Skip to comments.Judge halts illegal immigrant notices (Yup - a Clinton Appointee)
Posted on 09/01/2007 4:28:44 AM PDT by SkyPilot
SAN FRANCISCO - The Social Security Administration cannot start sending out letters to employers next week containing notification of more serious penalties for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, a federal judge ruled Friday.
Ruling on a lawsuit by the nation's largest federation of labor unions against the U.S. government, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting the so-called "no-match" letters from going out as planned starting Tuesday.
The AFL-CIO lawsuit, filed this week, claims that new Department of Homeland Security rules outlined in accompanying letters threaten to violate workers' rights and unfairly burden employers. Chesney said the court needs "breathing room" before making any decision on the legality of new penalties aimed at cracking down on the hiring of illegal immigrants.
She set the next hearing on the matter for Oct. 1.
The Social Security Administration has sent out "no-match" letters for more than two decades warning employers of discrepancies in the information the government has on their workers. Employers often brushed aside the letters, and the small fines that sometimes were incurred, as a cost of doing business.
But this year, those letters will be accompanied by notices from the Department of Homeland Security outlining strict new requirements for employers to resolve those discrepancies within 90 days or face fines or criminal prosecution, if they're deemed to have knowingly hired illegal immigrants.
The judge's ruling Friday temporarily prohibits the government from enforcing the new rules, which were scheduled to take effect Sept. 14.
Laura Keehner, a Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman, said the agency was disappointed but expects to prevail once the court hears its full arguments.
"We'll continue to uphold the law," Keehner said late Friday. "We'll continue our enforcement efforts, and we'll continue to discourage employers who flagrantly disregard immigration laws. There are consequences for those actions."
U.S. government lawyers argued that the Social Security Administration needed to start sending the letters next week because postponing the staggered mailings would overwhelm staffers with a flood of responses if they finally do go out all at once.
Chesney did note rule on the merits of the case Friday but said the plaintiffs raised "serious questions" that need to be further examined by the court about whether the new rules run afoul of the law.
"It's a critical and very significant first step in the first legal challenge of this rule," said Lucas Guttentag, national director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project and one of the plaintiffs' lawyers.
In its lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue that the Bush administration could inadvertently harm legal U.S. workers and law-abiding businesses in its quest to punish employers who are knowingly breaking the law.
The suit says the new rules could lead to the unfair firing of legal workers. The vast majority of the discrepancies in the Social Security Administration's database more than 70 percent of the 17.8 million discrepancies, according to a 2006 report by the SSA's Office of the Inspector General involve native-born U.S. citizens, the lawsuit notes.
The plaintiffs also argue that many of the discrepancies are caused by clerical errors, or stem from name changes or different naming conventions such as the use of multiple surnames that are popular particularly among Asians and Latin Americans.
Because the ACLU are so concerned with business owners.
What a crock. I hope this is overturned asap and those letters fly--well, considering the US Snail, I have a feeling there will be sacks of those letters found in dumpsters.
Appointed by BJ Clinton in 1995. Cannot find her picture though.
I am not joking.
It is not too much to ask that reports be correctly done and names match SS cards. Just as credit card charges must match to go through.
Wow. Just when you think these judges can’t me more out of touch, more Ivory Tower...
I’m at a loss ass to why the unions are against this, I thought these jobs were driving down labor rates.
Gee, I ponder how much this bribe cost, and who was the source?
So now the labor unions are supporting cheap illegal immigrant workers? I wonder how many of the members who pay union dues every week know this? They’re paying to lose jobs.
At my job we were informed last week that employee files are being reviewed for proper forms.
We have time to get a new ID if we have misplaced ours.
There is no legitimate reason to not have a State ID or Drivers License.
If a company is doing things right you wouldn’t be there if you didn’t have a state Id or driver’s license and either a birth certificate or social security card.
Of course many of these docs are fake but if you challenge them you can get sued.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Judge Issues Order After Lawsuit Is Filed by AFL-CIO, ACLU, and National Immigration Law Center
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge today issued an order temporarily blocking the government from implementing a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule that would cause U.S. citizens and other authorized workers to lose their jobs, and which would illegally use error-prone social security records as a tool for immigration enforcement. The judge's order also stops the Social Security Administration (SSA) from beginning to send notices on Tuesday to approximately 140,000 employers across the country notifying them of the new rule, which would impact approximately eight million workers.
When will people here get that through their thick heads?
The same guy who put Alberto Gonzalez ( PRI, Tx ) and Carlos Gutierrez ( PAN, NWO ) into the very highest levels of American government would undoubtedly have wanted to appoint a judge to do the very same thing.
The Republican leadership is different from the Klintoons just how?
I am as angry with Jorge Bush as the next Conservative Regulator. But I am not so mad as to deceive myself that Clinton did irreparable damage by appointing former hippies, criminals, and socialists to both Circuit and Federal Court positions.
That is one area where Bush has excelled (Harriet Miers attempt excluded).
Do not think it is unimportant that I mention who appointed these wicked and awful judges. They will be on the bench long after Bush is fishing in his man-made lake in Crawford Texas.
Maybe so, but it also points out a failure of the Congressional Republicans: the failure to retaliate against the judicial usurpation and tyranny by threatening to impeach those who abuse their power ( Judge Munley leaps to mind, along with Mariana Pfaelzer ), and then carrying out those threats.
The Judicial Branch has run roughshod over the Constitution for 40 years now. Simply appointing "good" judges is not enough. An all out assault on their judicial terrorism is what's needed, which the Republican "leadership" could have done a long time ago, but has shrunk from.
On that, I have to agree with you.
Running against liberal jurists is a good, truthful campaign item for every GOP candidate. I would love to see the Party actually make this part of the Platform.
Clintons are like a superstrain of herpes
It is the Age Of Clinton Judges.
They will rule for 50 years.
Elections have consequences.
good comparison-and stephen reinhardt,ruth bader ginsburg,steven breyer and bruce souter,not to mention john paul stevens are like a superstrain of ebola
Yup. An infection of the body politic.
Time for some anti-virals.
Exactly. And if the Pub purists do not unite against Hillary, we will have 100 years of socialist pacifist jurists. I want to win and if Rudy , Fred, or Mitt can beat Her Highness, he gets my vote. We already are going to lose the Senate for sure, and the House is tipping again toward the libs. Losing in ‘06 was a case of Pub purists spiting their noses. In ‘08, it will be the destruction of our national security and I will blame them till my dying days. All the Paul,one issue bots, who just would not believe that Hillary was any different from any other Pub who actually, really, had a chance to win.