Or. to put it another way. the courts have done nothing that would inhibit the right of Congressoft exercised in the pastto provide an extra degree of protection for individual rights over and above that which is currently required. Moreover. in this case. there is a very good reason for Congress to provide that extra element of protection. namely the existence of an inequitable double standard that. in essence. says that farm operators are not entitled to the same treatment under the law that factory operators are. What makes the existence of this double standard especially significant is that H.R. 1510 as reported already contains provisions designed to punish employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and/or who fail to take appropriate steps to ensure that the workers they do hire are indeed legal. Assuming those employer sanctions provisions are contained in the final version of the billas I expect they will bethe problem that opponents of section 114 are concerned about will have been dealt with. So why knock out section 114 which simply ensures that the INS will not get overzealous in its enforcement activities. After all. the INS will still be able to check people coming to and from the open field in question and. if it has good reason to believe illegal aliens are indeed hiding in that field. it can easily get a search warrant. Those powers. coupled with the sanctions themselves. should be sufficient to prevent wholesale employment of illegal aliens in agricultural operations. Speaking of which. it should also be noted that only 15 percent of all illegal aliens are estimated to be working on farms. the great majority of illegals are working elsewhere. on premises that the INS could not inspect without a warrant. Thus. this amendment misses the mark a little. More to the point. it jeopardizes the delicate balance of interests on which this bill is based.
Keywords matched
illegal aliens