# A real constitutional crisis on the horizon? (immigration, sanctuary cities, and DHS) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 17, 2018, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810 "2018-01-17T07:37:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/221 "2018-01-25T00:01:27Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > How can you claim there is a right to privacy of your employee information when it’s turned over to the IRS? How does the IRS have a right to that information, but ICE needs a warrant? > > The fact is, neither needs a warrant. The government mandates that employers collect that information precisely because the government wants that information. If you don’t want the government to have that information, stop requiring employers to document their employees. The IRS needs the information in order to properly collect taxes. Something that is done to each and every taxpayer. That’s why there are laws that say that there is information that needs to be sent in to them. If ICE wants the info, why can’t they just ask the IRS? Because the IRS is not allowed to release that info, even to other agencies. If the IRS can’t give that info to ICE, why should I? > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I suspect you’re right about that, but there’s a world of difference between “selling on the dark web” and “turning over to ICE”. In degree maybe, but I don’t know if it is different in kind. You are handing it over to a person who is not a part of the business, not a part of their payroll or tax collection. > [@](#): > > I was talking about records, not “information”. Do you have the right to march into the HR department and demand that they turn over their copies of your I-9 form? I don’t know, but it would surprise me. I think the legal answer is: that’s their copy, not yours. Employers are required to keep I-9’s on file for a number of years after an employee quits. I could not, by law, hand over my only copies, but I could give them copies, and I could promise not to give them to anyone else without a warrant. > [@](#): > > Look, I understand that yours and **Translucent Daydream** ’s sensibilities are offended by the idea that an employer might cooperate with law enforcement to catch their own illegal immigrant employees, but I don’t think your sensibilities are reflected in the current state of the law (well, except in California, but I suspect that’s on it’s way to being overturned). It’s not about catching undocumented workers, it’s about protecting privacy. Just because that information can be used for that purpose doe snot mean that that is the only thing it can be used for. If someone has a reason to believe that I am employing undocumented workers, they can get a warrant to check my records. Otherwise, that information should not be shared with anyone that doesn’t have a reason for it. ETA: I see that there has been some added to this thread since I started this post, but I really need to get out of here, I’ll pick it up tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/222 "2018-01-25T00:03:07Z")
I don’t think that in either case it can actually be accomplished, but the attempt would definitely cause a major kerfuffle. The word “treason” gets overused in my opinion, but when a state directly defies the duly passed and definitely constitutional laws of Congress that’s pretty much rebellion right there. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/223 "2018-01-25T00:05:37Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > The IRS needs the information in order to properly collect taxes. Something that is done to each and every taxpayer. That’s why there are laws that say that there is information that needs to be sent in to them. > > If ICE wants the info, why can’t they just ask the IRS? Because the IRS is not allowed to release that info, even to other agencies. If the IRS can’t give that info to ICE, why should I? Actually, employer files are not just for tax collection, but also for the purpose of verifying employee eligibility to work. That’s what the I-9 form is for, and ICE has access to those forms whenever it requests it. No warrant is required. The whole purpose of the I-9 is for immigration enforcement, just as the W4 is for tax enforcement. EVery employee must prove their eligibility to work. Just like taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/224 "2018-01-25T00:19:43Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Do you think an employer who wanted to voluntarily consent to the LEO’s request deserves to be fined by the state of California? You’re a rare conservative who thinks “deserves” is a compelling argument. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/225 "2018-01-25T00:21:41Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The word “treason” gets overused in my opinion, but when a state directly defies the duly passed and definitely constitutional laws of Congress that’s pretty much rebellion right there. Considering the law requires employers to comply with federal law, I think you’re probably contributing to the overuse of the word. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/226 "2018-01-25T00:23:40Z")
Here’s the thing: there are many employers who WANT to comply with state and federal regulations. The state of California has basically told California employers that when it comes to immigration law, they are expected to do as little as they can get away with. California is not merely looking away, or winking and nodding, but actively pressuring California employers to do as little as possible to comply with immigration law. California has actually made E-verify illegal. So I say again, if California doesn’t want immigration laws enforced, why not give them what they want? Pull the border patrol from California and use them where they are wanted, in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Have ICE concentate their resources elsewhere. California’s a big state. Remove California from the equation and our immigration authorities can practically wipe out illegal immigration in the other 49 states. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/227 "2018-01-25T00:27:04Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > California has actually made E-verify illegal. No they haven’t. ---
**Author:** ![Translucent\_Daydream](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/translucent_daydream/32/16170_2.png) [@Translucent\_Daydream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Translucent_Daydream)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/228 "2018-01-25T00:27:18Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I suspect you’re right about that, but there’s a world of difference between “selling on the dark web” and “turning over to ICE”. > > I was talking about records, not “information”. Do you have the right to march into the HR department and demand that they turn over their copies of your I-9 form? I don’t know, but it would surprise me. I think the legal answer is: that’s their copy, not yours. > > Look, I understand that yours and **Translucent Daydream** ’s sensibilities are offended by the idea that an employer might cooperate with law enforcement to catch their own illegal immigrant employees, but I don’t think your sensibilities are reflected in the current state of the law (well, except in California, but I suspect that’s on it’s way to being overturned). It has nothing to do with my sensibilities it has to do with my liabilities as an employer. I don’t assume anything about you, it’s lame you assumed anything about me. The thing that is not addressed is my liabilities. Say I give this shit out, and ICE shakes a guy down and fucks with him. He is clean. Can he sue me because ICE had no warrant? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/229 "2018-01-25T00:36:58Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > No they haven’t. Fine, they just made it illegal for any employer to use it unless they have to under federal law. > [@](#): > > This bill would expand the definition of an unlawful employment practice to prohibit an employer or any other person or entity from using the E-Verify system at a time or in a manner not required by a specified federal law or not authorized by a federal agency memorandum of understanding to check the employment authorization status of an existing employee or an applicant who has not received an offer of employment, except as required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. The bill would also require an employer that uses the E-Verify system to provide to the affected employee any notification issued by the Social Security Administration or the United States Department of Homeland Security containing information specific to the employee’s E-Verify case or any tentative nonconfirmation notice. The bill would provide for a civil penalty of $10,000 for an employer for each violation of these provisions. The bill would include a statement of intent. [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab\_0601-0650/ab\_622\_bill\_20151009\_chaptered.htm](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_0601-0650/ab_622_bill_20151009_chaptered.htm) ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/230 "2018-01-25T00:38:13Z")
> [@Translucent\_Daydream](#): > > Say I give this shit out, and ICE shakes a guy down and fucks with him. He is clean. Can he sue me because ICE had no warrant? No, anymore than an employee can sue his employer because the IRS wrongly shook him down using information collected by the employer. Now if the information is inaccurate due to employer negligence, that might be another matter. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/231 "2018-01-25T00:40:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Fine, they just made it illegal for any employer to use it unless they have to under federal law. You mean California can fine employers who misuse E-Verify? The horror! ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/232 "2018-01-25T00:47:00Z")
Misuse e-verify by using it to determine if your employees are eligible to work in this country? I’d call that Orwellian, except it’s just too stupid to be Orwellian. And I know the term “misuse” isn’t your own, that’s California politicians who obviously haven’t competed in a competitive election in decades coming up with that bit of genius. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/233 "2018-01-25T01:14:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Misuse e-verify by using it to determine if your employees are eligible to work in this country? You’re getting it wrong again–didn’t you read your cite? The law explicitly allows employers to use E-Verify to determine if employees are eligible to work in the country: “Nothing in this section shall prohibit an employer from utilizing the federal E-Verify system, in accordance with federal law, to check the employment authorization status of a person who has been offered employment.” Maybe, every time you think something is “Orwellian”, you should check and make sure you have your facts straight. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/234 "2018-01-25T01:20:41Z")
They can only use it required to do so by federal law. Employers in the other 49 states who use it simply because they want to make sure they only hire legal employees are not “misusing” e-verify. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/235 "2018-01-25T01:28:42Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > They can only use it required to do so by federal law. Employers in the other 49 states who use it simply because they want to make sure they only hire legal employees are not “misusing” e-verify. They can use it to “check the employment authorization status of a person who has been offered employment,” which is the purpose of the system. If it offends you that the law requires employers to use it in the way intended, then I suppose the law offends you. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/236 "2018-01-25T01:33:56Z")
They cannot use it to check the status of a person offered employment unless required to do so by the federal government. Such as if they are a federal contractor. Federal e-verify laws do not require all employers to verify their workforces. Although that will change soon if we get our way. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/237 "2018-01-25T01:37:02Z")
Supporters of this California law, I have a question. Let’s say HR in some company routinely hires people not eligible to work in this country. Another employee - let’s say the shop manager - figures this out. Should he be allowed to call the authorities? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/238 "2018-01-25T01:44:19Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > They cannot use it to check the status of a person offered employment unless required to do so by the federal government. Wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/239 "2018-01-25T01:45:55Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Supporters of this California law, I have a question. Let’s say HR in some company routinely hires people not eligible to work in this country. Another employee - let’s say the shop manager - figures this out. Should he be allowed to call the authorities? Is there anything in the law that prevents him from doing so? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/240 "2018-01-25T01:48:36Z")
> [@](#): > > This bill would expand the definition of an unlawful employment practice to prohibit an employer or any other person or entity from using the E-Verify system at a time or in a manner not required by a specified federal law Most California employers are not federal contractors, so most California businesses are forbidden to use e-verify. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810.md?page=13)