• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

In what was called Operation Wagon Train

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
The Tuesday predawn sweep by 1,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at six rural meatpacking plants, in which authorities detained 1,282 workers suspected of illegal immigration, so far has had only a minor impact on the cattle industry. But it appears to be giving impetus to immigration reform.

In what was called Operation Wagon Train, the agents descended on plants operated by Swift & Co. Federal officials said they had substantial evidence that hundreds of illegal immigrants employed by the company had used stolen Social Security numbers and birth dates of U.S. citizens to gain employment.

The workers face administrative charges and deportation. Sixty-five were charged with criminal offenses, including identify theft and forgery.

The enforcement action prompted speculation that meat supplies might be squeezed because the meatpacking industry depends heavily on immigrant labor. But analysts said only a series of raids and a major depletion of the industry workforce would cause a decline in production and lead to higher prices, as long as demand holds steady. A one-time event has little impact, they said.

The detained workers represent about 10 percent of Swift's workforce at the six plants, said Swift spokesman Sean McHugh.

The company said in a statement Wednesday that operations had resumed at all six facilities one day after the raids. Output levels were expected to be below normal for the short term, but Swift said it "anticipates no adverse long-term impacts to its operations.''

Farm advocates and representatives of the Bush administration said the sweeps help make the case for immigration reform, specifically the need for a guest-worker program that would allow foreigners to work legally in the United States. California agriculture, like the meatpacking industry, is heavily dependent on foreign workers.

Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, announcing the results of the raids on Wednesday, put it in the context of the need for "stronger border security, effective interior enforcement and a temporary-worker program.''

"That would be a program that would allow businesses that need foreign workers, because they can't otherwise satisfy their labor needs, to be able to get those workers in a regulated program that gives us visibility into who is coming in, has a secure form of identification and makes sure that the federal government is able to collect and promptly allocate all the necessary taxes,'' Chertoff said.

Food industry representatives said such a program is essential.

"It's needed all along the food chain,'' said James Geller, owner of Geller International, a food exporter in Burlingame. "I understand we need to regulate people coming into this country, but we are going to regulate ourselves out of food if we do not resolve the labor problem. Eventually, without reform, we will have so few people (harvesting crops) that the consumer will have to pay more."

Organized labor lambasted the raids. "All of us, native born and immigrant alike, are victims of a failed immigration system,'' said John Wilhelm, president of Unite Here, a union representing approximately 450,000 North American workers in the hotel, food service and other industries. "Worksite raids with armed agents are not the answer to the nationwide call for immigration reform.''

|
 

mwj

Well-known member
So how do you weigh in on the issue? Is it ok if they are hard working ranch hands but not ok if the packers hire them?
 

ocm

Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:
"It's needed all along the food chain,'' said James Geller, owner of Geller International, a food exporter in Burlingame. "I understand we need to regulate people coming into this country, but we are going to regulate ourselves out of food if we do not resolve the labor problem. Eventually, without reform, we will have so few people (harvesting crops) that the consumer will have to pay more."

This is one of the most idiotic things possible to say. As Americans most of us pay about 10% of our gross income on food. So what if it increased to 11 or 12 percent, would that spell disaster? How ridiculous.!!!
 

Texan

Well-known member
ocm said:
This is one of the most idiotic things possible to say. As Americans most of us pay about 10% of our gross income on food. So what if it increased to 11 or 12 percent, would that spell disaster? How ridiculous.!!!
It might not spell disaster to the consumer, but it would be just that much more incentive to import even more of our food. One or two percent of U.S. gross income is a huge incentive. The kind of incentive that could eventually spell disaster for some U.S. growers. I'd rather import labor than export more production. Of course, I'd really rather do neither.
 

fedup2

Well-known member
mwj writes: [Is it ok if they are hard working ranch hands but not ok if the packers hire them?


In what was called Operation Wagon Train, the agents descended on plants operated by Swift & Co. Federal officials said [they had substantial evidence that hundreds of illegal immigrants employed by the company had used stolen Social Security numbers and birth dates of U.S. citizens to gain employment.]

Doesn’t that mean anything to you mwj? Would it be different if it had been your identity that was stolen? Have you known anyone who has had their identity stolen? My daughter’s life was a nightmare for almost 3 years when someone stole her identity. It ruined her credit & she almost had to file bankruptcy before it got partially straightened out. Her credit is still screwed up.
It is still a crime to steal in this country isn’t it? Should there be exemptions for illegals?
 

ocm

Well-known member
Texan said:
ocm said:
This is one of the most idiotic things possible to say. As Americans most of us pay about 10% of our gross income on food. So what if it increased to 11 or 12 percent, would that spell disaster? How ridiculous.!!!
It might not spell disaster to the consumer, but it would be just that much more incentive to import even more of our food. One or two percent of U.S. gross income is a huge incentive. The kind of incentive that could eventually spell disaster for some U.S. growers. I'd rather import labor than export more production. Of course, I'd really rather do neither.

We need both an immigration policy and a trade policy that will prevent those things from happening.
 

agman

Well-known member
ocm said:
HAY MAKER said:
"It's needed all along the food chain,'' said James Geller, owner of Geller International, a food exporter in Burlingame. "I understand we need to regulate people coming into this country, but we are going to regulate ourselves out of food if we do not resolve the labor problem. Eventually, without reform, we will have so few people (harvesting crops) that the consumer will have to pay more."

This is one of the most idiotic things possible to say. As Americans most of us pay about 10% of our gross income on food. So what if it increased to 11 or 12 percent, would that spell disaster? How ridiculous.!!!

An increase to 11% or 12% from a base of 10% is an increase in cost to the consumer of 10%-20%. How ridiculous to think this would not impede consumer choice and spending amongst the competing meats. Beef is the highest priced of the meats and would be harmed the most - how ridiculous not to understand that result.
 

ocm

Well-known member
agman said:
ocm said:
HAY MAKER said:
"It's needed all along the food chain,'' said James Geller, owner of Geller International, a food exporter in Burlingame. "I understand we need to regulate people coming into this country, but we are going to regulate ourselves out of food if we do not resolve the labor problem. Eventually, without reform, we will have so few people (harvesting crops) that the consumer will have to pay more."

This is one of the most idiotic things possible to say. As Americans most of us pay about 10% of our gross income on food. So what if it increased to 11 or 12 percent, would that spell disaster? How ridiculous.!!!

An increase to 11% or 12% from a base of 10% is an increase in cost to the consumer of 10%-20%. How ridiculous to think this would not impede consumer choice and spending amongst the competing meats. Beef is the highest priced of the meats and would be harmed the most - how ridiculous not to understand that result.

Immigrants don't process pork or chicken?
 

mwj

Well-known member
fedup2 said:
mwj writes: [Is it ok if they are hard working ranch hands but not ok if the packers hire them?


In what was called Operation Wagon Train, the agents descended on plants operated by Swift & Co. Federal officials said [they had substantial evidence that hundreds of illegal immigrants employed by the company had used stolen Social Security numbers and birth dates of U.S. citizens to gain employment.]

Doesn’t that mean anything to you mwj? Would it be different if it had been your identity that was stolen? Have you known anyone who has had their identity stolen? My daughter’s life was a nightmare for almost 3 years when someone stole her identity. It ruined her credit & she almost had to file bankruptcy before it got partially straightened out. Her credit is still screwed up.
It is still a crime to steal in this country isn’t it? Should there be exemptions for illegals?

Yes it means a great deal to me. My point is that the identity theft is the same end result no matter who the employer is :evil: Swift is probably no worse than the guy that hires them off of the street corner. I think it should ALL be stoped but some think it is ok for the average person to hire them. Work them for cash and explain that they are to pay there own taxes and ss since they are selfemployed contractors is what the deal is in my area. :mad:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
ocm said:
HAY MAKER said:
"It's needed all along the food chain,'' said James Geller, owner of Geller International, a food exporter in Burlingame. "I understand we need to regulate people coming into this country, but we are going to regulate ourselves out of food if we do not resolve the labor problem. Eventually, without reform, we will have so few people (harvesting crops) that the consumer will have to pay more."

This is one of the most idiotic things possible to say. As Americans most of us pay about 10% of our gross income on food. So what if it increased to 11 or 12 percent, would that spell disaster? How ridiculous.!!!

An increase to 11% or 12% from a base of 10% is an increase in cost to the consumer of 10%-20%. How ridiculous to think this would not impede consumer choice and spending amongst the competing meats. Beef is the highest priced of the meats and would be harmed the most - how ridiculous not to understand that result.

Agman, I would wager you (and I don't know the real figures on this at all, just an educated guess) that as a percent of the price of the product, processing chickens much more than beef. That would therefore increase the substitute's price relative to beef. That would mean more demand of beef via your definition of demand. Perhaps you have some numbers on processing costs for the meats seperated out to category-- chicken, pork, beef?
 
Top