Judge Bars Bush Crackdown on Illegal Workers

[Lone_Star_Dem]

Source: Washington Post

A federal judge barred the Bush administration today from launching a planned crackdown on U.S. firms that hire illegal immigrants, warning of the plan's potentially "staggering" impact on law-abiding workers and companies.

Issuing a firm rebuke of the White House, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction against the government's plan to pressure employers to fire up to 8.7 million workers with suspect Social Security numbers starting this fall.

President Bush made that plan the centerpiece of a re-energized enforcement effort against illegal immigration after the Senate rejected his proposed legislation to overhaul immigration laws this summer. But the ruling -- made at the behest of major American labor, business and farm organizations -- highlighted the chasm that the immigration fight has opened between the Republican Party and its traditional business allies.

The ruling also called attention to the gulf between Washington politicians' rhetoric about the need to curtail illegal immigration and the economic reality of many U.S. employers' reliance on illegal labor, as well as to the government's inability to find adequate tools for identifying illegal workers.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101001536.html?nav=rss_email/components

[Lance_Boyle]

1. Criminal corps *should* suffer staggering impact.

Why in the hell oppose a crackdown on the COMPANIES that hire illegal workers? Gawds forbid those companies might find themselves short of labor and actually have to INCREASE WAGES to attract legal workers to the newly-vacated jobs. STAGGERING disrespect for the law shown by the judge - I guess companies are ENTITLED to cheap illegal labor. Who knew?

[eagler]

2. I favor any (legal) effort to discourage illegal immigration because

it truly is American jobs that are at stake here. Roofing, road construction, home and commercial construction are just a feww of the jobs being lost and when jobs are being shipped overseas and we are bring workers in, it makes no sense.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

4. From the article:

But the plaintiffs persuaded the judge that the Social Security database was plagued by so many errors that its use in firings would unfairly discriminate against tens of thousands of legal workers and cause sweeping workforce disruptions that would burden companies.

"The government's proposal to disseminate no-match letters affecting more than eight million workers will, under the mandated time line, result in the termination of employment to lawfully employed workers," the judge wrote. "Moreover the threat of criminal prosecution . . . reflects a major change in DHS policy."

His ruling dealt in part with the interpretation of a 1980 law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, that is meant to protect small-business owners from excessive government red tape.

Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the Chamber of Commerce, said the ruling was a strong case that federal agencies can no longer ignore the 1980 act, which requires the government to calculate the cost before imposing new regulations that significantly burden small business.

"It says the government cannot do anything it wants simply in the name of enforcement. They've got to be careful about building their record and complying with the law," Johnson said.

[kimmylavin]

3. If the workers and companies are actually "law-abiding",

why would this have a staggering impact on them?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

5. See the Judge's reasons in post #4

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3023413&mesg_id=3023504

[kimmylavin]

7. So...

So the judge is saying that because something might be difficult, it shouldn't be done?
And he's doing all this to protect small business owners?

I worked in a company that hired union workers. One of my job duties, along with everything else I did every day, was to process identification, send social security information, and check eligibility with the government, the union, and the roster. I did this for up to 100-150 people a day. Its not that difficult.

And if the social security database is so damn broken, why not FIX IT?
Surely we can divert the funds from one day in the war to handle an IT department problem?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

9. It would appear his reasons were twofold

One being that the SS database is plagued with errors as it is now and this would result in tens of thousands of legal workers losing their jobs if this were allowed to take effect before those errors were repaired.

Is this true? I have no idea, but if so it should be repaired and then this will not be an issue.

The other being his interpretation of a 1980 law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Which I cannot comment on without know how he interpreted the law, which it doesn't say.

I will say that it could be in violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act if it were to cause small business owners to have to pay legal fees brought on by unwarranted prosecution due to the databases supposed errors.

What I gleaned from this ruling was that there needs to be a review done on the SS database to discover if it is as flawed as was claimed. If it is fix it.



edit to clarify legal workers

[VP505]

6. Excellent question,

if as the Judge suggests they are law abiding why would checking SS numbers for validity be a problem? Seems to be a contradiction there, or does the Judge know something that the rest of us don't?

[McCamy Taylor]

8. W. could put YOU on the list for posting at DU. And you would lose your job.

You would have no recourse, because a federal government agency would have told your employer that your SS number doesn't match your name. Later---months later---when you got it all straightened out and SS said "Oops, our bad" your job would be someone else's job.

Make the feds prove that each illegal is an illegal. Do not let the feds round up citizens or have citizens lose their jobs or get subjected to other harassment just because the feds do not like them.

[Cleita]

10. I didn't post this because I know it's going to bring out the

worst in DUers on both sides. But thank you for being brave enough to do so. I'm happy that there are still members of our judiciary who have the common sense to know that when you abuse one underclass of people, that abuse can spread to those who think they are immune.

[McCamy Taylor]

11. Also, think of the voter disenfranchisement potential. Send it out right before election

next fall. Suddenly Hispanics are scrambling for jobs, moving all across the country, maybe won't have a chance to register in their new area before the election. One more Democratic vote lost.

Think of it as the 2000 Florida Phony Black Felon's list except this could be the 2008 National Phony Hispanics Illegal List designed to keep millions of Latino Democrats from casting a vote in key parts of the country.

[Cleita]

14. Exactly. You understand. n/t

[tidy_bowl]

12. Let me see if I understand.......

...if a person is committing identity theft using my SSN and I am forced into this system by the government, doesn't the government have the responsibility to prevent my number or anyone else's from being fraudulently used? I am hurt if wages are wracked up where maybe no taxes were paid and my SSN could be used to assume credit as well. That seems pretty hurtful to me, so I am not sure the ACLU's and others point here. How am I lumped into 'hurt all workers' category to enforce that my SSN is not used illegally? Does anyone really wish to have their SSN used illegally? I would be astounded if someone actually agreed with the plaintiff's erroneous arguments here. This judge's logic is fatally flawed and his ruling should be overturned on appeal.

[Solar_Power]

13. Illegal is the new legal

What a joke