patrick.net

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.

RafiMaas says

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.

Wow, WTF?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

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

States have the right to make privacy laws. Period. Other states require anyone including any federal agencies to have a warrant to look at any employment records of anyone, not just immigrants. Even if the employer is willing to do a voluntary hand it over. Is that making federal law? Where is your outrage (crickets chirping again). Feel free to keep on throwing out strawmen and tap dancing around that issue.

It's pretty clear you don't have a clue what AB 450 actually says if you are throwing out bogus arguments about I9's.

Patrick says

Wow, WTF?

Yep, be shocked.

Governor Moonbeam and the California Legislature have really pulled a job on behalf of Big Business and the AltLeft.

You know who else pushed AB 450? The SEIU. Yep, Unions are now anti-American worker.

bob2356 says

It's pretty clear you don't have a clue what AB 450 actually says if you are throwing out bogus arguments about I9's.

Pretty clear you don't have a clue:

bob2356 says

States have the right to make privacy laws. Period. Other states require anyone including any federal agencies to have a warrant to look at any employment records of anyone, not just immigrants. Even if the employer is willing to do a voluntary hand it over. Is that making federal law? Where is your outrage (crickets chirping again). Feel free to keep on throwing out strawmen and tap dancing around that issue.

The I-9 is an immigration document enforced by ICE, not just an "employment record" that may by the various State Government Agencies.

It's a federal document filed under penalty of perjury, is required for employment, and must be provided on demand to Federal Regulators responsible. To argue that it's privacy is nonsense.

Judges are up to their nose in frivolous legal arguments from people who claim because the filling out your 1040 and paying tax is based on "voluntary compliance" , they don't have to fill one out. Or, the IRS can't read their 1040 without a warrant.

Guess what happens to people who make those arguments?

Hey Bob, maybe this is a great precedence for polluters.

Claim "Privacy" is under attack when the EPA shows up to look at your mandatory federal pollution filings. "Oh, you can't see our federally mandated EPA Filings, EPA. Unless you Agents of the EPA go get yourself a warrant. My State of Mississippi just passed a law that will fine me $10,000 if I voluntarily comply with Federal Agencies on Environment issues."

Like I said, stay tuned. This law is going to be shot down, starting with a preliminary injunction, in record time.

Get your earplugs ready, and prepare to tune out assurances of dire predictions (worse than Brexit, since many countries fund unsustainable levels of economic and social program activity on the backs of dumping exports in the USA).

This is what CHANGE looks like, Obama.

RafiMaas says

https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/retain-store-form-i-9/inspection/inspections

There is the link.

And where is it that employers must inform employees when ICE comes around? I don't see it in your link.

Where is it that employers can't voluntarily comply with ICE's requests earlier if they wish? Don't see it.

Where does it say State Governments can fine US Citizens for not informing employees when they've been notified of an incoming inspection? Not there either.

Also:

Employers will generally receive a written Notice of Inspection at least 3 days before the inspection.

Is Generally the same as "Must" or "Will"?

Sorry, that law doesn't say what you think it says. It simply says the ICE will try to give businesses a few days to gather their records as a part of their general process

Now here's a "must" for you, the same exact page as your link:

When officials arrive to inspect an employer’s Form I-9, the employer must:

Retrieve and reproduce electronically stored Form I-9 and any other documents the officer requests;
Provide the officer with the necessary hardware and software to inspect electronic documents; and
Provide the officer with any existing electronic summary of the information recorded on the employer’s Form I-9.
Employers who refuse or delay an inspection may be in violation of the law.

RafiMaas says

We're does it say they have to voluntarily comply, interesting I didn't see that in there.

Where does it say you can't voluntarily comply?

Can the State forbid you from calling the FBI with a tip that an Arab-speaking man is putting a suitcase you heard go "TICK TOCK" into his car, because that's racial profiling and a violation of his privacy?

The argument is absurd: The State can compel you NOT to cooperate with a Federal Agency exercising it's powers in a domain expressly forbidden to State Governments and reserved to the Federal.

RafiMaas says

All I know is the great state of California is putting pressure on the federal government to make progress in regards to Immigration reform. All these people so concerned over immigration yet don't want to deal with Immigration reform? Why not?

Immigration reform like:

- providing Amnesty to dreamers?
- building a wall?
- ending chain migration and lottery visas?
- enforcing E-Verify?

Isn't it the Democrat party that is holding all this reform up?

RafiMaas says

All I know is the great state of California is putting pressure on the federal government to make progress in regards to Immigration reform. All these people so concerned over immigration yet don't want to deal with Immigration reform? Why not?

I don't want Immigration Reform, I want immigration enforcement. And California is forcing the Federal Government to respond to it's attempt to usurp and/or obstruct this enforcement.

Although I would pop a chubby if Moonbeam or his disciples get arrested on Federal Obstruction Charges.

RafiMaas says

Maybe said that way it makes a bit more sense?

Sure.

But the issue for me is with California telling US Citizens residing in California about how they can or can't cooperate with Federal Agencies.

Brown wants his unlimited immigration into California - but no housing.

Anything else is a declaration of war against California.

Watch the words. This is an evolution that, worse case and not soon, but could end up with CA breaking away from the US.

During any invasion, there is always a side that collaborates.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

bob2356 says

It's pretty clear you don't have a clue what AB 450 actually says if you are throwing out bogus arguments about I9's.

Pretty clear you don't have a clue:

bob2356 says

States have the right to make privacy laws. Period. Other states require anyone including any federal agencies to have a warrant to look at any employment records of anyone, not just immigrants. Even if the employer is willing to do a voluntary hand it over. Is that making federal law? Where is your outrage (crickets chirping again). Feel free to keep on throwing out strawmen and tap dancing around that issue.

The I-9 is an immigration document enforced by ICE, not just an "employment record" that may by the various State Government Agencies.

I don't have a clue?

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.

(2) This subdivision shall not apply to I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms and other documents for which a Notice of Inspection has been provided to the employer.

Except as otherwise required by federal law. Does not apply to I-9. Seems pretty clear to me.

Were is your outrage about states that require a warrant for any employees records? That obstruction. doesn't bother you? Lots of crickets chirping, no answer in sight.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

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.

You seem very confused on this point. It's not a regulation for ICE, it's a regulation for employers to give notice to employees their records are being examined. ICE is not hindered any more than any other state that requires a warrant. Still no outrage about the other states obstructing? Why is that?

Patrick says

RafiMaas says

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.

Wow, WTF?

You omitted the last and most important sentence

This section does not apply if the immigration enforcement agent provides a judicial warrant.

So why not just get a warrant?

No Real American wants the federal government doing warrant less anything. If they have probable cause, get a warrant. Otherwise piss straight off

Heraclitusstudent says

Brown wants his unlimited immigration into California - but no housing.

Anything else is a declaration of war against California.

Watch the words. This is an evolution that, worse case and not soon, but could end up with CA breaking away from the US.

What happens to the water CA gets from the Colorado River if they decide to break away from the US? I think succession is a non-starter out the gate because of this. But I admit I don't fully understand the water issues out there. My guess is agriculture dries up without that source of water, literally in SoCal.

I know it gets thrown about that CA is one of the states that needs the least from the federal government. But as a state, it probably can't function at today's levels without an entire regions watershed helping feed the AG business and supply a good chunk of the drinking water. CA is technically a state that is the most dependent on others (other states and feds) if you really think about it.

Guys, relax with the personal attacks. Thanks.

Bah, can’t even refer to the quality of someone else’s argument? Didn’t attack the user, just their false statements.

CA is not going anywhere and not breaking into anything.

errc says

So why not just get a warrant?

I agree that it's easy enough to do, but CA will just fabricate another reason not to cooperate.

RafiMaas says

What could, maybe should happen in CA is breaking into 2 or 3 states.

I don't think we should let any state break apart until at least 2 New England States get consolidated.

zzyzzx says

RafiMaas says

What could, maybe should happen in CA is breaking into 2 or 3 states.

I don't think we should let any state break apart until at least 2 New England States get consolidated.

Why is that?

zzyzzx says

errc says

So why not just get a warrant?

I agree that it's easy enough to do, but CA will just fabricate another reason not to cooperate.

So if it’s easy enough to simply get a warrant, why all the harping on California?

Shouldn’t the ire be directed at ICE for wasting resources and not doing their job?