Skip to comments.
Judge blocks rules cracking down on employers of illegal immigrants
San Francisco Chronicle ^
| 8/31/7
| Bob Egelko
Posted on 08/31/2007 5:36:51 PM PDT by SmithL
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge in San Francisco blocked the Bush administration today from imposing a rule that would require employers to fire workers identified as illegal immigrants in government records or face possible prosecution.
U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney granted a nationwide temporary restraining order sought by the AFL-CIO and affiliated unions to keep the government from sending letters to employers demanding that they clear up workers' citizenship status.
The order will be in effect until Oct. 1, when another federal judge will consider whether to grant an injunction that would block the rules until a trial on the unions' lawsuit against the government is held.
Chesney said there was a "serious question" about whether the Bush administration's planned crackdown on illegal workers was authorized by law. She also said the government would suffer little inconvenience from a delay, compared with the hardship to employees who might be improperly identified as illegal immigrants.
Officials had planned to send the first warning letters Tuesday and mail 140,000 letters to employers by Nov. 9.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government; US: Arizona; US: California
KEYWORDS: 3rdworldizationofusa; aliens; chesney; illegals; immigrantlist; judicialtyranny; ninthcircurt; socialsecurity; unionthugs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-94 next last
1
posted on
08/31/2007 5:36:55 PM PDT
by
SmithL
Chesney, Maxine M.
- Born 1942 in San Francisco, CA
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of California
Nominated by William J. Clinton on January 24, 1995, to a seat vacated by John P. Vukasin, Jr.; Confirmed by the Senate on May 8, 1995, and received commission on May 10, 1995.
Education:
University of California, Berkeley, B.A., 1964
University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, J.D., 1967
Professional Career:
Attorney, Office of the San Francisco District Attorney, California, 1968-1979
Trial attorney, 1968-1969
Senior trial attorney, 1969-1971
Principal trial attorney, 1971-1976
Head trial attorney, 1976
Assistant chief deputy, 1976-1979
Judge, San Francisco Municipal Court, California, 1979-1983
Judge, Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco, appointed and subsequently elected, 1983-1995
Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 1994; Senate took no action
Race or Ethnicity: White
Gender: Female
2
posted on
08/31/2007 5:37:53 PM PDT
by
SmithL
(I don't do Barf Alerts, you're old enough to read and decide for yourself)
To: SmithL
3
posted on
08/31/2007 5:38:41 PM PDT
by
xcamel
(FDT/2008 -- talk about it >> irc://irc.freenode.net/fredthompson)
Comment #4 Removed by Moderator
To: SmithL
Why are unions getting involved in this? If I were a union member I’d be hot.
5
posted on
08/31/2007 5:39:25 PM PDT
by
Free Vulcan
(Fight the illegal Mexican colonizers & imperialist conquistadors! Long live the resistance!)
To: SmithL
Chesney said there was a "serious question" about whether the Bush administration's planned crackdown on illegal workers was authorized by law. It's authorized by the Constitution.
To: Free Vulcan
because union leaders care as much about their members the same way the nea cares about education; both are the same way hitler cared about the jews.
7
posted on
08/31/2007 5:41:13 PM PDT
by
bravo whiskey
(everybody's shot. drive the truck)
To: SmithL
Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 1994; Senate took no action I read this as she has never been confirmed. Why is she on the bench 13 years later?
8
posted on
08/31/2007 5:41:26 PM PDT
by
Phantom Lord
(Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
To: SmithL
Ahhh crap. Jumped around and read to fast. Please ignore above post.
9
posted on
08/31/2007 5:41:59 PM PDT
by
Phantom Lord
(Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
To: Free Vulcan
Why are unions getting involved in this? If I were a union member Id be hot. Because the unions see 10 million new possible members!
10
posted on
08/31/2007 5:42:31 PM PDT
by
Phantom Lord
(Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
To: SmithL
11
posted on
08/31/2007 5:44:02 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(Greed is NOT a conservative ideal.)
To: Phantom Lord
Why are unions getting involved in this? If I were a union member Id be hot.
Because the unions see 10 million new possible members! This illustrates the classic distinction between the differing agendas of union members vs union bosses.
To: Free Vulcan
They want to organize the illegals, why else?
13
posted on
08/31/2007 5:46:52 PM PDT
by
chaos_5
(Put the illegals aliens on a path ... back to Mexico!)
To: TruthFactor
Its time to start hanging some Judges. And cast San Fran-Gay-Magnet adrift in the Pacific.
They are infected.
If there are any FReepers left in San Infected, no apologies extended. Like what, you are still there?
14
posted on
08/31/2007 5:47:49 PM PDT
by
LasVegasMac
(Islam: Bringing the world death and destruction for 1400 years!)
To: SmithL
"She also said the government would suffer little inconvenience from a delay, compared with the hardship to employees who might be improperly identified as illegal immigrants."What a joke...where's the hardship for non-illegals? Either you have your documents (Social Security Card, Visa, etc) or you don't. Anybody here legally can easily prove they are citizens or are legal to be working here.
15
posted on
08/31/2007 5:48:33 PM PDT
by
Azzurri
To: SmithL
Notice the unions claim they are worried that legitimate workers would be improperly identified as illegals, causing them hardship.
The real owner of the ID can pretty easily prove who he is and where he was born. It's only the illegal using the ID who will have a hardship.
16
posted on
08/31/2007 5:48:38 PM PDT
by
Sender
(A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.)
To: Phantom Lord
You skipped this part of her bio:
Nominated by William J. Clinton on January 24, 1995, to a seat vacated by John P. Vukasin, Jr.; Confirmed by the Senate on May 8, 1995, and received commission on May 10, 1995.
To: NewRomeTacitus
It's authorized by the Constitution.Certainly the national government has the plenary authority to do this regulation. I think the judge may be saying that the Executive can't do it as a rule absent without a law authorizing it to.
18
posted on
08/31/2007 5:49:29 PM PDT
by
edsheppa
To: SmithL
“...with the hardship to employees who might be improperly identified as illegal immigrants.”
Is THAT what they are worried about? “improperly identified”
illegals? WTF is up with this system?
19
posted on
08/31/2007 5:49:35 PM PDT
by
hophead
( "Enjoy Every Sandwich")
Comment #20 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-94 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson