Tougher rules on hiring illegal immigrants make sense

The Department of Homeland Security postponed stricter workplace rules regarding illegal immigrants to give Congress time to debate an immigration reform bill. Republican hardliners defeated the bipartisan bill in June, and now Homeland Security properly is moving ahead with a plan that requires employers to fire workers who use false Social Security numbers to obtain jobs. Somebody needed to act. ...

It's logical for the government to target employers. That puts pressure on those who have closed their eyes toward -- and in many cases outright flouted -- laws that require companies to verify that employees have a right to work in the U.S. by producing a valid Social Security number.

The Social Security Administration sends out about 140,000 letters a month to companies informing them of faulty numbers given by their workers. Many companies tend to ignore the letters, and they've been able to get away with it.

The new rules simply take those letters more seriously and will be followed up by raids on workplaces where illegal workers are likely to be. ...

This is not to say that illegal workers themselves should be immune. They are, after all, breaking the law when they jump the border. But targeting employers is the most efficient way to address the problem.

The Raleigh (N.C.) News & Observer

Aug. 14

Sense on secrecy

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is scheduled to hear arguments Wednesday on the Bush administration's attempt to halt two challenges to its warrantless surveillance program.

Here's what legal scholars expect: The San Francisco-based court -- a favorite liberal punching bag for the Supreme Court -- will hand down an "anti-administration" decision that allows the cases to move forward. If that happens, government lawyers won't be able to run fast enough to urge the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling.

While the politics of the matter are fairly obvious, what is in serious dispute is how any court should balance a president's legitimate interests in protecting national security programs with a private litigant's right to challenge their legitimacy. At the core of these two cases is the state secrets doctrine, which permits the White House to hold back material it claims would damage national security if revealed.

In one, AT&T Corp. is being sued for allegedly collaborating with the government in the warrantless wiretapping and other surveillance programs. The second case involves a now-defunct Muslim charity that contends it was surveilled. ... The Justice Department has invoked the state secrets doctrine in both cases and argued for their dismissal, which lower court judges denied. These trial judges should be commended for not rubber-stamping the Justice Department request for secrecy -- as too many lower court judges have done in the past.

The Washington Post

Aug. 15

Business as usual

As a rule, it's a bad idea to bestow honors on dictatorships in the blind hope that this will improve their odious human-rights records. The selection of China to host the 2008 Olympic Games shows why this is a sensible rule.

One year before the opening of this great sporting event, China is failing to live up to promises of greater press freedom and freedom of speech, and there are few signs that Communist Party leaders are willing to make significant changes.

The evidence comes from reliable sources.

-- A survey by the Foreign Correspondents Club of China recently found 160 incidents of interference since January, including intimidation of sources, official reprimands and violence against foreign correspondents, their staff and sources. One journalist was assaulted while trying to photograph a protester during a demonstration in a neighborhood being razed to make way for the 2010 World Expo.

-- A comprehensive report issued Aug. 1 by the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists found that "Chinese journalists are still weighed down by Orwellian surveillance, arbitrary reporting restrictions, unchecked threats, and unpunished attacks." ...

According to Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, the site-selection decision was based on the idea that "it is better to open a new door to China than to leave it closed at this point in its modern evolution." Maybe so, but anyone who thought this might lead to an improvement in China's human-rights record is bound to feel duped.

The Miami Herald

Aug. 14