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

[panamaican]

I still don't get your logic.

so I arrest someone for theft/burglary/assault etc., book him into county jail for processing, ICE DRO processes him for immigration status, notify ICE to pick him up from county jail to an ICE detention facility waiting for deportation. It's a prisoner transfer.

what's "if ICE spent their own money to duplicate the non-federal employee presence and to build and staff their own detention centers" going to do in this situation?

For example - If ICE had to go out and find illegal immigrants on their own, instead of waiting for you to find them during the commission of other crimes, it would require them to have more of their own officers to duplicate the results.

Let use made up numbers here: Let's say non-federal employees identify 200 illegal immigrants while conducting their normal non-federal jobs. How many ICE officers would it have required to find those 200 illegal immigrants without the non-federal employees finding them first? If the ICE officers found those 200 illegal immigrants, what would it cost them in terms of time and resources to transfer them directly to the ICE facilities. How much would the extra time and detainees cost ICE in terms of man power at the ICE facilities?

http://www.weny.com/story/37195366/...-leads-ice-to-increase-presence-director-says

The above link speaks to my point - the result of California's choice is forcing ICE to increase its presence in the state to offset the loss of state and municipal resources. If the state and the various municipalities weren't subsidizing the fed, ICE would be able to maintain its same level of effectiveness without deploying additional resources.

Expand that across the states and it is pretty clear that the states are subsidizing the federal government on this issue. That's the entire point of the law that allows states to do this in the first place, to reduce the strain on ICE by leveraging existing non-federal assets.

 

[Toothless King]

For example - If ICE had to go out and find illegal immigrants on their own, instead of waiting for you to find them during the commission of other crimes, it would require them to have more of their own officers to duplicate the results.

Let use made up numbers here: Let's say non-federal employees identify 200 illegal immigrants while conducting their normal non-federal jobs. How many ICE officers would it have required to find those 200 illegal immigrants without the non-federal employees finding them first? If the ICE officers found those 200 illegal immigrants, what would it cost them in terms of time and resources to transfer them directly to the ICE facilities. How much would the extra time and detainees cost ICE in terms of man power at the ICE facilities?

http://www.weny.com/story/37195366/...-leads-ice-to-increase-presence-director-says

The above link speaks to my point - the result of California's choice is forcing ICE to increase its presence in the state to offset the loss of state and municipal resources. If the state and the various municipalities weren't subsidizing the fed, ICE would be able to maintain its same level of effectiveness without deploying additional resources.

Expand that across the states and it is pretty clear that the states are subsidizing the federal government on this issue. That's the entire point of the law that allows states to do this in the first place, to reduce the strain on ICE by leveraging existing non-federal assets.

so you want heavily armed ICE agents kicking down homes belonging to undocumented felons (after he was released from county jail because of this new law) in the middle of a neighborhood and maybe get into a gun fight?
also, who do you think pay for ICE's budget?

so in conclusion you want
-county law enforcement to void multi-million dollars contract with ICE
-heavily armed ICE agents invade neighborhood looking for the same undocumented felons who were released by local law enforcement

Would it be easier and safer for the community if county law enforcement just prisoner transfer the undocumented felons to ICE?

but but it's good for Californians, right? the hell if it's good for Californians. this new sanctuary law is a "Fuck you Trump" law. It has nothing to do with "savings" or "subsidizing the fed" or public safety in mind.

 

[panamaican]

so you want heavily armed ICE agents kicking down homes belonging to undocumented felons (after he was released from county jail because of this new law) in the middle of a neighborhood and maybe get into a gun fight?
also, who do you think pay for ICE's budget?

so in conclusion you want
-county law enforcement to void multi-million dollars contract with ICE
-heavily armed ICE agents invade neighborhood looking for the same undocumented felons who were released by local law enforcement

Would it be easier and safer for the community if county law enforcement just prisoner transfer the undocumented felons to ICE?

but but it's good for Californians, right?

I want? This doesn't affect me, I don't live in California. What I want is the fed to do its job and not play media politics with important issues so that they can win a news cycle.

My original point, which remains unchanged, is that the federal government has been relying on the states and the various municipalities to subsidize the federal government's responsibility to find and deport illegal immigrants. Knowing that, it doesn't make sense for the federal government to then antagonize the states over this very issue since the states are actually doing the federal government a favor.

If the federal government chooses to threaten the financial well-being of the states then no one should be surprised when the states respond by forcing the federal government to shoulder the full cost of immigration enforcement by reducing how much the state subsidizes the federal government in this arena with time and resources.

If the fed wants to play politics then they should expect the states to play politics right back. Threatening someone who is already helping you is usually bad policy.

People should recognize the federal/state authority issue that this actually represents because it goes well beyond illegal immigration into the all of the ways in which the federal government and the states have come to cooperate on big issues. And when the fed starts monkeying with those relationships for empty media points, it should concern all of us.

 

[panamaican]

@Toothless King I found a solid analogy.

We're neighbors with big yards. I could buy a lawn mower for $1000 and spend every Saturday cutting my grass. Instead, I pay you for cost of gas and $5 and ask you to cut mine the same day that you're cutting your grass. After a while, I start complaining to you that you aren't hedging my trees while cutting my grass and that I'm going to stop paying until you do so. But I still expect you to cut my lawn.

Well, you might not like that since it's your lawn mower and your time being used. You might say "F you Panamaican, if you don't like how I'm doing it - buy your own lawn mower and cut it yourself."

It would be weird for people to take my side on this and say "Nope, Toothless should have kept cutting Pan's lawn even though Pan is threatening to no longer pay him for doing so." Why would you continue to sink your time and money into cutting my lawn when it's entirely my responsibility?

 

[Toothless King]

@Toothless King I found a solid analogy.

We're neighbors with big yards. I could buy a lawn mower for $1000 and spend every Saturday cutting my grass. Instead, I pay you for cost of gas and $5 and ask you to cut mine the same day that you're cutting your grass. After a while, I start complaining to you that you aren't cutting my grass properly and that I'm going to stop paying until you do a better job but I still expect you to cut my lawn.

Well, you might not like that since it's your lawn mower and your time being used. You might say "F you Panamaican, if you don't like how I'm doing it - buy your own lawn mower and cut it yourself."

It would be weird for people to take my side on this and say "Nope, Toothless should have kept cutting Pan's lawn even though Pan is threatening to no longer pay him for doing so." Why would you continue to sink your time and money into cutting my lawn when it's entirely my responsibility?

I still don't get your solid analogy.

undocumented felons are booked into local county jail are charged with California criminal code (theft, burglary, assault, drugs, etc.) for a non-federal crime they committed. We are holding them there (and we charge ICE $$hourly$$) for ICE to pick them up to transfer to a ICE detention facility waiting for deportation. Do you think we hold them there for free? If we stop holding ICE detainees, then we don't get paid. Not to mention it's a public safety issue if we release them back to the street because ICE agents will come looking for them. It's that simple.

How do I know all that? I worked for 2 years in the county jail and 8 years in patrol.

 

[panamaican]

I still don't get your solid analogy.

undocumented felons are booked into local county jail are charged with California criminal code (theft, burglary, assault, drugs, etc.) for a non-federal crime they committed. We are holding them there (and we charge ICE $$hourly$$) for ICE to pick them up to transfer to a ICE detention facility waiting for deportation. Do you think we hold them there for free? If we stop holding ICE detainees, then we don't get paid. Not to mention it's a public safety issue if we release them back to the street because ICE agents will come looking for them. It's that simple.

How do I know all that? I worked for 2 years in the county jail and 8 years in patrol.

It would cost ICE more to do it themselves instead of piggybacking on your work. Not that it would cost you more. It would cost ICE more. And federal immigration law is not part of your jurisdiction, it's ICE's jurisdiction.

It's that simple. Unless you're going to tell me that you have the authority to charge and detain people for violating federal law that originates from your state or municipal mandate as a LEO and not from a voluntary agreement between your state and the fed.

 

[Toothless King]

It would cost ICE more to do it themselves instead of piggybacking on your work. Not that it would cost you more. It would cost ICE more. And federal immigration law is not part of your jurisdiction, it's ICE's jurisdiction.

It's that simple. Unless you're going to tell me that you have the authority to charge and detain people for violating federal law that originates from your state or municipal mandate as a LEO and not from a voluntary agreement between your state and the fed.

so you want ICE agents armed with M4 rifles to invade a whole neighborhood looking for the same undocumented felon we released a few days ago? Maybe get into a gun fight with that felon in the middle of a city? Explain to me how is that not a public safety issue?

We also lose money from ICE contract. Explain to me how is that not a fiscal issue for local law enforcement?

Local law enforcement agencies held ICE detainees for years before anyone know of Trump. Now all of the sudden liberal CA politicians all the way in Northern California have a problem with that policy? Sanctuary law is a "Fuck you Trump" policy, not a public safety or fiscal policy.

also, we don't enforce immigration law, we hold ICE detainees. A few months ago we arrested & booked a felon wanted by FBI and US Marshall all the way from east coast for bank robbery (a federal crime). are you saying we are enforcing federal law by holding a detainee for FBI?

 

[panamaican]

so you want ICE agents armed with M4 rifles to invade a whole neighborhood looking for the same undocumented felon we released a few days ago? Maybe get into a gun fight with that felon? Explain to me how is that not a public safety issue?

We also lose money from ICE contract. Explain to me how is that not a fiscal issue for local law enforcement?

Local law enforcement agencies held ICE detainees for years before anyone know of Trump. Now all of the sudden liberal CA politicians all the way in Northern California have a problem with that policy? Sanctuary law is a "Fuck you Trump" policy, not a public safety or fiscal policy.

also, we don't enforce immigration law, we hold ICE detainees. A few months ago we arrested & booked a felon wanted by FBI and US Marshall all the way from east coast for bank robbery (a federal crime). are you saying we are enforcing federal law by holding a detainee for FBI?

Stop, you're absolutely enforcing immigration law if you are detaining people while waiting for feds to pick them up on an immigration violation. You're not detaining them on a state charge while waiting for ICE, you don't contact ICE because of state violations. Otherwise, there would be no justification for the payments received (ICE cannot pay you to detain people on a state charge).

Sanctuary law is not a "fuck Trump" policy when cities around the country have been engaged in sanctuary policies from long before he took office. You know this as well as I do. Sanctuary cities didn't sprout up in Jan. 2017. So this federal/state divergence is far older than his election.

The difference between this administration and prior administrations is that this administration threatened to withhold federal funding to the states and the previous administrations didn't. The previous admins authorized ICE to deputize the states to enforce some aspects of immigration law to reduce the financial strain on ICE. The states agreed and that's where the money you keep talking about comes from. Instead of continuing this mutually beneficial arrangement, this administration said "We will take money from you in other areas because of immigration."

So, when the administration said we will take federal money away, the state is now saying we'll take state resources away. How are you aware of the money that ICE pays you but not the legal authority under which it is allowed to do so? Without that express federal/state agreement, you couldn't even ask about immigration status without risking 4th Amendment violations and you definitely couldn't detain anyone on ICE's behalf and get paid to do so. Your state/municipality would get sued into the ground every time it happened.

As to your FBI question? Yes.

You are detaining someone on a federal charge while you are not a federal officer so you are enforcing federal law. You can't do that without specific legislative authorization by your state and the formal acquiescence of the Fed, which exists in every state. But because there is a specific state legislative authorization, that specific authorization can also be rescinded by the state legislature.

And immigration is even more clear because immigration authority lies exclusively with the federal government. Exclusively. Meaning that no non-federal employee has any authority to conduct investigations, even as simple as inquiries, into the immigration status of anyone, legal or illegal, without the express agreement between the fed and the non-federal employee's state. Which California appears to be rescinding.

And for the next time we discuss subsidizing, remember that you just stated that you lose money on these ICE contracts.

 

[luckyshot]

Everyone knows that having a bunch of illegalz kills your property value!!!!!

Just look at California... which has the second highest property values in the country...

But everyone knows having a bunch of illegalz kills the economy!!!!!

Just look at California...

Btw, I am not arguing for illegal immigration, but I think California makes a pretty compelling economic argument that it ain't all bad. Illegals may depress wages in jobs most people don't want, but they depress prices on products and services everyone needs.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Good for California.

 

[Toothless King]

Stop, you're absolutely enforcing immigration law if you are detaining people while waiting for feds to pick them up on an immigration violation. You're not detaining them on a state charge while waiting for ICE, you don't contact ICE because of state violations. Otherwise, there would be no justification for the payments received (ICE cannot pay you to detain people on a state charge).

Sanctuary law is not a "fuck Trump" policy when cities around the country have been engaged in sanctuary policies from long before he took office. You know this as well as I do. Sanctuary cities didn't sprout up in Jan. 2017. So this federal/state divergence is far older than his election.

The difference between this administration and prior administrations is that this administration threatened to withhold federal funding to the states and the previous administrations didn't. The previous admins authorized ICE to deputize the states to enforce some aspects of immigration law to reduce the financial strain on ICE. The states agreed and that's where the money you keep talking about comes from. Instead of continuing this mutually beneficial arrangement, this administration said "We will take money from you in other areas because of immigration."

So, when the administration said we will take federal money away, the state is now saying we'll take state resources away. How are you aware of the money that ICE pays you but not the legal authority under which it is allowed to do so? Without that express federal/state agreement, you couldn't even ask about immigration status without risking 4th Amendment violations and you definitely couldn't detain anyone on ICE's behalf and get paid to do so. Your state/municipality would get sued into the ground every time it happened.

As to your FBI question? Yes.

You are detaining someone on a federal charge while you are not a federal officer so you are enforcing federal law. You can't do that without specific legislative authorization by your state and the formal acquiescence of the Fed, which exists in every state. But because there is a specific state legislative authorization, that specific authorization can also be rescinded by the state legislature.

And immigration is even more clear because immigration authority lies exclusively with the federal government. Exclusively. Meaning that no non-federal employee has any authority to conduct investigations, even as simple as inquiries, into the immigration status of anyone, legal or illegal, without the express agreement between the fed and the non-federal employee's state. Which California appears to be rescinding.

And for the next time we discuss subsidizing, remember that you just stated that you lose money on these ICE contracts.

bunch of fancy buzzwords

let me make it short and easy for you to understand about this new law

-release undocumented FELONS who committed federal immigration law AND California criminal penal code instead of handing them to ICE for deportation proceedings.
-terminated ICE multi-million dollars contracts with multiple CA law enforcement agencies. Local tax payers will foot the bill on that one.
-Heavily armed ICE agents will be flooding neighborhood looking for the undocumented felons that local LEO released a few days ago. This is a public safety hazard for local community.


but but but but this new law is good for Californians. Yes, say the guy who doesn't even live in California and has zero knowledge about California law enforcement.

 

[lifelessheap]

It would cost ICE more to do it themselves instead of piggybacking on your work. Not that it would cost you more. It would cost ICE more. And federal immigration law is not part of your jurisdiction, it's ICE's jurisdiction.

It's that simple. Unless you're going to tell me that you have the authority to charge and detain people for violating federal law that originates from your state or municipal mandate as a LEO and not from a voluntary agreement between your state and the fed.

So you are arguing that ICE should be patrolling the streets and enforcing California law? So ICE should be arresting people for breaking CA law and then after the arrest they should enforce immigration law?

CA officers have to be the middleman unless federal officers take over all policing.

 

[original doom]

Everyone knows that having a bunch of illegalz kills your property value!!!!!

Just look at California... which has the second highest property values in the country...

But everyone knows having a bunch of illegalz kills the economy!!!!!

Just look at California...

Btw, I am not arguing for illegal immigration, but I think California makes a pretty compelling economic argument that it ain't all bad. Illegals may depress wages in jobs most people don't want, but they depress prices on products and services everyone needs.

illegals boost the property market ??

 

[original doom]

is california open to the world or just central/south america ?

 

[Rod1]

So you are arguing that ICE should be patrolling the streets and enforcing California law? So ICE should be arresting people for breaking CA law and then after the arrest they should enforce immigration law?

CA officers have to be the middleman unless federal officers take over all policing.

I think he is arguing that the Federal government cant simply say "Obey or else" and then act befuddled when the State respondes "Else what?".

Its quite doubtful that these policies would be put in place if Trump would just compromise with California and make an agreement where most resources would be funneled into deporting violent felons mainly.

 

[tehend]

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195434409.html

BY ANGELA
January 18, 2018 02:29 PM

Updated 40 minutes ago

The state’s top cop issued a warning to California employers Thursday that businesses face legal repercussions, including fines up to $10,000, if they assist federal immigration authorities with a potential widespread immigration crackdown.

“It’s important, given these rumors that are out there, to let people know – more specifically today, employers – that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office,” state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said at a news conference. “We will prosecute those who violate the law.”

Becerra’s warning comes as fears spread of mass workplace raids following reports that immigration agents plan to target Northern California communities for deportations due in part to the state’s “sanctuary” law, which seeks to restrict local law enforcement agencies’ ability to cooperate with immigration authorities.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s acting director Thomas Homan told a Fox News host earlier this month that “California better hold on tight... If the politicians in California don’t want to protect their communities, then ICE will,” prompting a query from Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris to brief them on how raids are prioritized.

Becerra repeatedly referred to the reports as “rumors,” and said the state Department of Justice was not aware of planned sweeps targeting Northern California, in particular.

Becerra said the state Department of Justice and the state Labor Commissioner’s Office plan to issue formal guidance to all California employers, public and private, notifying them of their responsibilities under a new state law called the “Immigrant Worker Protection Act,” signed by Gov. Jerry Brown last year that took effect Jan. 1. It seeks to prevent all workers, regardless of immigration status, from being detained at workplaces.

Authored by San Francisco Democratic Assemblyman David Chiu, the bill:

▪ Requires employers to ask immigration agents for a warrant before granting access to a worksite.

▪ Prevents employers from voluntarily sharing confidential employee information without a subpoena.

▪ Requires employers to notify their workers before a federal audit of employee records.

▪ Gives the attorney general and labor commissioner exclusive authority to enforce new provisions of state labor laws.

▪ Prohibits employers from re-verifying information on employment verification forms, unless compelled to by federal law.

Angela Hart: 916-326-5528, @ahartreports


Sounds like trash but I actually dont have a problem with most of the bullet points.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Aren't we due for that massive earthquake that's gonna cause CA to break off into the Pacific?

 

[Rozko]

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195434409.html

Source TS didn't use

 

[tehend]

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195434409.html

Source TS didn't use

Nevermind, link didn't post my bad.

 

[Teppodama]

If California actively coerces businesses with this to refuse assistance with a federal agency conducting legal investigations and actions I think the attorney general should consider these actions to be an act of treason against the federal government and warn them that enforcement of these laws will be ground for arrest of all officials enforcing them. Let the political fallout fall where it may. It's rapidly becoming obvious that something very very serious needs to happen in regards to what the US government is entitled to do and not do. Heads need to roll.