AFL-CIO and ACLU sue Homeland Security

AFL-CIO and ACLU sue Homeland Security

The AFL-CIO and ACLU yesterday sued to stop the Homeland Security Department from cracking down on illegal-alien workers, asking a federal judge to halt new checks on employees' Social Security numbers because they could violate workers' rights and lead companies to preemptively fire American workers.

The labor union federation and the civil liberties group are the latest critics to attack the new rules, arguing that because of errors in the Social Security database, U.S. citizens and legal immigrants will get caught up in the process, and businesses will use it as an excuse to go after legal workers.

"This rule is a new tool to repress workers' rights in the name of phony immigration enforcement," said John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO.

They are objecting to a new strategy under which the government will step up sending "no-match" letters to alert employers when employees submit Social Security numbers that don't match what the government has on file.

Under the new rules, DHS says employers should give employees 90 days to rectify the error and then fire the employee. In the past, many employers were advised by lawyers to ignore the "no-match" letters.

The groups that filed the lawsuit said businesses have used no-match letters as a basis of firing employees who have complained about workplace conditions or suffered on-the-job injuries.

The new rule, announced by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on Aug. 10, goes into effect Sept. 14.

The AFL-CIO and the ACLU filed their suit with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, part of the 9th U.S. Circuit, which has a reputation for favoring the rights of immigrants and illegal aliens.

Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said the department is going ahead, and called the lawsuit "an obvious attempt to impede the department's ability to enforce our immigration laws.

"It is completely without merit and we intend to fight it vigorously," Mr. Knocke said.

"Employers have always had the obligation to resolve evidence that their employees might not be authorized to work in the United States," he said. "The rule assures employers that if they follow the procedures laid out, they can avoid liability. Those employers who disregard no-match letters in the future should expect serious consequences."

Opposition to the new rules has come from all sides. Also this week, the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, which represents business interests, wrote to Mr. Chertoff asking him to wait 180 days before enforcing the no-match rules.

"As every day passes, there is growing confusion as to how to comply with the rule and the practical impact of its implementation," the businesses wrote.

Mr. Knocke said the department knew there would be some "pain and push back" in the reforms proposed by the Homeland Security Department.

"The list of signatures tells you why immigration reform has been hard, and why we often face enforcement challenges," he said in a reference to those who have signed on to the lawsuit. "Still, we're going to restore public credibility on enforcement."