Employers, Amnesty Seekers Upset Over INS Raid Increase

When immigration officers raided a Compton furniture factory last week, Salvador Lopez and his co-workers did not run.

“We figured that since we qualify for amnesty, we had no problem,” said Lopez (not his real name). “Authorities had said they would respect the law and that they wanted to help people to qualify.”

Despite their pleas, Lopez and 62 of his co-workers were ushered onto buses and taken downtown to the Immigration and Naturalization Service detention center. According to Lopez, he and most of the workers arrived in the United States before Jan. 1, 1982--thus making them eligible for amnesty under the new immigration law.

“Many people are still in the process of applying for amnesty,” Lopez said, noting that the one-year application period lasts until next May. “They shouldn’t start picking up people until after the application period is up.”

Enforcing Employer Sanctions

INS officials contend that they are merely enforcing the employer sanctions portion of the law that imposes penalties against anyone who knowingly hires illegal aliens. But many immigrants and employers’ advocates agree with Lopez.

They complain that the INS raids, in the midst of the amnesty application period, tend to add to the confusion surrounding the complex law. They also charge that the raids, which have increased in number over the last few months, run counter to the spirit of the law and cause unnecessary disruptions in the work place.

According to INS officials, about 800 workers have been arrested in raids since Sept. 1 in Los Angeles and Orange counties. Out of about 250 arrested at factories last week alone, about 100 were found eligible for amnesty and released.

“Workers who are eligible for amnesty are being arrested,” said Antonio Rodriguez of the East Los Angeles Immigration Project, who is representing Lopez. “This merely serves to perpetuate a mood of distrust against INS.”

Ernest Gustafson, the agency’s Los Angeles district director, said the raids are specifically aimed at weeding out workers who are not eligible for amnesty but who were hired before the new law was enacted last November. Though employers are not liable for these workers, since they are “grandfathered” under the law, the workers nonetheless remain in the country illegally and face deportation if apprehended, Gustafson explained.

Gustafson said it is difficult to locate these workers since employers are not required to keep records on them, as they are required to do for new hires. Thus, the INS resorts to raids when employers refuse immigration agents personal access to workers, he said.

After such raids, officials check company personnel records to determine if both employers and employees are meeting the law’s requirements.

‘Extremely Disruptive’

Lou Custrini, a spokesman for the Merchants and Manufacturers Assn., which represents 3,300 companies in the state, said that raids are “extremely disruptive” and costly to employers. “We would hope they could check the records of employees without bringing a halt to the operations of a plant,” he said.

According to Josie Gonzalez, an immigration attorney who represents employers before INS, employers are “disappointed and disillusioned” by the increased raids.

“Employers were not expecting this,” she said. They had “been led to believe” that, in light of the new law, INS enforcement would focus on new hires and on checking employment records, which under the new law must now include proof of new employees’ legal status.

Although the agency made it clear that workers hired before November, 1986, were still liable for deportation, “no one thought there would be a concerted effort to remove these workers from the work place,” Gonzalez said.

“We thought that raids were a thing of the past,” she added.

Gustafson said the raids and other efforts to locate illegal workers will continue “indefinitely.”

Lopez, 25, lost three day’s work and had to borrow money to pay a $1,000 bond before he was released.

Unlike most of his co-workers, Lopez took his lawyer’s advice literally and refused to sign anything--including a sworn statement that he is eligible for amnesty. Most of the workers were released the same day, but Lopez remained in detention until relatives posted bail, according to INS officials.

“They made me feel like a criminal,” said Lopez, who is also worried about recouping his losses. It was money he could ill afford. The eldest of nine children, Lopez said he regularly sends money to help out his parents in Mexico.