Cafferty omitted mention of business groups joining labor in challenging immigration rules

On the October 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, during "The Cafferty File" segment of the show, CNN commentator Jack Cafferty attacked Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for Northern California, whom he called an "activist" judge, for continuing to block the Department of Homeland Security from implementing new immigration enforcement rules for employers. He asserted that "[t]he lawsuit challenging the government was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the AFL-CIO, and several San Francisco labor groups." However, while the lawsuit was initially brought by those groups, several business groups, including the San Francisco and U.S. Chambers of Commerce, were allowed to join the lawsuit on September 11.

Under the new rules, said Cafferty, "[i]f an employer would find out that an employee's information doesn't match Social Security records and the employee could not clarify the issue within 90 days, the employer would have to fire that person or risk being prosecuted. In other words," Cafferty continued, "if the employee was working for the company illegally or misrepresented himself, he'd be fired -- seems simple enough." On October 1, Breyer extended a temporary restraining order blocking Homeland Security's new rules from going into effect and, according to Cafferty, "also blocked the Social Security Administration [SSA] from sending out 140,000 so-called 'no-match' letters to employers hiring people whose names and Social Security numbers don't match." Cafferty commented: "I must be missing something here, because if it's against the law to hire illegal aliens, why is this even being looked at by a judge?"

In fact, in their complaint, the business groups allege that "[m]any individuals lawfully employed by [the business groups] and their small business members will be unable to resolve data discrepancies with the SSA bureaucracy within the 90-day deadline." The complaint adds that "those employees risk termination even though they are United States Citizens or lawful immigrants." The complaint asks the district court to declare the rule invalid because it consists of " 'arbitrary' or 'capricious' agency action in violation" of a federal statute, because, it alleges, Homeland Security "does not know the probability that an SSN [Social Security number] and name mismatch is associated with an undocumented employee, and ... the Government Accountability Office has expressly stated that the vast majority of SSN and name mismatches in the SSA database involve United States citizens."

From the October 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

CAFFERTY: Just when there is some slight indication that the federal government is going to try to enforce the laws against illegal aliens, well, you can count on an activist federal judge to get in the way.

Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court of Northern California -- where else? -- is blocking efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to crack down on those who hire illegal aliens.

Here's how it works: If an employer would find out that an employee's information doesn't match Social Security records and the employee could not clarify the issue within 90 days, the employer would have to fire that person or risk being prosecuted. In other words, if the employee was working for the company illegally or misrepresented himself, he'd be fired -- seems simple enough.

The lawsuit challenging the government was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the AFL-CIO, and several San Francisco labor groups.

Now, the judge has delayed the start of this program for 10 more days while he comes up with a decision on the legality of it.

What's the problem here, Your Honor?

It is against the law to hire illegal aliens, period. Judge Breyer has also blocked the Social Security Administration from sending out 140,000 so-called "no-match" letters to employers hiring people whose names and Social Security numbers don't match.

I must be missing something here, because if it's against the law to hire illegal aliens, why is this even being looked at by a judge?

Here's the question: Should a federal judge prevent the government from cracking down on employers who hire illegal aliens?