get the courts to accept that Plan B and IUDs are "abortion," and some may have a fit--but it's more of the same. It's winning that's important, both when "we" win and when we lose, but we only like to think that's a bad thing when we lose.)

Those who claim to be the only people authorized to control immigration don't really want to enforce the immigration laws and both stop those who do and are jealous of their authority to be the sole enforcers. It used to be a bad thing, in the eyes of most people. But even Jackson said, wrt a SCOTUS decision, that they made their decision and *they* (SCOTUS) could enforce it--he wasn't going to and he knew that they had no mechanism to do so. The ultimate constitutional crisis, when the executive doesn't enforce how SCOTUS inteprets legislation.

A lot of people, even when they give lip service to federal enforcement mechanisms don't want them. They just want to play kick the can. Take e-Verify. It was to be set up by Congress in the mid-late '80s. But Congress didn't want to do it, even though that was part of the compromise that got the "amnesty" legislation passed in the first place. It languished, and every time something was proposed to implement it the error rate in the federal database was allegedly so high that it would be an unconscionable crime to use it. It didn't much matter that pretty much all the mistakes in the system would have to be ironed out if those who had earned income ever wanted to properly file their taxes or collect SS benefits.

Lots of other federal and state databases are used. Some with fail rates at least as high. For example, the ACA databases are buggier. But even when e-Verify was being put into practice people and bugs being squashed people were screaming bloody murder--many of the same people who liked the idea of a verification system when it prevented other kinds of immigration enforcement, but who knew that the perfect is a danged good enemy of the good.

[valerief]

6. Those businesses see that the Septic Party gets elected. nt

[Skittles]

10. please try to avoid using the conservative word ILLEGALS

it is dehumanizing

they are undocumented WORKERS

[7962]

11. Its not a "conservative" word & its not dehumanizing. They've broken the law. Semantics.

They should come like my grandparents did; legally.
Dont know how old you are, but if this is allowed to continue, you'll see lower and lower wages coming down the road. "union" wont mean anything. We'll have TOO MANY workers for TOO FEW jobs. Big Biz might love it, but I dont.

[Skittles]

13. WTF

you sound like Fox Fucking News

they are PEOPLE first

[7962]

14. And I never said they weren't people. Changing terms changes nothing.

They've broken the law. There are legal immigrants and illegal ones. Its a fact. You wanna call drug runners "undocumented pharmacists"?
Of course they're people. And I have no problem with immigration; I wouldnt be here without it. LEGAL immigration. But we cannot be over run with no controls and no limits or we'll never have a living wage for ANYONE. I dont really give a shit if it sounds like Fox or not. Doesnt make it wrong. I dont check to see what fox reports. I'm not whistling past the graveyard anymore just because its the "nice" thing to do.

[Skittles]

15. you're whistling alright

bye bye

[7962]

17. Ignore the truth all you want. Sad that you buy rhetoric instead of fact.

Or are you just one of those who WANTS to see the government fail? Then blame Obama for everything because he's not liberal enough?
You havent provided anything to show that I am wrong, because I'm not.

[Cal Carpenter]

18. By using 'illegals' as a noun, you are most certainly dehumanizing them.

Take a step back and think about that, or don't, I don't really care. But I'll call it out when I see it. Skittles is right.

[7962]

20. well, we all have different opinions. The word doesnt make anyone "less human"

I guess we shouldn't use "ex convict" either?
Or "ex congressman".........

[Cal Carpenter]

21. "Convict" and "Congressman" are nouns. "Illegal" generally is NOT

Again, if you don't want to step back and see the difference, which is *glaringly* obvious, then that is your problem.

I suppose in your "opinion" calling someone a ni***r is just fine, too, I mean, after all it is just words and opinions. It has nothing to do with policies and conditions of life or justice or anything like that....

[7962]

22. Oh jeeze. If you think a racist insult is the same it is you that has the problem.

They are immigrants. They are here illegally. They are illegal immigrants. They could be from any country in the world. If you have no license, you are an illegal driver. If you have no lease, you are an illegal tenant. Etc Etc.

Regardless, if this continues, time will prove me right. We'll all be working for less and businesses will be all too willing to pay less.

[Skittles]

29. ....

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/11/opinion/liu-chinese-american/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

[Gormy Cuss]

30. "Illegals" is dehumanizing.

IOW it sounds as if they aren't legitimate beings. If you want to use illegal to describe them, write illegal immigrants. That's a description of status.
Finally, don't call them illegal anything here unless you want to be called out for doing so every single time. Try "undocumented immigrants" instead.

And FFS, undocumented workers aren't the reason that union membership has fallen. Weak labor laws and Saint Reagan are to blame for that.

[Jesus Malverde]

19. It's not clear they are workers.

The unaccompanied minors are not legally able to work.

[Skittles]

25. I don't think they are the folk the hotels are hiring

[valerief]

5. But we're told America would collapse without undocumented workers.

All these businesses that America depends on--why aren't they being investigated?

[7962]

8. Yes, why? WHO is dragging their feet on this?

Uncontrolled immigration will be the end of union wages in this country.

[alp227]

9. Really? Nt

[7962]

12. Yes, really. What; you think MORE will mean higher wages?

I've already seen it where I live. The govt (state and fed) is doing hardly anything to stop businesses from employing illegals.

[freshwest]

23. The party that shut down the government and wants an end to OSHA and all the rights of workers!

When you say:

Yes, why? WHO is dragging their feet on this?

Uncontrolled immigration will be the end of union wages in this country.

There's NO mystery and never has been. Hopefully you know better than this, or may be wanting to bash Democrats and Obama, IDK. So let's clear the air:

As far as the talk of 'uncontrolled immigration' how about talking to the 'uncontrolled' business interests that make a fortune off poor working conditions world wide, worse than here, and encourage them, often directly by visiting them in their homeland to come here to make just a little bit more?

To complain about people coming here sounds borderline racist, but I think you have been pulled into the mindset that the fault is with the poor, not the rich who abuse them here and in other countries.

Those are also the ones who have always been bent on destroying unions here, while their ilk in foreign lands are slaughtering union leaders. The people want to be in a union at home, but their leaders are murdered. Great for businesses here and there, not for people.

We should support them joining a union here is the answer to saving unions here. None of this is done in a vacuum.

I urge you to think again about what you are saying there and we may come to an agreement.

JMHO. YMMV.

[7962]

27. Well, I'd like to see this Democratic administration crack down on businesses then.

They certainly havent done much in the first 6 yrs. Issue an executive order to fed agencies to go out and find the businesses that are hiring illegals and using them for low wages and likely poor working conditions.
A few dozen high profile prosecutions in a short period of time would make a big impact. The President CAN do this.

[BadGimp]

16. America does not have an illegal immigration problem

what we have is an illegal employment problem

[yurbud]

24. good start, but go after bigger fish like Walmart too.

[7962]

28. YES!

[Throd]

26. Hopefully the Feds have a hotel for him.

[graegoyle]

31. This is the type of existing law that needs to be enforced.

As others have pointed out: Prosecute the big companies who benefit from hiring undocumented workers and the border problem will, most likely, be resolved.

[24601]

32. So a sidebar discussion. You (male or female, straight ot gay) go a a bar and pick up a date who

you believe to believe to be 18. After sex, you find out that he/she is only 17. Won't most states still charge you with statutory rape and say that your mistake is not a defense?

So what if you are hiring someone who you believe cannot work legally, but since they are in an undercover agent - US citizen over 18, they really are authorized to work legally. Why would you be charged with anything more than not paying the taxes.

You thought you were committing a crime. Just like you if drove 40 MPH in a 50 MPH zone that you thought was zoned for 30 MPH. If you are charged with hiring someone who you mistakenly thought could not legally work, that is a thought crime. You just thought you were committing a crime.

Why would we ever allow someone to be charged for not committing a crime?