# 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:** 15
**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, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/281 "2018-01-25T19:07:17Z")
> [@Darwins\_Finch](#): > > The law only prohibits granting access to nonpublic areas without a warrant. In your analogy, you are free to invite ICE agents into the living room of your house; you cannot, however, invite them into the bedrooms without a warrant (at least, not if they’re there on official business…). Similarly, you most certainly can invite an ICE agent to lunch in a public dining room; you just can’t invite them into the kitchen without a warrant. > [@Darwins\_Finch](#): > > Neither of which were what **Bone** was objecting to. He was implying they couldn’t even be invited into public areas, which is false. It’s not false in my example, but I could have been more clear. You added the “public” part to the dining room. I didn’t specify so that’s a fair reading, but I meant to elaborate that the cafeteria in my building is behind a secured access - employees and guests only. Its not open to the public. There is a publicly accessible lobby where there is a security guard and badged controlled access. In the home example, unless the bedroom door is locked, I’d say the shared occupant could invite police to enter, but this goes into more nuanced 4th amendment jurisprudence. ---
**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, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/282 "2018-01-25T19:11:04Z")
> [@Darwins\_Finch](#): > > Neither of which were what **Bone** was objecting to. He was implying they couldn’t even be invited into public areas, which is false. Earlier **Bone** said this: > [@Bone](#): > > … there are two prongs to AB450. The first is voluntary access to employee records, which. The second is voluntary access to non public areas. The second is my primary focus. That doesn’t implicate search of any personal information. In any other context of search, the voluntary nature of consent renders it reasonable. But here the state intercedes and says people are not able to consent. … His example was this: > [@Bone](#): > > 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. I certainly wouldn’t consider the employee cafeteria a “public area” in most businesses I’ve been to. Would you call the break room a public area too? ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/283 "2018-01-25T19:30:37Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Earlier **Bone** said this: > > His example was this: > > I certainly wouldn’t consider the employee cafeteria a “public area” in most businesses I’ve been to. Would you call the break room a public area too? I would if non-employees such as Jane, the local sheriff’s deputy, are permitted therein for a lunch date. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/284 "2018-01-25T19:37:32Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It’s not false in my example, but I could have been more clear. You added the “public” part to the dining room. I didn’t specify so that’s a fair reading, but I meant to elaborate that the cafeteria in my building is behind a secured access - employees and guests only. Its not open to the public. There is a publicly accessible lobby where there is a security guard and badged controlled access. It would then depend on how the law defines “public” vs “nonpublic” spaces (which the text of this particular law doesn’t do). I would suspect that if your ICE friend is there for lunch, and not to perform a warrant-less search of the premises, you would not run afoul of this law. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/285 "2018-01-25T19:44:01Z")
For those who think ICE is performing a useful social function, what exactly is the problem with requiring them to get a warrant? Are you afraid they won’t be able to get a warrant? Why? ---
**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, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/286 "2018-01-25T20:01:10Z")
> [@Darwins\_Finch](#): > > I would if non-employees such as Jane, the local sheriff’s deputy, are permitted therein for a lunch date. I don’t think that’s a rational interpretation. If you invited someone into your office for a meeting, does your office cease being a “non-public area”? If that’s the case, then AB450 is unenforceable, because as soon as ICE gets invited somewhere, by virtue of that invitation it’s no longer a “non-public area” and therefore not a violation. Do you see how dumb that would be? ---
**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, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/287 "2018-01-25T20:03:48Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > For those who think ICE is performing a useful social function, what exactly is the problem with requiring them to get a warrant? Are you afraid they won’t be able to get a warrant? Why? In my case, I don’t have a problem with an individual saying “get a warrant” to the police. In fact, I’d encourage it. I have a problem with the state saying “you’re not allowed to grant consent”. ETA: and to be clear, it’s not even so much a problem, as I suspect it’ll get overturned by the courts. If it doesn’t, like I said earlier, I’ll eagerly implement similar laws in my state for the parts of the federal bureaucracy I dislike. That’s probably a very inefficient way to run a country, but I’ll play by the rules as they are, not as I wish them to be. ---
**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, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/288 "2018-01-25T20:07:48Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > In my case, I don’t have a problem with an individual saying “get a warrant” to the police. In fact, I’d encourage it. I have a problem with the state saying “you’re not allowed to grant consent”. Well, we don’t want random people poking around in our personal information without a warrant. And as someone (you) made clear earlier in the thread, people won’t do the right thing unless we make them, so we wrote a law. ---
**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, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/289 "2018-01-25T20:09:13Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You keep bringing up the confidentiality of personnel records, but I think we both acknowledge that nobody has been able to identify any law that is a general prohibition on sharing personnel employment records and so forth. > > Of course doctors can’t share medical records if they wanted to, because we know that HIPAA generally prohibits exactly this. Of course we know that lawyers aren’t free to share client information, because it is protected by a well-recognized privilege. And that’s what this law does. Sets up a HIPAA like protection on employment records. That the others are protected by law, and employment records are not is not relevant, when the entire point is that we are talking about a law that protects employee data. I am pointing out that there is precedent that there are times when information is sensitive, and should not be shared without due process. > [@](#): > > If you do not wish to share personnel records absent a court order, my opinion is that is fully up to you, and if you wish not to voluntarily share that information, I support 100% your right to say no in the absence of a search warrant. But if someone else wants to share personnel records of their own company for some reason, I cannot say that they should never be allowed to do so unless there is a search warrant. And if that reason is because ICE agents are coming by several times a week, asking to see those records, and saying that they will not stop until you turn them over? > [@](#): > > To use an extreme example, let’s say an employee of mine gets arrested for being a serial killer. In my opinion, if the cops came and wanted his employee records, I would be highly inclined to cooperate with them absent a search warrant. If you take a different view, that’s totally fine with me as well. And after they leave and you turn on the news, you hear nothing about a serial killer being arrested. In digging a bit more, you find that your employee was arrested because he committed a minor traffic infraction. Ultimately, you find that your employee insulted the cop who pulled him over, and so the police lied to you, telling you that your employee had been arrested for murder, in order to get you to give them more information so that they can find dirt on him to charge him. That’s why I would ask for a warrant. Not because I’d need a warrant to turn over info on a serial killer, but because I’d need a warrant to believe the police that the person they are investigating is a serial killer. > [@](#): > > The part I have the most problems with AB450 is regarding being invited onto premises voluntarily. If business owner A wants to tell ICE to go pound sand and come back with a warrant, great. I 100% support his right to do so. But if business owner B wants to invite ICE into non-public areas of his business, I think preventing him from doing so is absurd. Once again, preventing people from being coerced. If business owner C does not want to invite ICE into staff only areas, yet ICE does not tell him that cooperation is voluntary and insists that if he does not cooperate then ICE will escalate things and make things unpleasant for the business owner, I do not in any way find absurd to have a law that gives the business owner something to fall back on. > [@](#): > > Another question for AB450 supporters: the Fourth Amendment allows police to search people’s property with a warrant, or with permission of the owner (I’m setting aside some other specific types searches that courts have deemed reasonable, of course). Do you think the Fourth Amendment should be changed to prohibit Americans from voluntarily agreeing to searches? I would support that. Too many people don’t know their rights, and “accidently” consent to searches, or are bullied or pressured into consenting to searches. It’s a slightly different scenario, as it is specifically your privacy that you are volunteering to give up, not other people’s. I suppose a better law would instead be to say that law enforcement, ICE et al., may not even request cooperation from private individuals without a warrant. I would definitely support that. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I certainly wouldn’t consider the employee cafeteria a “public area” in most businesses I’ve been to. Would you call the break room a public area too? Most places that I have worked have forbidden non-employees in staff only areas. Even if you work there, if you are not on the clock, you are not supposed to be in staff areas. When I was catering to offices, I almost always had to actually sign in and be escorted about by the office manager. There really aren’t all that many places where you can invite your friend into the office breakroom to have lunch. ---
**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, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/290 "2018-01-25T20:10:05Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t think that’s a rational interpretation. If you invited someone into your office for a meeting, does your office cease being a “non-public area”? I don’t think I’ve ever had a hundred people eating lunch in my office, along with cashiers, cooks, and janitors. Maybe I need a bigger office? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2018, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/291 "2018-01-25T20:10:16Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > In my case, I don’t have a problem with an individual saying “get a warrant” to the police. In fact, I’d encourage it. I have a problem with the state saying “you’re not allowed to grant consent” Out of curiosity, do you have a similar problem with Doctors not allowed to grant consent to medical records? What about ISPs, Search Engines, or Facebook. Do you think they should be allowed to just turn over all your personal Internet habits and histories without a warrant? ---
**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, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/292 "2018-01-25T20:12:35Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > What about ISPs, Search Engines, or Facebook. Do you think they should be allowed to just turn over all your personal Internet habits and histories without a warrant? I think they can. I also think they shouldn’t be allowed to. We really need stronger privacy laws in this country. ---
**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, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/293 "2018-01-25T20:16:22Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Well, we don’t want random people poking around in our personal information without a warrant. And as someone (you) made clear earlier in the thread, people won’t do the right thing unless we make them, so we wrote a law. You keep saying “random people”. We’re not just talking about “random people”. You understand we’re talking about ICE agents whose duty it is to investigation violations of our immigration laws, right? ---
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/294 "2018-01-25T20:22:11Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … Most places that I have worked have forbidden non-employees in staff only areas. Even if you work there, if you are not on the clock, you are not supposed to be in staff areas. When I was catering to offices, I almost always had to actually sign in and be escorted about by the office manager. There really aren’t all that many places where you can invite your friend into the office breakroom to have lunch. I’m a contractor, so I have had the opportunity to visit a lot of businesses. Many of them have a sign-in procedure and allow guests / visitors in, at least with an employee escort. It’s probably not terribly common, but wouldn’t be considered inappropriate to, for example, have one’s spouse join you for lunch, or have a friend join you for lunch, in many of those settings. And that wouldn’t turn the non-public area cafeteria into a public area of the business. ---
**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, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/295 "2018-01-25T20:24:04Z")
> [@Darwins\_Finch](#): > > It would then depend on how the law defines “public” vs “nonpublic” spaces (which the text of this particular law doesn’t do). I would suspect that if your ICE friend is there for lunch, and not to perform a warrant-less search of the premises, you would not run afoul of this law. I don’t think that’s true. It’s not present in the text of the law. Here is what is says: > [@](#): > > 7285.1. (a) 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. This section does not apply if the immigration enforcement agent provides a judicial warrant. Nothing in there about the purpose for the consent given, etc. It’s a blanket prohibition on providing consent (with the noted exceptions in the law). ---
**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, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/296 "2018-01-25T20:26:25Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > In my case, I don’t have a problem with an individual saying “get a warrant” to the police. In fact, I’d encourage it. I have a problem with the state saying “you’re not allowed to grant consent”. > > ETA: and to be clear, it’s not even so much a problem, as I suspect it’ll get overturned by the courts. If it doesn’t, like I said earlier, I’ll eagerly implement similar laws in my state for the parts of the federal bureaucracy I dislike. That’s probably a very inefficient way to run a country, but I’ll play by the rules as they are, not as I wish them to be. Not a gotcha, just a head scratcher, as I can’t think of any examples. What federal bureaucracy would that be? ---
**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, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/297 "2018-01-25T20:27:56Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Out of curiosity, do you have a similar problem with Doctors not allowed to grant consent to medical records? … I think quite a few people in this thread are confused about what HIPAA allows. [Here is an HHS summary](https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/emergency/final_hipaa_guide_law_enforcement.pdf): > [@](#): > > **Under what circumstances may a HIPAA covered entity disclose PHI to law enforcement?** > … > To report PHI to a law enforcement official reasonably able to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of an individual or the public. > > To report PHI that the covered entity in good faith believes to be evidence of a crime that occurred on the premises of the covered entity. > … > When responding to an off-site medical emergency, as necessary to alert law enforcement to criminal activity. > … > To respond to a request for PHI for purposes of identifying or locating a suspect, fugitive, material witness or missing person, but the information must be limited to basic demographic and health information about the person. ---
**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, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/298 "2018-01-25T20:28:56Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You keep saying “random people”. We’re not just talking about “random people”. You understand we’re talking about ICE agents whose duty it is to investigation violations of our immigration laws, right? You’re right, I should trust them less than a random person off the street. ---
**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, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/299 "2018-01-25T20:30:27Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Not a gotcha, just a head scratcher, as I can’t think of any examples. > > What federal bureaucracy would that be? IRS, BATFE, BLM, EPA, just off the top of my head. ---
**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, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/300 "2018-01-25T20:31:32Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You keep saying “random people”. We’re not just talking about “random people”. You understand we’re talking about ICE agents whose duty it is to investigation violations of our immigration laws, right? Without a warrant or the law behind them, they are really very little different from “random people”. If the federal govt wants to make a law that says that ICE agent must be permitted to inspect any and all documents and spaces whenever they want, they can go ahead and do that. Same as they have a law that says that the you must turn certain info over to the IRS, even though they don’t need a warrant. If the govt says that cooperation with law enforcement is “voluntary” then it really isn’t, is it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810.md?page=16)