Judge Suspends Key Bush Effort in Immigration - Political Forum

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 10-11-2007, 12:20 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/wa...ch.html?ref=us

Quote:

Judge Suspends Key Bush Effort in Immigration
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: October 11, 2007

A federal judge in San Francisco ordered an indefinite delay yesterday of a central measure of the Bush administration’s new strategy to curb illegal immigration.

The judge, Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California, said the government had failed to follow proper procedures for issuing a new rule that would have forced employers to fire workers if their Social Security numbers could not be verified within three months.

Judge Breyer chastised the Department of Homeland Security for making a policy change with “massive ramifications” for employers, without giving any legal explanation or conducting a required survey of the costs and impact for small businesses. Under the rule issued by the department, which had been scheduled to take effect last month, employers would have to fire workers within 90 days after receiving a notice from the Social Security Administration that an employee’s identity information did not match the agency’s records. Illegal immigrants often present false Social Security information when applying for jobs.

....

If allowed to take effect, the judge found, the rule could lead to the firing of many thousands of legally authorized workers, resulting in “irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers.” The decision brought a sense of relief to the unusual coalition behind the lawsuit, including the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the United States Chamber of Commerce, often adversaries. They had feared that the measure would bring mass layoffs in low-wage industries, sweeping up both illegal and legal workers and disrupting the labor force.

....

Some conservative lawmakers who argue for vigorous enforcement of the immigration laws as a priority said they were outraged by the judge’s ruling. “What part of ‘illegal’ does Judge Breyer not understand?” asked Representative Brian P. Bilbray, Republican of California and chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus. “Using a Social Security number that does not belong to you is a felony. Judge Breyer is compromising the rule of law principles that he took an oath to uphold.”

.....

Yesterday, Judge Breyer ordered a halt to the rule until the court could reach a final decision in the case, which could take many months. He made it clear he was skeptical of many of the government’s arguments.

The decision also bars the Social Security Administration from sending out about 141,000 no-match letters, covering more than eight million employees, which include notices from the Homeland Security Department explaining the new rule. Other groups bringing the lawsuit include the American Civil Liberties Union, the San Francisco Labor Council and several national and local small-business associations.

Judge Breyer found that the Social Security database that the rule would draw upon was laden with errors not related to a worker’s immigration status, which could result in no-match letters being sent to legally authorized workers. “There is a strong likelihood that employers may simply fire employees who are unable to resolve the discrepancy within 90 days,” even if they are legal, he wrote.

Lucas Guttentag, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the government had demonstrated “a callous disregard for legal workers and citizens by adopting a rule that punished innocent workers and employers under the guise of immigration enforcement.” A.F.L.-C.I.O officials had estimated that some 600,000 of their members could receive the letters and be vulnerable to unjust dismissal.

In a December 2006 report cited in the court documents, the inspector general of the Social Security Administration estimated that 17.8 million of the agency’s 435 million individual records contained discrepancies that could result in a no-match letter being sent to a legally authorized worker. Of those records with errors, 12.7 million belonged to native-born Americans, the report found.

In a Sept. 18 letter to Mr. Chertoff, the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration supported a claim in the suit that federal officials had failed to carry out a required analysis of the impact on small businesses before announcing the new rule. The office is independent from the Small Business Administration, which supported the rule.

Judge Breyer is the brother of Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the Supreme Court and was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

The conservative base is screaming.

texas_tank · 10-11-2007, 12:48 AM

'no legal explination'? are you serious?

breyer's such a flaming liberal. they're illeagal immigrants. they have no rights..

did you hear about those dozens of mcdonalds that were raided, and ended in a deportation of like 90 something immigrants?

Roycerson · 10-11-2007, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by texas_tank

'no legal explination'? are you serious?

breyer's such a flaming liberal. they're illeagal immigrants. they have no rights..

did you hear about those dozens of mcdonalds that were raided, and ended in a deportation of like 90 something immigrants?

Except for the legal residents who end up losing their jobs too. I was born in KCMO. I once got caught in the "prove your not a mexican trap". Mind you. I'm white with a mid-western accent. Couldn't work for months, had several jobs lined up just didn't have the paperwork. Turned to shoplifting for food, got caught (not entirely unintionally, in jail I knew I'd get fed), was able to get a new ID with paperwork provided by the police because of my arrest, instant reform. I'm not a fan of thieving but I had the unfortunate experience of proving to myself that I'm willing to do it if hunger is my only other option. No lie. It was a long time ago. Fuck those assholes that think I need permission to work. They almost starved me.

Picture me walking around in the state capital building in Topeka, KS just grabbing people in the hallway. PLEASE... I just want a job. All my paperwork is gone. I have a SSN I'll tell you what it is. You can fingerprint me. I was born here and I'm hungry and this guy down the road will hire me if I can just get ID.... them: sorry 'bout your luck dude. I know of no way out of your situation.

You don't forget shit like that.

One of the experiences that made me the freedom-lover I am today.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 10-11-2007, 02:34 AM

Wow. Pretty devastating counter argument. I've seen your avatar before. Good old blondie, treated as an illegal. Sorry to hear about that man.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 10-11-2007, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by texas_tank

'no legal explination'? are you serious?

breyer's such a flaming liberal. they're illeagal immigrants. they have no rights..

did you hear about those dozens of mcdonalds that were raided, and ended in a deportation of like 90 something immigrants?

In Connecticut they had some raids and got a bunch of people, but I heard that the law enforcement in Connecticut was going to refuse to cooperate with the Feds in the future for some reason. I think the feds lied to them or something about what they would find in the raid. The feds said that there were gangsters, but after the raid only 10% of the people they found were in a gang. There might have also been an issue about them finding a lot of kids and the state was not prepared to deal with them, and the state was responsible for them since the kids were American citizens.

I saw a report on CNN, it showed that the new states' laws are having an impact on illegal immigration. A lot of illegals are moving back because life is getting hard. In Florida, one guy was going back because he could not get a driver's license.

After hearing about these incidents, I really do think that the US could get rid of most illegals by simply enforcing rules about hiring illegals. This was probably the feds only way of fighting the illegals who are here now.

emptypepsi · 10-11-2007, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

I saw a report on CNN, it showed that the new states' laws are having an impact on illegal immigration. A lot of illegals are moving back because life is getting hard. In Florida, one guy was going back because he could not get a driver's license.

After hearing about these incidents, I really do think that the US could get rid of most illegals by simply enforcing rules about hiring illegals. This was probably the feds only way of fighting the illegals who are here now.

I believe this too, which is why it is part of what I consider to be the best way to handle the problem. A wall is really unecessary if you can efficiently do things such as this. However, along with enforcing illegal employment rules, I believe we should up the amount of legals allowed per year. I think this will increase the incentive to follow our rules. Do you think these two work hand in hand as I do? I really do think those two things would help curb most of the issue.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 10-11-2007, 02:10 PM

Personally, I was in favor of the Bush-McCain path to citizenship. I think that this issue is really about race. White Americans don't like this huge influx of Latino's, so they're raising hell about it. That's how I see it more or less.

I still would be in favor of some sort of Bush-McCain path to citizenship. I don't really see the point of throwing them out, just to make them wait and then re-apply to get into the US again. It's a huge inconvenience for no real reason.

I think that if a Democrat wins the Presidential election, then this whole crackdown on illegals will end or only become enforced in a token way.

emptypepsi · 10-11-2007, 06:36 PM

There were many things I liked about the compromise: for one, the huge amounts of legals it would allow upon it's implementation. I think letting in more legals (specifically from Mexico and Guatemala) is key to solving the issue. They make up the majority of illegals, so increasing the incentive from their end would do a lot to curb the incidents of illegal entry. When I say up the numbers, I mean from around a million like we have now to about 2.5-3 million (at a minimum).

Another facet is punishing the employers who keep hiring them illegally. With this new influx of legals, there should be no reason to keep that shit up.

Walls and Fences are aesthetically pleasing, but I think along the border the real answer lies somewhere in more technology or more patrol officers. In fact, it is the huge call for some sort of fence along the border that also makes me suspicious (like you) that this is about some fear of Latinos. If they really 'had no problem with legals, just illegals', then they would be calling for upping the amount of legals and punishing those who employ them ilegally.

While we're on that end of it, I also don't tend to buy these bullshit claims that we are going to be overrun with Spanish speakers and we can wave bye-bye to el inglés.

Most children of immigrants speak English, as well as Spanish, and by the third or fourth generations the Spanish speakers of that family are almost gone. I've seen it not only in my family but many others.

emptypepsi · 10-11-2007, 08:59 PM

Salient point, but in the end they are going to wind up using who is most qualified, immigrant or not. And to be clear, I'm not referring to IT workers or any other skilled occupation (not generally, that is). The argument more often than not is about unskilled labor which allegedly "nobody here is doing" except illegals. If this is true (which I don't completely doubt), just let more opportunities for unskilled laborers to enter so we don't deal with the illegal issue as much (which seems to be the most vocal complaint). If people truly don't have a problem with legals, I don't see where all the big fuss is.

emptypepsi · 10-11-2007, 09:28 PM

Ah, I see. I had never thought of that before.

What is your personal idea then of a solid reform plan? Or just suggestions, if you will.