# 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:** 13
**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, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/241 "2018-01-25T01:50:49Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Most California employers are not federal contractors, so most California businesses are forbidden to use e-verify. Just stop. You’re wrong. Go read your own cites before you comment on this issue again. ---
**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, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/242 "2018-01-25T02:07:34Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Is there anything in the law that prevents him from doing so? I’m asking you if there should be a law against it. ---
**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, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/243 "2018-01-25T02:10:37Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m asking you if there should be a law against it. A law against reporting a crime? I don’t see how that’s a good idea. ---
**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, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/244 "2018-01-25T02:13:53Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Just stop. You’re wrong. > > Go read your own cites before you comment on this issue again. Let me provide a more useful response: Under California law you can use E-Verify in two situations: [ul] [li]To check the status of applicants who’ve received an offer but have yet to start work[/li][li]In other circumstances as required by federal law[/li][/ul] What you cannot do is to use E-Verify to check the status of people to whom you have not submitted an offer of employment, unless federal law requires you to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/245 "2018-01-25T02:37:43Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Here’s the thing: there are many employers who WANT to comply with state and federal regulations. Oh, really? They want their businesses disrupted for a fact-finding mission and then, if the employees are found to be illegal, to have to hire replacements, with the attendant delays and lost productivity? Yeah, good luck with that. > [@](#): > > 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. And so I say again, Please, Brer Fox, please don’t throw me into the briar patch. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/246 "2018-01-25T02:42:18Z")
> [@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? The shop manager is reporting a suspected crime. That, last I heard, is perfectly legal, and not the same thing at all. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/247 "2018-01-25T02:46:57Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Oh, really? They want their businesses disrupted for a fact-finding mission and then, if the employees are found to be illegal, to have to hire replacements, with the attendant delays and lost productivity? Yeah, good luck with that. If no employer in CA might want to grant consent to ICE agents then it makes AB450 and the AG’s press conference a tad … superfluous, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/248 "2018-01-25T02:48:04Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Remind me again, please. Which Party is it that strongly supports States’ Rights? Both and neither. They both adopt and abandon it when it suits their legislative agenda. Same with government regulation. The GOP has been adding tons and tons of regulations to abortion providers on the state level to make it harder for them to operate. The GOP says they are anti regulation, but not really. It depends on the situation. The whole concept of ‘states rights’ was invented in the 50s and 60s as a way for southern states to resist the federal government trying to force them to integrate blacks. ---
**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, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/249 "2018-01-25T02:50:43Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > A law against reporting a crime? I don’t see how that’s a good idea. > [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > The shop manager is reporting a suspected crime. That, last I heard, is perfectly legal, and not the same thing at all. Why is it okay to report a crime and not to voluntarily cooperate in the investigation of a crime? ---
**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, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/250 "2018-01-25T03:00:07Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Why is it okay to report a crime and not to voluntarily cooperate in the investigation of a crime? If they don’t have sufficient evidence of a crime to get a warrant then they’re not investigating a crime, they’re just poking around. Personally, I don’t want my employer providing my personal information to some guy who feels like poking around. ---
**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, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/251 "2018-01-25T03:05:39Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > If they don’t have sufficient evidence of a crime to get a warrant then they’re not investigating a crime, they’re just poking around. Personally, I don’t want my employer providing my personal information to some guy who feels like poking around. So if the manager calls ICE with the tip, he then cannot let them in the building too? Oh yeah, that makes sense. ---
**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, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/252 "2018-01-25T03:07:32Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So if the manager calls ICE with the tip, he then cannot let them in the building too? Oh yeah, that makes sense. If the tip wasn’t sufficient to get a warrant, then it wasn’t much of a tip. ---
**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, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/253 "2018-01-25T03:41:35Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If no employer in CA might want to grant consent to ICE agents then it makes AB450 and the AG’s press conference a tad … superfluous, don’t you think? If it’s superfluous then it’s not worth worrying about. And if it’s not superfluous then it’s protecting employee’s personal information from unwarranted scrutiny. Win-win. ---
**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, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/254 "2018-01-25T03:52:29Z")
I just can’t get to where you guys that hate this rule are coming from. I am not particularly politically invested in this, I just can’t get passed the point where “I chose to give ICE information on a fishing trip” and I would have no liability for what happens next. If ICE showed up (I’m not in California) and, without a warrant, wanted to go through the records of my employees, I would say to them, “I’ll give you access to this stuff if you have a warrant. If you don’t, I’ll refer you to any particular employee you wanna talk to, and if they consent to their stuff being searched by you, go ahead.” This isn’t me blocking access to ICE agents, or Anne Franking a bunch of dudes in the attic to hide them, its just complying with what I am already required to do. If they have reason to suspect that I was given forged or otherwise fake documents when I verified the employment in the first place, they would have a warrant and I would already be handing said shit over to them. I don’t get how that is somehow interfering with ICE agents. I also don’t get how I would, without permission, give this information out without a warrant to anyone, not just ICE folks but to Santa Claus and anybody else and not be found to be afoul of the legal requirements I have to protect the information I am required to give. If there is a breech at my location, and someone six months later steals the identity of anyone with the information of that breech puts my ass in a sling liability wise. I could be sued (just because I didn’t lose a lawsuit doesn’t mean it won’t cost me lots of money.) I’m not sure why this has to be a new law in California, but if it was a law here, I would be happy to comply, because I would be doing the same fucking thing anyway. I don’t hire illegal immigrant folks so I have nothing to hide. I would assume that this law is more to put ICE on notice to get their damn warrants. It shouldn’t be that hard. Cops have to have warrants. I could totally be missing something, or maybe I am too close to this situation as I am actually a real bonafide small business owner and I have protecting my little business from liability so far ingrained into me I can’t see this clearly. I don’t have emotions or feelings about it, I just must be missing something. ---
**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, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/255 "2018-01-25T03:56:44Z")
And I honestly ask someone to help me understand. I just don’t get it. I’m open to trying to get it though. ---
**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, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/256 "2018-01-25T04:35:34Z")
> [@Translucent\_Daydream](#): > > I just can’t get to where you guys that hate this rule are coming from. I am not particularly politically invested in this, I just can’t get passed the point where “I chose to give ICE information on a fishing trip” and I would have no liability for what happens next. > > If ICE showed up (I’m not in California) and, without a warrant, wanted to go through the records of my employees, I would say to them, “I’ll give you access to this stuff if you have a warrant. If you don’t, I’ll refer you to any particular employee you wanna talk to, and if they consent to their stuff being searched by you, go ahead.” > > This isn’t me blocking access to ICE agents, or Anne Franking a bunch of dudes in the attic to hide them, its just complying with what I am already required to do. If they have reason to suspect that I was given forged or otherwise fake documents when I verified the employment in the first place, they would have a warrant and I would already be handing said shit over to them. > > I don’t get how that is somehow interfering with ICE agents. I also don’t get how I would, without permission, give this information out without a warrant to anyone, not just ICE folks but to Santa Claus and anybody else and not be found to be afoul of the legal requirements I have to protect the information I am required to give. If there is a breech at my location, and someone six months later steals the identity of anyone with the information of that breech puts my ass in a sling liability wise. I could be sued (just because I didn’t lose a lawsuit doesn’t mean it won’t cost me lots of money.) > > I’m not sure why this has to be a new law in California, but if it was a law here, I would be happy to comply, because I would be doing the same fucking thing anyway. I don’t hire illegal immigrant folks so I have nothing to hide. I would assume that this law is more to put ICE on notice to get their damn warrants. It shouldn’t be that hard. Cops have to have warrants. > I could totally be missing something, or maybe I am too close to this situation as I am actually a real bonafide small business owner and I have protecting my little business from liability so far ingrained into me I can’t see this clearly. > > I don’t have emotions or feelings about it, I just must be missing something. And ICE agents will say, “We gave you three days notice in accordance with the law, now are you going to let us in or are we going to charge you with obstruction of justice?” ICE does not need a warrant to do an I-9 inspection, anymore than the health inspector needs a warrant to enter your premises and inspect. ---
**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, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/257 "2018-01-25T04:48:14Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And ICE agents will say, “We gave you three days notice in accordance with the law, now are you going to let us in or are we going to charge you with obstruction of justice?” > > ICE does not need a warrant to do an I-9 inspection, anymore than the health inspector needs a warrant to enter your premises and inspect. Yes, but I am already in compliance there. I-9 stuff for ICE inspection is in its own place, because they are ONLY entitled to that specific information. I have to keep everything in their file and all their personal area belongings reasonably secure. I can’t let them thumb through the HR filing cabinet for whatever the hell they want, in other words, without a search warrant. Is this what you are referring to? > [@](#): > > To start, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution provides that individuals are protected from unreasonable search and seizure. In the workplace, what that means is that on private property, you can deny ICE entry unless they have a warrant signed by a judge. Similarly, you do not have to turn over any documents without a valid search warrant or subpoena signed by a judge. I-9 audits are an exception, since employers are legally required to make these forms and related documents available for inspection to ICE agents. Employers, however, are not required to share other information in an employee’s file with ICE agents without a valid warrant or subpoena. In sum, employers do not have to allow ICE agents into a workplace, or allow them access to employee records or databases unless they have a valid warrant signed by a judge. If ICE does present a warrant, inspect the warrant to ensure that a judge (and not an ICE agent or other officer) has signed it. This is important because ICE has “ICE warrants” titled as such as the top of the form, which are simply signed by ICE agents (not judges) and are thus not legally enforceable. This is the source of the text in the quote box above. Its even specific to California. Its a PDF link. > **[kyr\_guide\_ilrc\_aug\_2017\_v3.pdf](https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/kyr_guide_ilrc_aug_2017_v3.pdf)** > > 558.78 KB ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/258 "2018-01-25T04:49:29Z")
> [@Translucent\_Daydream](#): > > And I honestly ask someone to help me understand. I just don’t get it. I’m open to trying to get it though. Ab450 has two main prongs. One prohibits sharing certain documents. The other prohibits granting access. They are separate. Most of the support for the law has been around the first, and most of the objection to the law has been around the second. The problem with the second is that it prohibits voluntary consent to grant access. For example, if a person works in a company with a cafeteria, they could invite their friend Jane the local shetiffs deputy to lunch who is in the neighborhood to join them in the cafeteria. But if they invite their other friend Bill, the ICE agent to the same cafteria for the same lunch, that would be subject tp penalty and prohibited. That’s pretty silly. People should be able to consent to grant access if they want - it’s about people having a choice in their actions. They should also be able to deny consent, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/259 "2018-01-25T04:56:17Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Most California employers are not federal contractors, so most California businesses are forbidden to use e-verify. No, that’s not what the e-verify law says. The law forbids employers to use E-Verify on existing employees and potential employees who haven’t yet received an offer of employment. So, for instance, lets say I’m a business owner. Can I use e-verify on employees I’ve already hired? No. That would violate the law. I want to hire somebody new. I advertise and get a bunch of applicants. Can I run e-verify on them before I consider them for employment? No. That would violate the law. I interview people, find someone I like? Can I offer him a job conditional on his eligibility to work in the country and then use e-verify to confirm that eligibility? That’s legal under the law. I don’t particularly like the law. I think we probably need stronger policing of employers who hire people not eligible to work, and I think that running a list of applicants through e-verify is probably a good way to narrow down the pool of applicants before you waste time interviewing somebody you’re not allowed to hire. But you still have to get what the law says right, and summarizing it as “California employers who aren’t federal contractors aren’t allowed to use e-verify” isn’t actually what the law says. ---
**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, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/260 "2018-01-25T05:01:28Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Ab450 has two main prongs. One prohibits sharing certain documents. The other prohibits granting access. They are separate. Most of the support for the law has been around the first, and most of the objection to the law has been around the second. > > The problem with the second is that it prohibits voluntary consent to grant access. For example, if a person works in a company with a cafeteria, they could invite their friend Jane the local shetiffs deputy to lunch who is in the neighborhood to join them in the cafeteria. But if they invite their other friend Bill, the ICE agent to the same cafteria for the same lunch, that would be subject tp penalty and prohibited. That’s pretty silly. > > People should be able to consent to grant access if they want - it’s about people having a choice in their actions. They should also be able to deny consent, of course. That totally helps me understand the point. I’m not sure why if the employer reports it to ICE, why ICE can’t come with a warrant. It seems like it would be better to force ICE to get a warrant so that some shitty manager without owners consent were deterred from using the whole “I’ll call ICE on you” as a tool in the screw you cabinet to another employee. Maybe that isn’t as prevalent up in California as it was in Texas where I’m from. Is it hard for ICE to get a warrant? Is that the issue here? If I was the business owner, I would want to be able to consent to do whatever the hell I wanted though. I am sort of conflicted and can understand the other side. I am still not understanding if I can legally give stuff to ICE without a proper warrant, even if I wanted to. I guess my problem is I am unsure if I have the legal agency or whatever to be able to provide the documents to ICE without a valid warrant, other than the I-9 stuff they can look at whenever anyway. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810.md?page=14)