[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Immigration See other Immigration Articles Title: Judge delays crackdown on employers of illegal workers A federal judge signaled Monday that he is likely to prevent the Bush administration from threatening employers with prosecution if they fail to fire illegal immigrants. The administration's proposed crackdown on employers does not appear to be authorized by law, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said during a two-hour hearing in San Francisco. That is the position of labor unions that have sued to block proposed new federal regulations, which they say could lead to firings of thousands of legally employed workers. Over government objections, Breyer extended for up to 10 days a temporary restraining order issued Aug. 31 by another federal judge that stopped officials from mailing letters to employers notifying them of the new requirements. He said he would rule within 10 days on a preliminary injunction, sought by business groups as well as unions, that would bar the change for an indefinite period, until the case went to trial or a higher court overruled him. Breyer's comments during the hearing indicated he is inclined to grant the injunction. "There would be irreparable harm, serious irreparable injury," to legal employees if the government went ahead with its plan to send 140,000 letters to employers of 8 million workers in the next few months, Breyer said. He also said the central message of the government's letter - that employers must investigate and clear up discrepancies in their employees' Social Security numbers within 93 days or be viewed as a criminal - "is not an accurate statement of the law." Justice Department lawyer Thomas Dupre denied that the government was trying to coerce employers into cracking down on suspected illegal immigrants and said the proposal was merely "an optional safe harbor" for businesses to avoid liability. Dupre said the government opposed an extension of the restraining order, which had been scheduled to expire Monday. He did not respond to Breyer's suggestion that he could ask a higher court to intervene. The ruling was praised by AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, who said in a statement that the administration's plan "would lead to increased exploitation of workers." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced the rules Aug. 10 as a means of toughening the little-enforced 1986 law that subjects employers to criminal prosecution or civil penalties for knowingly employing illegal immigrants. Employers can satisfy the law under current rules if they obtain specified documents from newly hired workers. Independently, the government has been notifying employers for years when the Social Security number of a worker's W-2 tax form does not match the number in the Social Security database. That worker does not have earnings credited for Social Security benefits, but no action is taken against the employer. Under the new rule, employers receiving such a "no-match" letter would have to fire the worker or face possible civil fines and criminal penalties if the discrepancy isn't cleared up. Unions challenged the rule on two grounds: that the 1986 law did not authorize the government to use Social Security records for immigration enforcement, and that the no-match letters are rife with errors because of name changes and mistakes by employers and the government in recording the numbers. Some 600,000 union members, all legally employed, would be unable to navigate government bureaucracies in time to resolve differences in Social Security numbers and would lose their jobs under the new rule, Scott Kronland, a lawyer for the unions, told Breyer. He also said the letter would lead to wholesale discrimination against workers with foreign names or appearances. Dupre, the government's lawyer, said such discrimination would remain illegal under the new rule. The letter merely tells employers one way to comply with the 1986 law, he said, so "it's not an additional burden."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
What!!?
Don't ask me - it's insanity.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||