Judicial Delirium

CNN reported on its website last Friday that a federal judge ruled to block the Social Security Administration from sending letters to employers warning of more serious penalties for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. The SSA has been sending out similar letters for about twenty years that were largely ignored by employers. This year, those letters are to include "notices from the Department of Homeland Security outlining strict new requirements for employers to resolve those discrepancies within 90 days or face fines or criminal prosecution if they're deemed to have knowingly hired illegal immigrants" (CNN.com). The AFL-CIO has brought a lawsuit on the issue, claiming the new rules "violate workers' rights and unfairly burden employers." U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney ruled to temporarily stop the Department of Homeland Security notices to give the court some "'breathing room' before making any decision on the legality of new penalties aimed at cracking down on the hiring of illegal immigrants."

I think I'm going to need some breathing room, too, or I may pass out.

This is logic in exile. Let us examine briefly the AFL-CIO's contention that bringing penalty on employers who knowingly violate the law is somehow an infringement on workers' rights. These workers are, theoretically, illegal immigrants. They have entered the country illegally and/or are not documented citizens of the United States, which is in violation of a number of laws. As non-citizens, what obligation does the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration have to recognize their rights as workers? Why should we expect any less of our government agencies than to hold American employers accountable for consciously circumventing the law?

It is well within the AFL-CIO's prerogative to bring this lawsuit, however ridiculous it sounds. The responsibility lies with the court to swiftly reject it. Granted Judge Chesney did not explicitly rule that the new rules were illegal; she delayed the notices from being sent until the court can hear further arguments on October 1. What further arguments need be heard? The court is essentially reviewing the legality of actually punishing lawbreakers. Let's broadcast this onto a hypothetical. Imagine that the current penalty for dealing cocaine is a letter that may contain a small fine. For years, dealers have been brushing aside these fines as a cost of doing business. The dealers are knowingly breaking the law by dealing cocaine, and the federal government is aware of their crimes. Cocaine addiction is becoming a growing problem in the United States, and it is becoming apparent that the fines are insufficient to discourage cocaine dealing. The FBI, in response, decides to include a notice in the letters to dealers that warns of prosecution if their illegal activity continues. Would there be any question as to the legitimacy of the FBI's actions here? Would the FBI not be well within its rights to enforce laws against cocaine dealing? Could you imagine an organization bringing a lawsuit against the FBI, citing a threat to the rights of cocaine addicts? Then try to imagine that when the court hears this suit, it decides it needs two months of "breathing room" in order to decide whether or not it is legal for the government to enforce the laws against cocaine dealing?

It does not take much thought to come to the conclusion that the lawsuit is ridiculous, and that Judge Chesney's decision to delay the letters, even temporarily, is patently absurd. Let us hope that come October 1, the four weeks that will have gone by will be enough time for the courts to come to the same conclusion that I came to in about four seconds.

**Read the full CNN.com article here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/31/immigrant.employers.ap/index.html