Target faced criticism in 2019 over its perceived role in and response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids that took place in Minnesota, particularly targeting food processing plants. The controversy primarily stemmed from concerns raised by workers and advocacy groups regarding:
1. **Allegations of Data Sharing:** Critics and workers alleged that Target might have shared sensitive employee data, such as I-9 forms (employment eligibility verification documents), with ICE. While Target stated it complies with all legal requirements and requests, many saw this as potentially facilitating the raids or putting undocumented workers at risk.
2. **Impact on Immigrant Workers:** The raids had a significant impact on immigrant communities in Minnesota, including some Target employees or their family members. Workers expressed concerns about the safety and well-being of their colleagues and the broader immigrant community.
3. **Calls for Corporate Responsibility:** Employees and activists demanded that Target take a stronger stance against ICE actions, protect its immigrant workforce, and commit to not sharing data that could be used for immigration enforcement purposes beyond what is legally mandated. They argued that a company with a strong presence in Minnesota and a diverse workforce should actively support its employees and community.
4. **Worker Actions:**
* **Letters and Petitions:** Hundreds of Target employees, along with advocacy groups, wrote letters and signed petitions to Target’s CEO, Brian Cornell, urging the company to clarify its policies on data sharing with ICE and to commit to protecting immigrant workers.
* **Strikes and Walkouts:** Some Target employees reportedly staged walkouts or strikes at various locations in protest of the company’s handling of the issue.
* **Resignations:** There were reports of some employees resigning from their positions at Target in objection to the company’s perceived lack of support for immigrant workers and its stance on the ICE raids.
Target, in response, generally stated its commitment to its employees and denied proactively sharing data with immigration authorities, but reiterated its obligation to comply with legally mandated requests. However, these responses often did not fully satisfy the protesting workers and activists, who called for more explicit commitments and actions from the company.
