Placating the GOP base or protecting the workplace?

Not only did the Social Security Administration not share the information with other federal agencies, due to privacy laws, but no enforcement measures were taken either. Nor did the information stop the Department of Defense from awarding the company tens of millions of dollars in lucrative government contracts. Beginning in 2002 -- about the time the SSA sent the first letter -- MBI was contracted to manufacture body armor and tactical gear for the U.S. military, totaling, through 2006, more than $92 million. To fill the contracts, the company's workforce grew to six times what was in 2001: from 85 people to more than 500 in 2007. To train and hire additional employees, the company owner won approval for $111,150 in state grants.

What's more, to manage quality control of the DoD contracts, a Pentagon official visited the factory as often as four times a week and even had an office on-site. "We'd see him all the time," said Juan Tum, a Guatemalan who, along with his wife and brother, was arrested and detained during the raid. "He'd come and tell us we shouldn't complain about the work because it was better than being in Iraq." Pentagon representatives were a regular presence in the factory during a long period when the majority of workers were illegal and the factory itself was like a sweatshop. After the raid, ICE officials described the "severe workplace conditions" at MBI and the "mistreatment" of workers: from being fined for spending more than two minutes in the restrooms, which were found to be unsanitary, to talking while working.

The Defense Department and the Social Security Administration also failed to notice that the owners of MBI had created a phantom company called Front Line Defense, which they used to avoid paying their employees -- many of whom, like Tum and his wife, worked 78 hours a week -- overtime wages. Workers would receive one check from Front Line and one from MBI, meaning they technically never worked overtime for either firm.

ICE, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, finally became aware of the problem in May 2006, when an MBI employee turned informant and placed a call to the agency. Four months later, an undercover ICE agent was hired to work at the factory. When she told the owner and several managers that she was from Mexico and didn't have legal working papers, she was directed to a local record store, where she purchased fake documents for $120. Still, in August 2006, one month after the official ICE investigation began, the Army awarded MBI another contract, this time for a whopping $138 million.

Given the opportunities to deal with the problem earlier, the costs to conduct this raid seem unnecessary and exorbitant to some. "It doesn't matter where you stand on the issue of immigration," says Ali Noorani, whose agency, the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, was involved in efforts to assist people detained at MBI. "Everyone should be concerned with the amount of tax dollars being spent conducting these raids."

Nobody at ICE would disclose the costs required to fund any of their workplace raids, but the New Bedford raid was typical. Approximately 600 agents took part in the operation, which was 11 months in the planning, and after the arrests, the detained workers were bused nearly 100 miles away to Fort Devens, Mass., a military base where ICE set up a short-term detention facility. Over the next few days, more than half of the detainees were flown via government aircraft to one of two detention centers in Texas, where removal proceedings began. When it was determined that 33 detainees were sole or primary caregivers to children, they were then flown back to Massachusetts, all at the government's expense. "In exchange for this, U.S. taxpayers were given the peace of mind that about 300 tailors are behind bars and may be forced out of the country," says Noorani. In fact, to date, just 42 people detained in New Bedford have been deported.

And despite the significant resources committed to these efforts, people question whether ICE is capable of handling mass arrests and deportations in a safe and humanitarian manner. Tum and others interviewed by Salon describe the scene at MBI that day as one of horror and confusion. "When the agents entered, people started screaming, and I thought there was a fire," he said recently. "The secretary announced over the P.A. system that nobody was to move ... but I saw people running toward the back exit, and it was like a stampede. Some fell and people got hurt." Those unable to prove legal status were shackled and kept inside the factory for nine hours, during which time they were given no food and, because the factory was considered a crime scene, no way to contact their family.

Amid the commotion, some of the workers were unable -- or perhaps unwilling -- to let ICE agents know that they had children at home, and local activists and attorneys report that nearly 100 children were left stranded with baby sitters or in schools and daycare centers after one or both of their parents were detained. Community groups and relatives scrambled to locate children, and a local church put out a call for donations of diapers and food. That evening, a breast-feeding infant whose mother had been detained ended up in the E.R. with pneumonia and possible dehydration.

Harry Spence, the commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Social Services at the time, testified at a state hearing that those problems could have been avoided if federal authorities had better coordinated the raid with state officials. His agency did not learn about the location of the raid until the morning it occurred, and state child welfare workers were initially denied immediate access to Fort Devens. When they were allowed into the military facility the following evening with a list of people they had identified as having childcare issues, they discovered that more than half of the detainees had already been flown to Texas. "Children were placed in significant jeopardy as a result of the decision not to allow us access," Spence testified. "All we were asking was that the law be enforced in a way that ensured the safety of the children."

Next page: "If the president decides to give up on his efforts to pass amnesty, will the raids continue?"