No Mr. Sanna,

You have misrepresented the facts and legal requirements. Your assertion that "The SSA 'no-match' letters explicitly state that an employer cannot use these letters as grounds to fire an employee, yet D’Amico did just that.." is a distortion of the facts.

Yes, the employer "cannot use these letters as grounds to fire an employee" BUT failure or unwillingness to resolve the discrepancy is another matter entirely.

As many people point out, the SS database is riddled with errors. The Social Security Administration has been sending out the "no match letters" since 1994, not as an immigration enforcement action, but simply to clean up the database and get legal workers the benefits they were due. This is a simple matter of good government. The reason that employers ignored the letters (thus hurting their legal workers who were deprived of the SS benefits) was to avoid knowing if their workers were illegal immigrants. The reason that the database contains so many errors and has still not been cleaned up is precisely BECAUSE workers and employers ignored the no match letters.

For legal workers, almost all of the typos, clerical errors, married name changes etc, can be quickly resolved. This will be especially true of legal immigrants who are extremely well-documented by the immigration process itself. For almost all remaining legal workers, the process will take more time, but can ultimately be resolved.

There is no rational reason that legal workers, of any ethnic identity, should resist the legal requirement that they participate in Social Security and receive the benefits to which they are entitled.

As for the claims that they workers are the victims of racial discrimination, that is itself an extraordinarily indiscriminate use of the term "racial discrimination." Were all Latinos fired, or just the ones who could not resolve the "no match" problem? If that was the case, the "discrimination" (act of making a distinction) was on the basis of documentation and legal requirements. The law discriminates between illegal discrimination (e.g. racial) and legally required discrimination on the basis of legal status. The burden of proof is on the workers who are required to submit an I-9 form and legitimate documentary proof of their eligibility for employment. The lack of valid SSNs is legitimate reason for the employer to refuse employment.

You, Mr Sanna, have wittingly or unwittingly, by guile or gullibility, misrepresented the facts and the issues here. You need to learn more about the law than the assertions of the workers and their lawyers. But if there is ANY plausible reason to believe that any of these workers are citizens or legal immigrants you have yet to bother to describe it. And yes, the existence of a plausible claim to legal immigrations status would be EXTREMELY germane to the story. It's absence is both obvious and damning.

If you disagree with U.S. immigration law -- fine! Say so! But do not pretend to render an objective description of the story to challenge the law under false pretenses. Defend you views openly and honestly.