The Social Security Administration was to begin sending letters notifying employers of stricter penalties for improper documentation of workers next week, but a federal judge has enjoined them, reports Jordan Robertson for the Associated Press:
The Social Security Administration cannot start sending out letters to employers next week containing notification of more serious penalties for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, a federal judge ruled Friday.
Ruling on a lawsuit by the nation's largest federation of labor unions against the U.S. government, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting the so-called "no-match" letters from going out as planned starting Tuesday.The AFL-CIO lawsuit, filed this week, claims that new Department of Homeland Security rules outlined in accompanying letters threaten to violate workers' rights and unfairly burden employers. Chesney said the court needs "breathing room" before making any decision on the legality of new penalties aimed at cracking down on the hiring of illegal immigrants.
She set the next hearing on the matter for Oct. 1.
Read the whole story at the link above. Odd that the labor unions are the ones trying to block enforcement; one could argue their members are directly impacted by undocumented workers who might keep wages down. And since when are unions EVER worried that something might "unfairly burden employers" anyway? Not in my lifetime, up 'til now . . .
In case anyone wondered, Judge Maxine Chesney was appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton in 1995.
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Illegal Aliens, Judges, Law
Tags: immigration, judges, law enforcement
Comments (8)
If you work on a unionized ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by VagabondSW | September 1, 2007 1:06 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
If you work on a unionized site, being a member of the union is not elective. Just like Social Security taxes, union dues are taken out of the workers paycheck before the worker ever receives it. There are illegal aliens working in the fields, on the docks, in the shipyards, in the auto shops, and many other areas; and they are paying dues to many labor unions. They are also easily coerced into walking picket-lines and participating in other union work that American labor members won't do.
1. Posted by VagabondSW | September 1, 2007 1:06 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 1, 2007 13:06
2. Posted by WETBACK | September 1, 2007 3:32 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
(Judge's personal information deleted, commenter banned by editor)
2. Posted by WETBACK | September 1, 2007 3:32 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 1, 2007 15:32
3. Posted by kim | September 1, 2007 4:23 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Let me guess. Dale in Atlanta? That boy's hot.
=============================================
3. Posted by kim | September 1, 2007 4:23 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 1, 2007 16:23
4. Posted by kim | September 1, 2007 4:24 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
He got a hat tip on JustOneMinute for some info on this Clinton appointee.
======================
4. Posted by kim | September 1, 2007 4:24 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 1, 2007 16:24
5. Posted by marc | September 1, 2007 5:02 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
vagabondSW:
They are also easily coerced into walking picket-lines and participating in other union work that American labor members won't do.
That's BS as far as the UAW is concerned. You are required to picket and if you don't you won't receive your strike benefits, i.e. a small stipend on cash each week.
vagabondSW, I have a feeling that's the case with all unions and your pulling that out of your butt.
5. Posted by marc | September 1, 2007 5:02 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 1, 2007 17:02
6. Posted by Jim Addison | September 1, 2007 6:30 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Can't speak to "all unions," but the one which was picketing Wal-Mart this spring was exposed using part-time, non-union pickets and paying them less than Wal-Mart was paying the workers the union was complaining were underpaid. It seems to me there have been other such examples, as well.
In the Wal-Mart case, though, the union wasn't "on strike," they were protesting not being able to unionize the Wal-Mart, if memory serves.
6. Posted by Jim Addison | September 1, 2007 6:30 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 1, 2007 18:30
7. Posted by marc | September 1, 2007 8:51 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Your memory serves you well Jim A.
But that case is far different than what V-SW was trying to portray, obviously.
7. Posted by marc | September 1, 2007 8:51 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 1, 2007 20:51
8. Posted by SPQR | September 5, 2007 12:19 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This judge is also making it easier for identity thieves to get away with their actions in using others' social security numbers fraudulently.
8. Posted by SPQR | September 5, 2007 12:19 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 5, 2007 00:19