The Register's editorial
May 12, 2009
It might have turned out differently for many immigrant workers who received five-month prison sentences following the federal raid at Postville a year ago today. Had the U.S. Supreme Court issued its sensible ruling in an identity-theft case earlier, federal prosecutors would have had less leverage to compel defendants to accept a plea agreement that included prison time.
The U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa had a powerful weapon in the cases of about 260 of more than 300 defendants. They were charged with aggravated identity theft, a federal crime that adds a mandatory minimum of two years in federal prison on top of any other penalties for related immigration-law violations.
Critics argue that last year's assembly-line prosecutions of Postville workers were based on a misreading of the federal statute that makes it illegal to "knowingly" transfer, possess or use another person's identity. They say the government should have been forced to prove that instead of intending to use fictitious names, Social Security numbers or other identifying information, the accused, in fact, knew the information belonged to an actual person.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed: In a unanimous ruling in an unrelated case handed down May 4, the court held the government in such cases must prove the defendant knew the identifying information belonged to another person. "As a matter of ordinary English grammar, it seems natural to read the statute's word 'knowingly' as applying to all the subsequently listed elements of the crime," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court.
Although it's apparently too late for the Postville workers who forfeited their right to trial by pleading guilty, their stories might have had a different ending. Since proving actual knowledge in identity-theft cases is more difficult than assuming the accused had such knowledge, these defendants would have been in a better position to make the government prove its case. Instead of seeing little alternative to accepting plea offers, many charged with aggravated identity theft might have gone to trial, or at least might have been able to bargain for deportation without prison time.
Since the court's decision is based on its reading of the statute, rather than a constitutional right, it would be a simple matter for Congress to amend the statute. That is not necessary, however. Proving knowledge outside of the immigration context is not difficult when defendants use real people's identities to raid bank accounts.
Most immigrants here illegally are not interested in stealing people's identities in the way identity thieves are out to steal assets; they are looking for a way to earn a living wage. Congress should allow that by making it easier for immigrant workers to come to this country to meet work-force needs, and by allowing those already here, leading otherwise law-abiding lives, to remain here legally.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090512/OPINION03/905120358/-1/SPORTS12
