Thread: Feds won't enforce rule on firing illegal immigrants

Feds won't enforce rule on firing illegal immigrants
'No-match' letters to employers won't be mailed as appeals court decides case

By MARY LOU PICKEL
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 12/25/07
Employers will get a pass this year on rules that would have required firing illegal immigrants.

The Social Security Administration says it will not mail out "no-match" letters this year to more than 138,000 employers nationwide.

The program was stymied because of a lawsuit by a coalition of labor, business and civil liberties groups.

No-match letters inform employers that a worker's name and Social Security number don't match. There can be a variety of reasons, but sometimes that's because the worker is an illegal immigrant. The letters would have flagged 8.6 million workers nationwide.

In Georgia, 4,669 employers will get a pass on the letters this year.

"There are some employers who are probably relieved because if a large portion of their workers are listed on the mismatch letter, they could lose some or most of their employees, with no one to take their place," said Eileen Scofield, an Atlanta immigration and labor lawyer.

A spokesman for the restaurant industry said what the government needs to do is adopt comprehensive immigration reform, rather than more rules.

Twenty-two percent of the nation's 7.6 million food prep and service employees are foreign born.

"We don't think you can enforce your way out of our broken immigration system," said Mike Shutley, director of legislative affairs for the National Restaurant Association.

In August, the Department of Homeland Security issued a new rule giving employers 90 days to terminate workers whose paperwork could not be reconciled once they got a no-match letter.

That rule is on hold, however, after a federal district judge in California issued an injunction in October. The case is on appeal to the Ninth District Court of Appeals.

Labor groups, including the AFL-CIO, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union argued in the lawsuit that legal workers and others might be fired unfairly. They also said the government did not consider the impact on small businesses. Some causes for Social Security mismatches include typos, name changes from marriage or divorce and multiple last names.

In some cases, however, the mismatch happens because a worker is not legally authorized to work in the United States. That's what the Department of Homeland Security is trying to address.

"The no-match letters are an important tool not only for the department to better enforce our immigration laws, but also for employers to make sure that they are complying with the law and appropriate hiring practices," said Veronica Valdes, spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security.

"We are in no way abandoning the no-match rule," Valdes said.

The department will revise the rule and try again, she said.

In the past, employers were not required to act on no-match letters, although some would follow through and terminate workers who could not clear up their paperwork.

That's the case with Miguel Candelaria, owner of MA&O Construction. Candelaria helped found the Hispanic Contractors Association of Georgia.

Candelaria got no-match letters for the 2005 tax year affecting eight of about 500 employees. A few employees had legitimate mistakes, such as typos in their names or numbers, that needed to be fixed, he said.

A few had used their children's Social Security numbers, and some had expired work visas. He fired them.

"The ones who couldn't come up with the stuff, they're gone," Candelaria said.
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/bus ... =7&cxcat=6]www.ajc.com[/url]

A few had used their children's Social Security numbers

There is no doubt hundreds of thousands of children slaving away in various jobs, probably some as young as a month old! Anchors babies are multi-use utility.

I tend to think you are correct "gofer"

"Employers will get a pass this year on rules that would have required firing illegal immigrants. "
Tell me that "this year" means 2007, and not 2008!

A spokesman for the restaurant industry said what the government needs to do is adopt comprehensive immigration reform, rather than more rules.

"comprehensive" = amnesty, and the answer is still NO.

So this must mean that we can follow only the laws that we want to. I think I won't pay my federal taxes this year.

I read another article that the letters were going out at the end of Feb or in March.

This gives some more information. Can anyone summarize what they are trying to say?!




SSA Decides It Will Not Issue Employer No-Match Letters This Year

The Social Security Administration will not be sending out no-match letters to employers this year because of the lawsuit challenging the Homeland Security Department's worksite enforcement regulations, an SSA spokesman told BNA Nov. 13.

The decision not to send out the letters based on 2006 tax year data means SSA is not likely to send out any letters until at least spring of 2008, SSA spokesman Mark Hinkle said. By not sending out the letters and waiting until 2008, Hinkle said SSA will not have issued any employer no-match letters during 2007.

A federal judge in California Oct. 10 granted a preliminary injunction barring SSA from sending out the no-match letters because for the first time the letters were to include language threatening possible immigration law criminal and civil liability for employers that failed to respond to the letters. (http://exchange.altshulerberzon.com/ip/ ... enDocument)

"Because of the lawsuit, we needed to revise letters and it became apparent it was getting too late in the year to send them out," Hinkle explained Nov. 13, adding that employers and SSA were already gearing up to focus on wage reporting for 2007.

The lawsuit was triggered by the Bush administration's Aug. 10 announcement that SSA would be altering how it sends out no-match letters. According to the new rule, SSA would include language in the letter explaining there was possible liability under immigration laws. In addition, SSA planned to include a general letter from DHS explaining the liability as well as describing a "safe harbor provision" meant to protect employers who attempted to comply with the letter. (http://exchange.altshulerberzon.com/ip/ ... enDocument)

Although DHS was not going to have access to the names of employers sent the no-match letters, the new rule would treat the receipt of the letter as evidence that the employer had "constructive knowledge" that an immigration violation was taking place.

The final rule was challenged in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by a coalition of immigrant rights, organized labor, and civil liberties groups led by the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Immigration Law Center. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups later joined the litigation.

SSA had planned to send out no-match letters containing warnings from DHS regarding immigration law liability beginning Sept. 4, even before the final rule was to be implemented. That plan was derailed, however, when Judge Maxine Chesney of the Northern District of California Aug. 31 issued a temporary restraining order preventing the letters from being sent. (http://exchange.altshulerberzon.com/ip/ ... enDocument)

After the delay prompted by Chesney's order and then Judge Charles Breyer's Oct. 10 grant of a preliminary injunction, Hinkle said that SSA believed it was running out of time to rewrite the notice and expect employers to correct wage data.

Each year, the SSA sends letters to some 138,000 employers pointing out discrepancies between data sent to SSA by employers and the information already available in the SSA database. Hinkle said the letters involve as many as 9 million employees each year who may have provided incorrect Social Security data. SSA has sent out the letters since 1994.

The letters are usually sent out in "batches" starting in March or April, Hinkle said, and employers are asked to correct data. Anticipating the final rule from DHS, he said SSA last spring sent out no employer letters based on the 2006 tax year but that some workers did receive personal notices as part of SSA's efforts.

SSA uses the no-match letters as a way of informing employers that there is a problem with the W-2 information provided to SSA. Those problems can be due to the wrong name being put on the form, an error in reporting the Social Security number, or other errors that can occur on the employer's part.

Until this year, SSA has said that the no-match letters were designed to correct information and not meant to serve as an worksite immigration enforcement tool. SSA has opposed permitting DHS to have access to the names of employers who receive the letters because it says the letters are designed to correct data, not create liability.

In arguments to the federal court on whether a preliminary injunction should be granted, SSA joined with DHS in arguing that SSA would be harmed if they were unable to send out no-match letters for this tax year because it would mean that there would be a large batch of information that would not be corrected.

In addition, SSA argued to the federal court that pushing back the date it could send the no-match letters would conflict with SSA's busiest time period--the season from January to March when W-2 forms are sent out--and therefore burden the agency. In its brief to the court, the government argued the failure to send out the no-match letters would "frustrate the purpose of providing notice to employers that their employees' Social Security earnings are not being credited to their accounts."

Breyer, however, was unconvinced and pointed out that the injunction did not bar SSA from sending out its letters and instead barred it from including the DHS liability language.

"The plaintiffs have not requested a preliminary injunction precluding SSA from sending out its traditional no-match letters for tax purposes, as the agency has for over a decade," Breyer said, adding "SSA has acknowledged that it could remove the DHS insert and related language from its mailing in 30 days."

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:K69 ... =firefox-a

Originally Posted by gofer

A few had used their children's Social Security numbers

There is no doubt hundreds of thousands of children slaving away in various jobs, probably some as young as a month old! Anchors babies are multi-use utility.

I never understood why the IRS accepts this. I suspect they are just happy to get their tax money and don't give a hoot about anything else.