« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Criticism, Praise of ICE Raids Grow
As more details come out about the federal raids on six meatpacking plants two weeks ago, union officials continue to voice concerns about the agents' methods.
In particular, the Feds' habit of detaining legal workers, and denying detainees access to lawyers, are drawing closer scrutiny. In their defense, a spokesman for the bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement say they followed the law to the letter.
But a recounting of the Minnesota raid in a recent McClatchy story gives an example that illustrates how two sides can see a situation very differently:
While American citizens were sent to a room where cardboard boxes were kept, the others were sent to company training rooms, she said. DeVries estimated there were at least 100 ICE agents in blue jackets "all over the place."When you got upstairs, all you saw was people in blue," she said. "They were guarding every doorway. And you could see (through the window) down to the parking lot. They were there too - along with the charter buses with the dark windows that said `Homeland Security.'"
The number of ICE officials at the Worthington plant, their demeanor and their weapons created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, charged Minneapolis attorney Bruce Nestor, who was in the plant for the last hour of the raid.
Immigration authorities said in federal affidavits that workers were free to leave at any time, Nestor said. But leaving would have seemed impossible.
"Based on what I saw . . . no reasonable person would have felt free to leave," Nestor said. "The building was surrounded. There were buses ready to take people away. People believed they had to be interviewed."
Meanwhile, Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty (R) has spoken out in favor of the raids.
Comments (64)
theAmericanist wrote on December 26, 2006 11:16 AM:LOL -- I think I'm just gonna give up on JR.
From Jean Hopfenberger's story: "Nancy DeVries, a Swift worker, said everyone was rounded up initially - not just immigrants..."
As it happens, folks, the best way to fight discrimination is to TREAT EVERYBODY THE SAME. Since Swift had been sued for discrimination when it allegedly checked some workers more than others -- in an industry with employers where as much as 60 percent of the workforce is illegal. So it's not exactly accurate to let such a fundamentally sensible approach on the part of law enforcement be reported AS IF it is illegitimate on its face.
Anybody think I'm being unfair in my reading of JR's reporting?
Read the story, and you see that ICE asked ALL workers to show that they were lawful to work. Those who could do so simply walked out. Those who could not, were given the opportunity to produce proof.
Personally, I object to the treatment of one worker who was handcuffed; but the actual law is consistently misrepresented both in the piece, and in JR's reporting.
JR after all has been bitching that so few of these workers have been charged with criminal violations; now he's favorably linking to articles that "raise questions" that these were civil cases (the lawyers and activists on one side 'raise questions'? No kidding -- what's next, gonna follow OJ's quest for the real killer?) without, yanno, bothering to ANSWER the questions.
Those who enter the US without inspection are not entitled to legal representation at the taxpayer's expense. (IIRC, neither are legal permanent residents.) So 'raising' this particular question is more precisely called begging the question, don't ya think?
When foreigners who are illegally working in the United States are confronted with evidence establishing that fact (e.g., their hiring documents), and respond by accepting removal (they get on the buses), that's a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.
If JR doesn't agree with that, he should be honest and SAY so (since it misinforms all his reporting), instead of fumbling around confusing people, cuz he's confused his own self.
Bill W wrote on December 26, 2006 1:38 PM:Hopefully there are enough readers who have not so yet so succumbed to Lou Dobb's Disease that want to know the big picture, not just how many illegal "foreigners" were caught and taken away.
How were the raids conducted? Were large numbers of legal workers unfairly caught up in the raids? How many were released without charges after how long? What was the overall impact to the community, and how much did this operation cost compared to what benefit?
Thank.You.Justin for helping us readers to see the big picture instead of simply spewing the same old prolefeed from minitrue.
libra wrote on December 26, 2006 1:47 PM:charter buses with the dark windows that said `Homeland Security.'"
Was that necessary, too, Americanist?
That's like the transport from the Lodz or Warsaw ghetto, which took people straight to the cattle cars (no windows at all) and hence to Auschwitz, Treblinka, Majdanek... Add in the agents armed to the teeth and the parallel picture is complete. "Intimidating" doesn't begin to describe it.
And legal aliens may not have the right to legal defence at the taxpayer's expense the way Americans do, but they *do* have the right to have their embassy notified immediately. I know, because one of the reasons I finally changed my status -- from legal alien to American citizen -- was so that I'd have the protection of the US embassy when I travelled back to Poland after Poland went to martial law in '81. Somehow, I don't think the ICE agents were any more eager to let people contact their embassies than they were to allow contact with families or American lawyers.
The things this country does pretending that it's going to keep us safe (my security code for this message) is hair-raisingly frightening.
Chris wrote on December 26, 2006 1:57 PM:"That's like the transport from the Lodz or Warsaw ghetto, which took people straight to the cattle cars (no windows at all) and hence to Auschwitz, Treblinka, Majdanek..."
Comments like the one above show why the Dems control of Congress might be short-term.
MK wrote on December 26, 2006 1:57 PM:Americanist said: "As it happens, folks, the best way to fight discrimination is to TREAT EVERYBODY THE SAME."
Or, in this case, you could say...the best way to fight crime is to treat everyone like a criminal.
Interesting note: the security code for this post was "fear."
MK wrote on December 26, 2006 2:04 PM:From Americanist in another post: "One policy innovation that was a good idea, was beginning the process of deportation (which can take years, and always takes months)"
From the article linked above: "Dozens of workers arrested during the Dec. 12 immigration raid at a Worthington, Minn., meatpacking plant were deported to Mexico within three days, immigration lawyers say."
I wonder where this falls in the whole definition of deportation discussion.
theAmericanist wrote on December 26, 2006 2:59 PM:LOL -- that you still wonder, is a sign you're not paying much attention there, MK.
If we can't say "no" effectively, our "yes" becomes increasingly meaningless. I noted a long series in the process of eroding the status of foreign-born AMERICANS, as a direct result of the sorta crap confusion we're seeing here.
If not that history, what on earth could make reporting this stuff factually important enough?
As I keep pointing out, the technical term for what happened to these folks is not "deported". There are a range of more precise terms, e.g., "summary exclusion" or "voluntary departure", but they ALL depend on the individuals involved being 1) here illegally, and 2) accepting that fact -- indeed, acknowledging it, and then getting on the bus.
Use 'deported' instead of jargon if ya want, but make clear what the facts are.
If you have any evidence that a person who accepted removal had a legal right to remain, kindly produce it. You'll note the lawyers who have managed to get JR to hint as much carefully don't make that charge explicitly, do they?
There's a reason, JR. Perhaps you should ask your sources what it is.
And JR -- you want proof you're misleading folks? Read MK's posts.
You're not the rake, dude. You're the muck.
MK: when you're carded at a liquor store, does that mean you're being treated like a criminal?
Bill W asks: "Were large numbers of legal workers unfairly caught up in the raids?"
Oddly enough, this is an intelligent question. Say there are 1,000 employees at a given slaughterhouse, and 60% are foreigners working here illegally -- not exactly unlikely.
Tell us, Bill W -- would it be "unfair" for the 400 US citizens and legal permanent residents to ALSO be asked to show proof they are here lawfully?
If you say 'yes, it would be': kindly explain just how we tell the citizens and green card workers from the 600 who are illegal, if not BY TREATING EVERYBODY THE SAME.
Or do you figure that illegal workers can be identified on sight? That all thse "undocumented workers" don't have documents out the wazoo -- forgeries, real ones fraudulently obtained, or somebody else's?
You want open borders? Go look at that big hole in Manhattan. Go tell the NYC Fire Department that we don't need to know who comes here, how long they stay, or what they're doing here.
Look, folks -- you guys are DEEP in denial: there are something like 12 million foreigners living illegally in the US, roughly 7 million of 'em working here (and maybe 2 million US born kids of illegal parents). What did you THINK law enforcement of a problem that size would look like?
And if you know of a better way to go about enforcing the law, speak up: cuz you're being spun like a top.
We're talking about identity theft: US citizens in Puerto Rico who have had their identities stolen and used by (mostly) Mexicans working illegally, some of whom have turned up convicted of felonies (which is how this particular set of raids happened).
Large scale identity theft may be okay with JR, and Bill W, and MK, but their uninformed and unrealistic view is just a mite out of touch.
And Libra: get a grip. Virtually all law enforcement transportation uses tinted windows, partly for privacy reasons -- it is considered to be an invasion of privacy when a suspect in custody can be seen from outside the vehicle.
theAmericanist wrote on December 26, 2006 3:23 PM:One other question for Bill W: Why did you put foreigners in quotes, "foreigners"?
So far as I can tell, there are only two possible reasons: first, you too are being misled by JR's bad reporting. Do you agree that you are?
Since he uses the word "deported" when these folks leave the country, perhaps you are confused to think that they had a legal right to remain which was 'summarily' denied them -- that they're aren't foreigners at all, but Americans who have been unfairly treated.
This is counterfactual: guys caught in ICE raids who get on the buses back to Juarez or Jalisco AGREE to leave, BECAUSE they are here illegally.
What other choices are there -- foreigners, or Americans? I cannot think of any other reason you would put quotation marks around "foreigners".
So I figure the ONLY other meaning you could have intended by your use of "foreigners", is that you don't actually believe there are people on the planet who are NOT Americans, and thus entitled to enter our country and get jobs.
Do the math.
So, which is it? Why DID you put quotation marks around "foreigners", Bill W?
MK wrote on December 26, 2006 3:40 PM:So, to be clear...you are saying that the immmigration lawyers quoted in the San Luis Obispo News are also using the word deported incorrectly? Are you also saying that the plants raided had a 60% illegal immigration rate? I am asking this very sincerely.
theAmericanist wrote on December 26, 2006 4:45 PM:LOL -- MK, you ARE hopeless.
The WORD 'deported' isn't the issue. Sure, using the term generically when the precise term would be 'voluntary departure' or 'summary exclusion' is incorrect, but it's also understandable: as you have abundantly demonstrated with that impenetrably pedantic chunk of adamantine between your ears, the precise terms would have to be explained.
What IS important (at least, ought to be, for a reporter) is that readers understand what actually happens.
That's why I cited JR's misusing 'deported' merely as a f'r instance -- but it's pretty clear that by using the term without understanding it, JR has taken so much else for granted which ain't so, that he has pretty much convinced you that axle grease is ice cream.
Remember -- if we can't say "no" effectively, our "yes" erodes.
When activists and immigration lawyers trolling for clients start telling reporters that folks are being 'summarily deported', and that ICE has a "habit of detaining legal workers", I've noticed that reporters stop noticing that there is a difference between legal and illegal that is worth preserving. It does not exalt real immigrants when illegal foreigners are considered the same.
Clear enough now, MK? (Did you look at unitefamilies.org?)
The # I've seen for the Swift raids is 40%, but I'm not sure if that was ICE's estimate for ALL the sites, or some particular one. The percentage is generally higher for floor work rather than administrative positions, of course, so it varies depending on whether you include those positions in a given site, or not.
When I interviewed a bunch of IBP employees in a church basement in Sioux Falls, THEIR estimate was 80% -- but they were talking about floor jobs.
The 60 percent figure comes from similar raids conducted toward the latter part of the Clinton administration, and since the result was that the Clinton abandoned internal enforcement, I don't see any reason to suppose the percentage has declined any.
Do you?
MK wrote on December 26, 2006 4:52 PM:Yikes. OK you win.
Bill W wrote on December 26, 2006 5:19 PM:I put "foreigners" in quotes because that's how "theunAmericanist" referred to them. The vast majority of first generation "foreigners" are here in the US legally. I do not support a raid that results in detaining around 1300 "foreigners" and only nets 200 undocumented workers. That's bullshit.
We are a nation of "foreigners". I appreciate the US's diversity, and don't think destroying families by deporting undocumented workers is the answer. Chalk me up as 100% for amnesty.
Many of those "foreigners" have given their lives for us. One of the first soldiers killed in Iraq was an illegal immigrant, and many more "foreigners" have been killed serving in our US military since.
The sacrifice of these young men is no different than that made by any of the other young Americans who have given "the last full measure" in this or any other war, except in one, very noteworthy respect – at the time they died, neither was an American.
Gutierrez was born in Guatemala and when he was 14, entered this country as an illegal immigrant. Garibay was born in Mexico and moved here as a child. Neither man was a citizen at the time of their deaths. ...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31990
More than 36,000 service members are non-citizens, making up about 5 percent of active duty service members. About a third come from Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries and the rest are from China, Vietnam, Canada, Korea, India and other countries. ...
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/immigrants/20030501/11/368
Bill W wrote on December 26, 2006 5:31 PM:" We know that 1,282 workers were detained in the raids ten days ago. Over 100 were charged with a variety of crimes. So far, grand juries have handed down indictments for 58 of them: 20 from Worthington, Minn.; 15 from Grand Island, Neb.; and 23 from Marshalltown, Iowa, ..."
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002208.php
Sure sounds to me like they went completely overboard with mediocre at best results. Also sounds like theunAmericanist's percentages are waaaaaay off base.
theAmericanist wrote on December 26, 2006 5:54 PM:Oh, my goodness: Bill W wants a FACTUAL dispute. Huzzah! On the WEB -- golly, there must be an Ice Capades on the Styx tonight.
Bill sez: "The vast majority of first generation "foreigners" are here in the US legally."
No kidding? That's why the word "immigrant" is significant. Psst -- it does NOT mean "foreigner". If you won't make distinctions like that, Bill, you cannot make sense.
Still, if ya actually want the numbers, they go something like this, from memory: There are 480,000 family-based immigrant visa allocated each year in what's called the "pierceable cap" (which means it isn't really a cap, puh-leeze don't ask me to explain that for free); another 180,000 employment-based green cards, plus the 50,000 diversity visas: then you have the wholly different admissions for refugees and asylees. (The key distinction is that the former -- 675,00 a year, more or less -- are INVITED, while refugees and asylees are folks we won't turn away.)
Properly speaking, those are the only folks who can be called "immigrants", even after they have become US citizens.
Temporary workers (the H-1B, the H-2A programs, etc.), foreign students, and so forth, are all foreigners living in America. There are roughly 12 million illegally resident foreigners in America, and 30 million or so legal foreign visitors. Each year, somewhere between a quarter and a third of a million foreigners remain here illegally, generally by getting jobs illegally -- of that total, something like half entered legally, and did not leave. That's why an illegal foreign population of 5 million in 1986 got 3.1 million green cards in the last amnesty, and today we have an illegal foreign population of 12 million, give or take.
While the MINIMUM wait for most categories of legal immigration grows longer, and the system gets ever more complex, since -- egged on by half-baked quiches like Bill W -- Congress tries to manage by waiting list, and "reform" the rules with exceptions, rather than new rules that work.
THINK about what you're advocating, dude: if folks obey the law, they're screwed. If they break it, they're rewarded. And CITIZENSHIP is steadly, consistently degraded -- even in the language, since you deny that 'foreigner' has any meaning at all.
You're not promoting immigrants when you insist that illegal foreigners are no different than people who obey the law.
Ya see, Bill W, you slur precisely the folks you claim to praise when you insist that those who come illegally are the same as those who obey the law. Go look at unitefamilies.org sometime.
You're 100% for amnesty, Bill? Then tell the 1.5 million spouses and kids of LEGAL immigrants that it's okay with you that they are separated from their closest family for SEVEN years, minimum. Cuz that's what the 1986 amnesty did -- and you want to do it again.
Cuz, hey, there's no diff between legal and illegal, right? Between "foreigners" and Americans -- and Bill W looks in the mirror, and sees a pro-family sorta guy.
Bill, in 1986 before the last amnesty, the minimum wait for a green card holder's spouse, if he married her after getting permanent residency, was a year. In 1990, after 3.1 million illegal aliens got green cards, the wait had increased to two years. In 1995, when the Jordan Commission decided this was grotesquely unacceptable, the minimum wait was 3 years. By 1996, when Congress rejected real immigration reform in favor of eroding the differences between legal and illegal, permanent and temporary, the minimum wait was 4.5 years.
By last September, it was SEVEN years.
But, hey, you're the pro-family pro-'foreigner' guy, right Bill? The word "immigrant" just means "foreigner" to you -- and American evidently means nothing at all.
I don't take a back seat to ANYBODY, Bill, in quantifiable pro-immigration credentials: I played a small role in passing the last permanent increase in annual immigration (the 1990 Act); and I spent a chunk of the 1990s trying to deregulate employment-based immigration based on permanent residency -- and got my ass kicked by the guest worker lobby.
Which sets up the factual dispute: Bill W, baffled by JR's reporting, thinks that 1,200 Swift workers got busted and a THOUSAND of 'em were legal.
But -- as I noted, correcting JR's figures -- 150 of those 1,200 have been indicted for serious crimes. Nearly all of the remainder accepted 'voluntary departure', or 'summary exclusion', which JR (misleading his readers) refers to as "summary deportation".
Bill also figures he's pro, while I'm the "unAmericanist".
So, a factual dispute: JR, DID the 1986 amnesty cause exponentially longer waits for legal immigrants, especially for the nuclear families of LEGAL permanent residents? Seems kinda hard to be the pro-family guy, when THAT is what you want -- as Bill W says, "100 %".
And, JR, how about some reporting -- what's the percentage of those 1,200 workers who admitted they were here illegally, and accepted removal? Bill W's been reading your stuff... and thinks it was "just 200".
I say he's wrong -- and I say that as the reporter here, you owe your readers the plain truth.
Bill W wrote on December 26, 2006 6:01 PM:" as I noted, correcting JR's figures -- 150 of those 1,200 have been indicted for serious crimes. Nearly all of the remainder accepted 'voluntary departure', or 'summary exclusion', "
theunAmericanist
Got link?
theAmericanist wrote on December 26, 2006 6:14 PM:Every story JR cited, dude. You're sorta late to this conversation, yanno?
Bill W wrote on December 26, 2006 8:05 PM:WTF?
None of the stories Justin cited said "Nearly all of the remainder accepted 'voluntary departure', or 'summary exclusion'"
Just from this article it says: " Of 230 detainees from Worthington, 19 have been charged with identity-related counts. "
There is nothing that says how many of the others were held, deported or released. Please do provide a URL to an article that does say so if it's true. There are several other things from this article that are disturbing:
"... "proactive enforcement" was an unprecedented show of force in which ICE agents took control of the plant, guarded the exits, interrogated workers and in some cases held legal workers in handcuffs for hours "
" Asian immigrant workers were handcuffed and put in a room separate from the Hispanic employees ..."
Did they really just pull up, surround the buildings with gun & baton totin ICE officers and divide everyone up based on their apparent race?
If so, that's unAmerican.
theAmericanist wrote on December 26, 2006 9:08 PM:No, they didn't.
JR -- Bill W's reaction is proof of what we already saw from MK: you are MISLEADING your readers.
Kindly correct this with better reporting. I've asked about a half dozen factual clarifications -- and you ain't provided ANY.
And Josh -- is THIS what you set out to do when you bailed on the Prospect? I remember you telling me that you didn't like following a party line... this is a pretty fair test whether you meant it.
MK wrote on December 26, 2006 9:46 PM:It is becoming more and more clear that the Americanist (And the award for the most ironic moniker goes to...) is completely full of sh!t. Irrational, arrogant, overly emotional, full of bluster and so obviously completely full of sh!t.
Very sweet.
theAmericanist wrote on December 27, 2006 10:28 AM:ROFL -- man, you folks are pitiful: Josh Marshall, THIS is what you've done to your credibility.
This is from the PRESS RELEASE that ICE issued TWO WEEKS AGO. (Golly, what kind of journalist doesn't even read the press release?):
"Those illegal aliens arrested yesterday on administrative immigration violations are being detained and processed at locations around the country for removal proceedings or immediate return to Mexico. In certain cases where humanitarian or medical concerns were identified, ICE agents used their discretion and provided the alien with a notice to appear in court at a later date. All will be afforded due process under the law and an opportunity to appear before an Immigration Judge. Relatives or other concerned parties seeking information on the location or status of an illegal alien who may have been arrested at Swift facilities yesterday may call 866-341-3858."
So of the 1,282 foreigners arrested December 12, who were ALL arrested based on evidence they were working illegally in the United States, something more than 200 have already ALSO been indicted for serious crimes (e.g., identity theft) IN ADDITION TO their entering without inspection, overstaying temporarily valid visas, or working when that is explicitly forbidden under the terms of their invitation to enter our country.
It's Reporting 101 to, yanno, actually get the facts of the story before you write it, especially when you've written about it more than FOUR times. So far, JR, you're on record insisting that the failure of the Swift raids is "increasingly evident", because... a THOUSAND of those arrested were 'only' illegally here?
When one in four immediately accepted voluntary departure or summary exclusion?
Hell, it's right there in the press release -- from TWO WEEKS AGO. Every one of the 1,282 arrested was busted BECAUSE the evidence demonstrated they were working illegally. Every one of 'em has the opportunity to show otherwise -- they're innocent until proven guilty, but because it is a REMOVAL proceeding, it does not proceed, as an actual deportation does, in the manner of a trial. (Not that you would know this from JR's 'reporting'.)
As noted, if you don't know the difference, you shouldn't oughta be writing about ICE raids until you know what you're talking about. You wind up misleading your readers, as MK and Bill W demonstrate that JR has done.
It happens as I've described, over and over again -- and gotten called unAmerican here, cuz I actually care about the rule of law and worse, know what I'm talking about: to folks whom YOU have misled, JR.
In the first few days after the Swift raids, roughly 300 of those arrested agreed to get on the bus and go home. Do the math -- with 200+ indicted for serious crimes, and 300 more acknowledging they were here illegally by accepting removal, that's getting close to HALF of those arrested.
Already.
In the two weeks since (counting Christmas, mind), every few days several dozen more of those arrested recognize that they have no legal right to remain in the United States, and that (so long as ICE doesn't want 'em as witnesses, nor regards 'em as targets for prosecution in identity theft or fraud cases) the only result of continuing to resist 'voluntary departure' or 'summary exclusion' is to sit in jail -- and they choose to accept their guilt, and get on the bus.
This is where the interests of activists (and lawyers trolling for clients) part from the interests of the individuals involved: they don't WANT to stay in jail. They DO want clarity in their cases -- and not infrequently, they are denied that by activists, lawyers -- and bad journalism.
Go push your sources on this stuff, JR. Ask 'em what they tell a guy who is in jail for being here illegally, whose spouse is also illegally here (but NOT in jail), and who has a US citizen child.
Ask 'em what the law is.
Look -- this is NOT the normal condition of "immigrants", if you mean the word for what it says. When immigrants in America suffer, it OUGHT to be because of either bad law (which can be fixed) or bad behavior (which must not be rewarded).
When immigration law bars the spouse of a legal permanent resident for SEVEN years -- that's bad law, not bad behavior. (Yo, Josh: how long would YOU be willing to live in a different country than your wife and child? Why don't YOU look at unitefamilies.org?) We ought to change that law -- Matthew 19:6.
But when a Mexican sneaks across the Sonoran desert, and buys the identity of a US citizen, that's bad behavior. We ought not to reward that -- no, not even when the guy brings his wife illegally, and they have a US citizen child.
And folks who write about this stuff should know the difference -- and make sure their readers get the difference, also.
Allen wrote on December 27, 2006 11:39 AM:Gee, ICE does its job, without much planning for the families of the illegal workers, and some people are mad. If ICE doesn't do its job, other people are mad.
But it boils down to one point. ILLEGAL workers in the work force. Yes, I feel sorry for the kids, but why didn't these Illegal workers think about that before they came into the US? How did they get social security #s?
However, IMHO the borders have to be controlled, then start discussion about the remaing illegals. Also interesting to note is how many legal American citizens put in job applications. Wonder why our economy is in such great shape? Are the job applicants quiting other jobs, or are they unemployed because of our great economy?
theAmericanist wrote on December 27, 2006 11:45 AM:"How did they get social security #s? "
They made 'em up -- or stole 'em.
Right or wrong, JR?
Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2006 12:26 PM:There is PLENTY of evidence that the claim from "the PRESS RELEASE that ICE issued TWO WEEKS AGO" was a bunch of of BS.
" The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 22 is renting vans in Des Moines, Iowa, to bring back detainees picked up in Grand Island on Tuesday as part of an immigration raid at the Swift & Co. meatpacking plant.
"What we're finding out is a lot of these folks are not illegal," Union President Dan Hoppes said. "They've been taken to Camp Dodge, Iowa, and many are being released." "
http://www.theindependent.com/stories/121506/new_swiftvans15.shtml
"... "proactive enforcement" was an unprecedented show of force in which ICE agents took control of the plant, guarded the exits, interrogated workers and in some cases held legal workers in handcuffs for hours "
" Asian immigrant workers were handcuffed and put in a room separate from the Hispanic employees ..."
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/nation/16316769.htm
The raids were supposed to be aimed at breaking up an identity theft ring, but there have been very few resulting arrests af very few persons for any identity theft related crimes. Of course the raid was a failure.
The reports all show that they surrounded the plants with gun and baton toting ICE agents, divided everyone up based on their ethnic appearance, detained everyone who didn't have proof they were legal, and in the process they caught up several/many (who the f*** knows because Chertoff lied about it) who were legal.
If theunAmericanist is ok with that, then BFD, but a majority of folks are not.
The whole idea of detaining everyone in a large group for a nonviolent crime perpetrated by less than 10% of said group, and then catching the rest for whatever else you can find on them is heinous. It's unAmerican.
What's next for the justice by mob? Surrounding Rock and Roll concerts and then vetting everyone inside to see how many are carrying or under the influence of drugs and then checking to see if they have any warrants/unpaid fines?
theAmericanist wrote on December 27, 2006 12:36 PM:I stand by my numbers -- and you'll note, they ARE numbers: 1,284 arrested ALL for working illegally, more than 200 indicted for serious crimes, about 300 promptly admitting guilt and accepting removal, dozens each day since... which adds to half or more of the original number arrested.
In two weeks.
Dispute those #s? Back it up.
I asked Bill W (who stumbled into asking a reasonable question, and promptly fled in panic from his own insight) just what would be 'unfairly' questioning US citizens or legal permanent residents -- if 1,000 people work at a given site, and 60% are illegal (not unreasonable -- there are something like 8 million illegal workers in the country, concentrated in a handful of counties in a handful of states in industries that you can count without taking your socks off, Bill and MK), that means 400 citizens and legal permanent residents are asked the SAME questions as, well, everybody else.
Is that unreasonable? It's an intelligent question -- and the answer has consequences.
And -- get a grip, willya? There is NO evidence, none, zip zero, that ICE divided folks up by appearance. Hell, the Minnesota story bitched that 'even US citizens' were questioned... as if that's not evidence they did this right.
Can't have your cake and eat it too, folks. If you want to defend citizenship, you have to enforce the law.
Bill W wrote on December 27, 2006 12:59 PM:theunAmericanist just keeps making shit up and ignoring glaring facts.
The number was far below 60% who were illegal. Where did theunAmericanist pull that ASSumption from?
SWIFT had more than 15,000 workers at their plants.
Only 1,282 were detained.
That's less than 10%, not 60%.
As the news report clearly show, and I've quoted several reports above, many LEGAL workers were held in handcuffs for hours and other reports tell of legal workers who were detained until the next day then released. ICE has not been truthful about those numbers.
Yes, it is totally unreasonable to shut down a bunch of plants and detain everyone in a large group for a nonviolent crime perpetrated by less than 10% of said group, and then catching the rest for whatever else you can find on.
Bill W wrote on December 27, 2006 1:19 PM:" There is NO evidence, none, zip zero, that ICE divided folks up by appearance. "
theAmericanist 12:36 PM
None???? Have you even read any of the articles Justin linked to?
" Asian immigrant workers were handcuffed and put in a room separate from the Hispanic employees ..."
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/nation/16316769.htm
" Non-Latinos and people with lighter skin were plucked out of line and given blue bracelets.
theAmericanist wrote on December 27, 2006 3:12 PM:The rest, mostly Latinos with brown skin, waited until they were ''cleared'' or arrested by ''la migra,'' the popular name in Spanish for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), "
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4829962
LOL -- Bill W, this isn't THAT hard.
Re-read the bit about "administrative" as opposed to "floor jobs".
And the bit about "sites."
That's what the 60% figure depends on.
Smarter idiots, please.
Bill W wrote on December 27, 2006 4:05 PM:Are you trying to say +12,000 of SWIFT's +15,000 jobs were administrative, and less than 3,000 were floor jobs, and that they only raided/detained/questioned the floor workers?
You obviously just make shit up. If not, please do post a URL to where the source of your misinfo is coming from.
MK wrote on December 27, 2006 5:17 PM:I believe this is the "bit" Americanist is refering to...
From the Americanist: "The # I've seen for the Swift raids is 40%, but I'm not sure if that was ICE's estimate for ALL the sites, or some particular one. The percentage is generally higher for floor work rather than administrative positions, of course, so it varies depending on whether you include those positions in a given site, or not."
OK. How many floor workers are there in all the plants mentioned, combined? Not administrative. Floor. Were the 1,282 all floor workers?
theAmericanist wrote on December 27, 2006 6:53 PM:ROFL -- man, you guys are just stooopid. I'm sorry, but after all this, there really is no other conclusion to reach (except that you're both completely dishonest, so I'm being charitable).
Let's talk through the basic facts, k? I know that's unfamiliar territory, so I'll go slow and point to the important stuff on the way.
1) There were 1,282 folks arrested on December 12 at Swift sites in I think it was six states. In ALL of these cases there is solid, documented evidence that they have committed identity fraud.
In. Every. Single. Case.
How can I say that? Simple -- cuz Swift participated in the Basic Pilot, under which each new hire presents a name and Social Security Number to be verified such that the name matches the #, and the # was issued to someone authorized to work in the US.
These 1,282 people were arrested BECAUSE they are not the people whose names and/or Social Security Numbers they claimed to be.
Tell us, JR: did you even BOTHER to find out who those people are, whose identities were stolen?
I'm no troll, dude. I'm asking you. Well?
2) There have been NO examples -- none, zip, zero -- of any of these 1,282 people who were arrested having been lawfully in the United States.
How can I say that? Cuz every example of some legal worker cited in all the articles JR linked to is either somebody who was NOT arrested (but merely held for several hours while they established that they were legal to work), or is a claim by activists and lawyers trolling for clients who insist that some vague un-named, 'lots' of 'legal workers' have been badly treated -- a claim that, for some reason, nobody ever CHECKS.
3) I had noted when we started this mess that, as an example, JR doesn't understand what "deported" means, and that this misunderstanding misinforms every piece of writing he does about it.
Here is proof: JR has consistently asserted that these raids are 'increasingly' seen as a 'failure', because SO FEW of the 1,282 folks arrested have been charged with criminal offense.
He has NOT bothered to note that ALL 1,282 were arrested because there is clear evidence that each was misrepresenting their identity in order to work in the US.
Still, I've noted what the ACTUAL numbers mean -- of the 1,282 folks arrested on December 12, more than 200 have ALREADY been charged with serious crimes, e.g., identity theft.
Within the first few days after December 12, about 300 accepted (more technically, were granted on their request) various forms of "voluntary removal" (voluntary departure, summary exclusion, etc.) The precise terms are unnecessary jargon if you understand, and write so that your understanding is clear what the distinction is.
Which, evidently, JR is not -- and thus, he has helped to mislead you two. (Not that this is hard. You're like those guys PT Barnum loved, who jump up and down and DEMAND to be made fools of.)
That means that of the 1,282 folks arrested on December, by December 27 nearly HALF have already been either charged with serious crimes, or promptly copped a plea and fled the country, glad to get out while the getting was good.
The remainder are still in jail, hoping like hell that they have the chance to get out without the serious penalties incurred by formal deportation.
Josh -- do you LIKE it when your reporters are spun like this?
If a worker is legal at a site where ICE conducts a raid like this, the worker can prove it fairly easily, e.g., this is my hiring document, it notes I was born in Bridgeport, Connecticut, my birthdate matches my age on ALL the documents in my possession, and so on.
In the articles JR cites, there are complaints about how even LEGAL workers at the Swift sites were required to produce such proof -- which shows, to folks who actually want to know the truth, that ICE was NOT discriminating against folks who might have appeared to be foreign in some form. All the crap about folks of one ethnicity being sent here, and others there, with different color wrist bands -- good Lord, have NONE of you ever thought about this?
When ICE does a raid on a site with (my numerical example) a thousand workers ALL of whom have had their names and Social Security Numbers checked (which is why these are mostly identity theft cases), they show up with a list of folks whom they KNOW, because of identity fraud cases (e.g., in Puerto Rico and those criminals serving felony time), have been using stolen IDs. So it is sort of a reasonable thing DURING the raid, to sort out the folks who can prove who they are from the folks who CAN'T -- no, d'uh.
I mean, it's not like folks who are known to have engaged in identity fraud wouldn't say they were somebody else WHILE THEY WERE BEING ARRESTED, right?
With as much as 60% of a given work SITE (that means a place that employs 600 people, 450 on the floor and 150 in various support jobs), you're gonna have a LOT of people who need to be sorted out effectively and efficiently, so that in only VERY rare instances, do you have US citizens and legal immigrants who are NOT the targets held for any length of time.
And guess what? That's exactly what EVERY news story on these raids demonstrates.
Every. single. one.
Since the raids, there has been a steady flow of those under arrest who have asked for, and been granted, voluntary removal -- even AFTER the 300 or so who asked for and got it right away. The key to understanding how this works -- which is NOT what you'll get from activists and lawyers trolling for clients, precisely BECAUSE their interests differ from those they claim to speak for (but, you'll note, have never AGREED to let these clowns speak for them) -- is to remember that it is a BAD thing to be formally deported.
It is MUCH better to be 'voluntarily' removed -- which is why it is something the government GRANTS (sometimes), which guilty people ASK FOR.
That's why the distinction between "deported" and the various forms of voluntary removal is damned important, especially if you happen to be the guy in jail.
ICE "grants" voluntary removal to folks WHO ARE GUILTY whom they don't want and don't need for some other reason, e.g., as a witness against a guy who was actually dealing in the STOLEN IDENTITIES OF US CITIZENS.
If a guy was arrested and is nevertheless legal to work in the US, ya gotta ask yourself: what was the evidence? Remember, everybody at the Swift plants had presented a name and a Social Security Number which was checked -- and that's WHY they were arrested. So, what was the evidence to arrest THESE folks, but not others?
I note -- not ONE of you has asked that. JR has consistently 'reported' as if more than a thousand people were arrested without evidence, and are being held without charge, which simply isn't true.
And that's why I keep noting, Josh Marshall, that if you want to preserve a shred of credibility for your website, you'll start doing some editing here.
LOL -- and, just in case you guys continue to blather, the ultimate source for the 60% figure is a consultant to... Swift. (I won't do this publicly, but if JR or Josh wants to know more, email me.)
MK wrote on December 27, 2006 7:18 PM:How many floor workers are there in all the plants mentioned, combined? Not administrative. Floor.
Were the 1,282 all floor workers?
MK wrote on December 27, 2006 7:25 PM:Americanist said: "...and, just in case you guys continue to blather, the ultimate source for the 60% figure is a consultant to... Swift. (I won't do this publicly, but if JR or Josh wants to know more, email me.)"
The 60% question was asked a few times before, why didn't you say exactly this then?
MK wrote on December 27, 2006 7:29 PM:Now, I'm sure you'll be sure to note in your next post that you are of course "rolling on the floor laughing" or simply "laughing out loud" like the little teenage girl you are, but please try not to obfuscate any further.
theAmericanist wrote on December 27, 2006 8:27 PM:Yes, it is my understanding that all 1,282 of those arrested were "floor workers".
Kindly tell us all what you guys understand that means in the slaughterhouse biz. Bonus points for explaining what the job titles are, and what they do.
For any potentially sensible people reading this thread -- yanno, one of the peculiar things about meatpacking (that is, slaughterhouses, at least when it's beef), is that it is one of the most injury-prone industries in the world. Until (unlike JR) I actually did some direct investigation, I had assumed that was cuz of the wicked sharp knives (not to mention the meat chain saws: ya gotta SEE those things, power tools designed to cut a steer in half lengthwise) which they use -- but that's not it.
It's repetitive stress. An odd thing about turning live cattle into steaks and roasts in boxes is that it really can't be entirely automated -- the subtle differences between each animal means that you actually have to have a person (with a wicked sharp knife) cutting between the bones, slicing out the ... well, you don't wanna know.
So at each station, particularly where the meat cutting occurs, you have somebody who is literally making the same slice into some partially dismantled beast every 6-10 seconds.
A rule of thumb in the industry is that the plants are better, the bigger the animal. That is, beef plants are better than pork, pork is better than chickens. But beef is the paradigm.
Twenty-five years ago, most grocery stores, even in chains, had on-site meatcutters -- who were unionized. Then IBP moved operations to Iowa and Nebraska, and "boxed beef" replaced sides shipped whole to butchers.
Last I looked, the injury rate for meatpacking in line jobs was THIRTY-EIGHT PERCENT, but most of that isn't taking off a thumb -- it's various forms of repetitive stress.
So there is an extraordinarily high turnover for the industry in most of the floor jobs, which is a prime reason why the industry (especially in those jobs) is so highly saturated with illegal workers: at considerably above minimum wage, in highly regulated (OSHA is everywhere), but virtually UN-unionized jobs. It's a fast way to make money for a couple years.
Something that ol' Bill W and MK don't seem to know (of the long list of things they don't know), is that in 1980, most meatpacking was unionized, and the average salary for a floor job in a slaughterhouse was about $20 an hour. People worked 20 years in jobs like that.
Then the industry figured out that they could simply MOVE the jobs from places (like Chicago) where unions were strong, to places ... well, like the sites where Swift was raided, where unions don't exist.
And the jobs start about $9 an hour now (when they were worth twice that, 25 years ago) -- and most folks don't keep 'em for more than a year and a half, because a 38% injury rate means that if you work that long, you are statistically guaranteed serious, repetitive stress related harm.
So if you're a 'floor worker' whose worked more than a year or two, AND your name and Social Security Number aren't yours... well, gee: what does THAT tell you, MK and Bill W?
And -- DO tell us all what the floor jobs are in a meatpacking plant, and what the workers do.
Bill W wrote on December 27, 2006 8:57 PM:None of that means diddly to the BS claims theunAmericanist continues to make.
I have provided several URLs showing that allege that they did in fact divide everyone up based on their ethnicity and held many legal workers in handcuffs until they were later released, many the next day. All of which theunAmericanist still denies.
I've yet to see anything that says any percentage of workers were illegal. I've seen that there were more than 15,000 employed at the 6 plants that were raided, and that 1,282 were detained.
Why can theunAmericanist, who repeatedly has made the 60% illegal workers claim and the claim that not one innocent legal worker was detained when every story contradicts that. I'm not talking about Justin's posts, I'm talking about the MSM stories on the SWIFT raids.
If you are not completely full of shit unAmericanist, please cut and paste the URL (you know; http://www...) to your source of your info.
MK wrote on December 27, 2006 10:36 PM:Americanist, what has any of that to do with...ah nevermind. I was right before..and so is Bill, you're full of it.
Bill W wrote on December 27, 2006 11:13 PM:I think i know where theunAmericanist gets his "facts" from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOtyigg5BZw
Sure sounds similar. If so I wouldn't admit it either.
theAmericanist wrote on December 28, 2006 3:28 AM:"Detained" doesn't mean "arrested" -- this 'words mean what they say' thing, folks.
I've noted that ALL 1,282 folks who were arrested, were arrested BECAUSE there is clear evidence that they had misrepresented 1) who they are, and 2) that they can work legally in the US.
I've further noted that you don't get that simple fact from the likes of JR, for the even simpler reason THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW IT.
That's why I keep observing that he has misled you -- and given him chances to correct that error.
I pointed out that, while JR complained that it's evidence of the raids' "failure" that more than 200 of these folks have ALSO been charged with crimes, he doesn't seem to know that 300 of 'em have happily agreed that they were here illegally -- 'yup, we're guilty and we're SO happy to have been granted voluntary departure', which he misrepresented as "summarily deported".
That's why I started this clarification in the first place: being 'deported' carries felony charges if you return, so people who are here illegally will admit it eagerly, if that means they can leave voluntarily.
JR sorta skipped that part about admitting guilt.
And since that first 300, a good many others of the original 1,282 who have ALL been charged (in effect, there are technical distinctions here) with working illegally and misrepresenting who they are, have also sought and been granted voluntary removal BECAUSE THEY ADMITTED GUILT and aren't useful for other investigations, nor targets for prosecution themselves, e.g., for identity theft. (The distinction being between a customer, a foreigner who buys a US citizens identity, and a dealer, somebody who sells 'em.)
I've also noted that in the instances cited in the various news articles on the raids, reporters confuse folks who were questioned AT the sites, and then released, with people who were ARRESTED.
Too clear for you?
Hell, I've given you more to work with, if you were even remotely interested in the truth: I've asked for even a single instance of a person who was falsely arrested -- and there ain't any. (The ones you're pointing to are folks who were questioned, then released.)
I've pointed out that ALL of the 1,282 arrested have clear evidence not simply that they were here illegally, but also misrepresented themselves: Swift participated in the Basic Pilot, which checks the names and Social Security #s of new hires. So anybody hired by Swift must have been checked such that the name matched the #, and the # had been issued to someone authorized to work, e.g., those US citizens from Puerto Rico that you guys obviously couldn't care less about.
EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 1,282 people arrested had gone through the Basic Pilot, and were arrested BECAUSE they had misrepresented that they were lawful to work.
I'm done with ye -- JR and Josh, you can't pretend that nobody tried to help you get it right.
BTW -- the code for this post is "school" as in, you have been.
MK wrote on December 28, 2006 7:39 AM:Bill W. Thanks. That was funny as hell.
MK wrote on December 28, 2006 7:42 AM:To Americanist. Just read your post...and that was funny as hell, too! Especially that last part. Thanks for the chuckle.
Bill W wrote on December 28, 2006 12:35 PM:Sorry (not) the unAmericanist, but unless you can cite a source for wherever you are getting your info you are full of shit.
MK wrote on December 28, 2006 3:28 PM:Americanist Version 1.0 "The # I've seen for the Swift raids is 40%, but I'm not sure if that was ICE's estimate for ALL the sites, or some particular one."
Americanist Version 1.2 "...and, just in case you guys continue to blather, the ultimate source for the 60% figure is a consultant to... Swift."
AutoBlog wrote on December 29, 2006 1:48 AM:This is a great Blog!
theAmericanist wrote on December 30, 2006 1:03 AM:(sigh) A literate person would note that, I cited the 60% figure referring to the industry as a whole, and in context, it refers to particular sites. I doubt you'd get a high percentage of illegal workers at most corporate headquarters. (I noted when I personally interviewed a church basement full of IBP workers, THEIR estimate was 80% -- but that was for floor jobs.)
As noted above, in 1997-98 there was a similar effort to raid meatpacking plants all over the Midwest. THAT's where the 60% figures from, from actual raids on actual sites -- and, in fact, there isn't anybody who questions those proportions except these two clowns.
(After 40-some site visits and hearings all over the country, it's not like I don't know what I'm talking about.)
LOL -- it really is astonishing how hard progressives work at conning themselves. Two generations back, meatpacking was a heavily unionized field paying about $20 an hour, based on the historic dynamic of bringing the animals to the workers, e.g., in Chicago. And IN Chicago, unions organized the workforce and got better wages, benefits, etc. So long as the industry was about bringing the animals to the workers, unions were hard to break.
But the rise in refrigerated trucks (and deregulation) in the Reagan years meant that IBP, et al, figured out that the way to lower their labor costs was to bring the plants where there WERE no workers -- and no unions. Why the hell do you think meatpacking plants are in places like Grand Isle, Nebraska; Greeley, Colorado, and Hutchison, Kansas? It's not cuz it's cheaper to bring the cattle THERE, rather than to transportation hubs like Chicago.
Hint: it's not cuz there were workers there looking for jobs, either. Garden City, Kansas was a community of 6,000 people before IBP opened the largest meatpacking plant in the world right outside of town, and hired 6,000 workers -- who just magically, in western Kansas, turned out to be from Jalisco and Oaxaca.
More broadly, for those who actually care about getting the facts straight... well, they know better than to waste anymore time on JR (and, alas, on Josh Marshall).
So I don't know why I bother, but I will close with this: JR (and Josh), kindly state why ICE arrested those nearly 1,300 folks, but NOT others.
It's not like it's hard to find that facts... if you LOOK for 'em.
I can't resist: just WHAT do you two knuckleheads think you're accomplishing by challenging obvious facts?
theAmericanist wrote on December 30, 2006 1:35 PM:"Because they're there"
LOL -- another technique ya might try, JR, is to learn from folks who are NOT the usual suspects. Activists who take for granted stuff that ain't so, and lawyers trolling for clients, bring a certain, shall we say, flexible attitude toward facts in a situation like the Swift raids.
But what can we learn from what cattlemen say? This is from Dan Murphy, who writes for an industry paper:
"...The sole reason ICE went after [illegal foreign] meatpackers is because they’re there.
There are literally thousands of illegals on the streets and in the employ of dozens of companies in the foodservice, landscaping, hospitality and construction industries in just about every big city you care to name. But how do you round up half a dozen workers on a home building project? Or track down three guys mowing lawns for cash under the table? Or target illegal immigrants in hundreds of other occupations where only a handful of people might be toiling away at some manual labor job?
You don’t. Instead, you swoop down on a big meat plant where a large work force is conveniently gathered in one place, under one roof, unable to flee.
If one fact has emerged from all the media coverage of the December raids that will ultimately cost Swift multi-millions and separate thousands of families — just in time for the holidays — it’s the reality that the company, and nearly every other in the industry, was doing all it could to comply with the law. (Swift, in fact, was fined in 2002 by the feds for pushing too hard to verify workers’ documents).
Truth is, there is no fail-safe system to ensure that an employer isn’t hiring an illegal immigrant. As Robert Guenther, senior vice president for United Fresh Produce trade group so aptly phrased it, “There are no ’undocumented’ workers. Everybody has documents.“..."
He's actually wrong on the strategy -- there ARE ways to preclude the hiring of illegal workers.
But JR: you (and Bill W and MK) have to take that first step, and admit you have a problem.
Bill W wrote on January 2, 2007 9:54 AM:" As noted above, in 1997-98 there was a similar effort to raid meatpacking plants all over the Midwest. THAT's where the 60% figures from "
theunAmericanist
You are still spewing more "facts" without referencing a source? Just because you say it doesn't make it so. For all the criticism you heap on Justin, at least he links to his sources. You apparently just keep making stuff up and saying it over and over again enough times in the hopes that eventually someone might think it's true.
" See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. "
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2005/05/catapult_the_pr.html
Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2007 10:03 AM:" It's not like it's hard to find that facts... if you LOOK for 'em.
I can't resist: just WHAT do you two knuckleheads think you're accomplishing by challenging obvious facts? "
theunAmericanist
If the so called "facts" you keep spewing are so easy to find, why don't you provide a source for them? Why can't you past a link, or a citation of any kind?
Really, it's plain and simple netiquette. If you state a "fact" that isn't common knowledge, you acknowledge your source. Then people might believe you.
Until then, you are just plain full of it.
kriss@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 1:21 AM:Generic Cialis. Buy Generic Cialis
bruce@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 3:46 PM:hello
kate@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 4:26 AM:hello
clar@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 2:45 PM:hello
richard@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 3:43 AM:hello
catarina@gmail.com wrote on May 7, 2007 5:34 AM:hello
MrBarrett wrote on May 12, 2007 4:16 PM:I'm not quite sure I understand that?
Bertram wrote on May 14, 2007 7:38 PM:Then again, it's probably just me.
Very nice. Love this place!
Franklin wrote on May 25, 2007 4:46 PM:Keep up the good work!
I like your site. Well done!
GeorgeMason wrote on June 4, 2007 3:49 AM:I'll come by again soon.
Hey, very nice place you have here.
GustavoBaby wrote on June 4, 2007 4:02 PM:You've done a good job!
What does that have to do with anything?
TraceyHarmon wrote on June 17, 2007 8:12 PM:I'm just confused I guess.
Oh wel...
Hey This is pretty cool. I think it's a decent blog.
whlmzey lbwhorpm wrote on June 18, 2007 7:37 AM:Thanks a lot and have fun!
aojsdc cdyeo sato vdibrxcg dptrqhca yxcvq fpzai
whlmzey lbwhorpm wrote on June 18, 2007 7:38 AM:aojsdc cdyeo sato vdibrxcg dptrqhca yxcvq fpzai
music download wrote on September 25, 2007 8:45 PM:Hi boys!dc3ebcf0322a9947503438c3c17f0735
free music wrote on September 26, 2007 9:51 AM:Hi boys!076c8b4987cd23c41e7631c2adae6763
FREE MUSIC DOWNLOADS wrote on October 7, 2007 10:35 PM:Hi, there!..2d5f573e40c96f59c5c508afea8540c6