patrick.net

RafiMaas says

I guess the big question is how will the federal government force the state government to do the federal governments job.

It's not merely 'non-cooperation'.

A state that says you'll be fined $10,000 for voluntarily cooperating with Federal Authorities on a Federal-only matter is the state is actively interfering aka obstructing.

Not to mention a threat to the rule of law from States punishing the right of individuals to cooperate with Authorities and overstepping their bounds into a field they have no jurisdiction.

Countless Federal Courts have struck down Countless attempts at States to regulate immigration, this is will ajudicated similarly, with California's laws being declared null and void.

Sessions is an imbecile. Rostein will blow his whistle and session will scurry back to his cage.

He should just shoot the Mayors done and done. Tap twice and finish nice. The Treasonous Bastards deserve nothing less than what they bring America.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

errc says

Nobody can waste more time, money, and resources accomplishing less than Republicans.

Don't agree. Keeping State Officials from intimidating witnesses and cooperative reporters regarding an issue over which they have no Legal Authority, is an important step to maintaining the Rule of Law and a Republican Form of Government.

State Officials cannot give themselves powers expressly delegated to the Federal Government, nor actively interfere with those powers.

Do you have the numbers from the cost benefit analysis?

Seems all costs with little benefit

TwoScoopsPlissken says

It's not merely 'non-cooperation'.

A state that says you'll be fined $10,000 for voluntarily cooperating with Federal Authorities on a Federal-only matter is the state is actively interfering aka obstructing.

Not to mention a threat to the rule of law from States punishing the right of individuals to cooperate with Authorities and overstepping their bounds into a field they have no jurisdiction.

What right is that? Where is that right established?

Why is it the right wingnuts are huge advocates of states rights except when they aren't? Nothing like having a firm set of principles. There are states that don't allow any employee records to be released to any law enforcement agency without a warrant. Where is the outrage about that obstructing of law enforcement? Curiously missing.

There is no obstruction. Having procedures in place is not obstruction.
bob2356 says

There are states that don't allow any employee records to be released to any law enforcement agency without a warrant. Where is the outrage about that obstructing of law enforcement?

errc says

Nobody can waste more time, money, and resources accomplishing less than Republicans.

Disagreed, vehemently. Question is - what is the goal? If the goal is to remove illegals, you are right. But the goal is to make noises about removing illegals to get votes from gullible Americans while employing illegals in meat packing plants and paying peanuts to them to increase PROFIT.Everything R establishment wants is accomplished extremely efficiently.

If latter is not the intended outcome, then someone please explain me why E-verify is not mandatory ( with R President, Con-gress, and Senate) and why employers are not fined in hundreds of thousands for employing illegals.

Feux Follets says

Oh So Love going out and seeing Bikers, Aryan Brotherhood, Skinheads, followers of Richard Spence, Methheads, druggies of every description, wannabes etc. in the locker room and on the streets covered with gang tats and knife/bullet scars. It makes me feel that my government is doing all it can to protect my safety.
.
Hanging around the Aryan Brotherhood are we ?

Or just your run of the mill Bikers - chapters all over the country and they come in multiple colors, ethnicities etc. but predominately white so you won't ever have to feel left out - isn't that swell ?

Funny the AG isn't going after these groups

1. One can deport illegals, while one can not deport US-citizen morons who are in groups you mention. Your comparison is not really valid.
2. Law enforcement is treating bikers, for example, much worse than illegals. Care to look at this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Waco_shootout - and comment when was the last time law enforcement executed (extra-judicially) nine illegal gang members.

5lbsbrowntrout says

Which law is that? Freedom of speech?

Sedition.

I sure would appreciate it if Sessions could find in his heart to send all of these Illegal Cocksuckers home where they belong and shoot them with M60 machine gunfire if they try to sneak back in. What about My Safety? Don't let them hurt us no more Trump!

bob2356 says

Why is it the right wingnuts are huge advocates of states rights except when they aren't? Nothing like having a firm set of principles.

So we can assume you would be cool with individual states banning abortion? Of course you wouldn't. I don't see any Red States going against Federal abortion laws right now, so the State's rights hypocrisy is firmly with the Democrats right now.

Unlike abortion, immigration enforcement (or lack of enforcement) effects the entire country and is totally in the purview of the Federal Government.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

errc says

Nobody can waste more time, money, and resources accomplishing less than Republicans.

Don't agree. Keeping State Officials from intimidating witnesses and cooperative reporters regarding an issue over which they have no Legal Authority, is an important step to maintaining the Rule of Law and a Republican Form of Government.

State Officials cannot give themselves powers expressly delegated to the Federal Government, nor actively interfere with those powers.

Don’t Start No Shit, Won’t Be No Shit

It seems like this is simply petty retribution against the opposing political party

It’s funny, why not apply the same thought process to Cannabis laws wrt Fed vs States? This is the party of States Rights, and cares about the People, right?

It would be awesome to see a cost benefit analysis, so the we don’t want to pay any taxes crowd could judge if it’s worthwhile venture

Feux Follets says

Or just your run of the mill Bikers - chapters all over the country and they come in multiple colors, ethnicities etc. but predominately white so you won't ever have to feel left out - isn't that swell ?

Bikers are fags.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/K2k4Fsg11-w

5lbsbrowntrout says

I see so we should waste money on a lawsuit that won't be won?

According to this logic, police should be free to inform murderers that other police is coming for them, etc.

bob2356 says

What right is that? Where is that right established?

There's no way the country would have survived this long if it wasn't there.

Visit the gravesites of John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln

Bob, think about your position. You are saying a State Government can compel people through fines NOT to cooperate with the Federal Government.

South Carolina Tariffs almost anytime pre 1860. "Anybody who tells the Feds about Tariff Evasion shall be fined..."
Some State that wanted to stay Wet, 1920s "Anybody who cooperates or provides information without a warrant to the Untouchables and Elliot Ness"
Some place full of Germans in WW1 or WW2: "Anybody who cooperates with the US Navy regarding the potential presence of U-Boats with a court order shall be fined..."
Alabama Civil Rights 1950s "Anybody who voluntarily shares information with the FBI about "Peaceful Fraternal Organizations" in absence of legal processes shall be fined..."

Besides that, California has no jurisdiction over immigration because it's a State, and no jurisdiction over I-9 forms because they're federal, not state, forms on a subject on which the state has no powers to begin with.

The Income Tax is voluntary compliance, you fill out the forms and send the money on your own volition. What if a state said "You can't voluntarily cooperate with the IRS unless they serve you with a legal process" you literally couldn't pay your taxes.

The Obama Administration took Arizona to court because they passed a law requiring Businesses to issue regular reports to Immigration Authorities regularly or face fines.

And they won in Federal Court, it was a no brainer.

It was the very mirror image of the California Law just passed forbidding voluntarily assistance with Federal Authorities.

I bet the preliminary injunction is issued within the next 90 days. I will write "I told you so" 3x if I'm wrong.

This will be a nothing cheeseburger until some mayors and sheriffs start getting arrested.

exfatguy says

This will be a nothing cheeseburger until some mayors and sheriffs start getting arrested.

Exactly, unless we are going to arrest the CA governor, attorney general, and the mayor of every sanctuary city nothing will happen. Liberals do not care about laws that they do not like and need more illegals for their voting bloc.

RafiMaas says

People are being <>Bcompelled to make sure the federal government is doing their job. No warrant no search.

So you admit this is no longer mere "Non cooperation". "Compelled" means threat of punishment, ie Fines, which is an active measure. That's obstruction now.

If your logic is right, a State that hated tariffs (another thing states have no authority over) could pass a law to fine you $10,000 if you called ICE to tell them you saw a bunch of guys unloading cargo in a bay and you think they're smugglers, because ICE hadn't served you a warrant.

Of course, this can't possibly be permitted, or states would have successfully employed this tactic more than a century ago, and the country would have fallen apart by now.

BlueSardine says

There is no obstruction. Having procedures in place is not obstruction.

Ca has procedures in place. Its called ab 450. So there is not obstruction. Glad you agree.

socal2 says

So we can assume you would be cool with individual states banning abortion? Of course you wouldn't. I don't see any Red States going against Federal abortion laws right now, so the State's rights hypocrisy is firmly with the Democrats right now.

Funny someone named socal doesn't know CA laws. Nothing is banned. The feds just need to get a warrant or court order for employment records. As they do in a number of other states. The hypocrisy is firmly in the hands of the people running around flapping their arms going "it's obstruction" when CA's law is no different than CT's law for example. . Except CA's law only applies to immigration, not all employment records.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Bob, think about your position. You are saying a State Government can compel people through fines NOT to cooperate with the Federal Government.

States can require through fines that a business require the federal government get a judge to sign off on a warrant if they want to see employment records. Again, why aren't you outraged at all the states that have laws on the books restricting access to employment records, some of which have been on the books for decades? Why now and why CA? Crickets chirping but no answer in sight. You can't have it both ways.

When is your boy donnie going to have ICE raiding corporations and doing executive perp walks for employers of illegals. Crickets chirping but no answer in sight. Still waiting.

bob2356 says

Ca has procedures in place. Its called ab 450. So there is not obstruction. Glad you agree.

oops, California has no jurisdiction over immigration. AB 450 is patently unconstitutional.

It was just as unconstitutional as when NY and MA tried to levy a head tax on immigration, when Arizona tried to force employers to make regular ICE reports the Federal Government did not require.

bob2356 says

The feds just need to get a warrant or court order for employment records

This bans voluntarily cooperation with Federal Authorities. States cannot forbid US citizens from voluntarily cooperating with the Federal Government, much less on Federal Matters.

bob2356 says

States can require through fines that a business require the federal government get a judge to sign off on a warrant if they want to see employment records.

Federal Employment Records, like the I-9?

Are you saying California, which has no immigration jurisdiction, can control voluntarily provision of Federal Mandated Forms to the Federal Government?

What if the IRS goes to an employer and asks to see withholding from an employee, and the Employer turns over payroll records without a warrant? Can California pass a law to fine employers who do that?

bob2356 says

You can't have it both ways.

No YOU can't.

RafiMaas says

What law are they being compelled to break? The federal government should know not to try and violate citizens rights now Californians will be fined if they allow the federal government to violate citizens rights.

What is so hard to understand.

California has NO powers to do ANYTHING regarding Immigration, which is expressly and solely given to the Federal Government. Just like California cannot set it's own tariffs, or have it's own foreign policy.

What can California do in these areas? Nothing. What regulations can they issue about them? None.

RafiMaas says

The federal government should know not to try and violate citizens rights now Californians will be fined if they allow the federal government to violate citizens rights.

Gosh Darn it, we here down in Miss uh sippi say you cannot share any information about de Fraternal Organizations our great Southern States with them there FBI unless they done serve with you warrant, or we'll fine ya.

If you done call that there FBI and tell 'em that you think somebody is a member of a Fraternal Organization and you saw them on the night of the murder covered in that there blood, without no warrant I'm gonna fine your ass, Nigger.

Missuhsippi don't allow no voluntarily cooperation with dem Unionist Nigger Lovers.

Hhahahahahahaha

RafiMaas says

haven't heard of civil rights? It's now ok to not have laws to make sure the federal government follows citizens civil rights?

So, do you think states can demand employers wait for the IRS to get a warrant before they can hand over an employee's W-4 (withholding information)? And the employer can be fined by the state for giving the Federal IRS that tax information if they don't wait for the warrant?

RafiMaas says

haven't heard of civil rights? It's now ok to not have laws to make sure the federal government follows citizens civil rights?

There are NO citizen rights for non-citizens. Only basic human rights (e.g. according to Geneva convention if you acknowledge it).

Here's another one, last one for a while:

Can States compel Citizens to notify Employees that Federal Government inspectors are on the way?

For example, can California pass a law telling Walgreens to let all it's pharmacists know that the DEA is coming soon to inspect their records, and they'll face a fine if they don't warn their Pharmacy Workers?

California is trying to act like its own country. This cannot stand. Sessions needs to throw some people in prison.

5lbsbrowntrout says

I see so we should waste money on a lawsuit that won't be won?

I don't care for the lawsuit, I think someone like Libby should swing from a rope around her neck until pronounced dead, that would be justice.

RafiMaas says

Employers must retain Form I-9 for a designated period and make it available for inspection by authorized government officers.

Like ICE.

Employers are obligated to retain these documents for Federal Inspection - on demand, just like W-4s and the IRS. After all the I-9 and W-4 are federal documents.

It would be laughable to try to argue that Federal Agencies need to get a warrant to inspect their own legally mandated documents and forms.

Thanks RafiMaas.

RafiMaas says

I would have to read about w-4 form. Not going to do it. No poo ga ga.

Let me know if you've ever heard about an employer refusing to turn over a W-4 form to the IRS upon request until he gets a warrant.

Much less being required by the state to demand one before turning over that record, while notifying his employees that their W-4 withholding forms were being requested by the IRS for inspection.

The very concept of the IRS having to get a warrant to look at their own Forms and the Employer having to forewarn his employees the IRS requested them or face fines, is simply beyond the pale.

Immaterial.

We're not talking about Employers getting notice of inspections regarding FEDERAL documents they're legally required to keep for each employee FROM the FEDERAL Government.

We're talking about the STATE Government requiring EMPLOYERS to notify EMPLOYEES of inspections that are being carried out by FEDERAL Agencies of their own FEDERAL documents, or face a fine.

So the point stands.

RafiMaas says

Which is? What law is this in violation of? Please reference if possible.

Assuming you mean AB 450 & the other ones the California Legislature unconstitutionally is trying to promulgate:

EVERY time a State Government has tried to regulate, tax, or otherwise involve itself with immigration issues, it has always been declared null. It's one of the few areas in the Constitution that is close to being crystal clear.

In Arizona they did the exact opposite, passing a law that fine employees for not making regular reports TO Federal Agencies, whether they were asked for them or not.

Here California is doing the mirror image, forbidding employers from providing information to Federal Authorities without being legally compelled.

Like I said, prepare for the preliminary injunction within 90 days, if it takes anywhere near it.

RafiMaas says

It sure will be interesting to see how it turns out first trial in Sacramento and if they can't win there, maybe all the way to the supreme Court. Might be another tremendous waste of money. Why can't the federal government just change the law? Who are the protecting by not doing so? Differently not the citizens.

Because American Citizens have decided that illegals cannot take away their jobs for the benefit of employers seeking to lower wages.

If you don't like it, get enough of a majority to change the law in CONGRESS, who has the sole authority under the Constitution to regulate matters of Naturalization.

If California attempts, in violation of the Court's inevitable ruling, to enforce it's unconstitutional attempt at regulating immigration, the National Guard may have to be called in, just like Eisenhower had to do in the 50s over desegregation.

Why aren't the Democrats in this country standing up for Citizens and Workers, instead helping Employers dodge the employment laws and crush wages, usually for the poorest, most unskilled people?! It claims that social programs, schools, etc. are underfunded, yet colludes with Big Business to further burden the system they already say is inadequately funded, with more people from outside the system?

RafiMaas says

But this isn't an immigration issue. It's a privacy issue.

If an employee of a company burns down a minority church (federal crime), then it is OK for employer to warn employees that feds are coming to search their workplace because they suspect that one of them has committed a crime? Should privacy triumph also in this case?

Edit: I see what is the question - can ICE enter workplace. I believe they can not without permission of owner if they do not have warrant, so the question becomes if State of CA can prohibit owners from giving consent to enter workplace, which is beyond my feeble law knowledge. However, if there is evidence of crime, e.i. employment of illegals, then local judge has to supply a search warrant or he would be breaking law himself, and warning about the warrant would be a crime - like if warning about arrest of murderer or arsonist.

RafiMaas says

But this isn't an immigration issue. It's a privacy issue.

It's not a privacy issue.

Especially since that information was already provided to the Federal authorities, when the individuals filled out the I-9 forms in the first place.

If somebody was to say, I filed my Federal taxes with the IRS, but they need to get a warrant to actually READ my tax return because of Muh Privacy, that any judge wouldn't treat that as a frivolous complaint?

The whole thing is goddamn retarded:

The State that is the headquarters of Social Media companies allows people to voluntarily supply personal information, which is then sold for profit by Google, Twitter, Facebook.

Yet, the same state thinks ICE needs to get a warrant or other court order to inspect their own I-9 forms that people fill out when they (voluntarily) apply for a job and that is legally required to be filled for employment, in order to enforce the laws of the nation?


What a bizarre set of ideas.

RafiMaas says

I already presented above what ICE legally has to do to get I-9 info.

Yep, it's a process, and it's totally irrelevant to the matter at hand other than one thing.

I imagine other Federal Agencies have to give some warning. That way the agents don't show up and waste their time because nobody has the information at hand. Maybe the EPA gives 30 days warning for some things and 14 days for other things. That's procedural stuff.

But there's no law that requires people who get notice of an EPA inspection to notify other entities that they are about to be inspected by the EPA. Or the FDA. Or the FBI. Or the IRS. Or the DOE. Or any relevant Federal Agency.

The primary issue here is that California is forbidding US Citizens from complying with US Law in absence of a warrant, a power they do not have.

The other issue, that one thing I mentioned earlier, is that California ALSO has no authority to mandate HOW US Citizens cooperate with Federal Authorities using threat of or actual compulsion (fines), demanding that US Citizens must inform Other individuals (who may be targets of a Federal Investigation) about impending Federal Activities.

Indeed, there are Federal laws that may apply where informing subjects of an inspection/investigation is considered obstruction of justice. 18 US 1512 I believe contains a host of laws regarding punishment of people who forewarn or otherwise assist suspects to evade or impair Federal Investigations.

Like I said, imagine if States that didn't like Tariffs made it a crime to report suspected smuggling, you could only talk to ICE about smuggling if they legally compelled your testimony with a court process. And they said if you know of Customs rolling into town to inspect a cargo or warehouse of goods, you have to inform the owner of the goods the moment you know of it.

No government could function that way.

Again, ask John C. Calhoun or George Wallace how trying to usurp Federal Powers worked out.

RafiMaas says

Unfortunately that is how the law is written it has nothing to do with what the state thinks. I provided what ICE must do above to properly obtain I-9 information. What is wrong with asking ICE to do its job and not blame others for their inabilities in performance

Absolutely Wrong.

It's not about ICE being required by FEDERAL law to give notice of inspection to the Entity being inspected, which is to give Entities time to gather the relevant information so agents don't have to waste their time waiting around the office kicking their heels. ie procedural.

Let me try one more time:

It's about the State of California illegally demanding via compulsion that US Citizens/Entities warn others that an ICE inspection is about to take place.

California has NO powers over immigration and NO powers to set regulations for ICE which is a Federal, not State, Entity.

Nor does California have the right to determine how US Citizens comply with Federal Rules and Regulations by adding extra rules and guidelines to how US Citizens comply with Federal Law.

I'll try one more example: A State could not pass a law requiring you to only file your Federal Taxes electronically, and that you must tell the State Department of Revenue that you have done so, or you'll be fined by the State if you don't do it this way. The State has no authority to make or enforce such a law.

RafiMaas says

untrue, the law is that ICE must have a warrant, US LAW will fully be complied with if ICE has a warrant like the law says they are required to have.

Let's say you took pictures of guys dressed in white outfits, dragging what looked like to be a person, in the woods.

Could a State pass a law that you couldn't contact the FBI about Klan Activity, unless they served you a warrant or court order, because the State wants to defend "Fraternal Organizations" on the basis of "Freedom of Association"? And you and your pictures would have to sit on your ass until the FBI contacted you? And if you did contact the FBI you'd be slapped with a $10,000 fine?

No way. The State cannot prohibit you or obstruct you from cooperating with the Federal Government.

It's so obvious to the normal functioning of Government, it beggars belief it needs to be argued.

RafiMaas says

Please enlighten us of the outcome of Calhoun.

Happily.

Calhoun said South Carolina had the right not to obey Federal Law, pushing the "Nullification Crisis".

In response, Congress passed the Force Bill in 1833, authorizing Jackson to whoop the shit out of Calhoun and South Carolina if they failed to comply with Customs laws and/or interfered with the collection of duties by Federal Customs Officials.

"John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation I will secede your head from the rest of your body." - Jackson

Calhoun chickened out. And so will Jerry Brown.

When he left office, a reported asked Jackson what his great regret was:
“[That] I didn’t shoot Henry Clay and I didn’t hang John C. Calhoun.”

Hopefully Trump will get an opportunity to put Governor Moonbeam in a place where he sees no Sunbeams.

RafiMaas says

It's pretty clear cut what ice must do ... This is federal law. If Congress doesn't like it then they should change it, not complain that CA isn't doing their job for them.

I can't keep explaining this if you're not reading my posts.

AB 450 is a CALIFORNIA LAW attempting to make FEDERAL Law demanding that entities served with inspection notices notify their employees and they'll be fined FOR voluntary compliance with Federal Agencies. The Law you're quoting is a Federal procedural law about businesses getting notice so they can get the paperwork in order. It has nothing to do with the current situation.


RafiMaas says

Wouldn't fixing immigration law be a better use of time and resources? Is it not obvious why this is not done?

Yes, we definitely need a Wall and tougher enforcement, so I hope the laws get toughened up to better use our time and resources on the millions of poor native born Americans.

It's not done, indeed current law is seldom enforced, because Big Business allied to AltLeft Bigots, won't let it.