# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2018, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/161 "2018-01-22T18:25:12Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Hah you’d make a good Republican. … > [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > First, it’s the correct direction, ethically. But then you’d never admit that because you’re too busy defending the _political_ actions of your chosen side over the ethics involved. > > And second, since it hasn’t been tested in court, you (or **Ravenman** , who appears to have his own axe to grind) don’t even begin to know which argument is correct. I guarantee you the Tenth will/would be used if that does happen. > > So spare me your attempted ‘gotchas,’ both of you. I could be wrong, but I don’t think those two are on the side of the political spectrum that you seem to think that they are. ---
**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 22, 2018, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/162 "2018-01-22T18:29:38Z")
Buying large quantities of sudafed doesn’t _necessarily_ mean you’re gonna make meth, but it’s a first step and so the govt regulates it. A federal agent being allowed into a place of business doesn’t _necessarily_ expose the privacy of the workers but it is a first step so the state of CA is trying to regulate it. mc ---
**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 22, 2018, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/163 "2018-01-22T18:45:56Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Is there some greater expectation of privacy in the workplace in California than the rest of the country? In my state, I don’t think I’d have much of a leg to stand on if my employer wanted to search my office, my computer, my email inbox, etc. They say “there’s no expectation of privacy” when dealing with company equipment and property. AFAICT, about the only thing they can’t do is put a camera in the bathroom, but IANAL. Not just CA. [The American Bar Assoc says](https://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2012/november_december2012privacyandconfidentiality/what_are_limits_employee_privacy.html) (my emphasis): > [@](#): > > Is there a right of privacy in the first place? **There could be**. An employee of a governmental employer may have a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy arising out of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to a private employer’s property, on the other hand, when it comes to the relationship between employer and employee. **However, there are still common law bases for a privacy interest, such as the common law claim for intrusion on seclusion**. Both of these theories essentially require the same thing: a determination of whether the employee’s expectation is objectively and subjectively reasonable **intrusion on seclusion** One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or **his private affairs or concerns** , is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. mc ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2018, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/164 "2018-01-22T21:27:56Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Enforcing the border is now racist? :rolleyes: Enforcing the border is not _inherently_ racist. But _any_ law, including those against spitting on the sidewalk, is subject to enforcement in a racist _manner._ See the difference? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2018, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/165 "2018-01-22T21:45:41Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > Not just CA. [The American Bar Assoc says](https://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2012/november_december2012privacyandconfidentiality/what_are_limits_employee_privacy.html) (my emphasis): > > **intrusion on seclusion** > One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or **his private affairs or concerns** , is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. > > mc Sincerely, thank you. That was an interesting post. Do you know if there have been any successful “intrusion on seclusion” cases made against employers? ---
**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 22, 2018, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/166 "2018-01-22T23:01:44Z")
No, I don’t have any specific examples. But a [1999 CA Supreme Court case](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/20/907.html)had this to say: > [@](#): > > The limitations on plaintiff’s expectation of privacy vis-`a-vis his employer did not waive his privacy rights as to others . . . he had a reasonable expectation that the private matters occurring in his place of employment would be free from public observation. This specific case was about being videotaped in a business setting by an outside party, but I think the sentiment stll applies. Whether or not you have a right to privacy from your employer while in the workplace does not negate your privacy to outsiders. mc ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2018, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/167 "2018-01-22T23:36:57Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > No, I don’t have any specific examples. But a [1999 CA Supreme Court case](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/20/907.html)had this to say: > > This specific case was about being videotaped in a business setting by an outside party, but I think the sentiment stll applies. Whether or not you have a right to privacy from your employer while in the workplace does not negate your privacy to outsiders. > > mc Gotcha. It would seem that this would be somewhere in between the extremes: employer wants to look through your computer (probably OK, I think) employer invites ICE agent in to review hiring documents in office, or chat with employees who are willing (probably OK, but more of a gray area than the above?) random passerby off the street wants to peruse the contents of your filing cabinet (not OK) ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/168 "2018-01-23T01:03:27Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > Enforcing the border is not _inherently_ racist. But _any_ law, including those against spitting on the sidewalk, is subject to enforcement in a racist _manner._ See the difference? Okay, but it is racists that support the building of a multi, multi billion dollar boondoggle that won’t do a damn thing but waste money and create serious environmental problems. There are many, many better ways to solve the ‘problem’ or use the money. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/169 "2018-01-23T01:53:39Z")
The problem is that on the list of things Democrats will accept grudgingly, they’ll take the wall precisely because it’s ineffective. E-verify is what they’ll really go to the mat to oppose, because that would work. ---
**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 23, 2018, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/170 "2018-01-23T02:34:12Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I could be wrong, but I don’t think those two are on the side of the political spectrum that you seem to think that they are. **Ravenman** isn’t a Republican, hence I said he’d make a good one instead. **John Mace** , if he isn’t a Republican, sure as hell should be based on his argumentation. ---
**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 23, 2018, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/171 "2018-01-23T02:35:48Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Jesus, **Johnny** , you don’t know a basic issue relating to the Supremacy Clause. Give it up. Sure. In other words, there’s no such thing as states’ rights. I just imagined that little Amendment at the end of the Bill of Rights. Move along, you don’t impress me. ---
**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 23, 2018, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/172 "2018-01-23T03:11:04Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The problem is that on the list of things Democrats will accept grudgingly, they’ll take the wall precisely because it’s ineffective. E-verify is what they’ll really go to the mat to oppose, because that would work. It’s been around since 1997. If it was going to work, surely it’s been given enough time. How about this? A national ID card. Strict liability on hiring undocumented workers. That should take care of the “problem”. Of course, [there are consequences.](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/georgias-harsh-immigration-law-costs-millions-in-unharvested-crops/240774/) > [@](#): > > After enacting House Bill 87, a law designed to drive illegal immigrants out of Georgia, state officials appear shocked to discover that HB 87 is, well, driving a lot of illegal immigrants out of Georgia… > > Thanks to the resulting labor shortage, Georgia farmers have been forced to leave millions of dollars’ worth of blueberries, onions, melons and other crops unharvested and rotting in the fields. It has also put state officials into something of a panic at the damage they’ve done to Georgia’s largest industry… > > The results of that investigation have now been released. According to survey of 230 Georgia farmers conducted by Agriculture Commissioner Gary Black, farmers expect to need more than 11,000 workers at some point over the rest of the season, a number that probably underestimates the real need, since not every farmer in the state responded to the survey. [140 million dollars worth of crops rotted in the fields.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-georgias-immigration-law-backfires/#636f7bfb492a) > [@](#): > > To forgo a repeat of last year, when labor shortages triggered an estimated $140 million in agricultural losses, as crops rotted in the fields, officials in Georgia are now dispatching prisoners to the state’s farms to help harvest fruit and vegetables. And when you ignore history, [it repeats itself.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/14/alabama-immigration-law-workers) > [@](#): > > For four months every year he employs almost exclusively Hispanic male workers to pick the harvest. This year he had 64 men out in the fields. > Then HB56 came into effect, the new law that makes it a crime not to carry valid immigration documents and forces the police to check on anyone they suspect may be in the country illegally. > > The provisions – the toughest of any state in America – were enforced on 28 September. By the next day Cash’s workforce had dwindled to 11. > > Today there is no-one left. The fields around his colonial-style farmhouse on top of a mountain are empty of pickers and the tomato plants are withering on the vine as far as the eye can see. The sweet, slightly acrid smell of rotting tomato flesh hangs in the air. > > On Friday, the 11th circuit appeals court in Atlanta blocked the first of those measures, but allowed the state to continue detaining suspected illegal migrants. So it is unlikely that Cash’s workers will dare to reappear. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/173 "2018-01-23T04:10:23Z")
E-verify is only mandatory in one state for all employers: Arizona. Where it has reduced the illegal population substantially. Now as for labor shortages, if the law is a problem, the law needs to be changed. Ignoring the law because the law is inconvenient is something we really should be done with by now. It’s the 21st century, it’s time to grow up. ---
**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 23, 2018, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/174 "2018-01-23T04:12:45Z")
Except isn’t there already a visa that allows farms to hire and bring into the country temporary agricultural laborers? It seems less like these GA farmers have no choice but to employ illegal immigrants, and more that they’d rather hire illegal immigrants than hire temporary agricultural workers and comply with health, safety, and wage standards. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/175 "2018-01-23T04:29:58Z")
That is almost certainly true. ---
**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 23, 2018, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/176 "2018-01-23T18:32:48Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > What law prohibits this? > > I’m not saying what you say is impossible. For example, Federal employees are protected by the Privacy Act for many things. I’m just not aware of a general prohibition, and I am curious. I couldn’t give you a specific law, to be honest, without spending more time than I care to pursuing legal code, and IANAL. Just as I couldn’t give you the specific law that prohibits stealing wages from employees, I know I’m not supposed to do that. But, I am told by my lawyer, my payroll company, and all that that the information in my personnel files, like SSN#'s, addresses, phone numbers, work history, insurance documents, information about their family, bank account and routing numbers for direct deposit, and stuff like that is NOT to be shared with the public. This information could be very damaging if it gets into the wrong hands. If someone came in and asked for that info from me, I would ask them what authorization they have to access that information. > [@Bone](#): > > AB450 does more than penalize voluntary access to records. It also penalizes voluntary access to any non public areas of a business - including things like a knock and talk. It eliminates the ability for a person to consent even if they want to. it’s pretty surprising to me that this is seen as a good thing. This protects on a few levels. First, if I am not here one day, and ICE decides to come in and talk to my co-manager, and that manager is pressured to let them in and access to the records, then me, as the owner, has not given consent, I have not given voluntary access to records, but he, as a manager would have access, and ability to give them to them. They get “voluntary access”, even though I, the owner, did not consent. Also, many people may not know the law. They may not know that you have the option to decline the voluntary search of your business, just as cops don’t tell you that you can decline the vlulatry search of your vehicle. If ICE agents are getting access to search businesses because the owner or manager on duty did not know they had an option to decline, then I see that as a problem. Finally you are giving them access to personal information of your employees. Both in the files and in the workplace. Now, employees can keep no secrets from employers (while on the clock and on the premises), but employers are expected to avoid revealing personal information to 3rd parties. > [@Bone](#): > > Remember when the body scanners at airport security lines started being implemented vs the traditional metal detectors? People could opt out if they wanted, though the metal detector line was slightly slower. The body scans seems to be more revealing in terms of personal privacy, but people could choose to use them and they would save just a bit of time. So what if a state passed a law that said, in the interest of protecting privacy, in this state no one is allowed to elect the body scanners and if they do, they are subject to a civil fine. That breaks down when you realize that it is not your own privacy that it being revealed, but others. A better analogy would be asking employers to require that their employees use the body scan, rather than the metal detectors. > [@](#): > > Or if the FBI is looking for a suspect and in canvasing they knock on people’s doors to conduct interviews, evidence gathering, etc. But instead, the state makes it a civil violation to talk to the FBI unless they have a warrant. This analogy would be closer if the FBI could ask the homeowner’s boss for permission to enter the employee’s house. > [@](#): > > Now, I’m not a fan of the body scanners myself, but hey if the next guy is, I’m not going to stop him. I’m not a fan of talking to law enforcement if they come to the door either, but I’m not going to stop my neighbor if that’s what they want to do. Except that’s what CA is doing. It’s stopping the person that wants to use the scanners. It’s stopping the person that wants to voluntarily aid federal officers, in their own business. I think that that last paragraph is trying to make the situation sound much simpler than it actually is. It is not just you and your privacy that is being considered, it is that you have power over other people’s privacy, and you are voluntarily offering that. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Gotcha. It would seem that this would be somewhere in between the extremes: > > employer wants to look through your computer (probably OK, I think) > > employer invites ICE agent in to review hiring documents in office, or chat with employees who are willing (probably OK, but more of a gray area than the above?) > > random passerby off the street wants to peruse the contents of your filing cabinet (not OK) The second one is what is going from a grey area to being illegal, if this were to pass. How about in the case where the ICE agent comes in, asks for this information, won’t really take “no” for an answer, doesn’t tell you that “no” is a legal answer, and gets access to the information due to bullying and misrepresentation? > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Except isn’t there already a visa that allows farms to hire and bring into the country temporary agricultural laborers? It seems less like these GA farmers have no choice but to employ illegal immigrants, and more that they’d rather hire illegal immigrants than hire temporary agricultural workers and comply with health, safety, and wage standards. If that were the case, they probably would have done that rather than let their crops rot in the fields. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/177 "2018-01-23T18:54:55Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … The second one is what is going from a grey area to being illegal, if this were to pass. … AB450 already passed, it’s not just a hypothetical. It’s the law in CA, as of 1/1/2018. That was the whole point of the AG’s press conference. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > … How about in the case where the ICE agent comes in, asks for this information, won’t really take “no” for an answer, doesn’t tell you that “no” is a legal answer, and gets access to the information due to bullying and misrepresentation? … I don’t follow. Are you asking me if I think the employer should be fined by the state of California for failing to assert his rights? Of course not! ---
**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 23, 2018, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/178 "2018-01-23T20:08:51Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > AB450 already passed, it’s not just a hypothetical. It’s the law in CA, as of 1/1/2018. That was the whole point of the AG’s press conference. You are correct, for some reason I was thinking that it still needed a final hurdle to cross first. Not the case, my bad. > [@](#): > > I don’t follow. Are you asking me if I think the employer should be fined by the state of California for failing to assert his rights? Of course not! No, I was just pointing out that many employers may not know that cooperation with ICE agents is voluntary, and so may comply with their requests, not through voluntary consent, but through believing they have no choice. If you comply with a request because you don’t believe you have the right to decline that request, it’s not really voluntary. ---
**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 23, 2018, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/179 "2018-01-23T20:10:42Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > This protects on a few levels. First, if I am not here one day, and ICE decides to come in and talk to my co-manager, and that manager is pressured to let them in and access to the records, then me, as the owner, has not given consent, I have not given voluntary access to records, but he, as a manager would have access, and ability to give them to them. They get “voluntary access”, even though I, the owner, did not consent. That person would be acting as your agent with respect to being able to grant access. If they are not authorized to do so, then they would know it and communicate it. Implied agency is a real thing. That comes with the territory of hiring a manager to work for you. > [@](#): > > Also, many people may not know the law. They may not know that you have the option to decline the voluntary search of your business, just as cops don’t tell you that you can decline the vlulatry search of your vehicle. If ICE agents are getting access to search businesses because the owner or manager on duty did not know they had an option to decline, then I see that as a problem. > > Finally you are giving them access to personal information of your employees. Both in the files and in the workplace. Now, employees can keep no secrets from employers (while on the clock and on the premises), but employers are expected to avoid revealing personal information to 3rd parties. Move away from the search aspect for a moment because 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. > [@](#): > > I think that that last paragraph is trying to make the situation sound much simpler than it actually is. It is not just you and your privacy that is being considered, it is that you have power over other people’s privacy, and you are voluntarily offering that. There is no expectation of privacy in the majority of non-public business spaces. Sure, bathrooms, closed door meetings, etc. would have an expectation of privacy. But the open bullpen style office of the manager? That is prohibited in AB450 and it’s certainly not private for any sense of the word private. ---
**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 23, 2018, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/180 "2018-01-23T20:30:38Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > That person would be acting as your agent with respect to being able to grant access. If they are not authorized to do so, then they would know it and communicate it. Implied agency is a real thing. That comes with the territory of hiring a manager to work for you. They should, and I would hope that a manager that I hire would be up on all applicable laws, but to be quite honest, if ICE came in here a couple weeks ago, before I heard all the hullabaloo about California’s law, I don’t know that I would have known that I have the right to not share that info. As far as people actually knowing the law and such, when I was a Wendy’s manager, there was a big issue because one of the other managers gave out employee numbers and addresses to a customer who called and asked, then the customer proceeded to harass those employees. There is also the possibility of managers who have a dislike for certain employees, whether it be racial or personal, and they “turn them over” to ICE just for the hope of getting them harassed, even if they are eligible workers. Yes, people can be that petty. > [@](#): > > Move away from the search aspect for a moment because 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. I am not sure what benefit that ICE gets from getting access to non-public areas. The only thing I can think of is that way they can look at your employees, and make judgements based on their appearance as to who may be a suspected undocumented worker. > [@](#): > > There is no expectation of privacy in the majority of non-public business spaces. Sure, bathrooms, closed door meetings, etc. would have an expectation of privacy. But the open bullpen style office of the manager? That is prohibited in AB450 and it’s certainly not private for any sense of the word private. There most certainly is an expectation of privacy in non-public spaces. Not between my employees to me, sure, but to the public, absolutely. I put walls and doors and “staff only” signs up for a reason. It is expected that those areas are to be used and viewed by staff only. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810.md?page=10)