Immigration Crackdown ruled unconstitutional.

[SirNitram]

Link

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. federal court judge on Wednesday blocked a key part of the Bush administration's stepped-up efforts to crack down on illegal immigrant workers and those who employ them.

Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against a program that would force employers to verify Social Security numbers and fire workers whose numbers did not match official records.

The federal program developed by the Department of Homeland Security is at the heart of a new crackdown on the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country, after Congress failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

But the "no-match letter" program was challenged in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, the AFL-CIO and other labor groups claiming it was unlawful and hurt all workers, including legal ones affected by errors in the data base.

"The balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiffs' favor and plaintiffs have raised serious questions," Breyer said in his ruling.

Breyer still has to rule on a permanent injunction, but workers' rights groups celebrated Wednesday's decision.

"This was really about targeting workers rights generally," said Ana Avendano, director of immigrant programs at the AFL-CIO. "The win is about preventing the Bush administration from causing further harm to workers in this country."

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said the administration was disappointed with the ruling and added:

"Coupled with the near daily stories about local communities taking immigration matters into their own hands, this ruling serves as another reminder that Congress needs to enact comprehensive immigration reform to establish a system that is secure, productive, orderly and fair."

Breyer had already blocked the Social Security Administration from sending out 140,000 letters to employers with 8 million employees whose names did not match their nine-digit identification numbers.

APPEAL POSSIBLE

Under the proposed program, employers notified of a "no-match" would have 90 days to confirm that an employee was in the country legally or fire him if not.

Employers also could face fines as well as criminal charges if they did not comply with the program.

The judge also said the threat of a criminal prosecution against an employer "reflects a major change in Department of Homeland Security policy."

Mailing out new no-match letters to employers "would result in irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers," Breyer wrote.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, in a statement, defended the program as giving employers "clear guidance" if they receive a no-match letter for an employee. He said the department was reviewing Breyer's decision with the Justice Department to "examine all of our options, including appeal."

The judge told the parties in the case to prepare and submit proposals by October 12 for a hearing to reach a final decision.

President George W. Bush earlier this year pushed a comprehensive immigration package that included a guest worker program and procedures for many illegal immigrants to move toward citizenship.

But many in Congress, including Bush's fellow Republicans, balked at the worker and citizen provisions so the administration concentrated on protecting the borders and cracking down on illegal workers.

Yet another blow to the 'We support this nonsense because they break THE LAW.' factions.

[Kanastrous]

So people whose Social Security numbers are stolen, screwing up their Social Security accounts and benefits - sometimes permanently - can just give up hope of any protection from the government that corralled them into the Social Security system, in the first place.

Sometimes I wonder if I shouldn't renounce my citizenship, and live here illegally. Seems like it can actually be used to one's advantage, sometimes.

[SirNitram]

So people whose Social Security numbers are stolen, screwing up their Social Security accounts and benefits - sometimes permanently - can just give up hope of any protection from the government that corralled them into the Social Security system, in the first place.

I smell Idiotarian.

Sometimes I wonder if I shouldn't renounce my citizenship, and live here illegally. Seems like it can actually be used to one's advantage, sometimes.

Because they can't be witch-hunted for a misdermeanor? Oh my, you're an idiot. I don't suppose you have anything but non-sequitors to contribute?

[Kanastrous]

I smell Idiotarian.

Maybe. Is the Idiotarian position that it's undesirable to let people enter the country unlawfully, operate off all radar, and steal legal residents' and citizens' identities, so as to fuck up their SS accounts?

If that's part of the Idiotarian platform, then I'll support them on that particular point.

Because they can't be witch-hunted for a misdermeanor?

Because they can't be called to account for identity-theft that fucks over other people. Which is undesirable whether it is a misdemeanor, an infraction, a felony, or anything else.

Are you really so dense as to stop thinking when you see the word 'misdemeanor,' as if there are no consequences for others beyond what we call the offense that's harming them?

Sorry, rhetorical question. Of course you are.

Oh my, you're an idiot.

Because I object to the obstruction of a policy that can curtail active harm being done to people who are legally part of the system, by people who aren't?

You're in poor form this morning. You usually do marginally better than cheapass name-calling.

Usually.

I don't suppose you have anything but non-sequitors to contribute?

If you are really so stupid as to be incapable of seeing how my post proceeds directly from the contents of the article, I can't help you. Having no professional experience, in working with the retarded.



Gee, I feel like I'm finally sinking to the average level of discourse, around here. I gotta admit, it's kind of fun.

[SirNitram]

I smell Idiotarian.

Maybe. Is the Idiotarian position that it's undesirable to let people enter the country unlawfully, operate off all radar, and steal legal residents' and citizens' identities, so as to fuck up their SS accounts?

If that's part of the Idiotarian platform, then I'll support them on that particular point.

No, it's a referene to Libertarians, who are the ones who flog the 'Forced into Social Security' line you mindlessly repeated so conveniently.

Because they can't be witch-hunted for a misdermeanor?

Because they can't be called to account for identity-theft that fucks over other people. Which is undesirable whether it is a misdemeanor, an infraction, a felony, or anything else.

Are you really so dense as to stop thinking when you see the word 'misdemeanor,' as if there are no consequences for others beyond what we call the offense that's harming them?

Sorry, rhetorical question. Of course you are.

How cute! You think this is about identity theft! Remember what I said about 'non-sequitors'? It means 'Does not follow', and this is prime example material right here. You leap from 'You can't issue blanket accusations to companies' to 'They can't be punished for identity theft'.

Hell, if you were better at leaping to conclusions, you could put on a cape and fight crime.

Oh my, you're an idiot.

Because I object to the obstruction of a policy that can curtail active harm being done to people who are legally part of the system, by people who aren't?

Because you do a flying leap from one thing to another and pretend it's logical.

You're in poor form this morning. You usually do marginally better than cheapass name-calling.

*Yawn* Oh no, I don't meet Kanastrous' requirements. I fail to give a shit.

Usually.

I don't suppose you have anything but non-sequitors to contribute?

If you are really so stupid as to be incapable of seeing how my post proceeds directly from the contents of the article, I can't help you. Having no professional experience, in working with the retarded.

Only the deranged and delusional can leap from 'You can't threaten businesses with onerous requirements and a faulty list' to 'You can't prosecute identity theft'. You can fling your schoolyard-grade insults all you want, but that doesn't change it.

Gee, I feel like I'm finally sinking to the average level of discourse, around here. I gotta admit, it's kind of fun.

Sadly, kiddy, the average level of discourage demands logical progression.. You seem allergic to that.

[General Zod]

Maybe. Is the Idiotarian position that it's undesirable to let people enter the country unlawfully, operate off all radar, and steal legal residents' and citizens' identities, so as to fuck up their SS accounts?

If that's part of the Idiotarian platform, then I'll support them on that particular point.

Are you suggesting that everyone who is here illegally are stealing other people's identities?

Gee, I feel like I'm finally sinking to the average level of discourse, around here. I gotta admit, it's kind of fun.

[Flagg]

Gee, I feel like I'm finally sinking to the average level of discourse, around here. I gotta admit, it's kind of fun.

If you don't like it, then leave. You know, like you said you were gonna do a few days ago. Whiny little twat.

[Knife]

Maybe. Is the Idiotarian position that it's undesirable to let people enter the country unlawfully, operate off all radar, and steal legal residents' and citizens' identities, so as to fuck up their SS accounts?

If that's part of the Idiotarian platform, then I'll support them on that particular point.

Are you suggesting that everyone who is here illegally are stealing other people's identities?


I don't see anything in his post saying so, but I guess it's a possibility. Are you suggesting that no illegal immigrant is stealing ID?

[General Zod]

I don't see anything in his post saying so, but I guess it's a possibility. Are you suggesting that no illegal immigrant is stealing ID?

Care to try a retort that isn't a blatant strawman?

[Big Phil]

I don't see anything in his post saying so, but I guess it's a possibility. Are you suggesting that no illegal immigrant is stealing ID?

Care to try a retort that isn't a blatant strawman?

Isn't the same true of yours?

[General Zod]

Isn't the same true of yours?

Kanas brought up immigrants using stolen ID. I was asking him to clarify whether he meant he was suggesting all of them were using forged and stolen ID, when theft of that magnitude (12 million people all using stolen IDs? That's a lot of identity theft reports) would attract a considerable amount of attention. So no.

[Knife]

Kanas brought up immigrants using stolen ID. I was asking him to clarify whether he meant he was suggesting all of them were using forged and stolen ID, when theft of that magnitude (12 million people all using stolen IDs? That's a lot of identity theft reports) would attract a considerable amount of attention. So no.

The tone of your post implied otherwise. If it wasn't your intention, I apologize.. However as to my supposed strawman, never had an argument to begin with, so no strawman. You'll notice my disclaimer on the front of the post, you post just seemed provocative.

[Glocksman]

From reading the OP, the article states:

Under the proposed program, employers notified of a "no-match" would have 90 days to confirm that an employee was in the country legally or fire him if not.

Employers also could face fines as well as criminal charges if they did not comply with the program.

Hmmm....let's see here.
It's been the law since 1986 that employers have to verify an employee's legal eligibility to work by checking the documents listed as acceptable proof on the I-9 form.
It's also been the law that using false documents and making false statements on the form is a criminal offense, albeit one that is hardly ever enforced.

Now that DHS is saying that they'll actually (oh, horrors!) enforce the law WRT non-matching SSN and Alien ID numbers and provide clear guidance for employers on how to obey it, the usual suspects who benefit from illegal alien labor are crying in their soup.

As for the actual provisions in the proposed letter, heres a PDF summary.

Under the proposed regulations, an employer who receives a no-match letter from the SSA or
DHS will not be deemed to have “constructive knowledge” that an employee is an unauthorized
worker if the following “safe-harbor” steps are taken:

1. Within 14 days of receipt of the no-match letter, the employer would have to:
a. Check the employer’s records to determine if the discrepancy is because of a
typographical, transcribing or similar clerical error in the employer’s records or in its
communication to the SSA or DHS. If there is an error, the employer should correct
its records, inform the relevant agency, and verify that the corrected name and SSN
match agency records. The employer should also make a record of the manner, date,
and time of the verification; or
b. Ask the employee to confirm that the information the employer has in its records is
correct if the employer did not find any error in its own records. If the employee
provides corrected information, the employer would correct its records, inform the
relevant agency, and verify that the corrected name and SSN match agency records. If
the employer’s own records are correct, the employer should ask the employee to
resolve the discrepancy with the relevant agency. In both instances, the employer
should make a record of the manner, date, and time of the verification.

2. If the discrepancy is not resolved within 60 days of receipt of the no-match letter, the
employer may reverify the employee’s work authorization and identity by completing a
new Form I-9. The employer and employee would have 3 days to complete this form (or
within 63 days of receipt of the no-match letter). An employee cannot use a document
containing the SSN or alien number that is the subject of the no-match letter to establish
work authorization or identity or both. Additionally, all documents used to prove identity
or both identity and employment authorization must contain a photograph.

3. If the no-match is not resolved and the employer cannot verify the work authorization and
identity of the employee, the employer must choose between terminating the employee or
facing the risk that DHS may find that the employer had constructive knowledge that the
employee was unauthorized to work, and is therefore in violation of immigration laws.
There may be other procedures that an employer could follow in response to a no-match letter
that would be considered “reasonable” by DHS, but unless the employer follows the “safeharbor”
procedures outlined in the rule, there is a risk that DHS may find the employer had
constructive knowledge that the employee was unauthorized to work. Additionally, DHS notes
that even if an employer follows the safe-harbor procedures outlined above, it would not preclude
DHS from finding that an employer had “actual” knowledge that an employee was unauthorized
to work. In this instance, the burden would be on the government to prove that the employer had
actual knowledge.

Frankly there's nothing unreasonable, not already provided for in existing law, nor unduly damaging (if your SSN is screwed up, you still can use other documents to prove status) to legal workers here.

I can see how it would affect illegal workers though, hence the hue and cry from 'open borders', illegal immigrant, and business advocates about it.

[Glocksman]

Forgot to add:

For those interested, here's a PDF of the I-9 form that includes a list of acceptable documents and how they are to be used.

Linky

And as an aside, I read somewhere that Judge Breyer is SCOTUS Justice Breyer's brother.

[CmdrWilkens]

Having had to process almost every I-9 when I was still working in the store I can say there are so many ways to overcome mismatches and errors that the only people who could realistically (I would say possibly but there are always the small percentages that will screw up that statement) be affected are those who do not posses valid identification of any sort. The fact that the government is seeking to enforce the regulation just means companies that are lax will have to actually pay attention to their paperwork for a change.

[brianeyci]

At first I thought this was a victory for immigration. After all, illegal doesn't mean unethical, and illegal people are jobs and need work too.

But I didn't post for awhile to see what other people like Glocksman would say, and I have to say I'm not entirely sure that not checking their SSN's is the way to go. I'm not an open borders guy even though I've taken many stands which might seem so. And I am not a minimum wage slave labor guy. My latest payroll course says in Ontario employers need to get the equivalent SIN number in Canada in five days, not fourteen. So it's hardly unreasonable: just that in most countries the law is there check in x days but it's never enforced. Somewhere, somehow, enforcement has to take place if there is a problem with illegal immigration. I don't like the idea of deporting people with established roots in the community, but I would not mind deporting people who have recently entered the country.

With all that in mind, I look at the enforcement effort of a law already on the books and I think to myself, would I rather business hire illegals or legal people, and would I rather they hire illegals at slave wages? I also think to myself, illegals who work for cash would not be affected. What kind of dumbfuck who hires illegals reports a fake number to the government anyway? Why not just hire and give cash under the table? So no matter which side of the borders debate you are on, even if you think it's okay to break the law because immigration laws are absurd, it seems this enforcement would only hurt big business which fuck over the common man with cost cutting measures hiring as low as possible. And I'm all for that.