The politics of an open border continues in San Francisco as Clinton appointed US District Judge Charles Breyer issued a nationwide injunction which will not allow the federal government to crack down on businesses who employ illegal aliens. The judgment stems around the government sending what is called 'no match' letters to employers and asking them to make sure that their employees have given correct information regarding their names and social security numbers when they do not match.

Of course in the case of illegal aliens they cannot prove that they are here legally and therefore would be terminated. Instead Judge Charles Breyer made a decision for the whole country that the government cannot enforce our immigration laws in the workplace. In other words he has given the other 49 states the finger on behalf of those in California and San Francisco who want illegal immigration to continue.

Judge Charles Breyer was appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton in 1997 and is the brother of liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer who, in 2001, ruled that detained illegal aliens whose home countries won't take them back within 6 months must be released into American communities ( Zadvydas v. Davis, No. 99-7791)

Washington Post

A federal judge barred the Bush administration yesterday from launching a planned crackdown on U.S. companies that employ illegal immigrants, warning of its potentially "staggering" impact on law-abiding workers and companies.

In a firm rebuke of the White House, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction against the president's plan to press employers to fire as many as 8.7 million workers with suspect Social Security numbers, starting this fall.

...

In a 22-page ruling, Breyer said the plaintiffs -- an unusual coalition that included the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- had raised serious questions about the legality of the administration's plan to mail Social Security "no-match" letters to 140,000 U.S. employers.

"There can be no doubt that the effects of the rule's implementation will be severe," Breyer wrote, resulting in "irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers."

Let me just step in here for a minute and point out to the author of this article, Washington Post Staff Writer Spencer S. Hsu, that this coalition of groups opposing the "no match" letters is not an "unusual coalition". Has Spencer Hsu been living under a rock for the past 5 years? These are the same groups that pushed for the illegal alien amnesty. The same groups that have been fighting local enforcement of immigration law. The same groups that have been fighting against American workers in favor of cheap labor from illegal immigrants. It's a serious falsehood to suggest that they haven't worked together on this issue in the past and a serious falsehood to write in the article that the Bush administration is being serious about cracking down on illegal immigration after 7 years of not doing a thing to combat the problem. Might I remind Hsu that the Bush administration was the ones pushing for the amnesty for illegal aliens not even 6 months ago?

The plaintiffs convinced the judge that the Social Security Administration database includes so many errors -- incorporated in the records of about 9.5 million people in 2003 alone -- that its use in firings would unfairly discriminate against tens of thousands of legal workers, including native-born and naturalized U.S. citizens, and cause major workforce disruptions that would burden companies.

"The government's proposal to disseminate no-match letters affecting more than eight million workers will, under the mandated time line, result in the termination of employment to lawfully employed workers," the judge wrote. "Moreover the threat of criminal prosecution . . . reflects a major change in DHS policy."

And that last sentence says it all folks! The threat of criminal prosecution of employers who hire illegal aliens is a major change in DHS policy... which up until now has done nothing.

Other Commentary:

The Stein Report