California Attorney General Xavier Becerra warned..
.....'We will prosecute' employers who violate sanctuary laws
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra warned employers Thursday of legal repercussions if they assist federal immigration officials in an impending crackdown in the sanctuary state, The Sacramento Bee reported.
Under a new state law – the Immigration Worker Protection Act – employers and businesses could face fines of up to $10,000 if they provide employee information to U.S. Immigration Customs, Becerra said.
If employers “start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office. We will prosecute those who violate the law,” he said at a news conference.
CE’s acting director, Thomas Homan told Fox News earlier this month, “If the politicians in California don’t want to protect their communities, then ICE will.”
Tags
Who is online
70 visitors
No wonder the sane parts of the state want to split off from the unhinged leftists on the coast.
No kidding.
Sheeeeesh !
A lot of people are beginning to look up the word "sedition". The legal line has not been crossed, yet. Getting mighty close though.
Not very smart if Brown or any of his cohorts give a darn about California's economy.
Defense contractors both R&D and manufacturing. Transport, maritime, trucking and rails. Oil industry will really suffer. Fed's have the upper hand.Refuse to give information about your business, including employees and lose your government contracts. Keep in mind it isn't just the fat cats that will be affected. Numerous small businesses in California rely, sometimes primarily on Federal contracts.
It’s not fair to whipsaw contractors between the state and federal government, risking state fines on the one hand and their income on the other. Trump campaigned on an anti-illegal alien platform and, instead of spending his time on DACA amnesty, he should be protecting law abiding businesses from states like California.
It's one of those "Nice Thoughts", but isn't going to happen.
I have no disagreement with this comment. I also recognize that RICO may provide a part of the solution.
Extreme caution must be taken. Press would have a field day spinning it into a story about oppression by the Federal government. Violations of State's rights. Any heavy handed action on the part of the Feds warranted or not is easily used to create perceptions of a heavy handed government. One instance of truth can easily be used to create a lie. We see it done everyday tight here on NT.
No it isn't fair for the businesses to be stuck in the middle. Loss of Federal contracts will create a lot of resentment and tempers will flair. Will the anger be directed at the Feds for wanting cooperation in solving what is a national problem? Will it be directed at the State which when you get right down it is telling them not to do business with the Feds?
But, then remember, Federal/Defense contractors can not hire Illegal Aliens - even though DOE has been caught a few dozen times in Cali.
I remember hearing the stories of then Governor Wallace sending out the Army Guard Troops to block integration, and Kenendy Federalizing them and ordering them to provide protection for the integration process. I see things headed this direction........Sedition is the right word.......
Only in America can "Illegals" be protected , and actual American "CITIZENS" threatened. ...and that's found to be a Good Thing !
I wonder how long it will be before business's move out of the State..
OR
How long it will be before unemployment in California GROWS after this little tidbit(THREAT to Americans) of information gets out more !
Umm....before you all go off on a tangent and start foaming at the mouth, take a logical look at this law. It stops employers from giving out information to their employees PERIOD. Just think about his for one minute, do you think an employer would actually give information about illegal immigrants currently working at their business?! That means they would be actually admitting to committing a crime because they knowingly hired an illegal immigrant! This law protects the rights of the vast majority of LEGAL employees and immigrants
Form I-9, (Employment Eligibility Verification), comes to mind.
If Form I-9 fits the bill, why the need for further information from the employer. They have already certified that they have reviewed documents that prove that the employee has the legal right to work in the US.
"Becerra warned employers Thursday of legal repercussions " if they assist federal immigration officials" in an impending crackdown in the sanctuary state."
Did you get that part ?
If they "ASSIST" ?
I read the seed. You didn't answer my question.
"why the need for further information from the employer."
It says "ASSIST". If ICE shows up, they already "know" what they need to know ! If they ask for further information after they get there, that's how it is.
So the I-9 doesn't fit the bill. Thanks.
One would presume that even ICE needs probable cause. So under federal law, what further information does ICE have the right to demand?
Why is “probable cause” and “right to demand” even relevant if the employer wants to voluntarily cooperate with federal authorities? This may be a free speech issue.
Illegal immigrants will use fake documents to complete an I-9. The employer does not even send it in to the Feds. It does have to be held for a certain period of time and be made available to the Feds for inspection. And it isn't just Hispanics. I did some auditing for a pizza company that hired illegals from Russia. All fake documents... Most couldn't speak a lick of English.
Hey, I'm not the one who claimed that the Form I-9 was relevant.
Are you claiming that a state doesn't have the right to pass legislation to regulate commerce within it's border? Since when?
Really? Exactly what speech is being denied by the state?
How did you come up with that ?
Arguably the state is primarily restricting speech not regulating commerce.
The state has enacted a law directly impacting a federal right to control illegal immigration by threatening employers with sanctions if they engage in “speech” that, in the state’s view, constitutes cooperation with federal authorities.
Cali's big business is Agriculture which is an interstate business - hence the Commerce Clause, an additional power of Congress, comes into play.
Should it be permissible for a state to open its borders to illegal immigrants in defiance of federal law?
If so, should the state be required to keep its illegal inhabitants inside its borders instead of being used as a gateway to the entire US?
What federal law requires a state to secure it's borders from immigrants of any kind?
Did I miss the comment in which you proved that it did?
Where ?
Which answers the question of exactly WHAT speech is being denied by the state, how?
Seriously, proclamations don't count.
Only Illegal Aliens - Immigration and Nationality Act
Sure, once it's in the truck and on it's way out of the state. Until then, not so much.
Planting, harvesting, processing, and packaging is ALL in state. That is where the vast majority of Ag employment resides.
I'm asking you.
Cite the section and clause please.
If they will be fined for cooperating with the feds then ANY speech used to support the fine is the speech being abridged.
All free speech lawsuits begin the same way. Fight back with any means at your disposal.
Should a state be allowed to ignore or subvert federal immigration laws?
Does that go to Immigration Services?.....No? So what's your point?
Seeing as though Becerra never used that word.....your point?
Read more here:
You reading a different report ?
What point are you trying to make ?
So I didn't post anything your asking ?
"The law prevents workers of any immigration status from being detained at workplaces. Among other stipulations, federal officials must obtain a warrant before searching a worksite and employers are required to notify their workers before a federal audit of employee records." from your link.
That's the real "assistance" they are talking about. Employers cannot illegally detain workers and turn them over to ICE effectively becoming company thugs physically detaining suspects.
"Under California’s sanctuary laws, local police are restricted from cooperating with federal immigration authorities."
Again, the only "cooperating" they are banned from is notifying ICE of crime victims, witnesses or family members of suspects that haven't committed any other crime than being undocumented. They are allowed and regularly do contact ICE when criminals who have committed a crime are found to be undocumented. This simply allows the police to do their jobs and not the secondary job of being an immigration enforcement officer as well as allows the community to feel secure in coming forward as witnesses or victims so that the police can do their jobs and apprehend violent criminals.
This is an "Illegal" immigrant "Sanctuary" thing.
It's also a "BULLSHIT FEEL GOOD LAW"
It puts a massive burden on American Employers.
Read the Actual California law this article speaks of, which has a lot of word use of "Unless required by Federal law" .
This is the best part of the law......
..... forcing Employers into a conundrum on which law is most important follow: 
"I n conflict with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) plans to increase enforcement actions under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which includes criminal and civil penalties for employers who knowingly employ unauthorized workers; the new California law seeks to protect foreign workers from unfair immigration-related practices, potentially causing problems for employers who must comply with federal and state laws."
Dumbass Liberals !
I cited his exact words that Becerra said at that news press conference!
Care to cite what report you read.....
That why would INS need an I-9 form?...and if they did couldn't they just as easily get it from the IRS?
It's right above, in the beginning, in the article.
What ?
'cause it's the law ?
"All U.S. employers must complete and retain a Form I-9 for each individual they hire for employment in the United States. This includes citizens and noncitizens."
you would think a business owner, as he states he is, would know this.
Liberals don't really give two shit.
They will do anything to make you think they do though.
Seems like a flat out violation of free speech since private individuals should be free to say whatever they want, especially when the speech is an attempt to cooperate with law enforcement.
The speech 'used to support the fine' would be spoken by the state, not the employer. Sheesh.
Actually, no, no they don't. In fact, most of them start with an ACTUAL violation of the 1st Amendment. Yours is a fabrication.
That's what's called a 'frivolous lawsuit'.
BTW, I didn't see AG Sessions filing for an injunction to put a hold on CA's new legislation. Wonder why? Could it be that he's reviewed the law and figured out that he'd loose?
No, what I read was a writers INTERPRETATION of what Becerra said......which doesn't match up to Becerra actual words.......so once again what report are you reading that stated Becerra said those words?
Really? How would an I-9 form verify someone immigration status? You do realize when immigration goes to check I-9s they are investigating the employer NOT the employee right?
It's the employer's free speech that's being restricted so it's the employer's speech that's at issue not the state's.
No they don't. Unless the exact issue has already been decided by a court, every lawsuit begins by asking the court to rule that the action is unconstitutional. It starts with the court interpreting the Constitution to determine whether the speech is protected.
It's not frivolous unless and until the Court says so.
A person may still be able to assert their right to free speech whether or not Jeff Sessions thinks the federal government has some other cause of action.
WHAT ?
" Form I-9 is the USCIS Employment Eligibility Verification form and this form must be used by the US employers to verify employment authorization and identity of the hired individuals. US employers must make sure that these forms are filled out completely for each individual they hire. The employer must attest his employment authorization on this form and the employee must provide the required documents to prove that he is eligible for employment in America. After verifying employment eligibility, the employer must retain this form for inspection.
I-9 form will help the employers to make sure that the hired employees are not subject to criminal penalties that would make them unauthorized to work in America. People who fail to meet the I-9 requirements may not be permitted to work in the country and are likely to be fined or penalized."
I-9 is a background checker.
Link ?
"Words to have meaning" !
Words have no power to impress the mind without the exquisite horror of their reality.
Edgar Allan Poe
Really?? NO ONE can enter the U. S. without approval of the State Department and Homeland Security. ALL immigrants must go through the same vetting process - you know that.
Once again why would INS need an I-9.....and btw you don't submit I-9s to any government agency!....you only have to have them review them if requested
Background checkers?! Are you serious?!
You see the part about the EMPLOYER ATTESTING receiving all the information required. So say an employee only had one form of information but the employer had an attested I-9, who would that show that this employee was illegal? OR would it show that the employer signed an I-9 knowing that person didn’t have all that information?
Umm…..excuse me but why would an employer have an I-9 form for an illegal? And if they did who would be getting in trouble for having one?
So ICE can come in and review I-9, yet, California wants to make it a fineable Offense AGAINST companies to comply/ASSIST if ICE comes in and asks for the I-9.
I knew you would get there eventually.
Thank you.
Did you see that part?
"Umm…..excuse me but why would an employer have an I-9 form for an illegal?"
Ever heard of fake documents ?
Dude! The link is in your seed! The source of the MSN article!
Now, care to tell me the meaning of these words?
Well since we are using quotes......a Mark Twain quote comes to mind right about now!
Read more here:
The law specifically stated UNLESS FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES IT....i.e ICE is one of the few agencies that is federally allowed to review your I-9 but they cant view your HR records or personnel records without a subpoena or warrant!
What? showing that this seed is full of shit?....you're welcome!
Like I have already said....It's a Big Fucking "Feel Good" law that's a "Big Fucking Contradiction", putting Big Burdens on AMERICAN companies.
If companies follow the State law, they are going against Federal law. If they follow Federal Law, the State will fine the crap out of them !
The upside is ?
It's very simple....to most !
If you go against Cali's new law, and "ASSIST" ICE on immigration.....unless federal law says different....but it's against Cali's "Sanctuary" law....which is against Federal law.....but is for "Sanctuary" City law.....but is against Federal Law..... you will have some fine levied against you, either way.
Thumbs Up ?
Not hard to figure out this new law is CRAP !
Meeehhhhhh.........
Free speech rights do not apply in many circumstances. For example, it's against the law for an employer to speak freely about the health conditions of an employee (HIPPA).
I'm not sure.
According to the SCOTUS in Wickard v Filburn (1942), this doesn't make any difference. It's all part of the national agriculture market and, therefore, subject to Congressional regulation.
We're NOT discussing the PRODUCT, we're talking about the employees who produce it and WHERE they are when the do it.. Nice try though...
You don't get it. Everything you do at your little plant or farm or whatever in your state has an impact on interstate commerce. This includes who you hire and what you pay them. If you are hiring illegal aliens, you are preventing American citizens from participating in interstate commerce. If you pay them crap wages like illegals often get, you impact competition in interstate commerce because your overhead has been artificially reduced and other farms are disadvantaged.
Oh I get it. You're making a failed attempt to project the jurisprudence of a completely unrelated SCOTUS ruling about a commodity onto a piece of legislation that addresses employers/employees relations.
Seriously, Wickard v Filburn (1942) doesn't address EVERYTHING done on a piece of farmland. READ IT. Hyperbole isn't fact.
States are required by law to give out all kinds of information about their employees. Immigration status would be an example of that kind of information that the Federal Government needs. No reputable company would knowingly hire someone who is illegal or has been deported multiple times. I foresee even more employers moving out of this leftist state. Didn't California recently give illegals the right to vote...they've given them about everything else.
Can never understand the liberals love affair with illegals. Could it be they are pandering for votes?
It's called MONEY - Illegal Aliens are a booming business in Cali.
Really?! I am only allowed to give out information listed and specified for employment purposes ONLY. I cant even give out personal information even with child support orders......so I think you're incorrect on that one
And how would an employer know the immigration status of an employee BEFORE the government, seeing as though they have to check it through the government!.....you're not making sense in this case.
And what fantasy world do you live in?! Come down to South Florida and say that again....see how many people laugh in your face!
Doubtful.......but whatever makes you sleep better at night!
I don't know....did they?!
Seeing as though that last three reports of illegals immigrates voting in elections were done for Republican candidates......I think you ought to let that narrative go!
Looks like a states rights issue to me. Tell me, why would a business move out of the state, they are the ones hiring the illegals.
Why would they knowingly hire illegals? Small companies perhaps, but those of any size would want to know the immigration status of new hires. Or is it illegal to ask them (the applicant) that?
They hire illegals because the law isn't being enforced and illegals work for pennies on the dollar. I own a business that directly competes with companies in California that use illegal workers. I do not use illegal workers. It isn't fair to me, my employees and my company...... that we have to compete with these law breakers.
To my knowledge, the RICO Act was expanded over 10 years ago to protect employers like you who are forced to compete against businesses who employ illegal aliens. Have you ever contacted the Justice Department to pursue an action under RICO?
Duh, because they are cheaper. Or are you under the impressio0n that businesses have suddenly become moral bastions?
No....I'm not familiar with the RICO Act......My guess is this has already been pursued......the law is being broken so blatantly......also....My Company doesn't have the deep pockets to fight these Huge Companies......but I will look into it.....Thanks!
I would really like to understand how RICO actually works for the people it was designed to protect so please let me know what they tell you. Two heads are better than one so, if I can be of any help, please let me know.
Yep. employees tried to go after Perdue in multiple states but the court said that they had to 'prove a conspiracy' which ain't easy.
I had to close my small corporation as I could not compete against my competitors who basically hired exclusively illegals
Are you serious?
I briefly just read over the law......I can tell you it won't work unless I could get a bunch of us who are following the law to band together.........I have one Company in California (not a big one) who is using one of my Registered Trademarks.....I had my lawyer send a cease and desist letter.....and they continue on and ignore.....I'm sure if I wanted to pursue it.....I could spend a bunch of money and make them stop.....but it isn't worth it at this point.
It's easier than you think but it becomes nearly impossible when Law Enforcement, Prosecutors, and the Judges refuse to do their jobs because they've been bought off with Political Contributions by the offending Corporations.
Your lawyer and the Justice Department are two different things. Without providing any specific details identifying you or your business, could you just briefly describe your problem? I want to contact the Justice Department myself.
I belong to a State Association that could do something about this.....but convincing them to take action is another thing......Makes me want to run for an office in the association.....
too much money being made by both sides to rectify
I Know, from personal experience
The EMPOYERS are why we wound up with an illegal immigration problem
You nailed it....
The Employers are a big part of the problem......but it is only part of the problem......
true, but in my eyes, the MAIN part
It relates to the Agri-Business......It's obvious that California's Agri-Business is using illegal immigrants to care for and harvest their crops.......I produce a crop that directly competes with California grown stuff.......
There is no way that the Department of Justice doesn't know about this........
Exactly, since the government doesn't enforce laws and regulations, you get the rights you can afford.
Bingo!
as a heart attack
closed shop in 2014
That is so wrong.... Makes me so mad! My Business is doing well......pays the bills, pays for some jobs...etc.....But.....we could be doing so much better!
yea, I know
play by the rules and be legal paying taxes and Workers Comp Insurance on all employee's and you have suddenly priced yourself out of competition
makes my damn BLOOD BOIL
This is really outrageous and it makes me angry. Instead of helping guys like you, our dumbass Congress is threatening to shut down the government to protect illegal aliens.
Makes mine boil as well.....and it is happening so openly.....blatantly.....and yet nothing has been done for decades.........
Amen Brother.
Not all businesses are Corrupt Assholes.....many businesses exist that obey the law, pay their workers as much as they can, pay their taxes and contribute to their communities.....Many mom and pop shops are going out of business because of the few that are willing to break the law.....and very little to nothing is being done about it.
Passed in 1970, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a federal law designed to combat organized crime in the United States. It allows prosecution and civil penalties for racketeering activity performed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise. Such activity may include illegal gambling, bribery, kidnapping, murder, money laundering, counterfeiting, embezzlement, drug trafficking, slavery, and a host of other unsavory business practices.
To convict a defendant under RICO, the government must prove that the defendant engaged in two or more instances of racketeering activity and that the defendant directly invested in, maintained an interest in, or participated in a criminal enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce. The law has been used to prosecute members of the mafia, the Hells Angels motorcycle gang, and Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group, among many others .
Now, the good part - (1) racketeering activity means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 891894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents), section 1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with access devices), section 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to financial institution fraud), section 1425 (relating to the procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully), section 1426 (relating to the reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427 (relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship papers), sections 14611465 (relating to obscene matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1542 (relating to false statement in application and use of passport), section 1543 (relating to forgery or false use of passport), section 1544 (relating to misuse of passport), section 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents), sections 15811592 (relating to peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons)., [1] section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering), section 1953 (relating to interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia), section 1954 (relating to unlawful welfare fund payments), section 1955 (relating to the prohibition of illegal gambling businesses), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity), section 1958 (relating to use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire), section 1960 (relating to illegal money transmitters), sections 2251, 2251A, 2252, and 2260 (relating to sexual exploitation of children), sections 2312 and 2313 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles), sections 2314 and 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen property), section 2318 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit labels for phone records, computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging and copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works), section 2319 (relating to criminal infringement of a copyright), section 2319A (relating to unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of live musical performances), section 2320 (relating to trafficking in goods or services bearing counterfeit marks), section 2321 (relating to trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts), sections 23412346 (relating to trafficking in contraband cigarettes), sections 242124 (relating to white slave traffic), sections 175178 (relating to biological weapons), sections 229229F (relating to chemical weapons), section 831 (relating to nuclear materials), (C) any act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501 (c) (relating to embezzlement from union funds), (D) any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 (except a case under section 157 of this title), fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any law of the United States, (E) any act which is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, (F) any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States) , or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) if the act indictable under such section of such Act was committed for the purpose of financial gain, or (G) any act that is indictable under any provision listed in section 2332b (g)(5)(B);
Did you get upset about this too?
As a Government Employee I was very offended by it, but us little guys have no control over what they do in Washington. I've been telling anyone who will listen to go to and write your senators and tell them that protecting Dreamers is NOT more important than protecting American Citizens and this shut down doesn't hurt anyone but American Citizens (the squeaky wheel gets the grease movement). It looks like they are more interested in people that are here illegally than with people that are here legally.
So let me ask you a question.....as an employer do you agree with AG Becerra? Or would you willingly give information about your employees besides the mandatory information given for tax purposes?
To my knowledge it is mandatory that you submit an I-9 form for any employee.....and I don't know how you could properly do that for an illegal worker......
You don't submit an I-9 to anyone the only thing you have to do is retain it for a certain period of time (I think it's one year after end of employment) it's only mandatory for you to submit them for review with certain government agencies
These sanctuary city loons are seriously out of control. The federal government should warn Bacerra that any action taken against a private employer for cooperating with federal authorities will be seen as part of a criminal scheme to harbor illegal aliens and prosecuted as a felony under the RICO act.
At the same time employers are not legally allowed to give out employers personal information to any government entity that has nothing to do with tax purposes. All Becerra is doing is enforcing the STATE law that protects employees.......so good luck with any federal entity attempting that empty bluff! If they haven't challenged the law yet they cant challenge Becerra's actions in enforcing it!
The clear purpose of California’s law is not to protect personal information but rather to undermine and impede the enforcement of federal law. Even if federal authorities do nothing, anyone prosecuted under California’s law may still be able to argue that the law is unconstitutional.
Why wouldn't they want to cooperate with the Feds? Do they have something to hide?
are you referring to Trump's people ?
Why wouldn't a business want to cooperate with our Federal Government regardless of who is President?
Do they have something to hide?
So wait! Has the entire libertarian mindset just been flushed down the tube? Oh and what happened to the whole 10th Amendment thingy?
Since they are doing it openly through state legislation and litigating it in open court, I'd say no. Sheesh.
glad you narrowed it down
I actually are closer to the views of you and Old School on this matter if you read my commentary
you didn't answer the question....why not be open with the Feds?
Because Federal government isn't to be trusted RIGHT? LESS government not MORE government RIGHT?
California is a sovereign state. They have the right to pass legislation the regulates commerce within their borders.
In addition, the Federal government has abused LEOs and incarceration facilities in states all over the country. They demand that the state arrest, participate in raids and hold suspects while refusing to compensate state and local governments for the cost of doing ICE's job. The cost in many states is in the millions of dollars every year. So while the Feds decry the need to deal with 'illegals' they refuse to pay the bills and act in good faith to do so. Hell, even Rick Perry sent the Feds an invoice for $349 million for incarcerating illegals. Both Napolitano and Brewer did the same for costs in Arizona.
Now the Feds are whining that states don't want to continue to break their budgets so the Feds can pretend they're doing their jobs.
It doesn’t cost the state one penny if private employers want to cooperate with the feds.
Do you think that Democrats in Congress would be willing to budget more money to be used for incarcerating illegal immigrants? What about Republicans in Congress? What about the President?
what does this have to do with commerce law?
Bent over is their natural position. They need to be straightened up.
Whose job do you think it is to protect the citizens of a state? Who do you think the Feds rely on to secure these factories while ICE checks the immigration status of every employee? What authority does the federal government have to detain a citizen of CA without probable cause and without a freaking warrant? Every time you answer state or local LEOS, hear cash registers in your head.
Do you actually think that ICE runs these raids without the knowledge and participation of local and state LEOs? Where the hell do you think these people are held prior to being transported to federal facilities?
I seem to remember conservatives labeling federal agents 'jackboots' and 'brown shirts' when they go into states to uphold federal regulations and judges orders. Now all of a sudden, states are supposed to kick open the doors and let the Feds do their will.
Question......would you want the your employer personally giving out your personal information or giving it to any government entity that requests it?
They already do.
Feds can request to see an I9, and states have your name, social, and earnings from the unemployment forms that each employer is required to file.
This law is stupid. All it does is make it a little more difficult for ICE. The Feds still can raid a workplace, they just need a warrant, and an onsite audit can still be done.
Do you think that the Democrats in Congress didn't vote to pass the immigration legislation that requires their apprehension and incarceration? Oh course they did, as did the GOP and signed by every POTUS ad nauseam.
THAT is the freaking problem. Passage of mandates without funding. AG Sessions and Trump can whine all they want about sanctuary cities or states but they lack the gonads to put forth a budget that ACTUALLY funds the laws they pretend to be enforcing. They bang the drum for their own aggrandizement with their uninformed base but they were refuse to be TRUTHFUL about the COST of their BS.
So we should stop trying to dump the problem into the laps of the states and FUND the mandates put into law. They don't want to admit that they can't hire enough CBC officers, mostly because the pay and working conditions suck. Same with ICE agents. Retention in both agencies is abysmal.
They need 5X more Federal Immigration Judges, courtrooms and support staff then exists today and that would just make a dent in the 650,000 backlog of those waiting for hearings. Add all the new arrests that ICE is making. All those suspects get hearings. NO funding for that is included in the budget Trump has proposed.
Do you hear cash registers ringing yet?
You should, each ICE deportation cost taxpayers an average of $10,854 in 2016. Got a calculator?
Hell, DACA SAVES the US huge amounts just by it not costing to arrest, incarcerate or have hearings for them, in fact THEY pay US for the privilege.
The commerce clause only covers INTERSTATE commerce.
Exactly how is California's legislation usurping those federal laws?
yeah so?
What part of the California legislation effects interstate commerce?
you make no sense
Right or wrong, liberals like to use these tactical rule:
8. "Keep the pressure on"
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside"
12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
They do seem to ignore this rule though:
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
I have a hard time believing that Democrats would push to spend any money that would be intended soley for incarcerating illegal immigrants......
If the border get's secured and our immigration policy reformed properly......I'm ok with legalizing Dreamer's.....until then...No way.....because we will just encourage more lawbreakers......
he knows all about it but can't even explain what the hell he saying....good grief
That's the "IDEA". That's how they work.
I asked simple questions for which you have no answers.
What was your question that pertains to the article again ?
I ask, because Liberal types are so adamant on "STICKING" to the articles content, when it comes to their articles.
I wouldn't even consider legalizing the DACA illegals as long as we have sanctuary cities. As Democrats have demonstrated, their promise to provide future security in return for immediate amnesty is completely worthless.
Lucky for you, the GOP is in total control of the government so it doesn't matter WTF the Democrats 'push'. The GOP can do it all on their own but judging from the proposals I've seen and Trump's budget, they have no intention of fully funding the mandates that exist or that they pass in the future.
The problem I have with calling 'Dreamers' 'lawbreakers' is that we've become a country that now holds the child responsible for the 'sins of the father'. When the hell did that happen?
That's funny because Forbes said that Trump used those exact rules during his campaign.
That's funny that YOU would note that, as the article says no such thing. It tries, but it just doesn't fit the Liberal mantra they try to portrait.
Perhaps the issue is that you are incapable of understanding. Sheesh.
I do sympathize to a degree with the dreamers.......but just wondering.....could they have applied for legal citizenship a long time ago?
Pressure...Pressure....Pressure ?
The GOP is not in total control.......They posses a Majority in the House and Senate......and they Occupy the White House.....Even if they banded 100% together......They couldn't do anything they wanted.......so your statement is misleading......IMO
can you not explain yourself? sheeeesh
To my knowledge, their is no legal precedent that says children are immune to consequences. If someone broke into my house while I'm away on vacation and started living there with his young children, I'm putting them all out and his children can bitch about it to him.
I doubt you can apply for citizenship while in the country illegally. Technically, they could be deported as soon as they're discovered.
It still doesn't cost the state one penny if private employers cooperate with the feds. In fact, if the feds talk to a private employer, it doesn't involve the states at all and the only expense is incurred when the state sticks it's nose where it doesn't belong.
Well finally you address me directly rather than surreptitiously.
You've been here long enough to know how to click on the comment number and follow the comments back through the thread. Do so.
If you have an issue with any of my comments being off topic, please DO flag it. I have no issue whatsoever with having any and every one of my comments reviewed by the RA or mods.
HOWEVER, I'll remind you that as the 'author' you have responsiblities:
Authors/seeders are expected to foster healthy, open discussions. They are responsible for the content they submit and must exercise impartiality if/when reporting abuse.
Off on some "other" projection I see.
Now....back to California law that puts burdens on American Companies, and protects "Illegals".
The state regulates ALL private employers. There is a process that ICE has to follow when they want to audit the work status of the employees of private business. Yes EVEN if they just want to see the Form I-9s. ICE has to issue a NOI to the business and the business gets time to comply.
You keep talking about 'talking' but THAT isn't what ICE has been doing. They are doing 'surprise' raids on private businesses. THAT is where the states demand for warrants and subpoenas come in. Those raids cost the state and locality money.
No matter how many times conservatives lie about it, DACA isn't about amnesty.
Hey, it's not my fault that Forbes didn't make the case to your liking. They did make the case none the less.
The actual issue from my perspective is dealing with members who lack the comity to address other members face to face rather than taunt through others. IMHO it's acting in bad faith.
Not that I am aware of.
In what way is that a reply to my comment?
It seems that you are driving your own seed off topic and deflecting to attempts @ ridicule.
Forbes made an opinionated case.
Are you of the mindset that opinion is FACT, as long as it fits a narrative YOU like ?
Now....back to California law that puts burdens on American Companies, and protects "Illegals".
Are you "For" American Companies and "Against ILLEGAL Aliens" ?
It is me,
You are the host to this article and therefore are supposed to be fostering good discussion instead of insulting and insinuating. No violation, but please take note. If this continues, I will close the article down.
The GOP is not in total control.......They posses a Majority in the House and Senate......and they Occupy the White House.....Even if they banded 100% together......They couldn't do anything they wanted.......so your statement is misleading......IMO
They are in total control and in FACT, the biggest issue they're talking about right now is DACA, which Trump can extend with the stroke of a pen, since HE crated the deadline.
I already DID.
So if you can clarify what part of that you don't understand, perhaps I can help.
I noted and know what I was supposed to do when I first got here. When others try to drive it elsewhere, or start to "Warp" things, I'll drive it home hard, like I have done on this article.
At least I didn't "Cuss" much on this article this time. That one made it snow when I did that elsewhere.
If I have broken no rules....there isn't much more for me to respond to ! What are considered Insults, are subjective here, so it seems.
Perfect example. So say you call the cops and they arrest the parent. What happens to the young children? Do they go to jail too?
Of course NOT. The 'young children' didn't break into your house, the parent did. The 'young children' shouldn't receive 'consequences' for a crime they didn't commit and in our legal system, they wouldn't. So why should the DACA kids?
They are incarcerated until they get a hearing. Thousands of minors are in ICE custody, many in adult facilities with their mothers.
what is the relevance of INTERSTATE commerce to this law?
OMG - how can you possibly - even conceivably - suggest that the Dreamers, many of whom have been here ILLEGALLY, and knew it, for over 10 years, would ACTUALLY WANT to follow the laws for immigration and apply for residency/citizenship?????? The Democrats, including the former Teddy Kennedy, who led the insurrection against Reagan and blatantly did not follow through on the Dems part of the amnesty deal, were marching , lock-step, with Harry Reid, who sat on 242 Immigration proposals from the Republicans, who REFUSED to bring them up for discuss, let alone a vote, so Obama and Johnson could do their little Dreamer act - in violation of the Constitution.
What did the Dreamers have to lose?????
I merely pointed out what Forbes said. It has nothing to do with MY mindset, it was in reply to YOURS.
That's easy. Because over 600,000 did JUST THAT through DACA.
Seriously, business is commerce. Ever hear of the Chamber of Commerce?
Interstate commerce has NOTHING to do with this law therefore the Feds have no standing.
So you gave me an opinion piece to bolster some argument against what I posted, but don't subscribe to that thought ?
So what was the point of doing that ?
Bullshit - show your PROOF.
From the USCIS website - I'm sure you know how to google that one.
To request Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, you must meet the following DACA requirements:
HERE IS WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT DACA / DREAMER
The status was originally two years.
This means that it is time to renew with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
If you were prepared to do your Dreamer Applications with the assistance of a top immigration lawyer in 2012, then you should be wise enough to do the renewal with an outstanding immigration attorney now.
1. You have 120 days to file your Dreamer Applications before it expires. If you file more than 150 days before expiration, your case will be rejected.
2. You must use the brand new Form I-821D. Use of the original form will also be rejected.
3. Immigration will not be asking for new evidence. They will simply follow past decisions that Dreamer Applications be granted.
4. The only exceptions to (3) are the following pieces of evidence:
a. removal (deportation) proceedings that may have begun
b. criminal cases that may have occurred
c. proof of travel on advance parole
5. You do not need to prove the educational requirement on renewal of Dreamer Applications. Immigration will rely on the first application.
6. If you file Dreamer Applications late (if DACA expired more than a year before) you have to file a new, initial 821D, with all new evidence as if it is not a renewal.
7. You must file I-821D & I-765 (work permit) together.
8. Renewal of Dreamer Applications require the same $465 payable to US Department of Homeland Security, as the first time.
9. Doing it yourself is not advisable. We have seen countless people over the last two years who made simple errors and cost themselves many extra months without DACA status.
10. As always is the case with all immigration applications, Dreamer Applications can be deceptively simple looking. Be careful. Consult with the best immigration law firm that you can find.
More than half a million Dreamers have received work permits, social security cards and driver’s licenses. But they must maintain the Dreamer Applications to keep these necessary documents.
Your statement is false.....misleading at minimum and an outright lie at worst.......The GOP does not have a Supermajority in Congress.....
In the same vein with the point of the comment I replied to, none.
Really? So DO tell me the avenue that the Democrats have, under the rules of Congress, to control anything.
BTW, they DO have a 'supermajority' in the House. They can pass anything their little hearts desire. I suppose now I should be labeling YOUR statement 'misleading at minimum'?
It is my understanding that it is verboten to post only an emoji as a comment.
What was my Point ?
Thank you for posting proof of what Dreamers HAVE gone through to follow the immigration laws by applying for and remaining compliant with all the mandates for deferment. Now, what makes you so freaking sure that they won't follow the law and apply for residency or citizenship if it were available to them?
Right after you tell me under what rules of the Congress that the GOP can do anything they want.
We have a two party system.....and until one party has a Supermajority in Congress and the White House ......they don't even have total control 2/3 of the Government......
Case in point......Republicans cannot keep the Government running without help from the Democrats.....I think you know this.....
The children don’t go to jail nor are they responsible for the actions of their parents but they are, nevertheless, removed from my house. Same should apply to the DACA kids. The illegals are responsible for the consequences of their actions, not me or the United States government.
That's not control, that's obstruction.
No.
I didn't say they could do anything they want .
You know what, my bad. I shouldn't have said control, especially in connection with the GOP.
Yet they refuse to include the Democrats negotiations until they DO need their help to dig them out of the whole they've dug themselves into. Everything they've done so far was partisan. Suddenly they want cooperation and comity.
This was your original statement......and it isn't true...
They can't even keep the Government Running "On their Own"......If Democrats are powerless.....then tell them to hand over their seats to some Conservative Republicans.....Otherwise admit your error and move on.
I already have, take your own advise.
I truly wonder if the Cali AG graduated from a law school in Cali.
Law schools, in the majority of cases, required students to take and pass U. S. Constitution 101 (or other similar named course). The course is actually quite good - can be confusing - but it causes you to really use your brain mass.
If the AG HAD taken Constitution 101, he would have seen/read/studied and discussed Article IV - States Relations.
Section 1 reads -
Article IV (Article 4 - States' Relations)
Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. (I added the highlighting)
Basically, states can have any law they want - as long as it doesn't contradict written Federal law.
Well, the Constitution, again, states only Congress can enact laws on immigration - not the states.
Wonder what wonder drug he's taking?
Yeah, I kinda remember Obama going after the State of Arizona when they attempted to enforce FEDERAL law.
Really? So racial profiling, stop and frisk, and violation of the 4th Amendments are now upholding federal laws?!.....btw Obama didn't do anything the SCOTUS did that!
Actually, and technically, Obama's AG filed suit.
And the SCOTUS struck down three out of four provisions of the law.
YYyyyaaaawwwwwnnnnnnn - your naysaying and "one-upping" is getting old.
Judging from your comments you find intellectual bankruptcy more stimulating.
When I find worthy opponents who know how to discuss a subject vice ragging other posters in an attempt to show their "superiority" - I, and many, many others on NT, have very decent and intelligent conversations.
You should try it sometime.
This from someone who started a comment with:
So YOU have a 'superior' understanding the Constitution than the AG of your state and to PROVE it you post an Article of the Constitution that has NOTHING to do with the content or context of the seed. If it DID, you would have jumped in with your superior legal mind and answered my question. You didn't and still haven't.
BTFW, are you accusing me of 'vice ragging'? If so, I take umbrage, prove it or retract it.
As do I.
Back at you. I asked you a perfectly cogent on topic question and your reply was:
I suppose you would describe this as someone who knows 'how to discuss a subject vice ragging other posters in an attempt to show their "superiority". Instead of supporting your position, you claim 'superior' knowledge, sent me off to class with a pat on the head without any knowing about my own position or knowledge of the subject and IMO you did so in a bad faith.
Then, I posted the ACTUAL interpretation of the Constitutional Article that you claimed was somehow relevant. Instead of making your case, you bailed. It's clear that Article IV section 1 isn't relevant to the seed and now you're butt hurt.
Perhaps the reason that you and 'many others on NT, have very decent and intelligent conversations' is that many of those conversations are conducted in an echo chamber and y'all agree with each others posits, factual or not.
For the life of me I don't understand why you and some in the fraternity think that you can post whatever you want without challenge. It's also disheartening that all too many otherwise intelligent, cogent and amiable people here are incapable of saying that they're wrong, or that they've learned something they didn't know, or just 'My bad'.
Instead, the go to reaction, is to attack, attempt to demean and denigrate, deflect from mistakes and attempt to taunt 'opposing' members into devolving into the vitriolic cesspool that leads only to CoC violations and animus. It's schoolyard petulance and below the standard we should be setting for our membership.
Copious amounts of liberal Kool-aid.
Goofy Grape i believe.
Here's a little clue.....read the law before making asinine assertions. This law actually upholds the Constitution very much so.....especially the 4th Amendment!
Here's another little clue - don't talk of what you don't know or understand.
Perhaps you can explain the relevance that Article has with the seed.
How 'bout doing some research to the reference of your own. It's in the Constitution and it's explained on many law school sites.
No need, I've read many an essay about it.
I usually like to use the Heritage Foundation so I review the conservative perspective. Their take and mine is that Article IV, Section 1's purpose is to ensure that one state honors the legal acts of other states, e.g. things like marriages and divorces. In short, it has NOTHING to do with the relationship between the Federal government and any state government.
So again, perhaps you can explain the relevance that Article has with the seed.
Cue the crickets.
Interesting that your challenge gets up votes while my cogent and accurate rebuttal is ignored. Seems that some don't know what they don't know but they're damn sure of it.
Well.....It's time for me to go bust my @$$ out in the cold (literally slipping on the ice)......while my California Lawbreaking Competition sit poolside sipping margaritas.....Oh well.....Life isn't fair.....
"President Donald Trump hired hundreds of undocumented Polish immigrants to demolish a New York City building in 1980 and paid them as little as $4 an hour without providing proper safety equipment to do the job, court documents show.
The workers and their contractor, William Kaszycki of Kaszycki & Sons, sued Trump for unfair labor practices in 1983. After litigation dragged on for 15 years, Trump ultimately paid $1.375 million to settle the case.
“We worked in horrid, terrible conditions,” Wojciech Kozak, one of the undocumented Polish workers at the demolition site, told the Times. “We were frightened illegal immigrants and did not know enough about our rights.”
I'm sure if it had been Hillary or the Clinton foundation who had been caught hiring illegal immigrants and had paid a nearly $2 million settlement conservative Republicans would have been shouting it from the rooftops. But now they imagine Trump as some hero fighting illegal immigration. Talk about hypocrisy.
Because of this "New" California law ?
OR
Are you just projecting !
No it doesn't.....because it at no point tells the employer to NOT cooperate with INS!
ALL laws should be followed.....as long as proper procedure is followed....or are you saying one law is more important than the other?
You mean like subpoenas?!
Basically all the law states is that employers have to ask for a warrant or subpoena before granting access to worksites or records as well as notify employees or any raids or I-9 audits by ICE....now aren't warrants and subpoenas required by federal law regarding federal raids and audits anyway?.....so what's the conundrum?
RWNJs!
Basically, all the actual LAW states....says NOTHING of the sort !
It's a total contradiction of U.S. law, for a little "Feel Good policy" motivation !
Again....read the actual Law as enacted by Californication, without the itty bitty opinions inserted !
Would love to see this defense used in court:
Well....."An employment Peculiarity BLOG said so" !
Well gee, let's take a look. Following the link in YOUR seeded article we find:
Gee is sure as hell looks like the LAW DOES say exactly what Willjay said it did.
I can quote the provisions of 'the actual LAW' that say in legalese what Willjay said if you'd like.
I guess you missed it.
Some "Pay Attention".... some just "Jump" !
Which are you Dulay ?
There is so much MORE in that law that you want to ignore.
Ignorance is bliss ?
No, I see the deflection.
I'm the one following the CoC, showing fellow members respect and commenting in good faith.
While that may be true, the point is that everything Willjay said is in the law, IS in the law.
Is that why you enjoy it so much?
Deflection ?
"While that may be true,"
Not "MAY"......"IS" !
No, my answer to your question.
Yet irrelevant to the FACT that the law does indeed say exactly what Willjay said is says. Your continued attempt at deflection from this FACT is ridiculous.
The California Legislature has been a little crazy for a long time, but ever since the Democrats got a super majority, they have gone completely batshit crazy looney tunes.
Unconstitutional. The state cannot tell federal authorities where they can or cannot bust someone who has violated federal law.
Unconstitutional. Any owner of private property can consent to having federal officials - or anyone else he chooses - enter that private property for any legal purpose. And federal immigration enforcement officers have every legal right to detain any person they suspect of being here illegally at any time or place. In reality, they will probably always have a warrant (feds tend to be efficient like that), but you don't need a warrant if you have consent. I would love to see the state try to challenge this.
This ridiculous law will crash and burn any minute now. All we need is for ICE to do their job and our idiot AG to actually try to bust some poor business owner for complying with federal agents.
Detention and arrest are two different issues in this context.
Well then a CA business with standing is going to have to litigate aren't they?
Not on private property they don't.
Litigation will tell because the law prohibits voluntary consent.
Why would the state challenge a state statute?
It's been a couple of months now. I haven't heard of any challenges including nothing from Sessions.
I presume your a CA resident. That 'poor business owner' should follow state law since their is NO conflicting federal law. ICE shouldn't put that 'poor business owner' in that position.
BTW, what happened to all of the libertarianism. This place used to ooze with it before the election.
Pay attention to context. The context here is that it's the State of California trying to stop them, not the property owner.
Again, context. Look at the words right before it. I wrote:
Back to you,
The Constitution is the conflicting federal law. I have the right to allow anyone I want on to my property.
Libertarianism is not anti-government, or even anti-central government. That ideology is call "Anarchy." Libertarians believe that an essential function of government is to protect its citizens. Enforcing laws against illegal immigration does exactly that.
Yeah, and they're going to win. You simply can't tell a citizen of the United States that they cannot cooperate with agents of the United States. It's silly and stupid.
When that happens, we shall see.
Since ICE knows that it is a violation of CA law, they shouldn't be asking for voluntary consent. Why would a federal agent ask a business owner to break state law?
The law doesn't address property owners, it effects business owners. I linked it, read it.
Unless a business owner called LEOs, their obviously isn't any danger to citizens. Wait outside and bust the guy in the parking lot or get a freaking warrant.
You block quoted the law. It clearly says 'an immigration enforcement agent'.
Gone down the tubes since:
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)