Government Abandons Current "No Match" Rule: Harmful to Legal Workers

Homeland Security Department to Issue Revised Rule Still Relying on
Flawed  Social Security Database

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


CONTACT:   Lauren Mendoza, AFL-CIO, (202) 637-5212; lmendoza@aflcio.org

Laurie Gindin Beacham, ACLU, (917) 251-8654 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org

Laura Saponara, ACLU Northern California, (510) 367-8453;
lsaponara@aclunc.org
Marielena Hincapié, NILC, (415) 845-3403; hincapie@nilc.org
       
SAN FRANCISCO - The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) abandoned its
attempt to enforce its proposed *no match* rule that would
improperly use  social security records for immigration enforcement. In
a late Friday  afternoon court filing the day after Thanksgiving in
federal court in San  Francisco, DHS requested that a lawsuit
challenging the rule be put on hold  until March 2008. The government
plans to publish a revised rule in December  2007 that it claims will
pass legal muster.

The lawsuit was brought by the American Federation of Labor and
Congress of  Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the American Civil
Liberties Union, the  National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and labor
groups to block the  proposed *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 Social Security
Administration (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.*

Last month, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer issued a preliminary
order  stopping the government from enforcing the proposed rule - which
would  affect more than eight million workers - finding that it would
cause  irreparable harm to both innocent workers and employers.

The SSA*s own Inspector General found that more than 70% of the
discrepancies in the SSA database belong 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:

John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO:
*The Bush administration essentially admitted that the rule is
unlawful.  We*ve said all along that DHS had no authority to adopt
this rule, which is  just another Bush anti-worker initiative. As Judge
Breyer found, more than  half a million working women and men would have
been affected by the rule,  and many risked being fired even though
fully authorized to work.*

Lucas Guttentag, Director of the ACLU*s Immigrants* Rights Project
and one  of the attorneys in the lawsuit:
*The government saw the handwriting on the wall and abandoned its
failed  effort to defend this rule. But DHS is continuing down this
disastrous path  of punishing citizens and legal workers by using the
fatally-flawed  database. DHS should finally abandon this illegal
approach instead of  repeating the same mistake.*  

Marielena Hincapié, Staff Attorney and Director of Programs at NILC:
"No matter how DHS alters its rule, any use of a social security
mismatch to  assume immigration status will trap workers in a
bureaucratic nightmare and  punish them unfairly. Employers should
recognize that the government's  decision not to defend the illegal DHS
rule means that businesses must not  apply it or they would risk legal
challenges by employees who would suffer  discrimination and be
adversely affected."

Sharon Cornu, Executive Secretary Treasurer, Alameda County AFL-CIO:
*The illegal DHS rule harms workers and is a thinly-veiled effort to
attack  the wages and working conditions of the American workforce.*
      
In addition to the AFL-CIO, whi
ch is represented by the law firm of
Altshuler Berzon LLP, other parties bringing the lawsuit include the
Central  Labor Council of Alameda County, represented by the ACLU, the
ACLU of  Northern California, NILC, as well as the San Francisco Labor
Council and  the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council,
represented by  Weinberg, Roger and Rosenfeld.

In addition to Guttentag and Hincapié, lawyers on the case include
Scott  Kronland, Stephen Berzon, Jonathan Weissglass, Linda Lye and
Danielle  Leonard of Altshuler Berzon LLP; Jonathan Hiatt, James Coppess
and Ana  Avendaño of the AFL-CIO; Jennifer Chang, Mónica M. Ramírez, and
Omar Jadwat  of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project; Alan Schlosser and
Julia Mass of the  ACLU of Northern California; Linton Joaquin and
Monica Guizar of NILC; and  David Rosenfeld and Manjari Chawla of
Weinberg, Roger and Rosenfeld.

Legal documents and other information about the lawsuit can be found
at:  www.aclu.org/nomatch