"Making money not sufficient justification for violating a rule"

Breaking news on the no-match rule. From the AP: In the story, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is quoted as such:

"Groups like the Chamber of Commerce have told us, they haven't been coy about it ... there are many businesses that rely on illegal migration in order to carry out their activities and it would hurt them if they had to carry out the rule," Chertoff said. "In my experience, making money is not a sufficient justification for violating the rule since most people break the rule in order to make money."


TK: Them are fighting words; meanwhile the Chamber of Commerce says the cost of the regulation is prohibitive on small business; the government's own estimate shows 35,000 to 167,000 legitimate workers would not be able to work because of the rule, the chamber claims.

United Fresh said this in a release about the development:

"At this time we are consulting with our legal team to determine next steps in this process," said Robert Guenther, senior vice president of public policy at United Fresh. "Based on a preliminary analysis of the SFR, it appears there have been very little changes to the actual rule published last year. If the judge agrees that DHS has addressed all procedural objections, the No-Match rule could be effective immediately," Robert added.



For the link to the 100-page supplemental final rule, including its estimation of costs on businesses, go here.