« First « Previous Comments 40 - 79 of 101 Next » Last » Search these comments
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.
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.
haven't heard of civil rights? It's now ok to not have laws to make sure the federal government follows citizens civil rights?
haven't heard of civil rights? It's now ok to not have laws to make sure the federal government follows citizens civil rights?
I see so we should waste money on a lawsuit that won't be won?
Employers must retain Form I-9 for a designated period and make it available for inspection by authorized government officers.
I would have to read about w-4 form. Not going to do it. No poo ga ga.
Which is? What law is this in violation of? Please reference if possible.
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.
But this isn't an immigration issue. It's a privacy issue.
But this isn't an immigration issue. It's a privacy issue.
I already presented above what ICE legally has to do to get I-9 info.
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
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.
Please enlighten us of the outcome of Calhoun.
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.
Wouldn't fixing immigration law be a better use of time and resources? Is it not obvious why this is not done?
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.
RafiMaas saysIt'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
Wow, WTF?
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.
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.
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.
« First « Previous Comments 40 - 79 of 101 Next » Last » Search these comments
https://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Sessions-to-make-major-sanctuary-jurisdiction-12731976.php