Thread: Statement by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on

Statement by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on the No-Match Appeal
Release Date: December 5, 2007

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an appeal on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on the injunction against the No-Match Rule in San Francisco, Calif.

I believe that the No-Match Rule is a major step forward in preventing employment of illegal migrants. Contrary to the ACLU’s incorrect statements, the rule is not harmful to legal workers. DHS is not abandoning it.

Employers receive a No-Match letter from the Social Security Administration when an employee’s name does not match the social security number it has on file. Sometimes there is an innocent explanation for this discrepancy, such as a clerical error. But sometimes the discrepancy reflects the fact that the employee in question is an illegal alien. When employers receive such No-Match letters, they are on notice that the employees in question may not be authorized to work.

Under our No-Match Rule, no employer should terminate an employee based upon a no-match letter alone. But no employer should ignore such a letter or the discrepancy it reveals. The No-Match Rule gives employers and employees 90 days – a full three months – to correct the discrepancy.

If the mismatch is a clerical error, that is a good opportunity to correct the mistake. When the mismatch shows fraud, however, appropriate steps should be taken. Businesses that follow the procedures in the rule will have a safe harbor from enforcement action. Those that ignore no-match letters place themselves at obvious risk and invite suspicion that they are knowingly employing workers who are here illegally.

Far from abandoning the No-Match Rule, we are pressing ahead by taking the district court’s order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. At the same time, we will soon issue a supplement to the rule that specifically addresses the three grounds on which the district court based its injunction. By pursuing these two paths simultaneously, my aim is to get a resolution as quickly as possible so we can move the No-Match Rule forward and provide honest employers with the guidance they need.

The ACLU’s lawsuit has put this vital protection on hold. That is bad for immigration enforcement and bad for America’s law-abiding employers and their legal workers. The only real beneficiaries of the ACLU’s strategy are employers who would rather close their eyes to cheap and profitable illegal labor than obey the laws of our country.

http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1196872065694.shtm

I say send the letters anyway!!Chertoff should have at least that much authority to enforce employment laws..what are they going to do throw him in jail..Ha! according to them they have no room left!!



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE TAKE ACTION!!!! 12/5
HELP STOP "NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY COLLEGES" FROM ADMITTING ILLEGALS !!(This could come to your community college next)
WATCH VIDEO!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zxJZBecp_0
ACTION THREAD( Instructions @ contact information)
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-92808.html
WHAT WOULD WE DO WITHOUT ALIPAC Please Contribute!!
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=C ... page&pid=9

I say send the letters - let's get our system cleaned out and straightened up.

When my husband was travelling for work once I registered with a temp agency and worked at a college bookstore during registration. When I got my check, I realized they had one number incorrect on my SS#. It didn't amount to much money at all, but I just like things done right. They were every so snotty about it - kinda like 'well, what difference does it make'.

I wonder what they are going to do about temp agencies and contract workers?

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an appeal on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on the injunction against the No-Match Rule in San Francisco, Calif.

I believe that the No-Match Rule is a major step forward in preventing employment of illegal migrants. Contrary to the ACLU’s incorrect statements, the rule is not harmful to legal workers. DHS is not abandoning it.........

The ACLU’s lawsuit has put this vital protection on hold. That is bad for immigration enforcement and bad for America’s law-abiding employers and their legal workers. The only real beneficiaries of the ACLU’s strategy are employers who would rather close their eyes to cheap and profitable illegal labor than obey the laws of our country.

Filed an appeal???? The U.S. in engaged in a war in Iraq in case the Dept. of Justice and Dept. of Homeland Security failed to notice. Illegal aliens attacked the U.S. on 9/11 on our own soil. It is vital for the U.S. to know illegal aliens presence in this country now and the No-Match Rule is an invaluable tool in that process.

"The only real beneficiaries of the ACLU’s strategy are employers who would rather close their eyes to cheap and profitable illegal labor than obey the laws of our country". They forgot to mention the benefit to illegal immigrant terrorists.

Instead of engaging in ACLU's 'legal games' to the deteriment of America, the Department of Justice should charge the ACLU with OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

The ACLU doesn't defend the Constitution; instead it's designs are to dissect it.

Governments will always misuse the machinery of the law as far as the state of public opinion permits.
- Emile Capouya

Does anyone know why they don't send a notice of the number's use to the person the number belongs to? If it's a simple clerical error, that's the best way to get it taken care of quickly.

I have heard, just heard, that SS won't even tell you if someone is using your number.

Anyone know - for sure?

Originally Posted by nntrixie

I have heard, just heard, that SS won't even tell you if someone is using your number.

Anyone know - for sure?

I read that same problem about a woman on these boards when I first joined ALIPAC. I'm sure that is the case. Even when she requested a new SSN, the SS turned her down and would not tell her who or if someone was using her number. In my book, that's a crime. That's like the bank refusing to tell you if some unauthorized person has been accessing your account. The SS needs to be investigated for this.