# 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:** 7
**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 21, 2018, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/121 "2018-01-21T20:59:12Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > If a federal agent showed up at your door and asked to come inside and search for infractions, what would your first response be? Where’s your warrant would be mine. And if that same agent showed up at a business with that same request? what should that owner’s response be? And why should the worker’s right to no be searched without a warrant be circumvented by some owner who may have his own reasons for cooperating with the agent extra-legally? First, have you read AB450? Your response leads me to believe you haven’t. Searching an individual is not part of AB450 and an individual’s 4th amendment rights are not implicated at all. Second, what a response should be and what response could be are not the same. People shouldn’t waive their right to counsel while be questioned, yet they do and that is their right. People shouldn’t consent to searches of their vehicle during traffic stops, but they do and that is their right. When police go door to door looking for a kidnapping victim, people could refuse to answer, refuse to assist, etc. What should they do? Who knows and who cares - this law is about what they could do and it takes voluntary consent off the table. > [@](#): > > And what is the infraction that they see when they walk into the back room of a warehouse with the owner’s consent? how can they “see” infractions of the immigration law? they are guessing, because of the color of their skin or that they don’t speak English. Now where is their probable cause to ask these workers for their immigration papers? I can come up with hypotheticals too. What if the Susan, the owner of a small machine shop just brought on a new worker, John Smith. John is white and was able to produce the proper eligibility documents to be hired based on the I-9 instructions. Since the instructions direct employers to accept documents that appear to be valid, the owner is weary of questioning them, even though they are damaged. Susan is friends with Peter, her neighbor who also happens to be an ICE officer. While they are chatting each other up, Peter remembers that Susan was talking about some new folks she brought on, and mentioned that she wasn’t sure if she was following the rules correctly. Peter offers to take a look and help her out. Susan says, great, that would be helpful and grants Peter access to her office in the back of the shop. By granting access, Susan has now violated AB450 and could be subject to civil penalty. I’m fully on board with the validity of local governments refusing to assist the feds in enforcing federal law. But AB450 goes beyond that and penalizes voluntary consent. That’s bad. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2018, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/122 "2018-01-21T21:02:55Z")
@ **BigT** I think you’re confused on the issue and **Ravenman** ’s point is a good one, but at a more visceral level, I HOPE your side prevails. Visions of limiting the ATF and EPA the way CA wants to limit ICE are already dancing in my head. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2018, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/123 "2018-01-21T21:21:11Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > @ **BigT** > > I think you’re confused on the issue and **Ravenman** ’s point is a good one, but at a more visceral level, I HOPE your side prevails.\*\* Visions of limiting the ATF\*\* and EPA the way CA wants to limit ICE are already dancing in my head. You see, if you’d read cites, you’d know that was the case in _Printz._ Though why you’d be thrilled at polluted air and water and toxic waste dumps, I don’t understand. ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2018, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/124 "2018-01-21T21:25:58Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > First, have you read AB450? Your response leads me to believe you haven’t. Searching an individual is not part of AB450 and an individual’s 4th amendment rights are not implicated at all. I have. Why would an immigration agent ask to be allowed into a place of business if not to search the individuals? mc ---
**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 21, 2018, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/125 "2018-01-21T21:48:35Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Then the Feds can enforce their own damned law. And the law doesn’t prevent Feds from enforcing federal law. If they want a state prisoner on immigration issues, they can get a warrant or have an officer there on release. In general, do you think it is good idea to punish people who voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement agents? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2018, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/126 "2018-01-21T21:50:36Z")
The ATF and EPA are already limited in this way, because they’re already federal agencies. ---
**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 21, 2018, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/127 "2018-01-21T21:58:42Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > First, have you read AB450? Your response leads me to believe you haven’t. Searching an individual is not part of AB450 and an individual’s 4th amendment rights are not implicated at all. > > Second, what a response should be and what response could be are not the same. People shouldn’t waive their right to counsel while be questioned, yet they do and that is their right. People shouldn’t consent to searches of their vehicle during traffic stops, but they do and that is their right. When police go door to door looking for a kidnapping victim, people could refuse to answer, refuse to assist, etc. What should they do? Who knows and who cares - this law is about what they could do and it takes voluntary consent off the table. In many ways, this does protect the business owner. If ICE comes in, and demands to take a look around, what is the owner going to do? Especially, if the owner doesn’t actually know that he has the right to refuse, but even then, if the agents seem particularly intimidating or ingratiating, he may allow them access to the private personnel records of his employees with no cause whatsoever. By making it no longer legal for the busienss owner to aqueiss without a warrant, it removes the pressure to aquese to a search under the intiimidation or ingratiation of agents. > [@](#): > > I can come up with hypotheticals too. What if the Susan, the owner of a small machine shop just brought on a new worker, John Smith. John is white and was able to produce the proper eligibility documents to be hired based on the I-9 instructions. Since the instructions direct employers to accept documents that appear to be valid, the owner is weary of questioning them, even though they are damaged. Susan is friends with Peter, her neighbor who also happens to be an ICE officer. While they are chatting each other up, Peter remembers that Susan was talking about some new folks she brought on, and mentioned that she wasn’t sure if she was following the rules correctly. Peter offers to take a look and help her out. Susan says, great, that would be helpful and grants Peter access to her office in the back of the shop. By granting access, Susan has now violated AB450 and could be subject to civil penalty. What does damaged mean? If it is a valid document that appears on the I-9, you have to take it. If it is torn to shreds, then it’s not a valid document, if it is a bit old and worn and creased with fraying edges, there is no reason to think that it is not a valid document. Susan has given private information about her personel to her neighbor. Now, I know that that would be a violation of the law if I were to do that. If I said to my neighbor, “Hey, do these documents look in order?” and I hand him copies of their DL and their SSN, are you somehow thinking that that is legal? How is it that Peter, not acting in his official capacity as an ICE agent, but just as a neighbor looking over documents for a friend is in any different position? In this instance, Peter should give her the number to the ICE office and ask her to call them in the morning, not take a look at the private information of an employee. > [@](#): > > I’m fully on board with the validity of local governments refusing to assist the feds in enforcing federal law. But AB450 goes beyond that and penalizes voluntary consent. That’s bad. It protects employees from invasions of their privacy without cuase. That’s good. ---
**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 21, 2018, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/128 "2018-01-21T22:01:07Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Here’s what the Constitution requires: states can make law within their own jurisdiction, but they can’t override Federal law. That’s the most important reason the Articles of Confederation imploded. > > Here, California wants to determine how the Federal government can police its Federal laws. The Tenth Amendment gives states no such power. In fact, the Tenth Amendment says the exact friggin’ opposite. Immigration is a specified Federal power, so the Tenth Amendment is the basis for the Federal government exercising that power. Not even close or a cigar. There is no mention of immigration whatsoever in the Constitution OR the Amendments. Hence, the fallback position is the literal text of the Tenth Amendment. Nice attempt to twist it to your point of view, though. > [@](#): > > To take a phrase out of **Bricker** ’s playbook, the liberal hypocrisy in this thread is head spinning. If this were about Joe Arpaio overriding Federal immigration law, your heads would be exploding. But it is about California overriding Federal law, so it’s great. Yet more twisting. So Joe Arpaio is now a State of the Union? Hint: he is not. He is a citizen of the US, and violated the order of a federal judge. It’s really not a good idea to throw around charges of hypocrisy on a non-factual basis. It only makes you look blatantly and blindly partisan. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2018, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/129 "2018-01-21T22:03:18Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > In general, do you think it is good idea to punish people who voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement agents? That’s a pretty broad question, does it include Constitutional violations? ---
**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 21, 2018, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/130 "2018-01-21T22:08:08Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > In general, do you think it is good idea to punish people who voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement agents? Hmmm, I suspect you of a crime, so if I voluntarily break into your house, and voluntarily turn over everything I find to the law enforcement agents, do you feel I should not receive any punishment? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2018, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/131 "2018-01-21T22:12:40Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The ATF and EPA are already limited in this way, because they’re already federal agencies. There are already civil penalties for giving consent to ATF agents? Where? Cite? ---
**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 21, 2018, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/132 "2018-01-21T22:49:17Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Not even close or a cigar. There is no mention of immigration whatsoever in the Constitution OR the Amendments. Hence, the fallback position is the literal text of the Tenth Amendment. Nice attempt to twist it to your point of view, though. This is stupid. If the Tenth Amendment controls, then the Federal government would have NO power to make immigration laws, since such power would be reserved to the states. > [@](#): > > Yet more twisting. So Joe Arpaio is now a State of the Union? Hint: he is not. He is a citizen of the US, and violated the order of a federal judge. It’s really not a good idea to throw around charges of hypocrisy on a non-factual basis. It only makes you look blatantly and blindly partisan. I am quite partisan. I haven’t voted for a Republican for Federal office since 1992. I voted for a Republican for a local office about six years ago, which was probably the first time in my life doing so. However, I do a better job than many of not thrusting my political views of reading black letter law. ---
**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 21, 2018, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/133 "2018-01-21T22:51:33Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Hmmm, I suspect you of a crime, so if I voluntarily break into your house, and voluntarily turn over everything I find to the law enforcement agents, do you feel I should not receive any punishment? For theft? Of course. Should the evidence be surpressed in any criminal case? I would think so. But the predicate of the “cooperation” you suggest is a felony. Is it a felony to invite someone into your property? ---
**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 21, 2018, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/134 "2018-01-21T22:53:12Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > That’s a pretty broad question, does it include Constitutional violations? I don’t understand the question. Give me a scenario. Note that I said “in general.” I do not think voluntary cooperation with authorities generally implies a constitutional controversy. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2018, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/135 "2018-01-21T23:11:45Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > It’s called the Tenth Amendment. And yes. Just like 49 states refused to comply with Trump’s Election Commission’s demands for voter rolls. Firstly, Trump’s administration requested that information. They never demanded it, so no state was resisting anything, from a legal standpoint. You may have noticed that there were never any lawsuits about this, and so no Tenth Amendment issue arose. Secondly, are you familiar with the jurisprudence surrounding the Tenth Amendment? Can you cite a case in which an issue similar to this was decided in favor of the state in question? There have been so few cases involving the 10th, it won’t take long for you to review all of them. ---
**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 21, 2018, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/136 "2018-01-21T23:16:38Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > For theft? Of course. Should the evidence be surpressed in any criminal case? I would think so. > > But the predicate of the “cooperation” you suggest is a felony. Is it a felony to invite someone into your property? I don’t know the exact laws and penalties involved, but it would not be legal for me to share the personal details of my employees to some random person. If a law enforcement agent has no warrant or probable cause, they are no different from some random person. BTW, B&E is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions, not a felony. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2018, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/137 "2018-01-21T23:19:56Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > This is stupid. If the Tenth Amendment controls, then the Federal government would have NO power to make immigration laws, since such power would be reserved to the states. [Nope, immigration is strictly a Federal matter.](http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/10/nation/la-na-immigration-law-20100910) When someone comes over the border of Mexico, they are not entering the State of California, they’re entering The United States. Why do you think there are no State immigration agencies? > [@](#): > > Reporting from Washington — A city may not punish employers who hire illegal immigrants or landlords who rent to them, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled Thursday, asserting that immigration is “clearly within the exclusive domain of the federal government.” > > The decision strikes down an anti-immigrant ordinance adopted four years ago in Hazleton, Pa., that inspired a wave of similar measures elsewhere, including in Arizona. > > The court’s unanimous decision is the latest to send the message that Washington sets the rules on immigration, not states or localities. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2018, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/138 "2018-01-21T23:28:35Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Not even close or a cigar. There is no mention of immigration whatsoever in the Constitution OR the Amendments. Hence, the fallback position is the literal text of the Tenth Amendment. Nice attempt to twist it to your point of view, though. > … Well, the Constitution does use the word **migration** (Article I Section 9). > [@US Constitution](#): > > The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. I suppose scholars may debate whether such language implies federal control of immigration after the year 1808, but there is a clear precedent for such. And the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the right to govern naturalization (Article I Section 8) which is so tightly tied to immigration. So any argument that a state now has the right to assert its state law over federal immigration or naturalization laws is on very shaky ground. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2018, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/139 "2018-01-21T23:46:31Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Not even close or a cigar. There is no mention of immigration whatsoever in the Constitution OR the Amendments. Hence, the fallback position is the literal text of the Tenth Amendment. Nice attempt to twist it to your point of view, though. No, the “fallback position” is what the SCOTUS says. From [_Chy Lung v. Freeman_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chy_Lung_v._Freeman) > [@](#): > > On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy… ---
**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 22, 2018, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/140 "2018-01-22T00:10:50Z")
Well, then, I guess **Ravenman** is right. I’m a hypocrite for not seeing a difference between one racist fuck attempting to violate the rights of people in Arizona and another racist fuck attempting to do so in the entire country, or California specifically. And fighting it. And damn well proud of it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810.md?page=8)