Just stop. You’re wrong.
Go read your own cites before you comment on this issue again.
I’m asking you if there should be a law against it.
A law against reporting a crime? I don’t see how that’s a good idea.
Let me provide a more useful response:
Under California law you can use E-Verify in two situations:
[ul]
[li]To check the status of applicants who’ve received an offer but have yet to start work[/li][li]In other circumstances as required by federal law[/li][/ul]
What you cannot do is to use E-Verify to check the status of people to whom you have not submitted an offer of employment, unless federal law requires you to do so.
Oh, really? They want their businesses disrupted for a fact-finding mission and then, if the employees are found to be illegal, to have to hire replacements, with the attendant delays and lost productivity? Yeah, good luck with that.
And so I say again, Please, Brer Fox, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.
The shop manager is reporting a suspected crime. That, last I heard, is perfectly legal, and not the same thing at all.
If no employer in CA might want to grant consent to ICE agents then it makes AB450 and the AG’s press conference a tad … superfluous, don’t you think?
Both and neither. They both adopt and abandon it when it suits their legislative agenda. Same with government regulation. The GOP has been adding tons and tons of regulations to abortion providers on the state level to make it harder for them to operate. The GOP says they are anti regulation, but not really. It depends on the situation.
The whole concept of ‘states rights’ was invented in the 50s and 60s as a way for southern states to resist the federal government trying to force them to integrate blacks.
Why is it okay to report a crime and not to voluntarily cooperate in the investigation of a crime?
If they don’t have sufficient evidence of a crime to get a warrant then they’re not investigating a crime, they’re just poking around. Personally, I don’t want my employer providing my personal information to some guy who feels like poking around.
So if the manager calls ICE with the tip, he then cannot let them in the building too? Oh yeah, that makes sense.
If the tip wasn’t sufficient to get a warrant, then it wasn’t much of a tip.
If it’s superfluous then it’s not worth worrying about. And if it’s not superfluous then it’s protecting employee’s personal information from unwarranted scrutiny. Win-win.
I just can’t get to where you guys that hate this rule are coming from. I am not particularly politically invested in this, I just can’t get passed the point where “I chose to give ICE information on a fishing trip” and I would have no liability for what happens next.
If ICE showed up (I’m not in California) and, without a warrant, wanted to go through the records of my employees, I would say to them, “I’ll give you access to this stuff if you have a warrant. If you don’t, I’ll refer you to any particular employee you wanna talk to, and if they consent to their stuff being searched by you, go ahead.”
This isn’t me blocking access to ICE agents, or Anne Franking a bunch of dudes in the attic to hide them, its just complying with what I am already required to do. If they have reason to suspect that I was given forged or otherwise fake documents when I verified the employment in the first place, they would have a warrant and I would already be handing said shit over to them.
I don’t get how that is somehow interfering with ICE agents. I also don’t get how I would, without permission, give this information out without a warrant to anyone, not just ICE folks but to Santa Claus and anybody else and not be found to be afoul of the legal requirements I have to protect the information I am required to give. If there is a breech at my location, and someone six months later steals the identity of anyone with the information of that breech puts my ass in a sling liability wise. I could be sued (just because I didn’t lose a lawsuit doesn’t mean it won’t cost me lots of money.)
I’m not sure why this has to be a new law in California, but if it was a law here, I would be happy to comply, because I would be doing the same fucking thing anyway. I don’t hire illegal immigrant folks so I have nothing to hide. I would assume that this law is more to put ICE on notice to get their damn warrants. It shouldn’t be that hard. Cops have to have warrants.
I could totally be missing something, or maybe I am too close to this situation as I am actually a real bonafide small business owner and I have protecting my little business from liability so far ingrained into me I can’t see this clearly.
I don’t have emotions or feelings about it, I just must be missing something.
And I honestly ask someone to help me understand. I just don’t get it. I’m open to trying to get it though.
And ICE agents will say, “We gave you three days notice in accordance with the law, now are you going to let us in or are we going to charge you with obstruction of justice?”
ICE does not need a warrant to do an I-9 inspection, anymore than the health inspector needs a warrant to enter your premises and inspect.
Yes, but I am already in compliance there. I-9 stuff for ICE inspection is in its own place, because they are ONLY entitled to that specific information. I have to keep everything in their file and all their personal area belongings reasonably secure. I can’t let them thumb through the HR filing cabinet for whatever the hell they want, in other words, without a search warrant.
Is this what you are referring to?
This is the source of the text in the quote box above. Its even specific to California.
Its a PDF link.
Ab450 has two main prongs. One prohibits sharing certain documents. The other prohibits granting access. They are separate. Most of the support for the law has been around the first, and most of the objection to the law has been around the second.
The problem with the second is that it prohibits voluntary consent to grant access. For example, if a person works in a company with a cafeteria, they could invite their friend Jane the local shetiffs deputy to lunch who is in the neighborhood to join them in the cafeteria. But if they invite their other friend Bill, the ICE agent to the same cafteria for the same lunch, that would be subject tp penalty and prohibited. That’s pretty silly.
People should be able to consent to grant access if they want - it’s about people having a choice in their actions. They should also be able to deny consent, of course.
No, that’s not what the e-verify law says. The law forbids employers to use E-Verify on existing employees and potential employees who haven’t yet received an offer of employment. So, for instance, lets say I’m a business owner.
Can I use e-verify on employees I’ve already hired? No. That would violate the law.
I want to hire somebody new. I advertise and get a bunch of applicants. Can I run e-verify on them before I consider them for employment? No. That would violate the law.
I interview people, find someone I like? Can I offer him a job conditional on his eligibility to work in the country and then use e-verify to confirm that eligibility? That’s legal under the law.
I don’t particularly like the law. I think we probably need stronger policing of employers who hire people not eligible to work, and I think that running a list of applicants through e-verify is probably a good way to narrow down the pool of applicants before you waste time interviewing somebody you’re not allowed to hire. But you still have to get what the law says right, and summarizing it as “California employers who aren’t federal contractors aren’t allowed to use e-verify” isn’t actually what the law says.
That totally helps me understand the point.
I’m not sure why if the employer reports it to ICE, why ICE can’t come with a warrant. It seems like it would be better to force ICE to get a warrant so that some shitty manager without owners consent were deterred from using the whole “I’ll call ICE on you” as a tool in the screw you cabinet to another employee. Maybe that isn’t as prevalent up in California as it was in Texas where I’m from.
Is it hard for ICE to get a warrant? Is that the issue here? If I was the business owner, I would want to be able to consent to do whatever the hell I wanted though. I am sort of conflicted and can understand the other side. I am still not understanding if I can legally give stuff to ICE without a proper warrant, even if I wanted to.
I guess my problem is I am unsure if I have the legal agency or whatever to be able to provide the documents to ICE without a valid warrant, other than the I-9 stuff they can look at whenever anyway.