First, have you read AB450? Your response leads me to believe you haven’t. Searching an individual is not part of AB450 and an individual’s 4th amendment rights are not implicated at all.
Second, what a response should be and what response could be are not the same. People shouldn’t waive their right to counsel while be questioned, yet they do and that is their right. People shouldn’t consent to searches of their vehicle during traffic stops, but they do and that is their right. When police go door to door looking for a kidnapping victim, people could refuse to answer, refuse to assist, etc. What should they do? Who knows and who cares - this law is about what they could do and it takes voluntary consent off the table.
I can come up with hypotheticals too. What if the Susan, the owner of a small machine shop just brought on a new worker, John Smith. John is white and was able to produce the proper eligibility documents to be hired based on the I-9 instructions. Since the instructions direct employers to accept documents that appear to be valid, the owner is weary of questioning them, even though they are damaged. Susan is friends with Peter, her neighbor who also happens to be an ICE officer. While they are chatting each other up, Peter remembers that Susan was talking about some new folks she brought on, and mentioned that she wasn’t sure if she was following the rules correctly. Peter offers to take a look and help her out. Susan says, great, that would be helpful and grants Peter access to her office in the back of the shop. By granting access, Susan has now violated AB450 and could be subject to civil penalty.
I’m fully on board with the validity of local governments refusing to assist the feds in enforcing federal law. But AB450 goes beyond that and penalizes voluntary consent. That’s bad.
I think you’re confused on the issue and Ravenman’s point is a good one, but at a more visceral level, I HOPE your side prevails. Visions of limiting the ATF and EPA the way CA wants to limit ICE are already dancing in my head.
In many ways, this does protect the business owner. If ICE comes in, and demands to take a look around, what is the owner going to do? Especially, if the owner doesn’t actually know that he has the right to refuse, but even then, if the agents seem particularly intimidating or ingratiating, he may allow them access to the private personnel records of his employees with no cause whatsoever.
By making it no longer legal for the busienss owner to aqueiss without a warrant, it removes the pressure to aquese to a search under the intiimidation or ingratiation of agents.
What does damaged mean? If it is a valid document that appears on the I-9, you have to take it. If it is torn to shreds, then it’s not a valid document, if it is a bit old and worn and creased with fraying edges, there is no reason to think that it is not a valid document.
Susan has given private information about her personel to her neighbor. Now, I know that that would be a violation of the law if I were to do that. If I said to my neighbor, “Hey, do these documents look in order?” and I hand him copies of their DL and their SSN, are you somehow thinking that that is legal? How is it that Peter, not acting in his official capacity as an ICE agent, but just as a neighbor looking over documents for a friend is in any different position? In this instance, Peter should give her the number to the ICE office and ask her to call them in the morning, not take a look at the private information of an employee.
It protects employees from invasions of their privacy without cuase. That’s good.
Not even close or a cigar. There is no mention of immigration whatsoever in the Constitution OR the Amendments. Hence, the fallback position is the literal text of the Tenth Amendment. Nice attempt to twist it to your point of view, though.
Yet more twisting. So Joe Arpaio is now a State of the Union? Hint: he is not. He is a citizen of the US, and violated the order of a federal judge. It’s really not a good idea to throw around charges of hypocrisy on a non-factual basis. It only makes you look blatantly and blindly partisan.
Hmmm, I suspect you of a crime, so if I voluntarily break into your house, and voluntarily turn over everything I find to the law enforcement agents, do you feel I should not receive any punishment?
This is stupid. If the Tenth Amendment controls, then the Federal government would have NO power to make immigration laws, since such power would be reserved to the states.
I am quite partisan. I haven’t voted for a Republican for Federal office since 1992. I voted for a Republican for a local office about six years ago, which was probably the first time in my life doing so.
However, I do a better job than many of not thrusting my political views of reading black letter law.
I don’t understand the question. Give me a scenario. Note that I said “in general.” I do not think voluntary cooperation with authorities generally implies a constitutional controversy.
Firstly, Trump’s administration requested that information. They never demanded it, so no state was resisting anything, from a legal standpoint. You may have noticed that there were never any lawsuits about this, and so no Tenth Amendment issue arose.
Secondly, are you familiar with the jurisprudence surrounding the Tenth Amendment? Can you cite a case in which an issue similar to this was decided in favor of the state in question? There have been so few cases involving the 10th, it won’t take long for you to review all of them.
I don’t know the exact laws and penalties involved, but it would not be legal for me to share the personal details of my employees to some random person.
If a law enforcement agent has no warrant or probable cause, they are no different from some random person.
BTW, B&E is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions, not a felony.
Nope, immigration is strictly a Federal matter. When someone comes over the border of Mexico, they are not entering the State of California, they’re entering The United States.
Why do you think there are no State immigration agencies?
Well, the Constitution does use the word migration (Article I Section 9).
I suppose scholars may debate whether such language implies federal control of immigration after the year 1808, but there is a clear precedent for such.
And the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the right to govern naturalization (Article I Section 8) which is so tightly tied to immigration.
So any argument that a state now has the right to assert its state law over federal immigration or naturalization laws is on very shaky ground.
Well, then, I guess Ravenman is right. I’m a hypocrite for not seeing a difference between one racist fuck attempting to violate the rights of people in Arizona and another racist fuck attempting to do so in the entire country, or California specifically. And fighting it. And damn well proud of it.