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

Posted Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 12:00 pm
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".

Tags: 
harry reid

Comments

amanda (not verified)

Sat, 10/13/2007 - 08:22

'zero interest in enforcing existing immigration law and reducing the jobs magnet that drives illegal immigration...' Wow, that's about the strongest editorial I can recall. I think I would faint if the NYT, WSJ, WaPo, LAT, Houston Chronicle, etc. ONCE had something other than tearjerkers, 'rotting in the fields', gestapo comparisons, blah blah blah.

amanda (not verified)

Sat, 10/13/2007 - 08:27

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. /// Or intentionally tried to fan the flames for the next amnesty push. Anyone who dismisses these two possibilities as ridiculous conspiracy theories need only look at their track record. Based on that, you can't give them the benefit of ANY doubt.

eh (not verified)

Sat, 10/13/2007 - 11:20

Just goes to show how fucking stupid and partisan some judges can be.

Pat (not verified)

Sat, 10/13/2007 - 14:24

With the feds and the courts ruling to support violation of our laws, I think we are approaching a nullification showdown. The NY clerks, the Phoenix PD, all who want to enforce our laws are about to tell the elites to go to hell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification

Tanstaafl (not verified)

Sun, 10/14/2007 - 16:46

They'll be running their Kabuki theater right up until the revolution.

Steve White (not verified)

Sat, 11/10/2007 - 11:03

Charles Breyer is a coward and hypocrite who can be forced to change his mind with public pressure. His actions in the Medical Marijuana trial of Ed Rosenthal prove that. Just Google up "Rosenthal" and "Judge Charles Breyer", you will see. Since he is such a worm, the best way to get him to reverse is probably to call him and tell him to. It worked for the Med. Marijuana people. Here is his office phone: 415 522 2062 And his email, (99% sure since when I send it does not come back) Charles_Breyer@cand.uscourts.gov I am sending him an email this morning, and calling to leave a message on his office phone. Do not threaten him, but tell him he's wrong, you know he's wrong, and you will urge the next President to get him out, etc, that sort of thing. And if you are in favor of fully informed juries, you could tell him that as well, since in the Med Marijuana case he kept important facts away from the jury.