Here's a judge----a Clinton appointee---in San Francisco blocking the federal government's efforts to enforce it's immigration laws.


Judge blocks U.S. illegal worker crackdown

By Leonard Anderson
33 minutes ago


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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071010/...CJp5Y2yXME1vAI

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Is this all he has to say? Apparently abiding by the law is now deemed a hardship.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

like most cases in the Left Coast it will be soundly overturned.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

I think the Federal Government needs to freeze all monetary funding, and other services to Califo..err...Kaleefohneeah.

Hey, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

It's just a preliminary injunction, basically delaying implementation until the court case is resolved.

The plaintiff case appears to be this:

A reasonable concern if the program is overly draconian in its rules or implementation. But there's this:

Which seems a reasonable accomodation.

I guess the worry might be that an employer, upon receiving such a letter, wouldn't bother trying to verify the employee's status and would simply fire him or her to avoid problems. After all, verification would be a hassle -- and how would you go about doing it, anyway? Much easier to simply get rid of the worker and be done with it.

__________________
Man up.

Employers are supposed to see social security cards with their own eyes. These can be faked as can picture IDs. The assumption should be that the employer does not know the employee is using a fake ID, and that by informing him, the govt is correcting his previous inability to ensure his compliance with the law.

The employee is required to ensure that his w-4 is correct. If legal workers have mistakes on their W-4 or in their withholding, it's very important that it gets corrected ASAP. 90 days is plenty of time to get mistakes corrected. If an employer fires a legal employee and it is the employer's error, the employee will be eligible for unemployment. In Texas, the employee is protected from improper termination.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

Yeah----12thMan is right. The reasoning the ACLU has used is simply a cop-out because they couldn't come up with anything else. They know darn well they are fighting to protect illegal immigrants.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Agreed, but what is the employer supposed to do at that point? How should it "verify" the worker's legal status? And how many employers will bother?

Agreed, unless it's such a hassle that employers don't want to deal with it.

That's small consolation.

But under the federal law, it appears that the employee would be fired by default if the employer does nothing to clear up the discrepancy.

I think the federal program is reasonable in principle. This appears to be one of those "devil in the details" cases.

__________________
Man up.

maybe you need to understand how a Federal System works

Of course, you realize that most no match letters are due to mistakes. You must also realize that any mistake will cause the person not to have that work credited to social security thereby causing a possible loss of benefits. It's of the utmost importance that any legal worker be sure his SS and withholding be credited to him. As it is now, no match letters can be ignored. The employee may not have a clue that there is any mistake. Forcing the employer to comply protects legal workers.

No match letters come with details of what the employer should do to correct mistakes. http://www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/SSA...ployer_ltr.pdf
It's not the ordeal some are making it out to be.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.