follow TwoScoopsPlissken following
follow TwoScoopsPlissken 2018 Feb 13, 11:13am
333 views 34 comments
LOS ANGELES—After reports recently rippled across California’s agricultural heartland that immigration agents might audit farms, Bryan Little of the California Farm Bureau Federation sent an email alert to thousands of farmers warning them not to run afoul of a new state law governing their interactions with federal immigration officials.The law requires California employers to ask immigration agents for warrants or subpoenas before allowing them access to private areas of the workplace or confidential employee records. Employers who break the law, which took effect in January, face fines of up to $10,000.Businesses are increasingly caught between California and Washington as the state seeks to shield illegal immigrants from deportation, and the Trump administration intensifies enforcement. As the state works out how to enforce the law, employers say the new requirements are confusing.“It’s just this conflict of intention: On the one hand the federal government is aiming for stringent enforcement, and the state wants to frustrate that,” said Mr. Little, director of employment policy at the farm bureau. “Our members find themselves stuck in the middle.”Shortly after the law went into effect, federal immigration agents served audit notices to 7-Eleven convenience stores across California, part of a national audit of the stores. A number of workers were arrested in California stores as those audits were served, according to state officials.
Is there no requirement of a warrant or subpoena for the federal government to enter private property?
California seems like they have this one right. Unless I’m reading it wrong, they’re not saying that businesses cannot comply so long as the Feds have a warrant or subpoena, no?
Are we supporting warrant less search and seizure now? This is getting scary.
Totally unconstitutional and won't survive the most precursory Court intervention.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Why on Earth would any American consent to search without a warrant?
I’m a proponent of States Rights, and we should all have a healthy fear of an overreaching Federal Government
Maybe the federal government could simply get a warrant?
It's not quite as simple as McGee would have you believe. Access to confidential employee records absolutely can be regulated by States.
anon_8f378 saysIt's not quite as simple as McGee would have you believe. Access to confidential employee records absolutely can be regulated by States.Yeah, okay."Can we USPS inspectors have the address, phone, and social security number of your employee, Fineas Furburger? We're investigating a mail fraud case."Owens: "Certainly".IL Attorney General "Okay you two, this is a violation of Illinois Employee Law. Put your hands where I can see them. Postmaster General for Skokie, and You, Owner of Owens Dry Goods, you're both being detained."If this was already prohibited under State Law and well known, California wouldn't have to result to tyrannical threats of fines for cooperating with Federal Authorities, who have sole jurisdiction over immigration matters.Not having a valid Green Card or Naturalization Papers while being employed, or using a fake Social Secu...
(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. . . .(c) This section shall not preclude an employer or person acting on behalf of an employer from taking the immigration enforcement agent to a nonpublic area, where employees are not present, for the purpose of verifying whether the immigration enforcement agent has a judicial warrant, provided no consent to search nonpublic areas is given in the process.
(b) (1) Except as otherwise required by federal law, an employer shall provide to each current affected employee, and to the employee’s authorized representative, if any, a copy of the written immigration agency notice that provides the results of the inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records within 72 hours of its receipt of the notice. Within 72 hours of its receipt of this notice, the employer shall also provide to each affected employee, and to the affected employee’s authorized representative, if any, written notice of the obligations of the employer and the affected employee arising from the results of the inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records. The notice shall relate to the affected employee only and shall be delivered by hand at the workplace if possible and, if hand delivery is not possible, by mail and email, if the email address of the employee is known, and to the employee’s authorized representative. The notice shall contain the following information:
Employers have the RIGHT to cooperate with the Feds on Federal Matters
Not necessarily. They can only cooperate to the point it conflicts with their employee's rights.
There's no right to conceal immigration status.I believe the I-9 is a federal document and filled out with penalty of perjury. Feds can certainly inspect federal documents at any time, and don't need Jerry Brown's permission to do so.
Read this and maybe it becomes more clear why California might want to protect people's confidential information:
It's not a right to hide your immigration status from Federal Regulators. It IS a right for US citizens to cooperate with Federal Regulators.
This is the stuff Liberals idolize.
As scoops pointed out, you have the RIGHT to comply
mell saysAs scoops pointed out, you have the RIGHT to complyYour employer may NOT have the right to volunteer your confidential information.
This is regulated federally