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

[panamaican]

IMO, the Justice Department has chosen its targets well, and will wreck these three targeted laws. It’s one thing to simply not cooperate. It’s another to affirmatively punish and prohibit cooperation ... and another thing entirely to purport to give state actors authority to forcibly inspect federal facilities.

By playing it smart, Sessions has picked up some easy kills, as opposed to setting himself up for potentially epic loss (like trying to indict Oakland’s mayor).

I, for one, eagerly anticipate this showdown between the Neo-Confederacah and the Feds. Sessions looks to be taking a smarter path here than the amateurish Bundy family debacles.

You're in CA, do you know the general rules about government access to employee records?

My understanding is that government access requires some kid of court order and the employer has a duty to the employee to protect those records from unauthorized searches.

 

[Zankou]

You're in CA, do you know the general rules about government access to employee records?

My understanding is that government access requires some kid of court order and the employer has a duty to the employee to protect those records from unauthorized searches.

I don’t know the general rules, but they certainly aren’t that hard to get in litigation.

I also don’t know the law in question well, but it seems to me that an employee’s immigration status is not something that can be construed as ‘private.’ This isn’t ‘private’ any more than your wage earnings could lawfully be withheld from reporting to the IRS on ‘privacy’ grounds. I can’t imagine how the feds would have the right to compel the one but not the other. If they were asking for things like disciplinary actions I could see an argument, but citizenship?

But that’s not the problematic part of the law anyways. The real problem is the criminalization of cooperating with federal immigration enforcement .... even when voluntary. You can’t agree to let feds onto your *own business property.* That’s some Confederacy-level separatism. I can’t imagine it could withstand even basic scrutiny.

 

[Rozko]

You're in CA, do you know the general rules about government access to employee records?

My understanding is that government access requires some kid of court order and the employer has a duty to the employee to protect those records from unauthorized searches.

Those records are the employers and if the employer wants to they can surrender them willingly if the government asks for them. If they say no, the government needs a warrant.

 

[panamaican]

I don’t know the general rules, but they certainly aren’t that hard to get in litigation.

I also don’t know the law in question well, but it seems to me that an employee’s immigration status is not something that can be construed as ‘private.’ This isn’t ‘private’ any more than your wage earnings could lawfully be withheld from reporting to the IRS on ‘privacy’ grounds. I can’t imagine how the feds would have the right to compel the one but not the other. If they were asking for things like disciplinary actions I could see an argument, but citizenship?

But that’s not the problematic part of the law anyways. The real problem is the criminalization of cooperating with federal immigration enforcement .... even when voluntary. You can’t agree to let feds onto your *own business property.* That’s some Confederacy-level separatism. I can’t imagine it could withstand even basic scrutiny.

But your employer reports your earnings because they are obligated under federal law to provide you with a W-2 as a condition of being an employer and to furnish a copy to the IRS under the tax code. You authorize your employer to perform the withholdings for you that ultimately end up on the W-2 and you exercise control over that amount. That whole process is entirely federal in nature, explicitly spelled out and agreed to when you take on employment.

My understanding of this law, from another thread, is that it only applies to an employer taking a federal agent into a non-public portion of the company or granting access to elements of the employee file without first receiving some sort of court order, subpoena, warrant, etc. during a raid. It doesn't prevent the federal agent from compelling the production of the records or punish the employer from complying with the formal request. And it doesn't prevent the the federal agents from viewing the I-9 which would cover legal work status.

I saw it as more akin to a landlord granting police access to a tenant's rented space without a warrant. Which the landlord can't do absent very specific criteria.

Which is why I was curious about employee records access under CA law since it would seem relevant to whether or not that type of access normally requires a judicial order, regardless of purpose.

 

[panamaican]

Those records are the employers and if the employer wants to they can surrender them willingly if the government asks for them. If they say no, the government needs a warrant.

And the state is stepping in to say that if the government wants those records it will now require a warrant. Which isn't unusual since we see that already with medical records that an employer comes to possess. The employer can't voluntarily release employee medical information even if it's in the employee file.

 

[Rozko]

And the state is stepping in to say that if the government wants those records it will now require a warrant. Which isn't unusual since we see that already with medical records that an employer comes to possess. The employer can't voluntarily release employee medical information even if it's in the employee file.

That is very personal information, private of you will. Citizenship and imegration is not.

 

[Cuzcatlan]

From potentially the next CA governor, who once admitted that half of his family are illegal immigrants who could be deported for using fake/stolen identities:

Not that they are just illegal but his family has committed crimes that might get them on the front of the deportation list. He emitted that some of his family is illegally here and using false identity.

"Responding to President Trump’s suggestion of “withholding federal funding” from California, de Leon said: “Half of my family would be eligible for deportation under the executive order, because they got a false social security card, they got a false identification, they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB 60, they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification.”

 

[Arkain2K]

 

[Lord Coke]

And the state is stepping in to say that if the government wants those records it will now require a warrant. Which isn't unusual since we see that already with medical records that an employer comes to possess. The employer can't voluntarily release employee medical information even if it's in the employee file.

Do you have a copy of the complaint or know the grounds they are suing on? Is it preemption?

 

[helltoupee]

That is very personal information, private of you will. Citizenship and imegration is not.

Citizenship information is stored in an employee's file. So is personal information. Medical information. Bank account information. etc.

Good on CA for telling the Feds to fuck off without a warrant.

I am not ok with the government conducting inspections of my private information, my home, my vehicle, or my person, just because they are "looking for bad guys".

 

[Zankou]

But your employer reports your earnings because they are obligated under federal law to provide you with a W-2 as a condition of being an employer and to furnish a copy to the IRS under the tax code. You authorize your employer to perform the withholdings for you that ultimately end up on the W-2 and you exercise control over that amount. That whole process is entirely federal in nature, explicitly spelled out and agreed to when you take on employment.

My understanding of this law, from another thread, is that it only applies to an employer taking a federal agent into a non-public portion of the company or granting access to elements of the employee file without first receiving some sort of court order, subpoena, warrant, etc. during a raid. It doesn't prevent the federal agent from compelling the production of the records or punish the employer from complying with the formal request. And it doesn't prevent the the federal agents from viewing the I-9 which would cover legal work status.

I saw it as more akin to a landlord granting police access to a tenant's rented space without a warrant. Which the landlord can't do absent very specific criteria.

Which is why I was curious about employee records access under CA law since it would seem relevant to whether or not that type of access normally requires a judicial order, regardless of purpose.

It's completely different than your own private apartment. Employees have zero privacy interest in ‘non-public’ areas of a private employer’s business, like a factory floor. If I, as an attorney, for example, am invited by my client to go visit their factory floor (as I've done many times), you'd fall over in a paroxysm of laughter at the suggestion that the workers have a 'privacy interest' that prevents my client from bringing me there (unless they are working nude, or something highly unusual ...). It is astounding that the state of California would purport to criminalize a private employer for allowing federal agents onto private business property. Worse, there is literally zero rationale for this except as deliberate impairment of federal immigration enforcement. Again, you can always invite anybody onto your non-public business land at any time. For essentially any reason, no matter how asinine. UNLESS they are a federal law enforcement agent working on an immigration matter. OMG, then suddenly it's totally different, and you can be punished for that under California state law. You can't make this up; it's like they codified drug lookouts, and try to penalize voluntary narcing.

As for employment records, I’m not sure on what the specific law is purporting to bar in that regard, but bottom line there is no ‘privacy interest’ in whether employees are citizens or not. If the employer knows that information about their employees, they can't be barred by state law from disclosing it to the feds, whether by I-9 or otherwise. And as to the IRS analogy, neither employees nor their employers nor the state of California agrees to *anything* when somebody is initially employed in terms of their reporting obligations. It's imposed by federal law, and whether anybody happens to 'agree' with that imposition, relative to a given individual, has fuck-all relation to whether the feds can do it. It's on the level of tax protesting or Idaho militia men.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that local entities can't be forced to help the feds, but to try to actively mandate that they *not* help the feds enforce immigration laws ... I can't imagine how that could be sustained.

And this gets to the root of the problem. Either the feds are entitled to enforce the nation's immigration laws, or they aren't. Either states like Arizona and California are allowed to determine whether our immigration laws are enforced -- or they aren't. It's not going to be both. You can't bar far-right secessionist deviations from federal immigration law (i.e. Arizona) whilst permitting far-left secessionist deviations (i.e. California). Either we devolve into a situation where national immigration policy and enforcement is determined by the haphazard will of Arizona militia men and local California mayors, or that gets trumped by federal supremacy and uniformity. Since this will all be reviewed and decided within the federal system, I'd be extremely surprised to see a ruling that devolves the authority down to the states.

 

[Arkain2K]

Surprise, surprise.

What's fucked up is that Kamala Harris was an Attorney General and should know better.

In the end, pandering prevails over the law.

 

[Arkain2K]

Pretty irresponsible if you ask me, some of them could be gang members.

There were a lot more than just "some", and who knows how many got away when they got tipped off by the Oakland mayor.

A sweep of Northern California by federal immigration officials this week, which was partly thwarted when the Oakland mayor sounded the alarm, nabbed a number of illegal immigrants convicted of a variety of serious and violent crimes.

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials announced this week that the four-day raid led to the arrest of 232 illegal immigrants in the San Francisco Bay Area. Of those 232, 180 “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 country and had come back illegally. The arrests included 115 who "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."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...in-california-raid-derailed-by-dem-mayor.html

 

[Rod1]

There were a lot more than just "some", and who knows how many got away when they got tipped off by the Oakland mayor.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...in-california-raid-derailed-by-dem-mayor.html

No words.

 

[Arkain2K]

California wants U.S. suit over 'sanctuary' policies moved to San Francisco
By JOSH GERSTEIN | 03/10/2018

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra signaled the forthcoming request in a court filing submitted Friday night.​

The State of California plans to ask that a new Trump administration lawsuit targeting the state's so-called sanctuary laws be moved from Sacramento to the courtroom of a federal judge in San Francisco handling a similar case the state filed against the federal government last year.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra signaled the forthcoming request in a court filing submitted Friday night to U.S. District Court Judge John Mendez, who was assigned to the unusual suit the Justice Department filed Tuesday seeking to invalidate three California laws passed last year that seek to counter aggressive immigration enforcement by the Trump administration.

"Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeks to define the parameters of the federal government’s immigration powers as they relate to the State’s constitutional power to enact and enforce laws concerning public safety. This precise issue is currently the subject of the State of California’s litigation against the federal government in the Northern District of California," Becerra and other California state lawyers wrote. "Accordingly, Defendants intend to file a motion to transfer this matter to the Northern District next week, so that it can be heard with the related case there."

The suit in San Francisco was filed by California last August after the Justice Department sought to step up enforcement of a federal law that seeks to prevent states and local governments from interfering with their employees' communications with federal immigration authorities.

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick refused the state's request for a preliminary injunction on that issue last week, but the judge questioned the legality of aspects of the administration's position and sounded like he could be persuaded by the state as the case moves forward.

"In fact, the California Values Act’s (“SB 54”) compliance with Section 1373, which is [challenged in the new U.S. suit] is the same exact issue that has been already briefed, and considered, in the Northern District of California case. Defendants’ motion to transfer will be brought on the grounds that in light of the significant overlap in issues and parties. Defendants’ Proposed Briefing Schedule ... between the two cases, transfer to the Northern District of California is appropriate in the interest of justice and to promote judicial economy," Becerra wrote.

Before filing the suit against the state on Tuesday, Justice Department officials were asked if they chose not to bring their case in Los Angeles or San Francisco in order to try to avoid liberal jurists in those courts. The officials replied they were filing the case in Sacramento because it's the state capital.

Mendez is an appointee of President George W. Bush. Orrick is an appointee of President Barack Obama.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/unde...-sanctuary-policies-case-san-francisco-453607

 

[Cuzcatlan]

Could Trump and Sessions send federal troops to California over immigration?
President Eisenhower sent federal troops to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock over the Arkansas governor's opposition. Sessions is warning California on immigration.

"I understand that we have a wide variety of political opinions out there on immigration. But the law is in the books and its purpose is clear," Sessions told the California Peace Officers' Association on Wednesday. "There is no nullification. There is no secession. Federal law is 'the supreme law of the land.' I would invite any doubters to Gettysburg, and to the graves of John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...gration-laws-glenn-reynolds-column/417633002/

 

[Arkain2K]

Los Alamitos votes to opt out of California sanctuary law
By Roxana Kopetman | Orange County Register | March 19, 2018​

Overflow crowds watch public comment on TV screens on an ordinance to exempt Los Alamitos from the California Values Act law that limits cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities on Monday, March 19, 2018.​

Orange County’s second-smallest city voted Monday night to exempt itself from California’s so-called sanctuary law, which limits cooperation between local agencies and federal immigration authorities.

The Los Alamitos City Council voted 4-1 following more than two hours of heated testimony from residents on both sides of the issue.

While the crowd had dwindled both in and outside the chamber when the vote came, people erupted in cheers after the vote and began chanting “USA.” But on the pro-immigrant rights side, there was this chant: “The people united, will never be divided.”

Someone shouted out to Councilman Warren Kusumoto, who introduced the legislation, “great American patriot!” while someone else screamed out “America first.”



Kusumoto said the issue was not about immigration.

“This council is looking out for the constituents in our city,” Kusumoto said.

Mayor Troy Edgar said he hoped mayors in other cities consider similar local legislation. And his message was clear: “As the mayor of Los Alamitos, we are not a sanctuary city.”

The council went one step further. The majority also voted to direct the city attorney to write an amicus brief to a federal lawsuit filed earlier this month against California, alleging that three of the state’s laws are unconstitutional. One of those laws was the same one the Los Alamitos council looks to opt-out of: the “California Values Act,” which limits cooperation between law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities.

Kusumoto and Edgar joined council members Shelley Hasselbrink and Richard Murphy in support of the new local law. Councilman Mark Chirco voted against it, saying adopting the new law would lead to litigation.

“I cannot see how passing this ordinance would be good for our city,” Chirko said.

Throughout the night, many in the crowd of more than 150 people from Los Alamitos, Long Beach and other communities engaged in heated debate – sometimes in front of the dais, other times with each other.

To those who oppose the ordinance, the vote was a disappointment.

“There’s been a real shift to a national, xenophobic acceptability in our society that is heartbreaking,” said Rabbi Jonathan Klein, executive director of the Clergy & Laity United for Economic Justice group. “We’re in an era of open bigotry.”

Council members in the majority said that California’s so-called sanctuary law, SB-54, puts them at odds with the U.S. Constitution.

While the state and many California communities have passed resolutions and taken other measures in support of all immigrants, regardless of status, Los Alamitos may be the first city to pass an ordinance saying it wants out of the sanctuary movement.

The council chambers, built for a town of less than 12,000 people, was at standing-room only and saw an overflow crowd listening to the hearing from outside.

Though many waited patiently, emotions flew high with shouting matches erupting between those who wanted the council to vote for the ordinance and those who opposed it.

“I believe in the law. I live here and I couldn’t be prouder,” said Chris Cornell, 57, one of the residents waiting outside quietly while a screaming match ensued nearby.

Rev. Melinda Dodge, of Los Altos United Methodist Church in neighboring Long Beach, said the proposal goes against everything the community believes in and values.

Kusumoto said he introduced the ordinance because he feels the state is forcing local elected officials to violate the oath they took to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

“California legislators are bullying local elected officials into violating our oath of office,” Kusumoto explained in an interview.

A long line of speakers – 53 in all – lined up to address the council Monday night, their comments greeted with cheers and applause from different individuals, depending on where they stood on the issue. At times, the exchanges got testy.

One woman hailed the council members as “pioneers” and urged them to pass the ordinance. Two young children pleaded they vote against it. Others protested the proposal and said it doesn’t represent the values of the community. Some, including a representative from the ACLU, warned the council that if approved, the new local law would lead to a lawsuit.

“If you could build a big, beautiful wall along the 605 (Freeway,) even though that would inconvenience me tremendously, I would give you a thumbs up,” Long Beach resident Janet Wess told the council.

Samantha Reed, 19, a UC Irvine freshman who graduated from Los Alamitos High, told the council that she won’t forget election-time if members vote for the proposed ordinance.

“You do not represent me by passing this ordinance,” Reed said.

One long-time resident, Javier Mejia, choked up as he described that he’s proud of his Mexican heritage but is “100 percent American.” He urged the council to vote for the proposed ordinance.

The new local law is not yet a done deal. Before it becomes law, council members must vote for it a second time, which is expected. That vote is scheduled for April 16.

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/03/19/los-alamitos-immigration-debate-sparks-singing-shouting/

 

[jamesmiller14]

LOL @ "Democrats need the votes"

I'm pretty sure they have California locked up and, as we know, the popular vote doesn't mean shit with the electoral college.

I'm so shocked that conservative critics are so electorally daft.

So you just kind of bypass the idea that Democrats have been trying to buy voters for decades, because what that sign says is technically wrong because of the Electoral College?

You see, I love coming on here and seeing the bait. That's because when I'm on Facebook talking politics, it's a lot of this. There is no debate. It's the left or the right trying to find a grammar mistake or something stupid. When the opportunity comes where anyone that's intellectually honest would AT LEAST say "both sides are not perfect."

But both of the gangs are trash. Rotten to the Core.

But yeah. Go Blue Team. Keep telling everyone that disagrees with your politics how stupid they are, maybe they'll change their minds and agree with you.

(that's not entirely directed at you, just the sentiment. We can fix this country. We really could. But we are too far gone. There are too many people walking the land that truly believe that if their political party wins they will have political Paradise. It's tribalism and it's cancer)

 

[Seano]

All being a sanctuary city means is that local law enforcement isn't going to consider your immigration status when policing and they're not going to turn you over to the Federal government for minor crimes.

Its going to make sanctuary states a lightning rod to immigration control. Sounds pretty convenient to me, invite them all to one place.

 

[Arkain2K]

Orange County is planning to opt out of this illegal sanctuary shenanigan.

Stay tuned for incoming lawsuit from Sacramento.

---

Anti-sanctuary push could spread far beyond Los Alamitos
By Roxana Kopetman | March 20, 2018

​

The County of Orange and several cities in Southern California soon might join Los Alamitos in its bid to opt out of a controversial state law that limits cooperation with federal immigration officials.

Officials with the county as well as leaders in Aliso Viejo and Buena Park said Tuesday they plan to push for various versions of the anti-sanctuary ordinance approved in Los Alamitos late Monday by a 4-1 vote of that city council.

“There’s a pretty good amount of cities interested and they want to know about the process,” said Los Alamitos Mayor Troy Edgar, who spent Tuesday fielding calls and e-mails from officials in other cities and others interested in the push.

Immigration advocates said Los Alamitos and cities and counties that follow its opt-out ordinance will be violating state law and at risk of litigation.

But Los Alamitos’ anti-sanctuary push also received wide attention in conservative media, and gained support from those who don’t agree with California’s protective stance on all immigrants, regardless of legal status.

Orange County Supervisor Michelle Steel soon plans to introduce an opt-out ordinance to the county Board of Supervisors, her spokeswoman said in an e-mail.

“I thank the City of Los Alamitos for standing up for its citizens and rejecting the so-called ‘sanctuary’ legislation passed in Sacramento, and I urge the County of Orange and all of our cities to do the same,” Steel said in a news release.

Steel was one of a handful of Republican leaders who last week met face-to-face with President Donald Trump when he visited Southern California.

In Aliso Viejo, Mayor Dave Harrington said his council plans to discuss similar action at its April 4 meeting.

“It is a great thing what they did,” Harrington said of the Los Alamitos vote. “I think they were spot-on; that we take the oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States.”

Buena Park Councilwoman Beth Swift said she plans to request at the next council meeting for the issue to be placed on a future agenda for discussion.

Robin Hvidston, executive director of the Claremont-based We the People Rising, said she has heard from residents in Upland and Fullerton who want to approach their councils to suggest the same.

Another city that had been discussing something similar, even before Los Alamitos’ vote, is Huntington Beach, according to Assemblyman Travis Allen, a Republican who represents both Huntington Beach and Los Alamitos.

“Tiny Los Alamitos has kicked open the door and now other cities across California are looking to get onboard and stand up against the illegal sanctuary state,” Allen, who is running for governor, said Tuesday.

More than half of Los Alamitos’ 11,700 residents are white and about 2,700 are Latino, according to census data. The median household income is close to $81,000.

Los Alamitos Councilman Warren Kusumoto said he introduced his city’s ordinance because state officials are “bullying” city leaders into choosing between a state law over federal law, forcing them, in his view, to violate their oath of office to defend the U.S. Constitution.

California’s Senate leader Kevin de León, who authored Senate Bill 54, defended the state law and said it complies with federal law.

The council’s “symbolic vote in favor of President Trump’s racist immigration enforcement policies is disappointing,” de León said in an e-mail.

“Local governments that attempt to break state law will saddle their residents with unnecessary and expensive litigation costs.”

The ACLU of Southern California and other organizations warned Los Alamitos that should the city adopt the new local law, scheduled for a final vote on April 16, it will open itself up to lawsuits.

“This is the first ordinance that I’m aware of that explicitly says ‘We’re going to violate the state of California law’,” said Sameer Ahmed, an ACLU staff attorney.

The California Values Act, which took effect, Jan. 1, limits the involvement of state and local law enforcement agencies in federal immigration enforcement. That includes limits on notifying federal immigration officials when potential deportees are released from local custody.

It also includes provisions to protect immigrants in public schools, libraries and health facilities. It bars local law enforcement in California from offering permanent office space to immigrant agents in jails. And it prohibits using local law enforcement to do the work of immigration agents, as was until recently done in Orange County.

“A lot of people unfortunately think the California Values Act is just about handing over dangerous people to ICE authorities. But it’s so much more. It’s about protecting immigrant communities, immigrant children in schools, immigrant workers and families,” Ahmed said. “That’s why the law is very important.”

The law is part of a broader push in California to protect immigrants during a time when federal immigration authorities are casting a wider net.

This month, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions filed a lawsuit against California, citing three state laws, including the California Values Act, as unconstitutional.

John Eastman, a Chapman University Law School professor, said federal law prohibits states from barring state and local officials from cooperating with immigration officials.

“It is California’s law that is illegal,” Eastman said in an e-mail.

At the Los Alamitos council meeting Monday night, more than 150 people turned out to express support and opposition to the city’s move. At times, some in an overflow crowd outside City Hall grew testy and verbally confrontational. After the council voted, the crowd broke out into competing chants and cheers.

Kusumoto and Edgar joined council members Shelley Hasselbrink and Richard Murphy in support of the new local law. Councilman Mark Chirco voted against it, saying adopting the new law would lead to litigation.

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/03/20/anti-sanctuary-push-could-spread-far-beyond-los-alamitos-2/