WASHINGTON, DC - The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today
reissued a "no-match" rule with no substantial changes that would
continue to put American and other authorized workers at risk of
losing their jobs. If the newly released DHS rule were to take
effect, it would still improperly use Social Security records for
immigration enforcement.
The reissued rule fails to substantively change the
original rule that was blocked last October when a federal court
found that it would cause irreparable harm to both innocent workers
and employers. Instead, it unsuccessfully attempts to explain
away the inherent problems caused by relying on the deeply flawed
Social Security Administration (SSA) database to verify legal
authorization to work.
The day after Thanksgiving last year, DHS requested
that the court put on hold a lawsuit brought by several civil rights
and labor groups challenging the original rule until March 2008
while it prepared a revised rule that DHS claimed would pass legal
muster. However, according to the coalition, the rule released
today does no such thing.
The lawsuit was brought by the American Federation of
Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Immigration Law
Center (NILC), and labor groups to block the "no-match" rule, which
would require employers to penalize or fire U.S. citizens and legal
workers whose Social Security numbers don't match up with the
information in the SSA database. The lawsuit charges that the
SSA database is fundamentally flawed and error-prone, and that the
rule would result in the firing of countless legal workers as well
as discrimination against those who look or sound "foreign."
The SSA's own inspector general found that more than 70
percent of the discrepancies in the SSA database that could generate
a no-match letter pertain to native-born U.S. citizens.
Discrepancies between workers' Social Security numbers and SSA
records can result from many innocent factors, including clerical
errors, name changes due to marriage or divorce, or the common use
of multiple surnames.
The statements below can be attributed to the following
participants in the lawsuit:
Lucas Guttentag, director of the ACLU's Immigrants'
Rights Project and one of the attorneys in the lawsuit: "The
so-called supplemental publication changes not a single word or
comma in the proposed rule. This is a desperate attempt to
justify a fundamentally flawed database without actually fixing any
problems. It's a Rube Goldberg approach that tries to paper
over the fundamental flaws in the Social Security database.
This rule is a de facto Bush administration tax increase on small
businesses that perversely puts the highest costs on those with
greatest number of American workers. Rather than penalizing
American workers who will be the innocent victims of database
errors, the administration should protect all workers against
discrimination and exploitation."
John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO: "This
rule does nothing to address the corporate abuses of undocumented
workers that are driving down wages and standards for all workers.
If the Bush administration really wants to control illegal
immigration, it should start by requiring that all companies pay
legal wages and abide by our labor laws."
Marielena Hincapié, staff attorney and director of
programs at NILC: “DHS has issued a treatise trying to
rationalize a policy that will strip millions of workers from their
jobs as a result of the inaccuracies in the government databases and
this ill-conceived rule. Rather than addressing the underlying
problems, the administration is simply repackaging the same old
flawed rule, which is anti-worker and anti-immigrant. Good
employers will lose out at a time when our economy can't sustain
further job loss, while bad employers are getting more cover to hire
and exploit undocumented workers, and thereby undermining all
workers' rights."
The government's revised "no-match" rule is available
here.