A real constitutional crisis on the horizon? (immigration, sanctuary cities, and DHS)

[HurricaneDitka]

The California AG is threatening employers with prosecution if they run afoul of their new state law, AB450, which apparently makes consent a crime:

Except as otherwise required by federal law, an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not provide voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to enter any nonpublic areas of a place of labor.

:eek:

[bobot]

The AG is going to prosecute people who break the law? Well damn, California! The nerve!

[Kolak_of_Twilo]

@HurricaneDitka

The California AG is threatening employers with prosecution if they run afoul of their new state law, AB450, which apparently makes consent a crime:

:eek:

In my experience employers typically instruct their managers to request a copy of the warrant granting INS or ICE access to the non-public areas of the business. If they don’t have one they don’t get in. Not sure what the big deal is just because CA made it the law.

[HurricaneDitka]

The law in question appears (to my non-lawyer eyes) to violate the freedom of assembly. IIUC, it would make it a criminal act to invite an ICE agent into one’s office. That seems … well … NUCKING FUTS (AKA Thursday in California)!!!

[Kyomara]

Let’s be clear: the current push behind increasing deportations and targeting sanctuary city policies is rooted in bigotry and misperception. It is based in the notions that American citizenship is a sacred birthright, that illegal immigrants are a drain on resources without contributing anything back to the community, and that a significant number of them are violent criminals. The first notion is a philosophical one, and the line between those who believe it and those who don’t is the line between bigots and opponents of bigotry. The other two notions can be disproven with simple numbers, but really the people who espouse these notions buy into them because they are a comfort to their bigotry.

There is no criminal crisis among illegal immigrants large enough to warrant the punishment of the entire illegal immigrant community with increased, and increasingly violent, deportations. These are human beings who on the whole are contributing members of their local communities, working their asses off to enjoy a better life in the US. I have no more problem with them skirting immigration laws to get here than I have with people using illegal drugs, getting away without paying parking tickets, or any other misdemeanor that is regularly treated with leniency by law enforcement.

As has been pointed out upthread, this effort by the Trump administration will rightfully fail in the courts. Local authorities are under no obligation to do the feds’ job for them.

[Evil_Economist]

@HurricaneDitka

The law in question appears (to my non-lawyer eyes) to violate the freedom of assembly. IIUC, it would make it a criminal act to invite an ICE agent into one’s office. That seems … well … NUCKING FUTS (AKA Thursday in California)!!!

Could you quote the specific section of the law that “would make it a criminal act to invite an ICE agent into one’s office”?

[HurricaneDitka]

@Evil_Economist

Could you quote the specific section of the law that “would make it a criminal act to invite an ICE agent into one’s office”?

See post #41

[Clothahump]

@Lemur866

What crime would you charge them with?

You do know that in America, the cops can’t just arrest you because they feel like it, right?

Probably better than most.

It would be for violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens. Emphasis mine.

(a) Criminal penalties
(1)
(A) Any person who—
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii)** knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;**
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v)
(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
(i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
(ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
(iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both

[Clothahump]

@Kyomara

Let’s be clear: the current push behind increasing deportations and targeting sanctuary city policies is rooted in bigotry and misperception.

Sigh. No, it is not. It is rooted in a desire to live under the rule of law.

[snfaulkner]

Here’s what the OP has to say about the rule of law:

@HurricaneDitka

I think Timothy McVeigh’s actions were not an entirely unreasonable reaction to Ruby Ridge and Waco.

[Ravenman]

Rule of law, eh? Name a court decision that says that states are obligated to enforce Federal laws.

[running_coach]

@Clothahump

Sigh. No, it is not. It is rooted in a desire to live under the rule of law.

You must be one of them Constitution lovin’ conservatives . States rights and all. So show me in the Constitution where states are authorized to enforce federal laws.
Or where they can be forced to enforce federal law.

[mikecurtis]

@snfaulkner

Here’s what the OP has to say about the rule of law:

WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?
AFAIK, HD does not set policy at DHS or for state or local authorities.

mc

[adaher]

@bobot

The AG is going to prosecute people who break the law? Well damn, California! The nerve!

I doubt that prohibiting private citizens from cooperating with federal law enforcement is going to hold up in court.

[adaher]

Here’s the relevant story:

‘We will prosecute’ employers who help immigration sweeps, California AG says

Employers can cooperate with any federal law enforcement that they want to, and any state that prohibits private citizens from putting loyalty to country ahead of loyalty to state should be regarded as hostile, and all federal funding pulled.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Kolak_of_Twilo

… Not sure what the big deal is just because CA made it the law.

Do you understand the difference between “you do not have to do X” and “you are not allowed to do X”?

[Rick_Kitchen]

@adaher

One thing they are doing in retaliation is sending more ICE agents to go round up more immigrants. They’ve announced that ICE is going to the Bay Area to get about 1500 of 'em.

California "sanctuary cities" prepare for massive ICE raids

While not as intelligent as my approach, it is 100% legal and sends the appropriate message.

The oldest synagogue in Sacramento has declared themselves a sanctuary and will show up at any reported ICE raids to resist and to help the victims to escape.

[Loach]

@Chisquirrel

So they know when to send out the press releases about the Pistol Whipping Rapist, but can’t be there when he’s released? Do the feds lose jurisdiction within 1000 feet of a prison, so they can’t be sitting there? We ARE talking about the federal government, a body that has the greatest reach in history, and they can’t figure out how to read a release date?

The locals detained him for the entirety of his sentence. How much more of the feds’ job do they have to do?

Sure ICE might know when a famous criminal gets released. What about the guy that robbed a liquor store with a gun that didn’t even get a mention in the paper? In reality ICE will have no idea when criminal aliens are being released from prison or on bail. Places that have introduced sanctuary laws are refusing to honor ICE detainers and are not informing ICE that the inmate is being released. It happened close to me where ICE had to come in and hunt down a bunch that were released from jail. Our new governor plans to do that statewide.

[Rick_Kitchen]

@Lemur866

What crime would you charge them with?

You do know that in America, the cops can’t just arrest you because they feel like it, right?

Has anybody told them that?

[HurricaneDitka]

@Rick_Kitchen

The oldest synagogue in Sacramento has declared themselves a sanctuary and will show up at any reported ICE raids to resist and to help the victims to escape.

That sounds like a fantastic way to get themselves arrested.