New federal push to fire illegal immigrants

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/21/MNQ3VOJI7.DTL ^

[World_Events]

The Bush administration unveiled a revised rule Friday threatening businesses with prosecution unless they fire employees identified in government records as possible illegal immigrants, offering a new explanation but virtually no change in content from the regulation that a San Francisco federal judge blocked in October.

The Department of Homeland Security announced the new version of the so-called no-match rule on its Web site and said it would invite public comments for 30 days.

The department then plans to ask U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer to lift his injunction. At the same time, it has asked a federal appeals court to overturn the Oct. 10 decision by the judge, who found that unions and businesses had raised serious questions about the rule's legality.

"The no-match rule is an important tool for cracking down on illegal hiring practices while providing honest employers with the guidance they need," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in a statement.

Opponents said the new plan, which like the old one would be based on discrepancies in Social Security records, would harm large numbers of legal workers, foster discrimination against the foreign-born and drive up business costs.

"This misguided attempt to fit the square peg of immigration enforcement into the round hole of Social Security benefits is a guarantee of increased discrimination and erroneous terminations," said Kathleen Campbell Walker, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Chertoff announced the first version of the new rule in August to toughen a little-enforced provision of a 1986 immigration law prohibiting businesses from knowingly employing illegal immigrants.

[SandRat]

Interesting,.....

Border PING

[Brilliant]

The Dems will quickly put a stop to this.

[EGPWS]

The Bush administration unveiled a revised rule Friday threatening businesses with prosecution unless they fire employees identified in government records as possible illegal immigrants, offering a new explanation but virtually no change in content from the regulation that a San Francisco federal judge blocked in October.

Let's go after those capitalist pigs in business and then place the "illegals" on a government subsidized training program and offer them amnesty so they can find work again. After all the poor "illegals" are just pawns of business while trying to do what is best. /s

[EGPWS]

Opponents said the new plan, which like the old one would be based on discrepancies in Social Security records, would harm large numbers of legal workers, foster discrimination against the foreign-born and drive up business costs.

Gee, perhaps securing our borders in the first place would be a lower cost endeavor in the long run.

[chicagolady]

Do you actually believe it? I don’t!

[EGPWS]

...new rule in August to toughen a little-enforced provision of a 1986 immigration law...

What, more lawful promotion to resolve the lack of enforcement of an existing law?

Government shown in it's best form again. /s

[B4Ranch]

Something STINKS! There is absolutely no reason for this Quisling to start enforcing the immigration laws in the last few months of his term in Office.

[Iron Munro]

US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1:

Before he [the President] enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

US Constitution, Article 2, Section 3:

[The President] "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".

So what is the big problem about enforcing the immigration laws, Mr. President?

[Comparative Advantage]

It’s long past time that the federal government require agencies to stop awarding procurement contracts to companies using illegal aliens!!

[Condor51]

Opponents said the new plan, which like the old one would be based on discrepancies in Social Security records, would harm large numbers of legal workers, foster discrimination against the foreign-born...

Hmmm let's see. 'SS Discrepancy & Foster Discrinination'

• His clothes are still wet from crossing the Rio Grande, or full of sand and cactus needles from the desert.
• Speaks Spanish fluently.
• Can't speak one word of English.
• Has a shiny new Social Security card with the name Joe Grabrowski.

Sorry. I'd take a wild a$$ guess he's an illegal from Mexico -- and sure as hell AIN'T Polish.

Yeah I know, I'm mean. I've learned to deal with it.

[EGPWS]

So what is the big problem about enforcing the immigration laws, Mr. President?

The House and Senate for starters, followed by personal political agenda of lawmakers perhaps?

[SandRat]

Only when it happens in earnest and the ACLU/MeChA/Aztlan/OBL crowd is sharply rebuked and told where to put their law suits will I believe it.

[nyyankeefan]

New federal push to fire illegal immigrants....

not in NJ!!!!!

[Publius6961]

"This misguided attempt to fit the square peg of immigration enforcement into the round hole of Social Security benefits is a guarantee of increased discrimination and erroneous terminations," said Kathleen Campbell Walker, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

I wish this mental giant, Walker, would limit her boo-hoo-ing to cases of "erroneous terminations". I doubt if she can produce a single case; if she ever did, I would support additional safeguards to prevent that.

However, I believe that this bottom dweller is as concerned for the sprtit of the law about as much as I enthusiastically support the spread of islam in my country.

[dsutah]

Good grief! Did you actually read the article? Couldn’t you people give him one, small, measly grain of credit? An article gets put on here, claiming that they are enforceing a little-enforced law(since 1986), and you gripe? This law was in force since 1986!

The last I heard was that Pres. Bush was not in office then. Pres. Reagan and his dad were, and then B. Clinton. They claim it was seldom enforced; still it was enforced. Did Clinton enforce it? Did he enforce any immigration laws? Very rarely, if at all! In fact, I do remember reading several times that he allowed in several immigrants, including illegal ones just in time for election days!

So the problem didn’t start in Pres. GWB’s time! And it’s not going to stop magically in his time, for he doesn’t have a magic wand to make it stop. He does have to work with the Congress and Senate, and with the people in there now, it’s not going to get any easier! They gave him a tussle before. It’s even worse now! Consider

[Iron Munro]

"Did you actually read the article?" "So the problem didn’t start in Pres. GWB’s time!"

Did you actually read my post or did you just take off running?"

I didn't say the problem didn't exist before 2000.

But President Bush has been in office 7 1/4 long years and is just starting to crack down with 9 months left.

The fact that he gets criticized more than Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton is

BECAUSE HE IS STILL IN OFFICE!

GET IT?

IT IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY. HE HAS THE AUTHORITY.

There isn't much the other three can do now, is there?
Especially Reagan.

Just because the other three were negligent doesn't get Bush 43 a free pass.

Get your head out of your butt and you might be able to see the issue a little more clearly.

[HiJinx]

Ping!

[rodguy911]

With help from GW and McQueeg.

[dsutah]

Yeah, I “got” it!! You don’t need to shout! I didn’t say it was Pres.s Reagan, Bush 41 or Clinton’s fault, now did I? You don’t need to be insulting by putting crude cartoons or comments on your post. That’s what childish people or leftists do. You’re not one of them are you? Because that’s the impression I got from your reply!

Am I getting forgetful, or what? Because I could’ve sworn that there was a separation of powers in this country. The last I looked, the president is not a king or a dictator. He’s not a magician either! He does have to abide by Congress and Senate, and from the last I looked, the leaders have fought him from day one on most anything!

Then there are the extreme liberal judges. They’ve had annoying way of undoing other decisions he’s made, and orders he’s given. Leftist activist groups will do whatever they usually do behind his back.(let alone efforts of controlling illegal immigration) In regards to congress and senator members, they’ll just wait until or if, Hillary or Barack get in, and undo his efforts.

No matter what he does with immigration, neither of those two will care. They’ll undo pretty much anything he does one way or the other. They won’t care if the border gets overrun or not. That could be a problem, couldn’t it?

By the way, why don’t you run for his job? Let’s see if you could do better in his situation! I know I couldn’t!