Oh, so **HurricaneDikta **may have been wrong when he claimed that the law “would make it a criminal act to invite an ICE agent into one’s office”?
HurricaneDikta, could you clarify for us? Were you wrong when you claimed that the law"would make it a criminal act to invite an ICE agent into one’s office"? Or are we missing something?
Probably. IANAL. In layman’s terms, I’d call anything that the AG intends to prosecute you for a crime. There’s probably a more lawerly definition of the distinction between civil and criminal penalties or infractions vs felonies. Would you like to enlighten us?
Yeah, that’s not exactly what Arizona was trying to do. They were trying to hide under federal immigration laws to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin.
You’ve never made any indication you had any issue with the illegal immigrants from Europe, or even those from Asia - only those from the southern areas. Could there be a reason why people think so poorly about you in that bit of information?
Illegal immigration has declined. We’re not being flooded, they’re running away. When you come back, bring facts, not feelings.
“Probably” you were wrong? Or “probably” we are missing something?
I think the onus to provide enlightenment is on the person making the claim. The person making the claim is you, and the claim was that the law “would make it a criminal act to invite an ICE agent into one’s office.”
Probably I was wrong. I said: “IANAL. In layman’s terms, I’d call anything that the AG intends to prosecute you for a crime.” If you’re telling me that’s wrong (which you seem to be hinting at), and there’s a more precise legal term for an act that the AG would prosecute someone for that carries civil penalties instead of criminal ones, please share with me what that term is and I’ll try to use it instead.
How about “could assess a fine”?
This is probably false, but ‘welfare’ isn’t a rigorously defined term, so who the fuck knows? I did find a TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) spending spreadsheet broken down by state here (data from 2015), which shows California spending (state + federal combined) roughly 21% of the nation’s TANF spending. That’s disproportionate to population, sure, but states get a fair amount of leeway in both how long and how generously to grant TANF benefits, and California has chosen (wisely, IMHO) to be more generous and far-sighted. This, of course, has fuck-all to do with immigration, which both California and the US could absorb a considerable amount more of.
In the nation’s #1 economy, with a historically small pool of available workers.
“Oh please Brer Fox, whatever you do, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.”
I had understood that the date on which any given inmate would be released was a matter of public record, and that that information was available to anyone who was interested. Is that not the case?
Suppose that the AG rents office space from a landlord, and that part of the terms of the lease are that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the HVAC system. And suppose that in the middle of the summer, the air conditioning fails, and isn’t fixed for a week. The AG says that the rent should be reduced for that; the landlord says that it shouldn’t. Should the AG be allowed to sue the landlord? Has the landlord committed a crime?
Sure, the AG can sue, and I don’t think the landlord committed a crime, no. Again, IANAL, but I see a distinction between the term “sue” and “prosecute”. In my mind, those usually signaled a distinction between civil and criminal acts. In his press conference, the California AG said:
“We will prosecute those who violate the law” sounds a bit more like a criminal matter than “I’ll sue you over the broken A/C”.
If my layman’s understanding was mistaken (something I’m totally open to the possibility of), please educate me.
What’s the proper distinction between “civil” and “criminal”? Is it the court the case is tried in? Is it the type of punishment available (fines vs jail time)? Something else?
Yet the vast majority of immigrants are nonwhite. Oh, but it’s not targeting nonwhites. Like Trump didn’t say ‘shithouse,’ or ‘shithole,’ or whatever the latest Band-Aid term for covering over racism is. Ri-ight.
LOL let’s not start calling kettles black.
Right. Make America White Again! And not that inclusive white that contains all colors, but pure-as-the-driven-snow Clorox whiteness.
Cite that the country is being ‘flooded with aliens.’ You can’t, at least not with anything resembling reliable sources. But it should be interesting to see you try.
I don’t think it’s false, but there’s certainly some additional context that would enhance understanding:
San Diego Union-Tribune is a better source than I was expecting, but it’s still hard to evaluate the claim since they can’t be bothered to define ‘welfare recipient.’ (To be fair, I scanned rather than read the article. Feel free to point an laugh if I missed something.) Also, they don’t cite anything, and the article is from 2012, so who knows when (or where) their numbers are from.
For those saying that the laws and proposed laws against illegal immigrants aren’t racist, can you care to give examples of any of those laws being enforced against, say, Melanija Knavs?
What seems silly to me about this is that, if a business illegally employs aliens, why would they want to cooperate with INS anyway? It seems like the point of the bill is to just provide cover to the companies violating federal employment laws.
They don’t need cover though. They’ve already got the right to tell ICE “come back with a warrant”. I can’t find the post now, but someone upthread said that was the norm. That’s fine.
yeah, right, that’s the reason.
There’s at least one other Doper who claims to have voted for Trump because the progressives on this board are so strident.
EVen though your landlord owns the home, it is still your private domicile. Workplaces are not private except to the owner. The health inspector doesn’t need a warrant. Neither do I-9 inspectors.
https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/preparing-for-the--i-9-inspection