# 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:** 17
**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, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/321 "2018-01-25T22:20:22Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I think your view of police and law enforcement is impacting your positions in a way that is unreasonable. Are you saying that the police don’t ever lie? > [@](#): > > You’re views on the 4th amendment and the law as it should be are not in line with current jurisprudence - not even close. I’m not sure why you say this. I really don’t know what I have posted that is not in line with the law and constitution. > [@](#): > > You’re welcome to it of course, but it doesn’t match my experience at all. I’ve had excellent experiences with cops too. I know a couple police officers, and have had them as acquaintances. That doesn’t mean that I trust all cops. > [@](#): > > And beyond anecdote, refusal to cooperate or grant consent is pretty widely known bar for law enforcement. The entire jurisprudence around consent, search, fruit of the poisoned tree, etc. is the evidence. People don’t know their rights as well as you think, and even if they do, they don’t know how to stand up for them, and even if they do, then it is the cop’s word against theirs. I’ve mostly stayed away from the drug scene myself, for many reasons, but given my demographics, many of my peers and prior co-workers do get involved in such activities. Yes, police will try to trick you into giving up your rights, whether it be just on your person, your car, or your home. ---
**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 26, 2018, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/322 "2018-01-26T01:01:44Z")
But I think **Bone** ’s point is that just because you think one thing about cops, doesn’t mean that others who don’t think your way are incapable of making a sound judgment. ---
**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 26, 2018, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/323 "2018-01-26T01:10:30Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Are you saying that the police don’t ever lie? Of course I’m not saying that and I don’t see how anything I’ve said would lead you to believe that, especially the quoted part. Police are people and people sometimes lie. Whether or not police lie doesn’t change the assessment in any way. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure why you say this. I really don’t know what I have posted that is not in line with the law and constitution. Because you say you’d support a prohibition on police asking for voluntary cooperation. That’s pretty far afield of where we are today - your view of the law _as it should be_. I’m not saying this is what you believe the law actually is. Other than that, I think I’ve exhausted the points I wanted to make. I don’t think AB450 is good law, and I’ll be glad if it is overturned. For now, the status quo is in your favor. ---
**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 26, 2018, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/324 "2018-01-26T02:01:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t have a strong opinion about HIPAA. That’s strange because it limits the freedom of Doctors to freely give out information about their patients. Aren’t you against that limiting of freedom? ---
**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 26, 2018, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/325 "2018-01-26T02:21:11Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Also in the quote box: you saying not to assume criminal penalties apply. Good news: AB450 doesn’t apply criminal penalties. (What with AB450 being the topic of discussion, that seems relevant). Perhaps you want to direct your nitpicking to **k9** because he’s the one who raised the issue of going to jail. ---
**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 26, 2018, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/326 "2018-01-26T16:55:07Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > But I think **Bone** ’s point is that just because you think one thing about cops, doesn’t mean that others who don’t think your way are incapable of making a sound judgment. I don’t know that I made that claim. I do think that the police have no reason not to lie to get you to comply with what they want you to do. If there are people out there that do not think that cops ever lie in order to manipulate people into doing what they want, then I would say that those people are poorly informed and therefore, can be taken advantage of. I am not sure if that is what you are calling “incapable of making a sound judgement”. If so, then I quibble with the accuracy and the emotional pleading of the specific construction of such a statement, but otherwise agree. If not, then I disagree entirely that I feel that those who do not thing “my way” are any less capable of making any and all judgments to which they have adequate information and the time and resources to research and make a reasoned decision. When LEO agents are demanding voluntary compliance it is not often that they give you those things. > [@Bone](#): > > Of course I’m not saying that and I don’t see how anything I’ve said would lead you to believe that, especially the quoted part. Police are people and people sometimes lie. Whether or not police lie doesn’t change the assessment in any way. You said that my view of police is unreasonable. My view of police is that they will do what they need to do in order to get their jobs done. On a good day, that doesn’t involve them actually breaking any laws themselves, and I will stick with that assumption for the purposes of this discussion, as those who are willing to break the law aren’t going to be deterred by laws anyway. But it is not breaking the law for a cop to lie to an individual. It is not against the law for a cop to lie not only about the elements of a crime, and it is not against the law for a cop to lie about what your rights during the interaction. It is not against the law for the cop to threaten legal punishment for things that are not crimes, and it is not against the law for a cop to offer a plea deal that he has no authority to offer. One thing that _is_ against the law is for a police officer to request that you break the law. > [@](#): > > Because you say you’d support a prohibition on police asking for voluntary cooperation. That’s pretty far afield of where we are today - your view of the law _as it should be_. I’m not saying this is what you believe the law actually is. I’d rather make a law that forbids police from coercing “voluntary cooperation”, but I’m not sure how that would work. > [@](#): > > Other than that, I think I’ve exhausted the points I wanted to make. I don’t think AB450 is good law, and I’ll be glad if it is overturned. For now, the status quo is in your favor. I think that AB450 is not only a good law, it is a law that should serve as a template for reducing the ability for LEO agents to coerce cooperation in many other areas as well. HD has said that he is interested in promoting such restrictions against federal agencies in his state, and I thoroughly encourage him to do so. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Perhaps you want to direct your nitpicking to **k9** because he’s the one who raised the issue of going to jail. I did not say that you would go to jail for violating AB450. I said that if jail was the consequence of bringing my sister’s rapist to justice, it is a consequence I would accept. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2018, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/327 "2018-01-26T17:22:31Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > That’s strange because it limits the freedom of Doctors to freely give out information about their patients. Aren’t you against that limiting of freedom? HIPAA contains exceptions for disclosing information to law enforcement that mitigate some of my concerns. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2018, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/328 "2018-01-26T17:24:44Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … HD has said that he is interested in promoting such restrictions against federal agencies in his state, and I thoroughly encourage him to do so. … Just to be clear, I think it’s a shitty (and probably soon-to-be-overturned) law, and represents a shitty way to run a country, but if it turns out that that’s the way we’re going to run the country from now on, I’ll play by those rules in my state too. ---
**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 26, 2018, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/329 "2018-01-26T17:40:02Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > HIPAA contains exceptions for disclosing information to law enforcement that mitigate some of my concerns. We could probably throw in some similar exemptions in AB450 for when a time-critical criminal investigation urgently needs to know how many of a businesses’ employees have the right to work in the U.S. I’m sure that comes up a lot. In fact, I’m shuddering thinking of the number of potential serial killers going free in California because it’s now slightly more difficult for ICE agents to casually browse employment records. ---
**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 26, 2018, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/330 "2018-01-26T17:41:05Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > HIPAA contains exceptions for disclosing information to law enforcement that mitigate some of my concerns. Did you see where I pointed out that they cannot just violate HIPAA to provide evidence of a crime? That those restrictions are very narrow? > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Just to be clear, I think it’s a shitty (and probably soon-to-be-overturned) law, and represents a shitty way to run a country, but if it turns out that that’s the way we’re going to run the country from now on, I’ll play by those rules in my state too. I just don’t see what benefit there is in people voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement agencies when those agencies are looking for incriminating information against them. The only reason that I could see someone cooperating is when they do not believe they have a choice, whether that is because they don’t know their rights, or they know that their rights aren’t worth anything when it comes to persistent LEO’s. The only reason you would invite ICE in to examine your premises and documents is to “prove” that you have nothing to hide. If you have to prove you have nothing to hide, then anyone who does not volunteer to have extra scrutiny looks like they have something to hide. That is specifically what I am against, and it is what I see this law addresses. I am curious as to what other federal agencies you are thinking of that would operate in a similar manner. I do not believe that there are many agencies that would use such similar techniques as ICE as to be blocked by a similar bill. ---
**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 26, 2018, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/331 "2018-01-26T17:44:08Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I don’t know that I made that claim. > > I do think that the police have no reason not to lie to get you to comply with what they want you to do. If there are people out there that do not think that cops ever lie in order to manipulate people into doing what they want, then I would say that those people are poorly informed and therefore, can be taken advantage of. > > I am not sure if that is what you are calling “incapable of making a sound judgement”. If so, then I quibble with the accuracy and the emotional pleading of the specific construction of such a statement, but otherwise agree. You have argued that prohibiting voluntary cooperation with authorities in some circumstances is beneficial because it strengthens the hand for anyone who may be pressured to give voluntary consent to certain searches. I don’t think this quibble is worth delving into, but I’m sure you would agree that if one is being pressured, caving to the pressure would not be using sound judgment as to the request. I’m saying that the law should not prevent people from using sound judgment, which I would think you’d agree people are capable of if there is no threat of harassment or coercion. > [@](#): > > I did not say that you would go to jail for violating AB450. I said that if jail was the consequence of bringing my sister’s rapist to justice, it is a consequence I would accept. I understand totally what you’re saying, and I’m basically reinforcing it. The other poster accused me making an error that AB450 has criminal penalties. That criticism was off base because you and I were clearly talking about some other hypothetical law that would have criminal penalties associated, and the other poster simply wasn’t following our train of conversation. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2018, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/332 "2018-01-26T17:52:25Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Did you see where I pointed out that they cannot just violate HIPAA to provide evidence of a crime? That those restrictions are very narrow? Yes, I’m not sure we share the same definition of “very narrow”. It’s not unlimited, but it’s not so restrictive as to effectively prohibit voluntary cooperation with law enforcement, which is what your earlier statement suggested. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I am curious as to what other federal agencies you are thinking of that would operate in a similar manner. I do not believe that there are many agencies that would use such similar techniques as ICE as to be blocked by a similar bill. By “operate in a similar manner” and “use such similar techniques” are you meaning things like “ask to step into your office” or “ask for information”? Most law enforcement agencies will routinely ask for consent. Earlier I think I called it “mundane”. It’s _incredibly_ common. It happens every single day, in all 50 states (probably hundreds of thousands or millions of times each day). ---
**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 26, 2018, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/333 "2018-01-26T18:23:10Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You have argued that prohibiting voluntary cooperation with authorities in some circumstances is beneficial because it strengthens the hand for anyone who may be pressured to give voluntary consent to certain searches. > > I don’t think this quibble is worth delving into, but I’m sure you would agree that if one is being pressured, caving to the pressure would not be using sound judgment as to the request. I’m saying that the law should not prevent people from using sound judgment, which I would think you’d agree people are capable of if there is no threat of harassment or coercion. How do you determine when there is or is not harassment and coercion? I would say that if a LEO is asking for something that he needs a warrant to demand, that’s a request. If he asks twice, or in any way indicates that there would be consequences for not complying, that’s coercion and harassment. (Both definitions are not intended to be legal definitions, but the rather the more colloquial definition, and the definition that matters for how people react to being coerced and harrassed.) > [@](#): > > I understand totally what you’re saying, and I’m basically reinforcing it. The other poster accused me making an error that AB450 has criminal penalties. That criticism was off base because you and I were clearly talking about some other hypothetical law that would have criminal penalties associated, and the other poster simply wasn’t following our train of conversation. Yeah, sorry, I was reinforcing what you said, as well. It did seem as though he missed something somewhere in the exchange, and made an assumption that one or both of us was indicating that jail was a potential penalty for violating AB450. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2018, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/334 "2018-01-26T18:27:48Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > We could probably throw in some similar exemptions in AB450 for when a time-critical criminal investigation urgently needs to know how many of a businesses’ employees have the right to work in the U.S. I’m sure that comes up a lot. In fact, I’m shuddering thinking of the number of potential serial killers going free in California because it’s now slightly more difficult for ICE agents to casually browse employment records. The exception I’d like to focus on is this one: > [@](#): > > 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. How would you right an equivalent for ICE and AB450? Perhaps something like this: > [@](#): > > SEC. 2. Section 7285.2 is added to the Government Code, to read: > 7285.2. (a) (1) Except as otherwise required by federal law, and except as provided in paragraph (2), an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not provide voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records without a subpoena or judicial warrant. This section does not prohibit an employer, or person acting on behalf of an employer, from challenging the validity of a subpoena or judicial warrant in a federal district court. > (2) This subdivision shall not apply to I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms and other documents for which a Notice of Inspection has been provided to the employer. > (b) An employer who violates subdivision (a) shall be subject to a civil penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000) up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation and five thousand dollars ($5,000) up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation. If a court finds that an immigration enforcement agent was permitted to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records without the consent of the employer or other person in control of the place of labor, the civil penalty shall not apply. “Violation” means each incident when it is found that subdivision (a) was violated without reference to the number of employees, the number of immigration enforcement agents involved in the incident, or the number of employee records accessed, reviewed, or obtained. > (c) The exclusive authority to enforce this section is granted to the Labor Commissioner or the Attorney General and enforcement shall be through civil action. Any penalty recovered shall be deposited in the Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund. > (d) This section applies to public and private employers. > (e) This subdivision shall not apply to voluntary consent provided to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records when an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, in good faith believes the employee records contain evidence of a violation of immigration law that occurred on the premises of the employer’s place of business. ---
**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 26, 2018, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/335 "2018-01-26T18:32:39Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > How do you determine when there is or is not harassment and coercion? > > I would say that if a LEO is asking for something that he needs a warrant to demand, that’s a request. > > If he asks twice, or in any way indicates that there would be consequences for not complying, that’s coercion and harassment. > > (Both definitions are not intended to be legal definitions, but the rather the more colloquial definition, and the definition that matters for how people react to being coerced and harrassed.). I think it depends on the circumstances. If a LEO asks for access a few times, and then says something like, “I won’t be happy if you say no again!” I would not call that harassment. If there’s something more substantial, like maybe following the business owner home, late night phone calls, or things like that, I think we are crossing into harassment. And once we get into pulling the business owner over and detaining them for “you didn’t stop at that sign,” now we are clearly talking harassment. I don’t know how my opinion squares with the actual law, but that’s my general opinion. ---
**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 26, 2018, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/336 "2018-01-26T18:33:39Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Yes, I’m not sure we share the same definition of “very narrow”. It’s not unlimited, but it’s not so restrictive as to effectively prohibit voluntary cooperation with law enforcement, which is what your earlier statement suggested. Yes, it is. The only time it can be given is under those very specific circumstances, which does effectively prohibit voluntary cooperation. It is only if the there is a serious and imminent threat, or the crime is against the actual healthcare provider or premises that the can turn over that information, and that, only what is specifically needed as evidence for that crime. That’s pretty narrow. If the police ask about pretty much anything else, the healthcare providers may not respond. If they are asking, “Hey, we know that the serial killer last night cut his hand on the window, did this patient have a cut on his hand?” They may only respond with, “We can only provide personal health information of a patient in response to a warrant.” > [@](#): > > By “operate in a similar manner” and “use such similar techniques” are you meaning things like “ask to step into your office” or “ask for information”? Most law enforcement agencies will routinely ask for consent. Earlier I think I called it “mundane”. It’s _incredibly_ common. It happens every single day, in all 50 states (probably hundreds of thousands or millions of times each day). You were talking about federal agencies like BLM and BATFE (talk about government expansion, I remember when that was a three letter agency), and I don’t know exactly what sorts of things they enforce or their techniques. If they are going to private individuals or businesses, and putting pressure on them to turn over things that they may not demand without a warrant, then I would absolutely agree that a similar law would protect the people of your state from law enforcement overreach. If there are laws that require people to cooperate with those agencies, or if those agencies have warrants for the information they request, that’s a whole different matter. ---
**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 26, 2018, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/337 "2018-01-26T18:49:55Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The exception I’d like to focus on is this one: > > How would you right an equivalent for ICE and AB450? Perhaps something like this: Well, I would make some changes. (e) This subdivision shall not apply to voluntary consent provided to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records when an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, in good faith believes the employee records contain evidence of criminal activity that occurred on the premises of the employer’s place of business, or to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of an individual or the public. > [@Ravenman](#): > > I think it depends on the circumstances. If a LEO asks for access a few times, and then says something like, “I won’t be happy if you say no again!” I would not call that harassment. I would certainly call that coercion. > [@](#): > > co·er·cion > noun > the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. > [@](#): > > If there’s something more substantial, like maybe following the business owner home, late night phone calls, or things like that, I think we are crossing into harassment. And once we get into pulling the business owner over and detaining them for “you didn’t stop at that sign,” now we are clearly talking harassment. > > I don’t know how my opinion squares with the actual law, but that’s my general opinion. The legal definition > [@](#): > > harassment > (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands is a bit more in line with your opinion than mine, but it doesn’t require that the behavior continue off premises. If they are unwanted and come into your business regularly, that’s harassment. My personal opinion is that it becomes harassment after the first time you indicate that you will not cooperate with them, and they continue to ask anyway. ---
**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 26, 2018, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/338 "2018-01-26T19:48:08Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > How would you right an equivalent for ICE and AB450? Perhaps something like this: (e) This subdivision shall not apply to voluntary consent provided to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records when an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, in good faith believes the employee records contain evidence of a violation of immigration law that occurred on the premises of the employer’s place of business. Ugh, no. Absolutely no reason ICE couldn’t get a warrant in those circumstances, if the employee’s good faith belief had anything to support it. I don’t see any need for urgency here, either. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/339 "2018-02-11T19:26:26Z")
Bumped for [new federal ruling](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ice-detainer-lawsuit-20180209-story.html) that extended detention based solely on ICE request is unconstitutional. ---
**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:** [July 9, 2018, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/340 "2018-07-09T15:46:03Z")
Another bump for [CA District court ruling](http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/18cv490%20doc%20193.pdf)on preliminary injunction: > [@](#): > > Applying these well-established principles of law to the > present Motion, and as explained in detail below, this Court > finds that AB 103, SB 54, and the employee notice provision of AB > 450 are permissible exercises of California’s sovereign power. > With respect to the other three challenged provisions of AB 450, > the Court finds that California has impermissibly infringed on > the sovereignty of the United States. Plaintiff’s Motion is > therefore denied in part and granted in part. AB 450 notice requirement to let employees know of ICE activity is fine, but the restriction on providing voluntary consent is enjoined: > [@](#): > > The Court finds AB 450’s prohibitions on consent, Cal. Gov’t > Code §§ 7285.1, 7285.2., troubling due to the precarious > situation in which it places employers. Trans. at 92:9–18. > Despite that concern, the question before the Court is limited to > Plaintiff’s Supremacy Clause claim and the relationship between > the State and the Federal Government. > > … > > The Court finds that a law which imposes monetary penalties > on an employer solely because that employer voluntarily consents > to federal immigration enforcement’s entry into nonpublic areas > of their place of business or access to their employment records > impermissibly discriminates against those who choose to deal with > the Federal Government. The law and facts clearly support > Plaintiff’s claim as to these two subsections and Plaintiff is > likely to succeed on the merits. The issues raised in this thread were not the issues raised in this case, though the consent portion of AB450 was enjoined for different reasons. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810.md?page=16)