Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.
A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.
The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.
The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.
After two days of testimony to determine the punishment for the day-to-day manager at a now defunct Iowa meatpacking plant who was convicted on numerous fraud charges last fall, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Linda Reade indicated that she will issue her ruling on May 27.
The sentencing will close one more door on a case that, when taken in its totality, has rocked not only the small northeastern Iowa town of Postville, but has changed the state and refined national immigration law.
Reade’s decision will come exactly two years and 15 days after a massive immigration raid at the Agriprocessors slaughterhouse in Postville netted nearly 400 undocumented workers, most of whom pleaded guilty to criminal offenses and spent months in federal prisons prior to their deportation. Anyone who had read Stephen Bloom’s book, “Postville: A Clash of Cultures in Heartland America,” could not be completely stunned by the ultimate enforcement action. Likewise, plant officials had received government warnings for years that many in their employ could not be matched with existing Social Security records. Yet, in the aftermath, eyebrows were raised across the country by the swift criminalization of people who previously would have only faced administrative charges related to immigration.
Dr. Erik Camayd-Freixas, who had worked as an interpreter for the court in the aftermath of Postville, spoke out about what he saw as “man-made disaster” when federal authorities in Iowa set up makeshift courtrooms on a fairgrounds in Waterloo.
Then began the saddest procession I have ever witnessed, which the public would never see, because cameras were not allowed past the perimeter of the compound (only a few journalists came to court the following days, notepad in hand). Driven single-file in groups of 10, shackled at the wrists, waist and ankles, chains dragging as they shuffled through, the slaughterhouse workers were brought in for arraignment, sat and listened through headsets to the interpreted initial appearance, before marching out again to be bused to different county jails, only to make room for the next row of 10. … They had all waived their right to be indicted by a grand jury and accepted instead an information or simple charging document by the U.S. Attorney, hoping to be quickly deported since they had families to support back home. But it was not to be. They were criminally charge with “aggravated identity theft” and “Social Security fraud” — charges they did not understand … and, frankly, neither could I.
Even while the courtroom drama played out, federal lawmakers began to weigh in on the incident — some calling for authorities to further investigate the plant and its owners, others eventually praising the enforcement action regardless of its cost. A year after the raid, and much too late to impact the Postville workers, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in an Illinois case that federal prosecutors inappropriately used aggravated identity theft laws to prosecute undocumented workers.
The SCOTUS decision, while not lacking in importance, did little to stifle the continued controversy surrounding Postville. But if there was common ground to be found among those on either side of the immigration debate, it was the belief that employers should also be held accountable — something on which federal prosecutors had already begun to work.
Court documents paint a fairly good picture of the investigation that continued long after the raid took place. Some plant supervisors fled the country nearly immediately, obviously aware that prosecutors and investigators would eventually come calling. To date, two men — Hosam Amara and Zeev Levi – that were plant supervisors remain at large. Prosecutors effectively filed charges against lower members of the plant staff, each of whom presumably provided additional information on staff members higher up the food chain.
By the end of 2008, Sholom Rubashkin, the son of company founder A. Aaron Rubashkin and day-to-day manager at the Agriprocessors plant, was arrested on immigration-related offenses. Although he would soon be released on bail, federal authorities pounced again, arresting Rubashkin a second time on charges of bank fraud. The immigration offenses were eventually placed aside by prosecutors, but only after Rubashkin had been convicted on 86 counts of fraud — the charges for which he now awaits sentencing.
Rubashkin, a 51-year-old father to 10 children, emotionally apologized to the court, the community and his family Thursday during the sentencing hearing. He contends that he was pushed into a family business he did not relish, and faced significant pressure from his family to do things he knew were wrong.
Throughout the court battle, Rubashkin has had the support of his family and the greater Orthodox Jewish community. Dozens gathered in Cedar Rapids both Wednesday and Thursday to pray for a lenient sentence in the case, and others who could not travel to Iowa held prayer vigils in their own communities. The out-pouring of support has also been monetary, with many Orthodox Jews encouraged to make donations to the Rubashkin legal fund out of personal goodness and also in exchange for small tokens of appreciation.
Prosecutors had used a government formula to determine that Rubashkin’s crimes warranted a term of life in prison — a determination that was roundly criticized by Rubashkin supporters and former U.S. Department of Justice officials. During his closing in court Thursday, U.S. Attorney Peter Deegan asked the judge for a sentence of 25 years. Counsel for Rubashkin argued that 25 years, for a man of Rubashkin’s age, was essentially a life sentence.
Follow Lynda Waddington on Twitter
Do you know where to vote on Election Day? Do you know what to bring with you? Get comprehensive voter information for your state here.
Sign up for our email newsletter