DHS, SDUT, Harry Reid on Charles Breyer no-match ruling (ACLU, CofC, AFL-CIO)

The San Diego Union-Tribune says "Appeal the ruling on illegal worker checks" (link) about Judge Charles Breyer siding with the ACLU, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL-CIO against the interests of those who support our immigration laws:

...Following [the no-match procedure] gives considerable protection against harsh sanctions for employers who know, or should know, of illegal hires. The no-match letter alerts them to that possibility. The Homeland Security brochure mailed with it outlines how to check and protect themselves. At no point must employers fire any worker, illegal or legal – if they are willing to risk eventually facing those sanctions.

That's only one discrepancy between Breyer's order and reality. But it's reason enough to appeal to lift the injunction and move on to the merits of this suit, brought by the ACLU, business and labor. It's an unusual alliance of organizations with zero interest in enforcing existing immigration law and reducing the jobs magnet that drives illegal immigration...

And, for the administration's side of things, "Captain Ed" did an interview (link):

...Ms. Keehner took great pains to point out a couple of erroneous suppositions in the ruling. Foremost, the notion that no-match letters exert an undue burden on small businesses is nonsense. The regulation exempts businesses that employ less than 10 people, so mom & pop stores don't have to worry about it at all... [DHS Deputy Press Secretary Laura Keehner] assured me that the DHS plans to pursue relief from this injunction in both the appellate courts and in Congress, if necessary, to further refine the legislation. They see the no-match letters as a necessary method of protecting the integrity of the Social Security database, to ensure that people get credit for their legitimate contribution to the Social Security fund, and to enforce employer-based sanctions for illegal immigration.

Since I'm not familiar with all aspects of the case, it's not clear whether the Clinton-appointed judge was being an activist, or whether the government simply failed to make their case. It's certainly a possibility that the virulently pro-cheap labor Bush administration intentionally botched the case, knowing that they'd receive a ruling like this and could then throw up their arms and claim they tried. Meanwhile, even more cheap labor can flow over the borders, enriching members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, and conferring political power on the Democratic Party and the ACLU.

If you'd like to do something about this that a judge can't block, go out and discredit some politicians.

UPDATE: See also "[Harry Reid] Backs Decision to Block Immigration Enforcement Rule".

Immigration2007b · Fri, 10/12/2007 - 12:00 · · Importance: 1