« prev   random   next »

3
1

California State threatening Business for obeying Federal Laws

By TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy following x   2018 Feb 13, 11:13am 542 views   34 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


Totally unconstitutional and won't survive the most precursory Court intervention.

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.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-immigration-california-businesses-are-pinched-between-white-house-statehouse-1518519600
California can't require businesses to demand warrants on an issue strictly reserved for the Federal Government. Immigration is strictly and explicitly reserved to Congress and States have zero, nada, zilch, bupkiss power over Immigration Law.

By trying to restrict businesses from cooperating with Federal Authorities on a Federal Matter, California Officials will be committing obstruction of justice, and Trump needs to charge anybody trying to enforce this law with it.

California's extraconstitutional, "Fascist" attempts at giving itself powers it does not have would be no different than if Florida State Officials told Truckers, Shippers, and Port Authorities not to cooperate with the DEA and demand warrants in Cocaine Smuggling Investigations, fining them if they cooperated with the Federal Government.
1   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 13, 11:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Is there no requirement of a warrant or subpoena for the federal government to enter private property?
2   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 13, 11:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

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.
3   TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 13, 11:19am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

errc says
Is there no requirement of a warrant or subpoena for the federal government to enter private property?


No, there is no requirement. You're always free to cooperate with authorities, volunteer information, etc. if you wish.

California is criminalizing the free and voluntary compliance with Federal Laws over which California has no jurisdiction whatsoever.

Again, this would be like Florida attempting to fine anybody who cooperated with the DEA.

DEA Agent: "Can we search your little airport for cocaine residue?"
Airport Owner: "Sure, Officer."
Florida State Official: "What a minute! Florida law says you can't cooperate with the DEA unless they compel you via warrant. You'll be fined, Mr. Small Airport Operator!"

It's actually a very imperfect example since Florida State HAS the power to make cocaine illegal, whereas California has NO jurisdiction over Immigration Law.
4   TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 13, 11:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Here's a better example.

FBI: "Can we see your guest registry? We're looking for the Alias of a Russian Spy."
Patel who owns the Hotel: "Sure, Officer."
NY State Official: "NYET!!! Patel, unless the FBI has a warrant, you cannot freely cooperate! If you do, we will fine you $10,000!"
5   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 13, 11:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

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?

Why can’t the Feds just come with a warrant?

Are we supporting warrant less search and seizure now? This is getting scary.
6   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 13, 11:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

If they suspect a crime has been committed, why not just get a warrant?

Those who would give up essential Liberties, for temporary security, deserve neither Liberty nor Security.
7   TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 13, 11:29am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

errc says
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?


Nope. They're fining anybody who honors Federal Requests for Cooperation. Totally Unconstitutional, both because CA has no jurisdiction and because you have a right to cooperate with Authorities.


errc says
Are we supporting warrant less search and seizure now? This is getting scary.


You have the RIGHT to cooperate with Federal Investigations if you want to. The State of California has no Authority to demand you can only be COMPELLED to cooperate.

It's Scary, the state with no jurisdiction over Immigration Matters at all is telling you you can't voluntarily cooperate with the Federal Government that HAS jurisdiction.
8   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2018 Feb 13, 11:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
Totally unconstitutional and won't survive the most precursory Court intervention.


The order of precedence is actually state law, then federal law. It's called the 10th Amendment.

"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."
9   TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 13, 11:56am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

NuttBoxer says
"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."


And in this case, the State has no authority at all. Constitutionally, Immigration and Naturalization is entirely and explicitly only a Federal Issue. Article I, Section 8 explicitly reserves not only to Congress the power over Naturalization, but demands "uniform rules", further precluding state interference.

SCOTUS has held this power to be virtually non-reviewable, part of the Federal Government's plenary powers, and has shot down countless attempts by states to regulate immigration, down to NY and Mass trying to impose head taxes on immigrants arriving in the USA.
10   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 13, 12:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Why on Earth would any American consent to search without a warrant?

Why doesn’t the federal government simply obtain a warrant?

I’m a proponent of States Rights, and we should all have a healthy fear of an overreaching Federal Government
11   TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 13, 12:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

errc says
Why on Earth would any American consent to search without a warrant?


"Grocery Store owner, we're looking for a missing child and believe they may be hiding in your store, can we look?"

"Bar owner, we have an Amber Alert out and think the kidnapping child molester may be in your establishment."

"Housewife alone with two kids, our helicopter saw our suspect jump the fence into your backyard and disappear into the basement. May we search the premises, ma'am?"

Missing Kid? Dangerous Felon? Perp in my house when I'm a woman alone with two kids? Dammit, Po-Po, get a warrant!
12   TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 13, 12:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

errc says
I’m a proponent of States Rights, and we should all have a healthy fear of an overreaching Federal Government

In this case, it's the State Government overreaching into areas where it is explicitly prohibited from interfering.

Maybe States can impose tariffs on other states?
13   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 13, 12:14pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Maybe the federal government could simply get a warrant?

Why is that not sufficientl?
14   TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 13, 12:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

errc says
Maybe the federal government could simply get a warrant?


Nope. People have the right to cooperate with the authorities. California has no jurisdiction over the matter at all.

By fining people cooperating with Federal Authorities over an issue which it has no jurisdiction, California is practicing tyranny. Even if the Feds and State both had jurisdiction, California could not demand people not to cooperate in a federal investigation unless they were compelled.

It's a stupid as if California said "You can't testify to Congress unless you receive a subpoena, or we'll fine you $10,000"

Like I said, this won't survive the first blush with any court.
15   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 13, 12:35pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

People have the right to cooperate with the authorities.

Sure but that would be stupid. As an American, the correct response is “do you have a warrant?”.

Those who would sacrifice Liberty for temporary security deserve neither.

There’s a simple solution. Get a warrant
16   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 13, 1:52pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

It's not quite as simple as McGee would have you believe. Access to confidential employee records absolutely can be regulated by States.
17   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 13, 1:52pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

errc--

States' rights are only important when it comes to abortion or gun freedoms.
18   TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 13, 1:56pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

anon_8f378 says
It'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 and established, California wouldn't have to result to tyrannical threats of fines for cooperating with Federal Authorities, who have sole jurisdiction over immigration matters.

I doubt California fines employers for cooperating in drug investigations, postal violations, etc.

Not having a valid Green Card or Naturalization Papers while being employed, or using a fake Social Security Number, are 100% Federal Issues and States can't do jack shit to stop investigations into them.
19   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 13, 2:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
anon_8f378 says
It'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...


Why the need for all the hypotheticals?

Get to the point.

Why can’t the feds simply obtain a warrant if they suspect a crime was committed
20   TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 13, 2:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

They can simply ask for cooperation.

Employers have the RIGHT to cooperate with the Feds on Federal Matters. California has no powers to deprive people of their right to cooperate with the Federal Government.

California must not be tyrannical and unconstitutionally overstep their authority. The first California official that signs his name to a fine must be arrested on Federal Charges of obstruction, and whatever process charges apply.
21   TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 13, 2:11pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        


(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.

That's the most Orwellian written law I've ever seen.

"You can't voluntarily consent" is as obnoxious as "You must voluntarily consent"

There was a literal mirror issue Arizona Law in 2012, requiring employers to cooperate with Federal Immigration Enforcement, that was struck down because the Court said States can't regulate Immigration.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17891750818453472454&q=567+U.S.+387&hl=en&as_sdt=2006
If Arizona can't require voluntary consent, then California can't prohibit voluntary consent.
22   TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 13, 2:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

It gets worse, the California "Defend Illegal Employers" statue requires employers to notify employees of impending immigration inspections. WOW

(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:


There's simply no legal pathway where California can require Employers to notify Employees, by hand or even email/snail mail if necessary, of an impending Federal review of Federal Employment verification forms, that's clearly State Interference with a 100% Federal, 0% State Issue.

That's absolutely obstructionist.

It's the California Fugitive Slave Employer Act.

Good Thing Trump will be Abraham Lincoln, standing up for Legal, Freed Labor.
23   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 13, 2:35pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
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.
24   TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 13, 3:11pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

anon_8f378 says
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.
25   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 13, 3:36pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

TwoScoopsPlissken says

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.


And that's almost certainly NOT the documents that they want to see.
26   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 14, 8:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Read this and maybe it becomes more clear why California might want to protect people's confidential information:

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/seattle-ice-lawyer-charged-stealing-immigrants-identities-111603799--abc-news-topstories.html
"The chief counsel for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Seattle was charged with stealing the identities of multiple immigrants over a four-year span, according to charging documents obtained by ABC News on Wednesday."
27   TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 14, 8:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

anon_8f378 says
Read this and maybe it becomes more clear why California might want to protect people's confidential information:


Bullcrap. California wants to protect the illegals from deportation, and the Employers from offering competitive wages.

California has no rule notifying people that a Federal Form is being checked by a Federal Agency in an area which the State Government has no legal authority.

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.
28   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 14, 10:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
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.


Nobody is claiming it's a right to hide your status. But, regulating confidential documents may fall within CA's jurisdiction.
29   Tenpoundbass   ignore (9)   2018 Feb 14, 10:16am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

If this were Cuba and Ernesto "Che" Guevara was in charge of Trump's immigration.
He would just give the illegal immigrants "The Pill". Then he liked to say "There I cured them, they wont have anymore problems."
With a lead pill in their forehead tossed in a shallow grave.

An actual Cuban told me that last week with a tear in his eyes. That's what happened to his Uncle when his Grand Mother begged Castro to release her Son.
He told Che to give him the Pill.

This is the stuff Liberals idolize.
30   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 14, 10:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Tenpoundbass says
This is the stuff Liberals idolize.


Adolph and Pinochet were not busy filling prescriptions?
31   mell   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 14, 10:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

This is a pointless discussion. As scoops pointed out, you have the RIGHT to comply. Of course you also have the right to demand a warrant, but fining people for their free will / choice of complying is not adding to liberty, it is taking away from it. This should be obvious. I am totally supportive if somebody is against a search demanding a warrant and then gets hurt/arrested in the process instead of the authorities getting a warrant if they needed to. But this is not what this asinine "law" is about. It is taking away the choice to comply. CA stupid.
32   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 14, 10:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says
As scoops pointed out, you have the RIGHT to comply


Your employer may NOT have the right to volunteer your confidential information.
33   mell   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 14, 10:47am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

anon_8f378 says
mell says
As scoops pointed out, you have the RIGHT to comply


Your employer may NOT have the right to volunteer your confidential information.


This is regulated federally. In this case they DO have the right and at the minimum the choice (if not the obligation). Funny how everybody yaps on social twatter and facetwat selling their info to the globalists but when it comes to illegals and crime to yap about privacy of non-citizens.
34   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Feb 14, 11:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says
This is regulated federally


Please share your source. Because I'm pretty sure States can also regulate this. eg., states not allowing companies to ask what your current salary is.




The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions