Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-17-2018, 01:37 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,585
A real constitutional crisis on the horizon? (immigration, sanctuary cities, and DHS)

I figured this would be exactly the sort of thing that would get people here very animated, but no one's mentioned it yet. That might be because the source is right-wing-ish:

Homeland Security pursues charges against leaders of sanctuary cities

Quote:
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen confirmed Tuesday that her department has asked federal prosecutors to see if they can lodge criminal charges against sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal deportation efforts.

“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues may be available,” Ms. Nielsen told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
DHS arresting the mayors of NYC, Chicago, L.A., Berkeley, San Francisco, Boulder, etc. (and perhaps throwing in the Governor of California for good measure) for example, seems a good bit more likely to provoke a real serious showdown between the cities / states and the Feds than just about anything else in recent memory.
  #2  
Old 01-17-2018, 02:17 AM
Iggy Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,140
It seems to me that it would be a stretch to make an arrest of any city or state official in the general case of voting for or in some way approval of policies favoring a sanctuary status. States have the stronger claim than cities as they enjoy a dual sovereignty status. It would take a more detailed showing of specific actions to subvert a federal immigration action or investigation to support an arrest or prosecution. So long as the city or state isn't using its police powers to hide persons wanted by federal immigration officials (or something similarly egregious) then the feds are out of luck. And the state or local authority had better be ready to face public scrutiny if something then goes horribly wrong such as in the Kate Steinle murder.

But the federal government has a history of offering inducements to encourage states to take specific actions. If there is an agreement in place for local cooperation on federal immigration matters and the state or local entity is not holding up its end of the bargain then the feds have cause to stop providing the metaphorical carrot.
  #3  
Old 01-17-2018, 02:19 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,228
The law is pretty clear on this issue. States cannot be commandeered by the federal government. States do not have to cooperate with federal programs in any way, whether it's drug enforcement, tax enforcement, or immigration enforcement.

Seems to me though that if they are exploring "avenues", the best avenue is simply to publish press releases whenever a sanctuary city or state releases a dangerous criminal that federal authorities wanted held for deportation. A PR war is perfectly legal and exactly the right approach. Let the voters decide.

"You see this guy? Pistol whipped and raped an elderly woman. California authorities, under Jerry Brown's leadership, just released him in Los Angeles. Tell Gov. Brown what you think of that."

It also occurs to me that they could offer rewards for these dangerous sorts to people who report their whereabouts to ICE. Just because California wants to protect these folks doesn't mean citizens can't turn them in to federal authorities.

But basically, make some people famous.

Last edited by adaher; 01-17-2018 at 02:22 AM.
  #4  
Old 01-17-2018, 03:26 AM
Robot Arm Robot Arm is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 22,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
"You see this guy? Pistol whipped and raped an elderly woman. California authorities, under Jerry Brown's leadership, just released him in Los Angeles. Tell Gov. Brown what you think of that."
I don't think the whole sanctuary cities thing is about releasing known violent offenders. It's more about the feds wanting to deport the elderly woman if it turns out she's here illegally.
  #5  
Old 01-17-2018, 03:56 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,228
That's where sanctuary cities have their biggest effect though. Sanctuary cities can't protect anyone from the federal government. Their primary means of defiance are not turning over criminals to ICE after they've served their sentences. All the other stuff is minor and of little concern. But not turning over dangerous criminals for deportation is craziness.
  #6  
Old 01-17-2018, 04:25 AM
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 16,424
Remind me again, please. Which Party is it that strongly supports States' Rights?
  #7  
Old 01-17-2018, 04:55 AM
Smapti Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 14,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Remind me again, please. Which Party is it that strongly supports States' Rights?
Democrats tend to favor centralized government, whereas Republicans support government at whatever level is controlled by Republicans.
  #8  
Old 01-17-2018, 05:21 AM
bobot bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 6,109
I don't see this foolishness as a constitutional crisis. I see it more as another thing that the Trump administration will have rejected by so called judges.
  #9  
Old 01-17-2018, 06:06 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
I don't see this foolishness as a constitutional crisis. I see it more as another thing that the Trump administration will have rejected by so called judges.
Yup. No crisis. Just another failure by the Trump administration. That's the norm. Also Nielsen may be looking for a sanctuary city that will protect her from perjury charges.
  #10  
Old 01-17-2018, 06:23 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,291
For once, I totally agree with adaher. If the feds want local governments to do something that they aren't legally obligated to do, the locals are totally justified in telling the feds to go pound sand. Anything that the administration does in retaliation is going to be shot down by the courts. The only crisis is that we have an administration quickly going down the tubes and lashing out at everything in sight.
  #11  
Old 01-17-2018, 07:16 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 2,774
Plus, while Kirstjen Nielsen may have confirmed such and such on Tuesday, who knows if she even remembers doing so today.
  #12  
Old 01-17-2018, 07:25 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Plus, while Kirstjen Nielsen may have confirmed such and such on Tuesday, who knows if she even remembers doing so today.
What was most amusing was her hesitating when asked "Is Norway a mostly white country?"
  #13  
Old 01-17-2018, 12:47 PM
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 77,448
They're currently looking for something they can charge those mayors with. They're going to end up not finding it, and life will go on.
  #14  
Old 01-17-2018, 01:13 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Seems to me though that if they are exploring "avenues", the best avenue is simply to publish press releases whenever a sanctuary city or state releases a dangerous criminal that federal authorities wanted held for deportation. A PR war is perfectly legal and exactly the right approach. Let the voters decide.

"You see this guy? Pistol whipped and raped an elderly woman. California authorities, under Jerry Brown's leadership, just released him in Los Angeles. Tell Gov. Brown what you think of that."
Eh, if they know the Pistol Whipper Rapist is getting released, could they not just wait for him at the prison?
  #15  
Old 01-17-2018, 02:42 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 83,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Plus, while Kirstjen Nielsen may have confirmed such and such on Tuesday, who knows if she even remembers doing so today.
Emphasis added. Sounds like someone who immigrated here from Norway. Well, more like Denmark, but close enough!
  #16  
Old 01-17-2018, 02:58 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,097
This is as real a constitutional crisis as changing libel laws to go after reporters saying mean things. Tantrums are not crises. With apologies to all parents of four-year-olds.

Judges will have the last say, to be sure, and one can never be sure how the Supreme Court will rule on anything these days. But it's not clear what legal means the administration has to enforce its will.
Quote:
In November, U.S. district judge Michael Baylson ruled that the DOJ could not withhold public safety grants from Philadelphia based on the city’s level of cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
The Justice Department is appealing the case. They do not have an enviable record in winning judgements on tantrums, though.
  #17  
Old 01-17-2018, 06:09 PM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 21,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
That's where sanctuary cities have their biggest effect though. Sanctuary cities can't protect anyone from the federal government. Their primary means of defiance are not turning over criminals to ICE after they've served their sentences. All the other stuff is minor and of little concern. But not turning over dangerous criminals for deportation is craziness.
One of us is very confused.

You think that when the cops in California arrest Miguel Sanchez for murdering a busload of nuns, they just let him go when they find out he's undocumented?

Or do they arrest Miguel Sanchez, and try him, and convict him, and incarcerate him, and then release him once his sentence is completed? And if ICE wants to deport him, ICE needs to show up and detain him after his sentence is complete?

The facts of the matter is that if California releases Miguel Sanchez on Tuesday, and ICE can't be arsed to show up on Tuesday to pick him up, then Miguel Sanchez walks out of prison like everyone else who has completed their time. If ICE shows up to get him, then they get him. Otherwise not. That case where that violent criminal murdered a white girl? It happened AFTER he was released. It wasn't like California let a white-girl-murdering illegal go free, because he hadn't murdered that white girl yet.

We let lots of criminals out of prison after they've completed their sentences, and some percentage of those criminals go on to re-offend. We don't have a crystal ball to tell which ones will go on to murder white girls, and anyway in this country we don't convict people for future crimes, only for past crimes.
  #18  
Old 01-17-2018, 09:53 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
For once, I totally agree with adaher. If the feds want local governments to do something that they aren't legally obligated to do, the locals are totally justified in telling the feds to go pound sand. Anything that the administration does in retaliation is going to be shot down by the courts. The only crisis is that we have an administration quickly going down the tubes and lashing out at everything in sight.
One thing they are doing in retaliation is sending more ICE agents to go round up more immigrants. They've announced that ICE is going to the Bay Area to get about 1500 of 'em.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/...or-ice-sweeps/

While not as intelligent as my approach, it is 100% legal and sends the appropriate message.
  #19  
Old 01-17-2018, 09:55 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Eh, if they know the Pistol Whipper Rapist is getting released, could they not just wait for him at the prison?
We're talking about the federal government here, although part of the reason is that they might not know when someone is getting released. The idea is that the locals detain the guy so ICE can pick them up.

Nevertheless, releasing a dangerous criminal that we don't have to have here into the population doesn't strike me as popular even in California.
  #20  
Old 01-18-2018, 01:21 AM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
We're talking about the federal government here, although part of the reason is that they might not know when someone is getting released. The idea is that the locals detain the guy so ICE can pick them up.

Nevertheless, releasing a dangerous criminal that we don't have to have here into the population doesn't strike me as popular even in California.
Where's the uproar from the right when a native-born American is released and commits more crimes? But boy, let it be an illegal immigrant (or even a legal one) and the sky is falling.

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 01-18-2018 at 01:22 AM.
  #21  
Old 01-18-2018, 01:55 AM
Spectre of Pithecanthropus Spectre of Pithecanthropus is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Not here. There.
Posts: 18,974
The Washington Times "right wing-ish"? More like the John Birch Society if that still means anything to people.

The WT, originally founded as a ministry of the Unification Church, absolutely loves any possibility of anyone being arrested and punished for stepping out of line. (I'm not saying some people don't need to be arrested and ultimately punished, just to be clear.) But last year they positively crowed with delight when Sessions first hinted at the possibility of cracking down on cannabis in the states that have voted to allow it. And now that Sessions has more recently opened the way for the AGs to use their discretion in that regard, I'm sure they're doing it again right now. I haven't bothered to look, yet.
__________________
Refusing to choose the lesser of two evils may be tantamount to choosing the greater.

Last edited by Spectre of Pithecanthropus; 01-18-2018 at 01:56 AM.
  #22  
Old 01-18-2018, 02:02 AM
Spectre of Pithecanthropus Spectre of Pithecanthropus is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Not here. There.
Posts: 18,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
But the federal government has a history of offering inducements to encourage states to take specific actions. If there is an agreement in place for local cooperation on federal immigration matters and the state or local entity is not holding up its end of the bargain then the feds have cause to stop providing the metaphorical carrot.
Much like they did with the legal drinking age. Younger people today may not even be aware that the states used to set their minimum legal drinking age completely on their own.
__________________
Refusing to choose the lesser of two evils may be tantamount to choosing the greater.
  #23  
Old 01-18-2018, 07:30 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 46,758
They actually still do, it's just with the knowledge that the Feds will cut all their highway funding if it's younger than 21.
  #24  
Old 01-18-2018, 08:21 AM
Captain Amazing Captain Amazing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 25,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Nevertheless, releasing a dangerous criminal that we don't have to have here into the population doesn't strike me as popular even in California.
I'm pretty sure places like California already turn dangerous criminals over to ICE, or whatever they're called now. What upsets homeland security is they want the police to run status checks on all arrests. So even if somebody is arrested for, say, public intoxication, and they're an illegal immigrant, DHS wants to know about it, and what most of these "sanctuary cities" have said is, we won't do that....we won't automatically ask about somebody's immigration status just because they've been arrested.
__________________
If you will it, it is no dream.
  #25  
Old 01-18-2018, 11:44 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,585
I think she's imagining one of those symbolic protest arrests like Pelosi's pals got. I'm not so sure DHS has the same vision.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-18-2018 at 11:44 AM.
  #26  
Old 01-18-2018, 11:51 AM
astorian astorian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: austin tx usa
Posts: 35,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
Where's the uproar from the right when a native-born American is released and commits more crimes? But boy, let it be an illegal immigrant (or even a legal one) and the sky is falling.
Yeah, Republicans didn't care at all about Willie Horton, did they?
  #27  
Old 01-18-2018, 12:53 PM
Blank Slate Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,548
I remember some right-wing trash using Willie Horton as a bogeyman to advance their racist agenda, but I don't think they cared about him as a person.
  #28  
Old 01-18-2018, 12:59 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
I remember some right-wing trash using Willie Horton as a bogeyman to advance their racist agenda, but I don't think they cared about him as a person.
I don't think they care about Jose Garcia Zarate (Kate Steinle's killer) "as a person" either. Am I badly misunderstanding the point you're trying to make? It seems nonsensical to me, but it's possibly just the lack of Mountain Dew clouding my mind.
  #29  
Old 01-18-2018, 01:26 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
We're talking about the federal government here, although part of the reason is that they might not know when someone is getting released. The idea is that the locals detain the guy so ICE can pick them up.

Nevertheless, releasing a dangerous criminal that we don't have to have here into the population doesn't strike me as popular even in California.
So they know when to send out the press releases about the Pistol Whipping Rapist, but can't be there when he's released? Do the feds lose jurisdiction within 1000 feet of a prison, so they can't be sitting there? We ARE talking about the federal government, a body that has the greatest reach in history, and they can't figure out how to read a release date?

The locals detained him for the entirety of his sentence. How much more of the feds' job do they have to do?
  #30  
Old 01-18-2018, 01:35 PM
Do Not Taunt Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think she's imagining one of those symbolic protest arrests like Pelosi's pals got. I'm not so sure DHS has the same vision.
I think the point is it doesn't really matter what vision DHS has, since she's not actually violating any law.
  #31  
Old 01-18-2018, 01:49 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
... she's not actually violating any law.
IANAL, but you seem more certain about that than I think is merited.
  #32  
Old 01-18-2018, 01:52 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by astorian View Post
Yeah, Republicans didn't care at all about Willie Horton, did they?
Hahaha a decades-old campaign line? That's really your counterexample?
  #33  
Old 01-18-2018, 01:55 PM
Clothahump Clothahump is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 14,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
DHS arresting the mayors of NYC, Chicago, L.A., Berkeley, San Francisco, Boulder, etc. (and perhaps throwing in the Governor of California for good measure) for example, seems a good bit more likely to provoke a real serious showdown between the cities / states and the Feds than just about anything else in recent memory.
Arresting the mayor/councilmen of cities who voted in "sanctuary" is something that should have done after the very first one. There's no constitutional crisis here, there is just malfeasance in office and conspiracy to violate federal law.
  #34  
Old 01-18-2018, 02:06 PM
Do Not Taunt Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
IANAL, but you seem more certain about that than I think is merited.
That's nice. If you don't feel like offering up what law you think she's breaking, I'm not sure what more there is to discuss here.
  #35  
Old 01-18-2018, 02:10 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
That's nice. If you don't feel like offering up what law you think she's breaking, I'm not sure what more there is to discuss here.
The two that I've seen mentioned are 8 U.S.C. § 1324 & § 1373
  #36  
Old 01-18-2018, 02:28 PM
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 77,448
Quote:
Arresting the mayor/councilmen of cities who voted in "sanctuary" is something that should have done after the very first one. There's no constitutional crisis here, there is just malfeasance in office and conspiracy to violate federal law.
And there would have been even more malfeasance and conspiracy if they had actually arrested people for obeying the law, like you propose.
  #37  
Old 01-18-2018, 03:04 PM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 21,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clothahump View Post
Arresting the mayor/councilmen of cities who voted in "sanctuary" is something that should have done after the very first one. There's no constitutional crisis here, there is just malfeasance in office and conspiracy to violate federal law.
What crime would you charge them with?

You do know that in America, the cops can't just arrest you because they feel like it, right?
  #38  
Old 01-18-2018, 03:25 PM
Do Not Taunt Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The two that I've seen mentioned are 8 U.S.C. § 1324 & § 1373
Thank you. I don't see that 1324 applies - what is forbidden under that part of US Code is actual trafficking or concealment of illegal aliens.

It's harder for me to fully understand 1373, but I think the connection you're drawing is that Libby Schaaf, the mayor of Oakland, has, using her powers as authorized under California, ordered city officials not to cooperate with federal immigration officials (we'll just let slide that this part of US Code refers to INS, which is not really an agency anymore, AFAIK), which may constitute illegal interference with State/Local officials' duties wrt exchanging information with the INS. That seems like a pretty tortured reading of that statute. The closest analogy I can think of is that it is clearly illegal for me, as an individual, to interfere with the FBI's investigation of a crime. There are actual statutes forbidding that and actual prosecutions that have happened. But a mayor could certainly order a police chief not to lend any help. You could potentially construe that as interfering with the investigation, but it would never hold up. Similarly, a mayor can order city officials not to cooperate with INS, and that constitutes a legal exercise of her power.
  #39  
Old 01-18-2018, 03:40 PM
mikecurtis mikecurtis is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,187
Let's take that analogy even further. What the feds want is: not only am I not allowed to interfere with an investigation, they want me to turn over any info I may have come across, even before they ask for it. And even further, they want me to actively investigate anyone's status that I may come across in the course of my daily activities.

Not only am I (and state and local authorities) under no obligation to proactively cooperate (on my own time and dime) with the feds; I have no jurisdiction to do so.

mc

Last edited by mikecurtis; 01-18-2018 at 03:43 PM.
  #40  
Old 01-18-2018, 03:44 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 23,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The two that I've seen mentioned are 8 U.S.C. § 1324 & § 1373
8 USC 1373 doesn't appear to be a criminal statute. Can't be arrested for something that isn't a crime. Maybe the Federal government could sue or something.

I'd like to see the set of facts that would lead to a prosecution under 8 USC 1324, bearing in mind that a statute can't make illegal what the Constitution protects. If states have a constitutional protection from being compelled to enforce Federal statutes, then a Federal statute cannot violate that protection.

And finally, in terms of the DHS review of how to prosecute state and local officials, I'll bet people that the results of this review will be published a few weeks after the final report of the commission investigating many millions of illegal votes in the 2016 elections. In other words, don't hold your breath.
  #41  
Old 01-18-2018, 04:58 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,585
The California AG is threatening employers with prosecution if they run afoul of their new state law, AB450, which apparently makes consent a crime:

Quote:
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.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-18-2018 at 05:02 PM.
  #42  
Old 01-18-2018, 06:21 PM
bobot bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 6,109
The AG is going to prosecute people who break the law? Well damn, California! The nerve!
  #43  
Old 01-18-2018, 06:47 PM
Kolak of Twilo Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The California AG is threatening employers with prosecution if they run afoul of their new state law, AB450, which apparently makes consent a crime:









In my experience employers typically instruct their managers to request a copy of the warrant granting INS or ICE access to the non-public areas of the business. If they don’t have one they don’t get in. Not sure what the big deal is just because CA made it the law.

Last edited by Kolak of Twilo; 01-18-2018 at 06:50 PM.
  #44  
Old 01-18-2018, 07:11 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,585
The law in question appears (to my non-lawyer eyes) to violate the freedom of assembly. IIUC, it would make it a criminal act to invite an ICE agent into one's office. That seems ... well ... NUCKING FUTS (AKA Thursday in California)!!!
  #45  
Old 01-18-2018, 07:27 PM
Kyomara Kyomara is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 1,237
Let's be clear: the current push behind increasing deportations and targeting sanctuary city policies is rooted in bigotry and misperception. It is based in the notions that American citizenship is a sacred birthright, that illegal immigrants are a drain on resources without contributing anything back to the community, and that a significant number of them are violent criminals. The first notion is a philosophical one, and the line between those who believe it and those who don't is the line between bigots and opponents of bigotry. The other two notions can be disproven with simple numbers, but really the people who espouse these notions buy into them because they are a comfort to their bigotry.

There is no criminal crisis among illegal immigrants large enough to warrant the punishment of the entire illegal immigrant community with increased, and increasingly violent, deportations. These are human beings who on the whole are contributing members of their local communities, working their asses off to enjoy a better life in the US. I have no more problem with them skirting immigration laws to get here than I have with people using illegal drugs, getting away without paying parking tickets, or any other misdemeanor that is regularly treated with leniency by law enforcement.

As has been pointed out upthread, this effort by the Trump administration will rightfully fail in the courts. Local authorities are under no obligation to do the feds' job for them.
  #46  
Old 01-18-2018, 08:24 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The law in question appears (to my non-lawyer eyes) to violate the freedom of assembly. IIUC, it would make it a criminal act to invite an ICE agent into one's office. That seems ... well ... NUCKING FUTS (AKA Thursday in California)!!!
Could you quote the specific section of the law that "would make it a criminal act to invite an ICE agent into one's office"?
__________________
"...the social ills of the nonwhite inner-city poor had their origin not in some mysterious flaws of African-American culture but in economic factors—specifically, the disappearance of good blue-collar jobs. Sure enough, when rural whites faced a similar loss of economic opportunity, they experienced a similar social unraveling." - Krugman
  #47  
Old 01-18-2018, 08:26 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Could you quote the specific section of the law that "would make it a criminal act to invite an ICE agent into one's office"?
See post #41
  #48  
Old 01-18-2018, 09:01 PM
Clothahump Clothahump is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 14,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
What crime would you charge them with?

You do know that in America, the cops can't just arrest you because they feel like it, right?
Probably better than most.

It would be for violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens. Emphasis mine.

Quote:
(a) Criminal penalties
(1)
(A) Any person who—
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v)
(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
(i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
(ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
(iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both
  #49  
Old 01-18-2018, 09:02 PM
Clothahump Clothahump is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 14,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyomara View Post
Let's be clear: the current push behind increasing deportations and targeting sanctuary city policies is rooted in bigotry and misperception.
Sigh. No, it is not. It is rooted in a desire to live under the rule of law.
  #50  
Old 01-18-2018, 09:10 PM
snfaulkner snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 6,296
Here's what the OP has to say about the rule of law:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think Timothy McVeigh's actions were not an entirely unreasonable reaction to Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017