No it doesn’t. But people like you are mainly anxious to apply it to non-white people.
You cannot define “common sense.” Nor “liberal,” for that matter. Common sense is whatever feels right to you. I would prefer if you expressed yourself with facts.
Our country is not being flooded with illegal aliens, and getting rid of the ones who are here is not nearly as urgent as you make it out to be. Give me provable facts or STFU.
First, do not personalize your arguments in this fashion.
Second - this is a warning for being a jerk. “STFU” is out of line for this forum. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner, however please be mindful of the rules in the Pit as well.
[/moderating]
Are all of you people picking on AB450 missing the “except as required under federal law” part?
Cooperation with federal authorities, to the extent required by federal law, is still permitted and required.
If an I-9 inspector shows up without the federally required three day notice he doesn’t get in. AB450 codifies that Federal protection in state law by viewing that protection as a protection (at least in part) of the rights of an employee and not allowing voluntary waiver of that right by an employer.
If the Feds show up at the door with their papers in order they get to enter the place of employment.
That’s not what anyone is talking about.
If Feds show up at a business, and ask the owner’s consent to enter without their papers in order, currently the owner is free to tell them “yes” or “no” as a matter of discretion.
AB450 prohibits the owner from saying “yes.” That’s the issue.
California is recognizing that the law protects the employee as well as the employer.
Could you describe in any detail how this law is supposed to protect employers?
Employers were already protected under federal law. The California law extends that protection to employees as well.
So California is arguing that it can determine how immigration enforcement procedures are executed in the state.
What is the source of California’s authority to limit Federal law enforcement activities? Could Texas set limitations on ATF agents enforcing Federal firearms law?
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.
The 10th prevents ATF agents from forcing state agencies from enforcing federal law.
ATF agents are free to enforce Federal gun laws as long as they do it themselves.
That was why the 55 mph speed limit was tied to highway funding. State police couldn’t be required to enforce a federal speed limit.
By Tenth Amendment do you mean Articles of Confederation? Because this is some grade A nonsense.
No, the 10th Amendment of The Constitution
Tenth Amendment to the Articles of Confederation? You’re right, that is grade A nonsense.
I feel that the Trump Administration policies are all about punishing people they don’t like, not about any real effort to curtail illegal immigration.
This administration is intent on enacting foreign and trade policies that will damage the Mexican economy.
This dumb-assed insistence that Americans are clamoring for horrible jobs such as manufacturing car batteries or cleaning seafood and the resulting push to “bring those jobs back” will hurt employment in Mexico, as will the mass deportations.
This will make more Mexicans desperate to immigrate to Mexico. And it will make Mexico less able to police THEIR Southern border, increasing the influx of Central American migrants. And reducing the paths for legal immigration will just make for more illegal immigration.
And I think the ideal of merit based legal immigration doesn’t hold up to even the most casual scrutiny. We have way too many well-educated young people that can’t find professional jobs in their field as it is, and are stuck in restaurant or retail work. Why would we want to import more competition for those good jobs? I’d rather have good hardworking people that are willing to pick strawberries or pluck chickens until they gain a toehold to work their way up.
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.
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.
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.
There are many things that are against federal laws; and we don’t allow the feds to just go from house to house searching for infractions. Why would it be any different for a business? The feds aren’t allowed to just go into a business a look for infractions in the immigration laws. They have to have probable cause to accuse an owner of hiring undocumenteds, and to accuses the workers of being undocumented. If they do, indeed, have that probable cause then they can get a warrant and now they can legally search the premises, with or without the owners consent.
So it’s really about the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments!
mc
Basically all of this is wrong. Feds can go house to house searching for infractions if they want. They can walk in public spaces and use their eyes and look for things that are visibly illegal. Like, a kidnap/murder/torture room in the front living room with the curtains open - if feds see that, they’d have pretty solid grounds for police action. They can currently go into any public business and have a consensual conversation. While they are there, they can again, use their eyes and look for anything that visibly presents as a violation of federal law. Like, if they see document forgery equipment and in use in plain view, then they’d be on solid ground to accuse the workers or operators of engaging in illegal activity.
And prior to AB450, a federal agent could enter a business, request for consensual access to non public areas to have more conversations and if the owner or owner’s agent authorized it, that would be allowed. No warrant necessary because, consent means the person is granting permission. AB450 makes it so the owner is prohibited from granting permission.
Not sure how often that happens, or if high pressure tactics are used to obtain consent, etc. But that aspect of law on its face is bad. I don’t know if it’s unconstitutional since regulation of business practices within a state seems within the scope of state power. But it’s important to at least be clear on the nature of the issue being discussed.
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?
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?
And why do they choose some businesses and not others? my guess is they target business who may have some vulernability that they can exploit. When I lived in san diego, there was a company that was “known” to employ undocumented workers but they were never in fear of being raided because it was a very successful co with a team of full time lawyers and ICE “knew” they would never get permission to search. And how often are the “Irish” bars in Chicago (that are staffed with undocumneteds) raided without warrants? or the factories in Minneapolis with undocumented Swedes?
mc
And just like with Bricker, we’ve shown repeatedly that the “liberal hypocrisy” argument has no validity. Every situation is different.
There are two major differences here. The first is moral. Kicking these people out does not in any way help our country, but it does harm these people. Liberals are the party of compassion, so of course we’re going to fight against the nasty government who wants to hurt these innocent people who are hurting no one. In both situations, we are on the pro-immigrant side.
The second is legal. The federal government cannot force the state governments to enforce federal laws, nor can the state governments force the federal government to enforce federal laws. So this is entirely consistent. If the feds want to go after these people, they have to do it themselves. And if they don’t want to go after them, the states can’t do it for them.
California is using the second paragraph because they believe the first. Arizona was ignoring the second paragraph because they disagreed with the first. HAving different opinions on both is not contradictory.
You only come up with a hypocritical result if you ignore these differences and presume the situations are the same. They are not.
(And that’s without getting into Arizona’s racial profiling, which showed that the underlying issue was racial animus. Clearly that is not the reason for California’s actions.)