Probe finds state data used in ‘illegals’ list

[Hamlette]

Source: Salt Lake Tribune

State investigators have pinpointed the Department of Workforce Services as the source of data used to compile a list of 1,300 people who are purportedly in the country illegally.

Angie Welling, spokeswoman for Gov. Gary Herbert, said the inquiry now is turning to who might have accessed the information on the list. Welling said the identity of the individual or individuals should be available within the next few days and the case likely will be passed to the Utah Attorney General’s Office by Monday.

Paul Murphy, spokesman for Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, said attorneys will review the information and decide whether to pursue the case.

Workforce Services administers unemployment benefits, Medicaid, children’s health insurance and food stamps programs. Between 1,200 and 1,400 employees have access to the information in the database, said department spokesman, David Lewis.

Read more: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/49936537-76/list-information-utah-1300.html.csp

---

It watching the clip from CNN from this morning, it seems like this story might become about how awful it was for a state employee to release the list instead of how awful it is that this "illegals" are here. Which is good news.

edited to add link to CNN article and clip (which I would have put here originally if my computer were not so damned slow! I hate Comcast.)

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/16/utah.immigrant.list/?fbid=adibVrc5cUB

[Hell Hath No Fury]

1. I hope they nail tha bastards --

who did this. One of the more disgusting invasions of privacy I have ever seen.

[Kweli4Real]

2. I'm taking all bets ...

That the culprit turns out to be some government-hating teabagger ... that works for Workforce Sources, i.e., the government.

[wryter2000]

10. My guess, too

I can't wait for the oh-poor-me complaints about illegal-loving libruls and how he's been persecuted.

[MadMaddie]

14. They have come out with the fact that the two are heavily into

a political movement...

[Lance_Boyle]

3. How would Workforce Services have names of illegals?

Of all the programs mentioned that they administer, only 1 of them is available to illegals - children's health insurance. So where did the names come from if this agency from which they leaked has no business with illegal aliens?

[Blue_Tires]

4. i wouldn't be surprised if the employee just yanked the Latino names

thinking the averages would work out in his/her favor...

And the story has gotten a lot of play now; so I wouldn't expect the media/public to pay much attention 4-5 weeks from now when they discover only 40 percent (or whatever #) of names on the list are undocumented...

[Hamlette]

8. initial reports show most on the list are illegal but had at least one "legal" in the home

or they would not have been receiving benefits.

That is the problem we only dance around: what do you do when there are legal citizen children in the home? Those children might not be citizens of any other country. You can't deport them. So if you deport the "illegal" parents, what do you do with the kids? Is it good public policy to take them from their parents? It would be more expensive to raise them in foster care than just paying food stamps and medical and letting their parents stay.

[Igel]

12. It works both ways.

I've read reports over the years that decry policies that allow immigration to the US but don't make it really easy to bring the kids. Or decry policies and laws that "force" illegal immigrants to show up and abandon their children behind in the mother country.

I've read reports over the yeras that decry policies that deport illegal immigrants from the US; sometimes the kids are overlooked, sometimes the kids are left behind by the parents.

In the first, the parents have every right to stay with their kids and so the parents aren't forced--at least not by the US--to abandon their kids when they cross the border. Same in the second case, too: The parents aren't typically forced to abandon their kids when they cross the border in the opposite direction.

In the first, the assumption seems to be that the parents have the right to immigrate and to bring their kids with no hassle. In the second, the assumption seems to be that the kids' status confers the right to immigrate on the parents. What's more important in either scenario is that the family winds up in the US; meeting all the requirements for "justice" but with the family staying together in the parents' home country is simply unthinkable.

Handling the kids is a big problem. But it's a problem that most of the time the parents decide to create, and which the parents can almost always resolve. If the kid's parents are both deported, they have the choice to take the kid (or have him/her sent) or abandon him with relatives or with the government. Arguments can be made to justify or castigate the parents; here, what's important is that the problem depends almost entirely on the parents' decision. Note that this is a recurring theme: If the parents, knowing they're here illegally, decide not to have a kid then there's also no problem. But we can't blame the victim-parents, even if this particular victim has a two-fold chance to avoid the problem. Perhaps they made a wrong bet. Perhaps they were ignorant of the law.

But after the parents decide to abandon their kids then it falls to relatives or strangers to look after them in orphanages, foster homes, or by adoption. However, I'd say that by abandoning their kids the parents lose any right to regaining custody of them.

If just one parent is deported then the one who remained can keep the kid. It'll be obvious that that parent made a bad calculation of risk. But the parent has responsibility and can hope for child support or have the deported parent take the kid.

It's not like the bad problem doesn't have solutions. It's just that we often don't like the solutions because it means keeping families together in the "wrong" place or "burdening" one of the responsible parties with the responsibility that they usually voluntarily took on.

[Hamlette]

13. seriously? Its just a matter of "choice" to you whether to take you kids or not?

Some countries do not allow dual citizenship. The children I'm talking about are children who were born in the US. The parents did not bring them here. What if the child is not a citizen of the country you are deporting the parent to?

The problem would be solved if we went after the employers. If there were no jobs for illegals, they would not come here. The last two times we did an amnesty program we gave amnesty to those who were here and the government promised to prosecute employers. As soon as the employers started being prosecuted they screamed all the way to Congress and the prosecutions stopped. Under Bush, the employers were not prosecuted, the illegals were deported...to cross back to their old job prolly.

The children are the innocents. Why punish them when you the "choice" to "decide" to punish the evil doers: the employers who cause the problem.

[Hamlette]

7. DWS does not "know" that they are illegal

citizen children of illegals are eligible for food stamps (if the household is eligible). So as to not "chill" those rights, when the parents apply for the children, they have to be identified as living in the home and report their income but can opt out (not receive food stamp benefits for themselves). So, if a there is a household of 5 and only the 3 children are receiving food stamps, it could be assumed (not known for sure) that the other 2, usually the parents, are not here legally. We are prohibited, by federal food stamp regs, from investigating the parents to see if they are illegal. They simply check a box that they don't want benefits for themselves, report their income and we leave it at that.

I don't know exactly how they did it (I know how our statistics division could do it) but you could just search for Latino names, look for cases where the parents are not receiving benefits, only the kids, and make the assumption.

Workforce Services also makes eligibility determinations for all medicaid programs. The actual administration of the programs is done at the Department of Health. That's why we had the due dates. (We could also have due dates for some TANF purposes.

We do have employees who are rabid anti immigrationists. Tea baggers types. (This is Utah after all). Some have expressed how pissed they are that the citizen children get food stamps which of course some of the illegals in the house might use. Not a very compassionate group.

I can tell you, since I work at Utah's Department of Workforce Services, that the very large majority of us are outraged by this leak. It is fairly certain the person or persons have been identified and my best guess, without knowing, is they have either been suspended or fired already. (You can get that much info reading between the lines of the article.) She/he/they will not be eligible for unemployment benefits (duh) and it is my hope, will be criminally prosecuted. Wonder if he/she/they will need the food stamps they have been bitching about tax payers having to fund?

[NBachers]

5. Run Chicken Run

Time to clear out take it on the lam, pronto. The coppers are closing in and they'll be bangin' down your door any time now.

Head south. Once you've crossed the border, nobody will find you.

Link Wray - Run Chicken Run http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac9brCLmnRk

[Dogtown]

6. Someone's got a lump of ice in their belly

and I'm glad.

[pdefalla]

9. Probably Children's Health Insurance leak

Even if the Department of Workforce Services isn't dealing directly with undocumented aliens, many of the children who are getting care through the Children's Health Insurance may have parents who are undocumented. If that's where they got the info (medical records), it is a HIPAA violation, so for the people who stole and published this information, their bigotry has made them felons. I think that their actions clearly constitute intent to cause malicious harm which may get them 10 years in prison and/or $250,000 in fines:

Per section 1177 of HIPAA, a person who knowingly

* uses a unique health identifier, or causes one to be used;
* obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or
* discloses individually identifiable health information to another person;

is in violation of HIPAA regulations. Such persons are subject to the following penalties:

* a fine of up to $50,000, or up to 1 year in prison, or both; (Class 6 Felony)
* if the offense is committed under false pretenses, a fine of up to $100,000, up to 5 years in prison, or both; (Class 5 Felony)
* if the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, a fine up to $250,000, or up to 10 years in prison, or both. (Class 4 Felony)
* HIPAA also provide for civil fines to be imposed by the Secretary of DHHS "on any person" who violates a provision of it. The maximum is $100 for each violation, with the total amount not to exceed $25,0000 for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year. (Class 3 Felony)

[prolesunited]

11. Whoever did this needs to lose their job

and be fined and jailed. Using government resources to violate people's privacy is a very, very serious offense.