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

[helltoupee]

It's incredibly funny that you guys are missing the point of why this law is so troubling. The law is taking away the rights of business owners too chose if they want to comply with ice agents.

If a ICE agent comes to a business owner without a warrant and request too enter you have a right too say "yes or no." California has basically taken that right away. You have too say "no" or the California goverment will come down on you.

Actually, I think you "guys" are actually the ones missing the point.

An employer does not have a *right* to give away your (the employee's) personal information to anyone who requests it. That is the employee's personal information, and belongs to them. Go look at HIPAA laws, they are the same thing.

The Federal government should not have the right to just comb through all American's personal information on the off-chance that they may catch someone doing something illegal. If you think this is viable, then you are opening yourself up to things like periodic home inspections, monitoring of your bank account, etc etc etc., in the interest of 'protecting' you against criminals/terrorism/etc.

This is what CA is saying - unless the Feds have a specific reason (warrant), then they can't spy on ordinary citizens. I don't get what is so controversial about that. Do you think your bank, your email, your social media, your doctor, should all be able to just give away intimate details of your life to anyone that asks?

 

[helltoupee]

CA politicians want to punish CA residents for complying with federal law?

what is next? Are CA politicians going to punish residents for submitting W2 to IRS?

What Federal law states that a keeper of someone's confidential information has the right to just give it up to anyone who asks? Furthermore, this isn't about "residents", it's about Employers

I mean, you're a LEO, are you allowed to enter *everyone's* house in the city just because you think a robbery may have occurred somewhere within that city? Or do you need a warrant?

All you "small government" conservatives are being real consistent with the big brother talk here.

 

[oldshadow]

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 it's a win, win for both the state and feds. Locals get money for no real added expense and it legal and moral. The feds save money and its legal and moral. It also makes the local area safer.

So what exactly is the problem. Other then fucking with Trump because they want to.

 

[Toothless King]

What Federal law states that a keeper of someone's confidential information has the right to just give it up to anyone who asks? Furthermore, this isn't about "residents", it's about Employers

I mean, you're a LEO, are you allowed to enter *everyone's* house in the city just because you think a robbery may have occurred somewhere within that city? Or do you need a warrant?

why do i need a warrant when the house owner allows me to enter his house with his consent? it's a consensual search. now the state of CA is telling the house owner no more consensual search by the feds.


also, i am not very well versed on immigration law. but why do ICE needs a warrant to check for immigration status on on employees? that is a civil issue, not a criminal issue requires a warrant.

It's like making IRS obtain a warrant to audit your business, or the Health Department requires a warrant to show up in your restaurant for random health inspection. Civil issues do not require a warrant.

 

[panamaican]

So it's a win, win for both the state and feds. Locals get money for no real added expense and it legal and moral. The feds save money and its legal and moral. It also makes the local area safer.

So what exactly is the problem. Other then fucking with Trump because they want to.

There was no problem until the Trump administration started threatening to withhold federal funds over immigration.

That's the part of the conversation that people keep ignoring. The system was working fine. Then the current administration started fucking with it. This is how California responded to being fucked with and everyone is jumping down CA's throat. But no one seems aware that they didn't start this.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...s-sanctuary-cities-with-loss-of-federal-funds

 

[oldshadow]

There was no problem until the Trump administration started threatening to withhold federal funds over immigration.

That's the part of the conversation that people keep ignoring. The system was working fine. Then the current administration started fucking with it. This is how California responded to being fucked with and everyone is jumping down CA's throat. But no one seems aware that they didn't start this.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...s-sanctuary-cities-with-loss-of-federal-funds

He threatened to withhold funds because of cities not doing what was requested. You know sanctuary cities. So then the state doubles down to make the whole state a sanctuary state.

You want the feds to enforce the laws that are their responsibility with no help from the locals, fine.

Let's have the DEA do the same thing. Spend the money and do their jobs.

 

[panamaican]

He threatened to withhold funds because of cities not doing what was requested. You know sanctuary cities. So then the state doubles down to make the whole state a sanctuary state.

You want the feds to enforce the laws that are their responsibility with no help from the locals, fine.

Let's have the DEA do the same thing. Spend the money and do their jobs.

Are you're switching your stance? Your last post said that there was no problem and that the old system was win/win. If the system was win/win, what was the need for threat?

He threatened to withhold law enforcement grant money that had nothing to do with immigration.

I never said that the feds should do it with no help from the locals because obviously they've been getting help from the locals for over a decade and no one complained. What I said is as follows:

If the locals have been helping you and then you threaten to take away money that has nothing to do with this subject, you should not be surprised when they respond to that threat by forcing you to act without their help.

You can either work together through cooperation or you can try to bully someone to get what you want. In this country, the federal government has limited ability to play the bully and when they take that route - the states should respond in kind. That's the point of our system - to limit the federal government's ability to force state behavior. Our system requires cooperation and when the federal government forgets that, it finds itself in these types of fights.

 

[oldshadow]

Are you're switching your stance? Your last post said that there was no problem and that the old system was win/win. If the system was win/win, what was the need for threat?

He threatened to withhold law enforcement grant money that had nothing to do with immigration.

I never said that the feds should do it with no help from the locals because obviously they've been getting help from the locals for over a decade and no one complained. What I said is as follows:

If the locals have been helping you and then you threaten to take away money that has nothing to do with this subject, you should not be surprised when they respond to that threat by forcing you to act without their help.

You can either work together through cooperation or you can try to bully someone to get what you want. In this country, the federal government has limited ability to play the bully and when they take that route - the states should respond in kind. That's the point of our system - to limit the federal government's ability to force state behavior. Our system requires cooperation and when the federal government forgets that, it finds itself in these types of fights.

What I said is they worked together fine until local (local not feds) did not want to up hold their side. So the locals stop cooperation first before any threat was made.

So who's fault is this again.

Got to go for a run be back later.

 

[CutStryker]

Overall the Democrats are blatantly corrupt. Just like the sign reads, Democrats need those votes. Only reason why CA’s governor is allowing illegal people in the state.

 

[Toothless King]

Are you're switching your stance? Your last post said that there was no problem and that the old system was win/win. If the system was win/win, what was the need for threat?

He threatened to withhold law enforcement grant money that had nothing to do with immigration.

I never said that the feds should do it with no help from the locals because obviously they've been getting help from the locals for over a decade and no one complained. What I said is as follows:

If the locals have been helping you and then you threaten to take away money that has nothing to do with this subject, you should not be surprised when they respond to that threat by forcing you to act without their help.

You can either work together through cooperation or you can try to bully someone to get what you want. In this country, the federal government has limited ability to play the bully and when they take that route - the states should respond in kind. That's the point of our system - to limit the federal government's ability to force state behavior. Our system requires cooperation and when the federal government forgets that, it finds itself in these types of fights.

huh?

Feds threatened to take away funding because local LE stopped cooperation with ICE,not the other way around.

but then again you probably know more than a local Cali cop, right?

 

[HomerThompson]

looks like a good time to remove all federal funding to CA.

 

[helltoupee]

why do i need a warrant when the house owner allows me to enter his house with his consent? it's a consensual search. now the state of CA is telling the house owner no more consensual search by the feds.


also, i am not very well versed on immigration law. but why do ICE needs a warrant to check for immigration status on on employees? that is a civil issue, not a criminal issue requires a warrant.

It's like making IRS obtain a warrant to audit your business, or the Health Department requires a warrant to show up in your restaurant for random health inspection. Civil issues do not require a warrant.

You are talking about an Employee's personal information - which is not *owned* by the employer, anymore than your medical records are owned by your doctor. Are you familiar with HIPAA laws? It's the same exact thing. Does your bank own your personal bank account information? Are they free to give it up to anyone who asks? Or is a warrant required?

Auditing your business, or a health dept. inspection is just that, they are conducting an investigation on your business. They are not asking for your employee's personal information so they can comb through it under the assumption that they may or may not get lucky and find something illegal. It's not even close to the same.

 

[panamaican]

What I said is they worked together fine until local (local not feds) did not want to up hold their side. So the locals stop cooperation first before any threat was made.

So who's fault is this again.

Got to go for a run be back later.

Sanctuary cities, in some form, have been around since the 1980s. The federal law in question has been around since 1996. What exactly happened in the last 3-5 years that required a defunding threat from the federal government in 2017?

Got a court conference, I'll be back later as well.

 

[panamaican]

huh?

Feds threatened to take away funding because local LE stopped cooperation with ICE,not the other way around.

but then again you probably know more than a local Cali cop, right?

I know more about the law. You weren't aware of the legal foundation on which this entire conversation is based.

 

[Toothless King]

I know more about the law. You weren't aware of the legal foundation on which this entire conversation is based.

oh, sure, the law

 

[SRN]

I can't understand why anyone would be okay with this.

 

[Toothless King]

You are talking about an Employee's personal information - which is not *owned* by the employer, anymore than your medical records are owned by your doctor. Are you familiar with HIPAA laws? It's the same exact thing. Does your bank own your personal bank account information? Are they free to give it up to anyone who asks? Or is a warrant required?

Auditing your business, or a health dept. inspection is just that, they are conducting an investigation on your business. They are not asking for your employee's personal information so they can comb through it under the assumption that they may or may not get lucky and find something illegal. It's not even close to the same.

ICE: hey Mr Employer, I need to see your employees' work authorization permit( for those with visas) and SSN for citizens or permanent residence

IRS: hey Mr Employer, I need to see your monthly payroll, W2 for all your employees, and receipts.

Health Department: hey Mr Employer, I need to see your employees' food handler permit.



so, is there a reason why ICE needs a warrant again?

 

[oldshadow]

Sanctuary cities, in some form, have been around since the 1980s. The federal law in question has been around since 1996. What exactly happened in the last 3-5 years that required a defunding threat from the federal government in 2017?

Got a court conference, I'll be back later as well.

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.

 

[Arkain2K]

I don't get what is so hard to understand.

Why would anyone want the Feds just whimsically browsing all of your personal information? Would you submit to random searches of your home, or personal information whenever the police say they are looking for criminals?

ICE, or any government agency, should need a specific reason to comb through your shit, meaning a warrant. Which is exactly what CA is saying. Good on them.

This is more of a protection of American citizen's information than trying to protect illegals.

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".

 

[Toothless King]

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".

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