As part of my Internet research, I recently did a deep dive into employment laws. I learned so much that I was completely naive to previously. I found the ChatGPT thread I was using and asked it for a one paragraph summary:
|
In many U.S. cities, including Minneapolis, a portion of the restaurant workforce consists of undocumented residents who lack federal work authorization but nonetheless work within standard payroll systems and pay taxes through normal withholding. Many hold state-issued IDs or driver's licenses based on identity and residency rather than citizenship. Employers are legally required to complete I-9 forms by reviewing documents that reasonably appear valid, and federal law expressly prohibits employers from investigating, verifying, or demanding proof of U.S. citizenship or immigration status beyond that document review. Because employers are barred from acting as immigration enforcers and may not reject valid-appearing documents, reputable businesses can employ undocumented workers in good-faith compliance with hiring laws, even though those workers may lack legal immigration status while remaining subject to tax obligations and protected by state labor laws.
|
I never knew the extent to which non-citizens could be integrated this deeply, despite not having citizenship. I assumed that non-citizens would almost exclusively work shady jobs (cash only?) that were exempt from minimum wage requirements, where employers would often take advantage of their vulnerability.
|
As for federal employment laws, Perplexity AI says:
Federal law does not forbid employers from checking work authorization; it actually requires it. What the law does prohibit is checking it in discriminatory or overbroad ways.
What employers must do:
Under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), virtually all U.S. employers must complete Form I-9 for every new hire (citizen or non-citizen), verifying identity and authorization to work in the U.S.
This means employers are required to request acceptable documents (passport, green card, driver's license + Social Security card, etc.) and keep I-9s as proof they verified eligibility.
And under Obama:
In 2007, ICE arrested 92 employers, while in 2012 it arrested 240, according to ICE. Final orders - rulings at the end of the case which show employers violated hiring rules - also increased under Obama. In 2007, there were two final orders, while in 2012 there were 495.
A good friend of mine works at Hola Arepa on Nicollet Avenue - they had an ICE raid last month. The agents tried to step into their kitchen, but the manager refused. Regardless, this situation scared their staff and they had to reduce their operating hours accordingly. This article reports that roughly 40 businesses are now closed indefinitely given the ICE activity.
Within all this wreckage, there are some amazing stories of hope and community support. There's a local pizzeria on Lyndale Ave, two miles north from our house - last week, they asked family and friends for donations to help the community. They raised $2,000 initially, then made a social media post (in collaboration with the sex toy store nextdoor - ha!) and they raised $83,000 in 3 days. Watching their post on Instagram made me teary eyed. Sometimes the generosity is overwhelming. The following day, ICE pulled up in front of their business and tried to yank the door open, screaming "we're going in!" Turns out the place was closed because they ran out of ingredients the day prior while churning out pizzas for the community. ICE left soon after, but not before dropping some tear gas on the sidewalk while driving off.
What feels really bad is that our tax dollars are funding these operations. Last week, Javier's local burrito joint lost nearly all of his customers overnight. Us neighbors are trying to find ways to support our community by donating money to these businesses being suffocated by these operations. Somehow we're funding both ends of this.
|
So sad to hear about Hola Arepa (great food!), the local pizzeria and Javier's local burrito joint. Obama addressed these issues and circumstances directly in a speech he gave in 2010:
"The overwhelming majority of these men and women are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children. Many settle in low-wage sectors of the economy; they work hard, they save, they stay out of trouble. But because they live in the shadows, they're vulnerable to unscrupulous businesses who pay them less than the minimum wage or violate worker safety rules.
Why should we punish people who are just trying to earn a living? I recognize the sense of compassion that drives this argument. But I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking of coming here illegally that there would be no repurcussions for such a decision, and this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration, and it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. More fundamentally, the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are going through the process of immigrating legally.
Ultimately our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.
And, yes, this is an emotional question, and one that lends itself to demagoguery. Time and again, this issue has been used to divide and inflame - and to demonize people.
These laws also have the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound.
We have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally. They must be required to admit that they broke the law. They should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English.
Remarks by the President on Comprehensive Immigration Reform
|
And I'm thrilled to hear that the local community is doing whatever it can to support these local businesses. A friend read a post to me from one of our mutual friends describing the many ways in which he and others were working hard to help, and to donate money and deliver supplies to local immigrants. He also made a reference to Jesus as being an immigrant and a refugee, suggesting that true Christians should welcome, accept and support anybody and everybody who wants to come to Minneapolis and America as a refugee under any circumstances. I love him and respect that point of view as the highest and purest form of Christian love. God bless him! You wrote:
"What feels really bad is that our tax dollars are funding these operations."
But can and should we really encourage people from around the world to come to the United States to receive housing, education, welfare, cash benefits and other services? Our tax dollars are funding these operations, as well. And in Chicago, even minorities are protesting:
"As black people who have been hurt continuously by the city and country we love - it ain't our responsibility to take care of everybody else."
Many in Chicago's black community and the city council are speaking out against spending $51,000,000 to house migrants, asking when will the help for them become a reality. But this $51 million dollars will only last for one month.
"Why are black people in Chicago and some communities so angry? Why is all of this anti-immigrant sentiment coming up? It's because, if we cared as much about black people, as we do about everyone else, we wouldn't be here."
Emotional outbursts over migrant funding at City Council meeting
In New York City alone, they have spent over $7 billion to housing and care for asylum seekers since the spring of 2022, with total costs projected to reach approximately $10 billion across three fiscal years ending in June 2025. The expenses are primarily driven by providing emergency shelter and social services for illegal immigrants.
|
A couple days back, I made it a point to grab a sandwich from a nearby sandwich shop that's two blocks south of our house, owned by Pedro Joao. Here's a photo I took of his tiny lobby. ICE has visited his shop three times. As a result, they now keep the door locked and have someone manually screening people at the door. That's the job of the lady in the orange sweatshirt, while she tries to simultaneously work her day job via two laptops on the counter. I ordered a sandwich, a Mexican guy handed it to me, and I tipped him $30. He was so appreciative. It's hard to know exactly how to help in times like these, but you get a lot of satisfaction handing someone money versus donating to an online fund. Yesterday, I went to Javier's burrito joint and that video must have made the rounds - there was an hour wait for his little burrito shop inside a convenience store. There was a small Mexican lady that would lock and unlock the door for every customer, which is now commonplace.
My brain was spiraling the other day and I was getting genuinely fearful of where this slippery slope might lead. I actually had a really great back and forth with ChatGPT that got into federal law enforcement and how it affects authoritarianism and resistance. I'll spare you the whole thread, but it ended with this poignant quote:
"So your unease is rational. The question isn't, 'Could this become authoritarian forever?' It's 'how much damage happens before resistance catches up?'"
Damn! It was actually such an interesting thread. For being a silly little robot, I found a lot of comfort in using it as a soundboard for thoughts, hopes, questions, and concerns.
|
Your story about Pedro Joao saddens me, as well. And what you have done to support him and his business is wonderful and in the true spirit of our own highest moral values.
I appreciate the availability and generally balanced perspective of various AI bots and use them frequently - but the phrase 'how much damage happens before resistance catches up?' sounds biased since it presumes that the "resistance" NEEDS to 'catch up'! Trump is simply finally trying to implement the concepts, ideas, and proposals which Clinton, Obama and Biden all spoke in support of, but did very little about. In fact, during the 2019 Democratic presidential primary debate:
Joe Biden, as a candidate, said he would "immediately surge to the border all those people that are seeking asylum" because "They deserve to be heard. That's who we are. We're a nation that says if you want to flee and you're fleeing oppression, you should come".
Biden to Illegal Immigrants: "Surge to the Border"
And surge they did - Perlexity AI tells us:
Biden era encounters (Nov 2020 - Jan 2025)
- Total southwest border encounters: Over 8 million (FY2021 - FY2024 peak), per CBP/DHS stats
|
I do my own fact-checking, as much as I reasonably can. I get most of my first hand accounts through Instagram. I've referenced that above clip from Fox News Sunday, and I browse the Alpha News website most mornings. As nerdy and futuristic as it sounds, I've had lots of discussions with ChatGPT and it's helped me acknowledge the vague discretion that law enforcement is given by law. Again, debates around the definitive legality of all this is (IMO) largely futile. Law enforcement can make decisions based on what they claim to see or feel. In any given instance, their use of force my be entirely valid. In others, it seems very hard to justify. From a legal standpoint, I realize they can pull over someone that is following them if they deem they are "obstructing with the operations of law enforcement". My rationale says it might be extreme to pull them over, bust their window, and drag them out of the car, but I guess legally speaking, it's allowable.
|
And that is a fair and accurate assessment!
I'm just shocked when any person simply cannot see the perspective of these protestors, specifically what they're protesting and why. Anyone can disagree with how they draw their conclusions, or think they're misguided, but it seems like such an oversight of empathy when someone is simply unable to see that the protestors are trying to protect their neighbors. They can disagree with the methods these protestors use but I don't lose sight of the courage they're willfully throwing themselves into. They aren't selfishly looking out for their own well-being. I'll be honest in saying that I'm scared of tear gas, and not I'm not willing to throw myself into many of these situations that they do. It's just so frustrating to hear commentators build their own narrative that these protestors "are protecting some of the worst gang members in their city", which couldn't be further from the truth.
For anyone trying to pin this chaos entirely on the protestors, I just refuse to believe that if there were zero civilian resistance, then this operation would run smooth as butter - that it would be purely focused on criminals, there would be no abuses of power, and there would be no attempts at fear or intimidation.
|
NOBODY is doing that - the chaos is a result of legitimate citizen concerns, encouragement from the governor and mayor to march and protest along with their media outrage and rants against Trump and the federal government, orders from state and local government to prevent police from getting involved, ICE agents who sometimes overreact to being attacked while being bombarded with rocks and fireworks, spat in their faces and being called "Fucking Nazis" - there's plenty of blame to go around on all sides.
But does blocking city streets and lighting dumpsters on fire on Nicollet Avenue make our city any safer?
In what possible way is civilian resistance, throwing fireworks at ICE agents, blocking the road with vehicles and fires, illegally entering private businesses and disrupting commerce at Target or the MSP airport make these operations run any smoother? Or do they make them MORE dangerous for everyone concerned?
|
|
|
