Homeland Security offers new proposal to force employers to fire illegal immigrants

In October, a San Francisco federal judge blocked the Department of Homeland Security's use of "no-match letters" to threaten businesses with prosecution if they do not fire employees whose Social Security numbers are not found in government databases. Still attempting to discourage employers from hiring illegal immigrants, the DHS has revised the no-match rule by "offering a new explanation but virtually no change in content," reports Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle.

The DHS posted the new rule on its Web site last week. It plans to ask U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer to lift his injunction while also asking a federal appeals court to overturn his decision. The new rule first was proposed last August "to toughen a little-enforced provision of a 1986 immigration law prohibiting businesses from knowingly employing illegal immigrants," Egelko writes. He explains the difference between the 1986 law and this new proposal this way:

In the past, employers have been able to comply with the law by obtaining identification documents from new workers. After that, the government notifies employers if the Social Security number on an employee's W-2 tax form doesn't match the number in the Social Security database. That worker may not have earnings credited for Social Security benefits, but no action is taken against the employer.
Under the new rule, employers who get no-match letters would have 90 days to resolve the discrepancy and an additional three days for an employee to submit a new, valid Social Security number. After that, an employer who failed to fire the worker would be subject to civil fines or criminal prosecution.

Unions and major business groups filed suit last year, arguing that many no-match letters are sent in error and that a toughened rule would lead to firings of many legal workers. Judge Breyer agreed that such a scenario seemed plausible, adding that DHS offered no explanation for its reverse in its non-enforcement policy. (Read more)