Judicial activism strikes once again

Recently a federal judge issued a restraining order baring implementation of a law requiring businesses with employees whose name and Social Security number didn't match to correct mismatches or terminate the employee. Supposedly it places an undue burden, a "staggering impact" on the employer and could unfairly accuse employees of being in the country illegally.

Poppycock! The employer doesn't investigate and suffers no burden because it is the holder's responsibility to prove validity or lose the job. If you are native born or in the country legally, that isn't a burden since you have the documentation permitting the Social Security Administration to correct its records.

What we have here is another case of "judiciary legislation." The job of determining whether or not a law will have "staggering impact" on people is not in the purview of the judiciary. In other words, the role of a judge is to do what is "legal" (which is, ideally, objective) not to do what is "right" (which is subjective). There was nothing in his legal reasoning that pointed to a constitutional basis for his order, only his feelings and emotions. Moreover, submitting a false Social Security number is a felony, punishable by five years in jail and a quarter million dollar fine. If there is a mismatch, it would seem that there is reasonable cause for the employer to insist that the employee provide valid proof and correct the error.

If I, born and raised in the U.S., tried to use a fake Social Security number to get a job or create a new identity, I would rightly be put in jail and charged with a crime. It is beyond my comprehension why a federal judge would roadblock legal means designed to identify those who have broken the law, namely illegal immigrants.

Joe H. Heater

Palatine