« First « Previous Comments 62 - 101 of 101 Search these comments
https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/retain-store-form-i-9/inspection/inspections
There is the link.
Employers will generally receive a written Notice of Inspection at least 3 days before the inspection.
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.
We're does it say they have to voluntarily comply, interesting I didn't see that in there.
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?
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?
Maybe said that way it makes a bit more sense?
bob2356 saysIt'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 saysStates 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 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.
RafiMaas saysExcept 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?
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.
So why not just get a warrant?
What could, maybe should happen in CA is breaking into 2 or 3 states.
RafiMaas saysWhat 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.
errc saysSo 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.
Although off topic just wanted to share more about CA water
It's off topic, but it's going to be an ongoing issue in CA. Everyone needs water. I don't understand all the underlying issues, but unless there's an alternative water source, or more storage, not sure how fresh water can keep up with the population growth in CA. Mainly SoCal as you mentioned, but as one state, everyone is going to have to deal with it.
Unfortunately, CA is looking at it as a privacy issue. One can cry and scream all they want but that doesn't change how this will be fought in court.
Biggest load of bullshit, my argument is me and I say 'you' not 'your argument'. The original is down and I deleted my comment so done and done.
whose laws and policies restrict local police and jailers from taking part in federal immigration enforcement.
Logical question is, why Sessions/Trump does not make E-verify mandatory if they are so against illegal immigration? Perhaps what they do is just a smoke screen or illusion of taking action?
Logical question is, why Sessions/Trump does not make E-verify mandatory if they are so against illegal immigration? Perhaps what they do is just a smoke screen or illusion of taking action?
So the possibility remains that the Trump administration is not actually serious about ending illegal immigrantion. Please forward this comment to members of the Trump administration. Hey, you never know, there's a slim chance it will help.
for more remote areas drones in air 24x7 for a fraction of price of a wall would be more efficient. Say, TX Big Bend area or AZ desert
« First « Previous Comments 62 - 101 of 101 Search these comments
https://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Sessions-to-make-major-sanctuary-jurisdiction-12731976.php