# "Sanctuary cities" and federal laws **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 28, 2017, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327 "2017-07-28T14:58:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![BlueMerle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@BlueMerle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlueMerle)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/441 "2018-01-02T17:32:13Z")
> [@Guest-starring\_Id](#): > > uuuuhhhh you have to admit that your source IS invalid, correct? Well you do know that those signs were actually put up… right? One in Malibu and one on I-15. [Fox News](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/02/prank-california-highway-signs-welcome-felons-illegal-immigrants-and-ms-13.html) ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/442 "2018-01-02T17:40:25Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Did you all see the new story out about how people have been posting on “Welcome to California” signs? > > “Felons, Illegals, and MS13 members welcome”: > > [LINK](http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/01/photos-sanctuary-state-signs-pop-california-highways-new-year-felons-illegals-ms13-welcome/) > > You have to admit that it IS the truth. Really? Please enlighten— what obligates me to admit that a prank sign with a partisan “joke” represents “the truth”? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/443 "2018-01-02T17:41:15Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Did you all see the new story out about how people have been posting on “Welcome to California” signs? > > “Felons, Illegals, and MS13 members welcome”: > > [LINK](http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/01/photos-sanctuary-state-signs-pop-california-highways-new-year-felons-illegals-ms13-welcome/) > > You have to admit that it IS the truth. That Democrats need votes from criminals and non citizens? I do not so admit. Even still, that isn’t the party that nominated a bible thumping child molester for Federal office from Alabama. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/444 "2018-01-02T17:56:04Z")
> [@Guest-starring\_Id](#): > > Bolding mine. > …even if the employer has a perfectly valid reason to challenge what may turn out to be a completely misguided, invalid subpoena or warrant? It says > [@](#): > > This section **does not prohibit** an employer, or person acting on behalf of an employer, from challenging the validity of a subpoena or judicial warrant in a federal district court. Which means they can challenge the validity - although adding that line seems to do nothing but add confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/445 "2018-01-02T18:10:38Z")
> [@Guest-starring\_Id](#): > > And I’ll betcha any challenges will just get thrown out. I’d love to hear your reasoning. I’m thinking that this CA law is a replica of the AZ law that got overturned, except in the reverse. If the law actively prohibits people from volunteering to assist federal immigration enforcement officers, I’d say that has a high burden to overcome to be considered kosher. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/446 "2018-01-02T18:46:14Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m guessing this new law will be challenged and found at least partially unconstitutional to the extent it prohibits voluntary actions of private employers. I’m not sure why you would think so. Governments have fairly broad authority to protect individuals’ privacy, even with regard to records held by third parties. HIPAA (along with dozens of similar state laws) prohibits physicians from voluntarily sharing patients’ medical information without patient authorization, but challenges on the grounds that it’s an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of medical providers have all failed. There is [no individual constitutional right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whalen_v._Roe) to medical privacy, so this is not a matter of competing constitutional rights. The law doesn’t prevent people from volunteering to assist federal immigration officers. It prevents them from doing so by sharing personnel files. They’re free to call and say, “I think I have an undocumented worker at my business,” or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Guest-starring\_Id](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guest-starring_id/32/21736_2.png) [@Guest-starring\_Id](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guest-starring_Id)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/447 "2018-01-02T18:52:59Z")
> [@BlueMerle](#): > > Well you do know that those signs were actually put up… right? One in Malibu and one on I-15. > > [Fox News](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/02/prank-california-highway-signs-welcome-felons-illegal-immigrants-and-ms-13.html) I’m not questioning that they were put up, I’m questioning the usage of a such a dubious source (which, yes - provided actual factual info in this particular instance) that has, in turn, biased **Urban** ’s weak response. And really, you had to go with Fox, yourself? > [@doreen](#): > > It says > > Which means they can challenge the validity - although adding that line seems to do nothing but add confusion. Yeah my response could’ve been worded better to mention exactly what you’re pointing out. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/448 "2018-01-02T19:17:47Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The law doesn’t prevent people from volunteering to assist federal immigration officers. It prevents them from doing so by sharing personnel files. They’re free to call and say, “I think I have an undocumented worker at my business,” or whatever. It does more than that. It prohibits employers from voluntarily allowing ICE to enter non-public areas of the business: > [@](#): > > 7285.1. (a) 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. This section does not apply if the immigration enforcement agent provides a judicial warrant. So a uniformed ICE officer enters a business and asks if they have permission to come into the back office to take a look around, have a conversation, etc. If the employer agrees, that’s a civil violation under this law. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/449 "2018-01-02T19:29:29Z")
Ah. You didn’t quote that part before, but I agree it’s problematic. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/450 "2018-01-02T19:32:32Z")
It’s a very interesting question whether a state can prohibit granting consent to federal officials for searches and arrests on their property. I don’t think it is quite the reverse of the Arizona case. In that case, there were statutes you could point to in which Congress explained how locals are permitted to engage in immigration enforcement, and the argument for conflict preemption was pretty good. I don’t think you have the same statutory preemption argument here, and there’s at least arguably less of a conflict with the enforcement of federal policy since they can get a subpoena or search warrant when necessary. On the other hand, as a reality, ICE very often operates without getting judicial authority because the basis for their suspicion is illegal racial profiling. So refusing consent probably would actually harm ICE operations. But is that really a pre-emption problem? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/451 "2018-01-02T20:03:13Z")
I think the argument to the contrary is pretty thin. It’s one thing to say “we don’t participate in immigration investigations,” and another to say “and nobody within our jurisdiction can either.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=22)