In general a lot of these cities in the US have a tacit agreement with these kinds of businesses that they are allowed to violate labor regulations, health regulations, immigration regulations, wage regulations, so that they are able to provide lots of labor intensive services in high cost regions.
If the municipal government wants to shut down any restaurant in the city, they can under a panoply of pretexts. If the Federal government is allowed to enforce the various Federal laws and regulations being ignored, it can also.
A vibrant restaurant culture is a nice-to-have, not a must-have.
These municipal leaders cannot talk out of one side of their mouths about the wonders of a well-regulated economy and then out of the other side demand the privilege to apply those regulations inconsistently in a corrupt fashion.
Considering that there are too many restaurants in many of these cities with failure rates in the stratosphere and profits questionable except at the most hyper-successful locations, this is not a bad thing for such an industry to contract to correct the oversupply.
Notice in the article itself that it talks about restaurants turning to 'unconventional' labor pools like ex-addicts, ex-cons, underemployed veterans, and people they have fired before because it is no longer so easy to violate labor and immigration regulations with impunity. Is that so bad? Does this not solve more general problems internal to our society rather than trying to paper over them by importing more people?