Law California Is Now Officially A Sanctuary State For All Illegal Immigrants

[helltoupee]

That's really not what the new law is about. Did you even read it man??

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB450

The new law PUNISH you as an employer if you CHOOSE to allow the Feds to enter your company's private property without a warrant, eventhough it is well within your rights to do so because it's YOUR property.

The penalty is between $2000 to $10,000 for each "violation".

"Except as otherwise required by federal law, the bill would prohibit an employer or other person acting on the employer’s behalf from providing voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to enter nonpublic areas of a place of labor unless the agent provides a judicial warrant, except as specified. Except as required by federal law, the bill would prohibit an employer or other person acting on the employer’s behalf from providing voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records without a subpoena or court order, subject to a specified exception."

Ya, I did read several parts of it.

They can allow ICE agents on their property all they want. What they cannot do, is allow them into nonpublic areas (ie., where records are kept) for the purposes of obtaining employee records (which an employer does not own, and has no right to just give out to anyone they please), without a subpoena.

If you work for somebody, go into HR and ask them where they keep employee records. They will tell you they are in a locked cabinet. There's a reason they are in a locked cabinet, with controlled access to said cabinet. Your employer cannot disseminate such information to anyone they want just because they are an employer who keeps records.

If ICE however, walks in with a subpoena, whereby a judge has declared there is a potential specific problem, then by all means.

 

[helltoupee]

i already addressed that in my other post, but he was too densed

You just keep repeating the same thing over and over, and given your propensity to lose control of your emotions like a 12yo schoolgirl, I think I'll abstain from communicating with you.

Besides, everyone knows cops lie.

 

[Bargey]

I think it's a bad idea but given how aggressive the Fed has been in trying to target California for punitive legislation and regulation, I also completely support them giving the Fed the finger.

You can't shit on the states and then expect them to still help you with your responsibilities.

Seriously? Pettiness > safety?
I guess kudos for being honest but this is America's problem in a nutshell. And more specifically, California's. They will literally cut off their own nose to spite the Fed's face.

 

[panamaican]

They told the feds they would no longer hold people once they had them. This is a change and now a state is doing it. It's their right as long as it's legal but the feds have a right to hit back as long as it's legal.

That is not a change. Sanctuary cities have been around since the 1980's. The federal law in question has been around since 1996.

Let me explain the law for those who don't know it - this is very relevant to the conversation.

The law gave the federal government the ability to deputize state law enforcement agencies to participate in immigration related activities, however it is not mandatory. The fed doesn't have the authority to force participation so any law enforcement agency that does participate is operating voluntarily. However because law enforcement agencies are actually governed by state and local law makers, any participation by a law enforcement agency requires a voluntary commitment by the local law makers - either state or municipal.

So any participation in the program was a local law decision in the first place, not a federal one.

Now, LA has had some form of policy in place since 1979 with some voluntary participation in the federal program. Note that LA's policies predate the federal law by 12 years and they have NEVER been a full participant in the federal program.

So, again, nothing changed that required the federal government to start threatening the withhold law enforcement funds that are not related to immigration enforcement.

To wrap up the legal part - the current administration chose to withhold all federal grants to these cities because they would not participate in a voluntary federal program.

To put it into real world examples, it works like this: The administration signed an Executive order that would have ended federal grants for education, healthcare, road repair, etc. because the local law makers didn't enter into a voluntary immigration enforcement program with ICE.

Not only is it probably unconstitutional, it's text book bully behavior. Naturally California came to the defense of one of its largest and most prosperous cities because the fed was threatening everyone in those cities over something that they had no legal obligation to participate in.

 

[SleepyBoy]

Lol
You gotta resist police raids?

No thanks I ain't getting shot.

 

[Toothless King]

"Except as otherwise required by federal law, the bill would prohibit an employer or other person acting on the employer’s behalf from providing voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to enter nonpublic areas of a place of labor unless the agent provides a judicial warrant, except as specified. Except as required by federal law, the bill would prohibit an employer or other person acting on the employer’s behalf from providing voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records without a subpoena or court order, subject to a specified exception."

Ya, I did read several parts of it.

They can allow ICE agents on their property all they want. What they cannot do, is allow them into nonpublic areas (ie., where records are kept) for the purposes of obtaining employee records (which an employer does not own, and has no right to just give out to anyone they please), without a subpoena.

If you work for somebody, go into HR and ask them where they keep employee records. They will tell you they are in a locked cabinet. There's a reason they are in a locked cabinet, with controlled access to said cabinet. Your employer cannot disseminate such information to anyone they want just because they are an employer who keeps records.

If ICE however, walks in with a subpoena, whereby a judge has declared there is a potential specific problem, then by all means.

don't cherry pick on the AB-450 law. You quoted Section 2 of the AB-450 and conveniently left out Section 1. I'm pretty sure you already read Section 1, but didn't want to mention it because it might hurt your cause/argument. LoL

Section 1 means if I, for example a restaurant owner, allow/give consent ICE agents to enter my restaurant (a nonpublic area) for immigration enforcement purposes without a judicial warrant, then I'm liable for civil penalty by the state of CA

SECTION 1.
Section 7285.1 is added to the Government Code, to read:
7285.1.
(a) Except as otherwise required by federal law, an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not provide voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to enter any nonpublic areas of a place of labor. This section does not apply if the immigration enforcement agent provides a judicial warrant.
(b) An employer who violates subdivision (a) shall be subject to a civil penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000) up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation and five thousand dollars ($5,000) up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation. If a court finds that an immigration enforcement agent was permitted to enter a nonpublic area of a place of labor without the consent of the employer or other person in control of the place of labor, the civil penalty shall not apply. “Violation” means each incident when it is found that subdivision (a) was violated without reference to the number of employees, the number of immigration enforcement agents involved in the incident, or the number of locations affected in a day.
(c) This section shall not preclude an employer or person acting on behalf of an employer from taking the immigration enforcement agent to a nonpublic area, where employees are not present, for the purpose of verifying whether the immigration enforcement agent has a judicial warrant, provided no consent to search nonpublic areas is given in the process.
(d) The exclusive authority to enforce this section is granted to the Labor Commissioner or the Attorney General and enforcement shall be through civil action. Any penalty recovered shall be deposited in the Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund.
(e) This section applies to public and private employers.

 

[ShadowRun]

I hope people sue when they are the victim of any violent crimes by an illegal. When California refuses to enforce federal laws. Maybe the gov should sue them like Arizona was sued for not following federal law.

 

[helltoupee]

don't cherry pick on the AB-450 law. You quoted Section 2 of the AB-450 and conveniently left out Section 1. I'm pretty sure you already read Section 1, but didn't want to mention it because it might hurt your cause/argument. LoL

I don't need to cherry pick.

If you have some kind of smoking gun that proves the bill is not intended to protect ordinary citizens from a violation of their privacy, or, that an employer has every right in the world to give up said private information to whomever they wish, ie sans subpoena, then put some hair on your argument and paste it forth.

Section 1 means if I, for example a restaurant owner, allow/give consent ICE agents to enter my restaurant (a nonpublic area) for immigration enforcement purposes without a judicial warrant, then I'm liable for civil penalty by the state of CA

So restaurant aren't open to the public? They don't have public areas? LOL

You won't be prosecuted for allowing an ICE agent into your restaurant, you will be prosecuted for allowing them access to nonpublic areas for the intent of gathering information on law-abiding American citizens without a specific reason, or subpoena.

 

[Toothless King]

I don't need to cherry pick.

If you have some kind of smoking gun that proves the bill is not intended to protect ordinary citizens from a violation of their privacy, or, that an employer has every right in the world to give up said private information to whomever they wish, ie sans subpoena, then put some hair on your argument and paste it forth.



So restaurant aren't open to the public? They don't have public areas? LOL

You won't be prosecuted for allowing an ICE agent into your restaurant, you will be prosecuted for allowing them access to nonpublic areas for the intent of gathering information on law-abiding American citizens without a specific reason, or subpoena.

a restaurant area is nonpublic is because the owner can ask you to leave any time they want. can you ask someone to leave if they are standing on the sidewalk of a public street?

of course you won't get prosecuted by CA for allowing ICE agents into your property, but you will get a civil penalty. Prosecution implies a criminal behavior, not a civil violation. It's fucking weird that CA politicans rather protect illegals by violating the rights of Californians.

(a) Except as otherwise required by federal law, an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not provide voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to enter any nonpublic areas of a place of labor. This section does not apply if the immigration enforcement agent provides a judicial warrant.
(b) An employer who violates subdivision (a) shall be subject to a civil penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000) up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation and five thousand dollars ($5,000) up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation. If a court finds that an immigration enforcement agent was permitted to enter a nonpublic area of a place of labor without the consent of the employer or other person in control of the place of labor, the civil penalty shall not apply. “Violation” means each incident when it is found that subdivision (a) was violated without reference to the number of employees, the number of immigration enforcement agents involved in the incident, or the number of locations affected in a day.

 

[Arkain2K]

You asked for more ICE raids, you got it.

 

[nhbbear]

Holy shit that state is insane! Employers are supposed to tell feds to pound sand, or pay a fine. Police can’t assist feds? Trumps response will likely be to flood the state with ice agents and then cut off funding. Maybe Cali will secede?

 

[TheFirstEMP]

https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-operation-la-results-212-arrests-122-notices-inspection

LOS ANGELES – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportation officers and special agents arrested 212 individuals for violating federal immigration laws and served 122 notices of inspection (NOIs) to businesses in the Los Angeles area of responsibility (AOR) during a five-day targeted operation that ended Thursday. Eighty-eight percent of those arrested were convicted criminals.

During the operation, ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) arrested 212 individuals for violating U.S. immigration laws. Of those arrested, 195 were either convicted criminals, had been issued a final order of removal and failed to depart the United States, or had been previously removed from the United States and returned illegally. More than 55 percent had prior felony convictions for serious or violent offenses, such as child sex crimes, weapons charges, and assault, or had past convictions for significant or multiple misdemeanors.

Overall, according to the Los Angeles Times, over 500 people have been arrested and detained by ICE nationwide in the period of several days.

There is no protection for criminals. "Sanctuary states" get what they deserve.

 

[Bloodworth]

500 people nation wide so far is nothing..
Should be 5,000

 

[lilelvis]

https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-operation-la-results-212-arrests-122-notices-inspection







There is no protection for criminals. "Sanctuary states" get what they deserve.

[/quote][/QUOTE]
Thread isn't getting much traction TS. It should. Maybe you should edit the title and add the word "Gun" somewhere.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

Thread isn't getting much traction TS. It should. Maybe you should edit the title and add the word "Gun" somewhere.

Immigration Control...that should get the ball rolling.

 

[Seano]

Good, hopefully this is just the beginning. I hope the presence of ICE is so prevalent in those cities that its a distraction to the people there.

 

[KantoTerror]

500 people nation wide so far is nothing..
Should be 5,000

It's a start...

 

[bobgeese]

Nice.

 

[Lord of Lies]

Good. The "sanctuary" cities and states should be the focus of the enforcement.

 

[Arkain2K]

The same people who claimed that they want ICE to "do their job without the police's help" are now angry that ICE is doing their job.

Also, why would any ordinary law-abiding immigrants needs "protecting" from the law?