Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

CA Attorney General threatens to prosecute employers who aid ICE

CA Attorney General threatens to prosecute employers who aid ICE

Job creators are collateral damage in state’s War on Trump, facing fines and prosecution.

https://www.facebook.com/XavierBecerra/videos/10154214164472230/

It seems California’s Attorney General Xavier Beccera is taking the “general” portion of his title more seriously than the “attorney” portion.

While waging the Golden State’s War on Trump, Beccera is now threatening the state’s employers with prosecution and fines if they voluntarily assist United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents identify illegal immigrants:

During a press conference, Becerra outlined legal repercussions, including fines up to $10,000, if employers assist federal immigration officers during raids.

“It’s important, given these rumors that are out there, to let people know – more specifically today, employers – that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office,” state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said. “We will prosecute those who violate the law.”

Becerra acted after reports of plan for a sweep of Northern California by federal immigration officials were revealed. The direct threat to the state’s job creators was being marketed as “guidance“.

Becerra said his office is preparing to issue guidance to local agencies about the new state immigration laws, while also seeking to communicate with federal officials about their intent. He acknowledged that the federal government has jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws, but said the new state law seeks to protect the privacy of workers.

Becerra said his office has not been given advanced notice of any new raids and did not know ahead of time of enforcement actions recently at 7-Eleven stores.

In the world of regulations, the state rules can only trump federal ones if they are more protective…of Americans. Hence, there is a bill being offered that would prosecute “Sanctuary State” promoters instead of employers whose only guilt is following federal law. It is called “Stopping Lawless Actions of Politicians (SLAP) Act”.

Needless to say, there are plenty of Californians pointing to Becerra for the first “slap” should it pass.

I am so old that I remember the 2010 federal lawsuit against Arizona for its attempt to enforce a state-based immigration policy that the voters passed. The California measure was created by the state’s politicians for the state’s politicians.

I suspect the Trump administration will use all the legal weapons in its arsenal, and that California’s progressive politicians will be a prime target. I also imagine that any employer hit by Beccera’s team will also file a counter-suit, and have a more robust legal case to boot.

By the way, Becerra sued to stop the border wall from going up. President Trump is slated to tour the prototypes shortly. So, his record of winning against Trump is rather weak.

Meanwhile, California’s hard-working business owners are collateral damage in this engagement, which is a tragedy for those outside of Sacramento. The real economic numbers show that it is the most poverty stricken state in the union. Nonetheless, our politicians will gladly continue their war on the President, despite the harm to the citizens they swore an oath to serve.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Back in the 1840s Pennsylvania tried to prosecute people for helping federal slave catchers. As I understand the implications of Prigg v Pennsylvania, states can, by explicit legislation, forbid their own officers from helping the slave catchers, but they can’t forbid private citizens from doing so of their own free will.

On the other hand, this “SLAP Act” proposal is brazenly unconstitutional, and the Congressclown who’s promoting it is guilty of a far worse offense than immigrating illegally.

    How ironic. Prigg v Pennsylvania tried to help stop human trafficking and the SLAP act aims to protect the human trafficking racket.

      Milhouse in reply to elle. | January 21, 2018 at 11:17 am

      Um, how does it aim to do that?

        What part of a system of making the desperate poor pay their life savings to cartel leaders and coyotes to help them across a border where they are frequently robbed and raped just so they can to live in a shadow class where they don’t have the full protections of the law and are systemically preyed upon for their cheap labor ….just so that you can have cheap lettuce and nannies….don’t you understand as being human trafficking to benefit the rich?

          Milhouse in reply to elle. | January 21, 2018 at 12:52 pm

          Um, did you bother to read the post before commenting on it? You seem to have no idea what this unconstitutional bill is trying to do.

      I suspect you need to re-read the portion of the article dealing with SLAP

      It appears this is a bill proposed to punish the sanctuary promoters, not assist them.

        Milhouse in reply to rduke007. | January 21, 2018 at 12:56 pm

        Exactly. And it’s completely unconstitutional, spits in the face of federalism.

          DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2018 at 9:07 pm

          It does not. The Constitution gives Congress exclusive legislative jurisdiction over immigration (and naturalization). When it joined the Union, if the region known today as the State “California” had any jurisdiction over immigration, it surrendered it at that time. It is now trying to act within the sphere of subject matter that is clearly, and entirely, within the purview of the federal government.

          Arizona lost this battle, and it was trying to enforce immigration laws. California will surely lose on the same principle, and they rightly should, seeing that it is trying to interfere with immigration laws.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 23, 2018 at 10:13 am

          California does not dispute that the federal government has full jurisdiction over immigration. But the same constitution gives the states the right to passively resist federal policy by doing exactly what CA is doing — refusing federal agents any assistance whatsoever in doing their job. I think CA has overstepped in trying to forbid even private citizens from volunteering their aid to federal agents, but it’s not a clear area. But this SLAP bill, which attempts to punish state officials for exercising their constitutional right, is a direct assault on the constitution, and far worse than any illegal immigrant’s offense. In any society that actually cared about the constitution the sponsors would be drummed out of public life. Shame on them and on anyone who cheers them on.

So the employer risks increased federal penalties for lack of cooperation with ICE or increased state penalties for cooperation…

Sounds like a good reason not to hire people here illegally.

    Milhouse in reply to aerily. | January 21, 2018 at 10:18 am

    So the employer risks increased federal penalties for lack of cooperation with ICE

    No, he doesn’t. He’s under no obligation to cooperate. If ICE wants access, let it get a warrant. But employers who choose to cooperate, because they agree with the feds on this, should be free to do so.

      dystopia in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2018 at 12:25 pm

      “No obligation to cooperate”. Juvenilia, written by a man who has likely never been involved in a serious police investigation. One who deals only with the theoretical.

      When a team of armed Federal Officers enter your place of business with grit, determination and the full force of the United States government behind them; and demands to inspect records Federal Law requires you to maintain; — feel free deny them access. You will not enjoy what happens next. Furthermore, Xavier will not have your back.

        Milhouse in reply to dystopia. | January 21, 2018 at 1:07 pm

        You seem to have no idea what this is about. There is no suggestion that employers should deny ICE agents access to the I-9 forms they’re entitled to inspect, or to any other information to which they are legally entitled.

        This is entirely about them volunteering information about employees, or allowing ICE agents to wander freely around the premises. The new CA law basically requires employers to let the ICE agents into the office, let them inspect the I-9s, and then see them off the premises, without disclosing any information that “violates employees’ privacy” or letting them go where they might frighten employees. In other words do the minimum they have to and nothing more.

        The thing is I don’t think the state’s entitled to impose such a requirement on private citizens. They don’t have to cooperate with ICE, but it seems to me they’re entitled to if they want to, and the state can’t forbid it.

          DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2018 at 9:17 pm

          The CA law presumes that employees have some amount of privacy in the workplace. As a rule, an employee has no expectation of privacy (except maybe in the can) anywhere in or on the property of a private business, on its computer network, while using its communication and data storage, or while on company time (ostensibly conducting company business).

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 23, 2018 at 10:14 am

          Employees have whatever right to privacy state law gives them.

    MattMusson in reply to aerily. | January 21, 2018 at 1:27 pm

    How is this NOT obstruction of Justice? Threatening citizens to keep them from complying with legal federal orders?

      Milhouse in reply to MattMusson. | January 21, 2018 at 3:02 pm

      Nobody is doing that. CA law does not prevent employers from complying with lawful orders. It only prevents them from volunteering information or access that they are not required to provide.

Completely off topic, the Trump and Netanyahu administrations have just completely cut the legs out from under their complaint that the PA funds terrorists. In a deal brokered by Kushner and Greenblatt Israel will pay Jordan $5M compensation for the deaths of two terrorists and a bystander, just as Israel paid Turkey compensation for the terrorists it killed on the flotilla. How can they now complain about the PA doing the same?

And what will happen the next time some terrorist tries an attack at the Israeli embassy in Amman? Will the guards hesitate to act, for fear of having their careers destroyed? Jordan should be compensating Israel for having failed to prevent the two terrorist attacks (one at the embassy and one on the Allenby bridge in 2014), not the other way around. And the supposedly tough Trump administration should have been making that case, not brokering a surrender.

    “Arab media reports” claim this. So did you read this in Arabic, or English? The record shows they aren’t the same.

    I’ll wait for reports that aren’t sourced from members of a religion that lists lying to infidels as a religious practice.

      Milhouse in reply to SDN. | January 21, 2018 at 11:20 am

      An Israeli diplomatic source confirmed it. And you can’t deny the $20M Netanyahu gave Turkey to pay the families of the terrorists it killed on the flotilla boat.

        Your dishonesty is obvious: the Israeli diplomatic source said NOTHING, ZILCH, NADA about money being paid, which was the whole basis of your lie about paying terrorists.

        You are rapidly approaching Rags level lying.

          Milhouse in reply to SDN. | January 21, 2018 at 3:03 pm

          “Israel would not pay damages to the next of kin directly, but instead provide a $5 million lump sum for the Jordanian government to disburse as compensation, that source said. The money is also meant to cover the needs of the family of a Jordanian shot dead by an Israeli border guard in 2014.”

          Who’s the liar here, SDN?

    tom_swift in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2018 at 12:49 pm

    You’re right. This is indeed completely off-topic.

smalltownoklahoman | January 21, 2018 at 10:48 am

If Becerra isn’t careful with this isn’t he opening himself up to federal charges for interfering in lawful federal criminal investigations? This almost seems like a form of witness intimidation he’s trying to pull here.

    No, he isn’t. If nothing else, he has qualified immunity. Or is that absolute immunity. Cops get qualified, judges get absolute, what do prosecutors get?

      Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2018 at 11:03 am

      Prosecutors and…well, anybody…only get immunity while acting in the scope of their office. That would be a debatable point in this case.

        maxmillion in reply to Ragspierre. | January 21, 2018 at 2:48 pm

        Not if they violate a federal court order to cease and desist, which the feds can easily obtain. Then they can be frog marched away big time.

      Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2018 at 11:14 am

      Most prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity, as long as they act in good faith based upon the evidence presented to them by LE investigators. However, when they act maliciously, in bad faith OR act upon the results of their own investigations, they lose that immunity and can be subject to a number of penalties, both civil and criminal.

      In the case of Becerra, this is most likely an attempt to intimidate employers within the state of Kalifornia. While the state can generate any law that it wishes, it can not enforce a law banning a private citizen from cooperating with a LEA. To compel a person, under color of law, to not report criminal activity or to aid and abet criminals and criminal activity by obstructing LEOs in the lawful performance of their duties places the person issuing the order in the position of conspiracy to commit the crimes of obstruction of justice or aiding and abetting a criminal or even make that person a principle in the violation of the law.

        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | January 21, 2018 at 11:22 am

        Does it matter that unlawful presence in the US isn’t criminal activity?

          Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2018 at 11:56 am

          Maybe. However, there are a number of criminal acts, some felonies, which are associated with illegal residence within the borders of the US, Such crimes as identity theft in order to secure a job is the most common.

          Here is the dealeo. The State of Kalifornia, along with all of the other pro-illegal immigration advocates argue the same thing. That being that enforcement of immigration laws will stop illegal immigrants from reporting violations of state law and local ordinance and make the community less safe. Then it turns right around and tells people NOT to report violations of law OR to cooperate with LE. Kind of hypocritical, no? Unless of course, the State is trying to protect a lawbreaking populous. Which leads us to aiding and abetting, etc.

          Does it matter whether the individual reporting acts in good faith after suspecting criminal activity,as opposed to having some standard of proof to even report ‘criminal activity?’?

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2018 at 1:22 pm

          Good question, since employers are required to inspect employees’ documents, but are not expected to be expert enough to detect forgeries or invalid ones, and are in fact, AIUI, prohibited from putting more effort than they have to into investigating the validity of facially-valid documents presented by Hispanic employees.

          So a lot of employers are going to have suspicions which they can’t confirm, but which they might (or might not) want to tell ICE about. There’s no question that they don’t have to, but what if they want to? Can state law forbid it? And would a state AG have immunity for enforcing such a law, should it eventually be struck down? I would guess that he does have immunity until it’s actually struck down.

          Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2018 at 3:54 pm

          A person does not have to have PROOF of criminality before reporting suspicions of possible criminal behavior to LE. This happens all the time, such as when kindly old Mrs. O’Mally reports a person loitering on the corner of her street. Also, it is extremely unlikely that an employer who knew that he had illegal aliens working for him would report that to ICE. He would then be placed in the position of having to defend that practice. Usually this involves the incompetent boob defense. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.

          Again, the problem here is that the State has no authority to bar a private citizen from voluntarily aiding or assisting any LEA, including ICE. To bar someone from reporting suspected criminal, or even unlawful, behavior could be considered aiding and abetting that behavior.

          Immigration paperwork inspections do not require a warrant. However, if evidence is developed from an other source, such as SS records, then it is easy to obtain a warrant for both the paperwork and to search the premises for additional undocumented persons.

          DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2018 at 9:25 pm

          From a comment of yours further down the page: And would a state AG have immunity for enforcing such a law, should it eventually be struck down? I would guess that he does have immunity until it’s actually struck down.”

          According to SCOTUS, unconstitutional acts are void from their inception, and grant no authority nor permit any government acts. See, for instance, Marbury v. Madison (if I am not mistaken). Meaning actions taken under an unconstitutional statute are actually undertaken under color of law and are not, in fact, government acts (because government has no authority to exercise unconstitutional authority) and therefore must be the acts of the individuals who took the actions.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 23, 2018 at 10:17 am

          DaveGinOly, even qualified immunity applies to acts the courts later rule to have been unconstitutional. How much more so absolute immunity.

    Witness intimidation is exactly what he’s doing. And that is a Federal crime.

If I was in charge of ICE in CA the first office on my list would be the “Office of the California Attorney General”, no I would not get a warrant until after the refusal to cooperate.

    Milhouse in reply to gbm. | January 21, 2018 at 11:35 am

    How would you get probable cause for a warrant? What evidence do you have that there are illegal aliens actually hiding in his office? I think it rather unlikely myself.

This and the proposed Kali tax law to increase corporate taxes to punish the rich orta just about insure Kali 3rd world status. Ya have to root for the folks over there seeking to become their own state.

A question to ask is whether a state ordering its employees to not help ICE is actively aiding the commission of crimes. This all looks to be passive…neither helping or hindering ICE but it is also knowingly permitting crimes against the Federal government to occur. An angle might be a civil rights issue of states depriving their legal residents of protection based on preference to ignore their rights by promoting illegal activities.

    Milhouse in reply to alaskabob. | January 21, 2018 at 1:26 pm

    It is passive, and the constitution protects the states’ right to passively resist federal law enforcement in this way. What we’re discussing here is whether it can force private citizens who disagree with it to join it in such resistance. Again the precedents were set during the slave-catching days. ICE is in exactly the same legal position as the slave-catchers in the 1840s and ’50s, and CA is trying to be PA.

    An angle might be a civil rights issue of states depriving their legal residents of protection based on preference to ignore their rights by promoting illegal activities.

    That’s a non-starter. States have no more obligation to their legal residents than to their illegal ones.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2018 at 9:27 pm

      It is not passive. “Passive” is I sit on my hands. If I use my hands to strike a neighbor who decides to cooperate with the federal government, I am no longer passive.

        DaveGinOly in reply to DaveGinOly. | January 21, 2018 at 9:31 pm

        That is to say, the law is an active measure to prevent cooperation (by those who may be so inclined) with the federal government. Allowing illegals to live and work in a state, and doing nothing to assist federal efforts to prevent same, is passive. But this law intimidates third parties (employers) by way of threats of government retribution. That’s a threat of government action.

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | January 23, 2018 at 10:24 am

        You are with respect to the federal government. You’re not raising a hand against any federal agent, but only against your own citizens, over whom you have a general presumption of a right to raise your hand. In the end I think this law is likely to be unconstitutional, but I’m not sure exactly on what grounds. But the right violated would be that of the employer, not of the USA.

    Mac45 in reply to alaskabob. | January 21, 2018 at 4:01 pm

    Not aiding federal LE is not the same thing as obstructing LEOs and does not necessarily rise to the level of aiding and abetting, though a sound argument could be made that it does if it is designed to let known violators escape LE custody.

    However, some sanctuary jurisdiction have gone beyond merely not giving aid. Some have denied ICE agents access to persons in custody in jails for state or local crimes. Others have released illegals who were under an immigration hold without notifying ICE of their release. And a judge actually slipped an illegal alien out the back door of the courthouse when she found out that ICE was waiting to take him into custody when he was through in her court. These are examples of active obstruction of a LEO in the performance of his duty as well as aiding and abetting an unlawful act.

      Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | January 21, 2018 at 4:14 pm

      However, some sanctuary jurisdiction have gone beyond merely not giving aid.

      None of your examples go beyond this.

      Some have denied ICE agents access to persons in custody in jails for state or local crimes.

      That is failure to aid. They have no obligation to give ICE such access, so they don’t.

      Others have released illegals who were under an immigration hold without notifying ICE of their release.

      Once again, that is mere failure to aid. They had no obligation to hold the people, or to notify ICE, so they didn’t.

      And a judge actually slipped an illegal alien out the back door of the courthouse when she found out that ICE was waiting to take him into custody when he was through in her court.

      While this was highly inappropriate, and she was reprimanded for it, it still doesn’t rise to active obstruction. It would have been very different if ICE had a warrant to search for him; they would not have had to wait outside for him to appear, and she would have been arrested for letting him escape.

      These are examples of active obstruction of a LEO in the performance of his duty as well as aiding and abetting an unlawful act.

      On the contrary, they’re all within the state’s constitutional right to sit passively and refuse to help ICE.

Only in a state that the inmates are voting themselves more and more benefits could something like this happen. This does not surprise me at all.

Sounds like the border wall needs to go up and insulate the United States from California also.

Ho-hum; this is probably far more anodyne than they’re trying to make it appear.

It looks like California is trying to prevent employers, acting voluntarily and on their own initiative, from sending employee data to Federal law enforcement; particularly when that data can be used to identify illegals. And AG Becerra is claiming this is basically protection of the confidentiality of employee records, perhaps analogous to similar protection of health records.

This is not an entirely wacky stance. We know what the intent is; and that is to stymie efforts to enforce US immigration laws. And, worse, the sole justification for it is the protection of foreign criminals. But protection of employee privacy and the confidentiality of personnel records is not, in itself, terribly criminal. All it really means it that ICE is going to have to get a lot of warrants.

    Milhouse in reply to tom_swift. | January 21, 2018 at 1:30 pm

    But it needs probable cause for those warrants, which will be difficult or impossible to get without the information some but not all employers might choose to give them.

      Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | January 21, 2018 at 4:11 pm

      Not really that hard.

      If the employer sends the employee’s social security number to the federal government as it is supposed to for withholding and other tax purposes, then duplicate use of SS numbers will show up quickly. Depending upon the circumstances [such a person being employed in two widely divergent locations at the same time], this can be considered evidence of potential criminal misuse of a SSN and can be investigated as such. Under previous administrations, nothing was ever done about multiple use of SSNs. But, as it is all computerized, such instances of multiple use of a single SSN could be referred to the appropriate LEA easily. And, this is sufficient to gain the issuance of an search warrant.

        Arminius in reply to Mac45. | January 21, 2018 at 7:08 pm

        I don’t know if you ever seen one of the no-match letters you get from the social security administration when the person’s stated identity doesn’t match the SSN on the required employment forms.

        It specifically states you can’t make any assumptions about their legal status or discriminate against them in any way. It tells you what the law permits you to do. First you have to check your own records to make sure you didn’t make any mistakes. If the copy of the social security card you have on file matches the number on the letter, all you can do is ask the employee to fix the problem.

        You can’t fire anyone on the basis of a social security administration no-match letter. This is extremely frustrating for employers like me. I don’t want to hire illegal aliens, but the social security administration and the IRS are in fact aiding and abetting several federal felonies. Document fraud, perjury (when the illegal alien signs the I9 form swearing they can legally work in the US) and identity theft. They never follow up on these cases. But the DoJ does have an entire division called the Immigrant and Employee Rights division (IER) that will go after employers for being “overzealous.”

        That means refusing to accept documents as long as they “reasonably” appear to be valid, asking for more documents than the minimum required by law to verify identity and lawful work status, asking for different documents than the employee wants to give you.

        Most people don’t know employment law but the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 creates a lot of legal pitfalls for employers. One of the highest profile case was when ambulance chaser Gloria Allred took on an illegal immigrant as a client, Nicky Diaz Santillan, and accused then Republican candidate for Governor of knowingly employing an illegal immigrant as a maid. Allred and Santillan also accused Whitman of exploiting her for nine years. Consider the irony. An illegal alien can go on national TV and proudly declare her illegal status and accuse someone else of criminal behavior. And why not? Obviously the social security administration already knew she was an illegal alien. So did the IRS. And they and the rest of the federal government apparatus weren’t going to do anything about it. And the states can’t or won’t, so she had nothing to worry about. Some shadows these people are living in.

        Whitman paid her $23/hour. Not exactly slave labor money. Being a Republican, even the RINO that Whitman is, was bad enough. But this pretty much was the final nail in her aspiration to become governor of Kali. Legal talking heads were on TV almost constantly explaining that she had done all she was required to do and it was illegal for her to do more than what was required. But the majority of the remaining voters are just too dense to grasp basic facts so they elected Moonbeam after they heard that Whitman was supposedly running a sweat shop and the remaining voters in Kali are getting exactly what they deserve. Jerry Brown was the beginning of the end for Kali the first time around and now if you look at the policies he’s inflicting on the state as part of the “resistance” he’ll be the end of the end.

        I always get a good belly laugh when Kali voters whine about what some mysterious “they” are doing to them. And they can’t figure out that they themselves are the mysterious “they” as they repeatedly vote to get sexually assaulted with a sandpaper condom. I feel bad for the many conservatives left in the state who can’t leave because of reasons like family or their ranch or farm has been in the family for a hundred and fifty years. They don’t deserve what they’re getting but they are seriously outnumbered.

        It may seem I’ve wandered off point, but I haven’t. I love being in Texas. And no, I didn’t bring any Kali political baggage with me. I despised those people ruining the state and I made it a point not to have anything in common with them. But I’m allergic to those crazies so I sense them a mile away. And they’re in every state including Texas. Hopefully not in the numbers like they have in Kali.

        Which meant I was leery about using e-verify, for instance. I used to own a restaurant in Dallas, California (as it’s known here in North Texas). I worried that if I did more than the law required me to do I’d get sued by MALDEF or La Raza. E-verify is error prone. If I refused to hire someone because e-verify told me they couldn’t legally work in this country and that information was not correct I know for a fact I’d would wind up in court if the prospective employee was Hispanic. Or some other protected minority that has legal defense teams just itching to sue old white men like me for “illegal discrimination.”

        They’d probably lose eventually if I could scrape up the money to fight them. But the process is the punishment and they have deeper pockets than I do.

        I would greatly like Congress pass a bill requiring employers like me to use e-verify. You never know what’s going to happen in court these days as judges have lost their minds because, Trump. But I think I’d be on more solid ground if I was following the law and couldn’t be accused of being “overzealous.”

        I’d also like to see the feds pass a law making it a felony to harbor, conceal, or transport illegal aliens. It isn’t as if human trafficking is a small problem.

        Failing that more states should pass laws modeled after the Texas human trafficking/smuggling law. Another thing states can do is pass laws against the kind of full or partial identity theft that feds already know that illegal aliens must commit in order to work in this country but turn a blind eye to. This isn’t a victimless crime. I’ve known people who have been arrested because of someone else’s criminal record. But those individuals were victims of stolen records. They’ve always been able to sort it out because you can’t steel someone else’s fingerprints or fake a mug shot. But even if the SSN the illegals use to get employment isn’t stolen from an already living person but is fabricated, odds are nearly certain that it will be issued to someone eventually. Which means every day infants are born in this country with criminal records, all kinds of loan debt, and the IRS is after them for back taxes.

        As we’ve seen, states can’t set immigration policy. The DoJ will sue states like Arizona if they try to pass such laws. But there isn’t much the DoJ or the judiciary can do about making human trafficking/smuggling or identity theft against state law. As I said it isn’t as if human trafficking is a small problem. For instance there are women here illegally from all over the world forced to work in massage parlors or beauty salons that are only fronts for prostitution. Men get victimized by human traffickers as well. The good news is we have laws protecting actual victims of human trafficking from the threat of deportation. But the vast majority of illegal aliens can’t make any such claim. So the law we have in Texas, and the other laws I’d like to see, makes them afraid to leave their sanctuary city and now the sanctuary state of Kali. And that’s a good thing.

That’s why I said it was ironic.

Does this mean that it’s illegal for the employers to use e-verify to determine if it’s legal to hire someone?

    amwick in reply to ConradCA. | January 21, 2018 at 8:50 pm

    I think it is illegal to follow the law, and legal to break it. In CA, apparently.

    Milhouse in reply to ConradCA. | January 23, 2018 at 10:58 am

    No, it’s not illegal to use e-verify, but it is illegal to fire someone merely because they came back negative. Not just in CA but everywhere — that’s federal law, not state law.

This is a slam dunk case for the feds. First of all, 8 U.S. Code § 1324 makes it a felony to “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.”

Second, Texas passed a law in 2015 that made such activity a state crime. MALDEF challenged the law (what’s that “A” doing in that acronym as they clearly hate America and work hard every day to ruin it) and initially in 2016 got an injunction stopping enforcement of the law. But in 2017 the 5th Circuit ruled that the law was constitutional. It narrowed the definition of “harboring” so that merely providing social services or renting to illegals doesn’t constitute harboring. But you can’t actively conceal their presence from federal law enforcement or, in Texas, state and law enforcement. If they ask about someone’s immigration status and you know that someone is in the country illegally you can’t lie to them. You have to tell them the truth.

As former General Michael Flynn can tell you, lying to federal agents is a felony. In Texas lying to state, county, or local law enforcement about someone’s immigration status is a state felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. I don’t see how Kali can make such cooperation, even voluntary cooperation, illegal. That is nothing less than forcing people to commit federal felonies. And the laws that make such concealment federal felonies have passed constitutional muster.

The kali Democratic party:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hU-qeIxMs24/UKUdsxTH7QI/AAAAAAAAEfw/68-bkjWYR1M/s1600/01PANCHO-VILLA-pg-horizontal.JPG

The reason the Texas law was ruled constitutional is that Texas successfully argued that it was designed to prevent human trafficking and smuggling and in no way intruded on federal jurisdiction over immigration enforcement. And it doesn’t matter if those humans want to be trafficked or smuggled. In Texas we have illegals dying by droves in pickup trucks or tractor trailer trucks when they become ovens in the summer or freezers in the winter as the human traffickers pack them in like sardines. Always when the coyotes start feeling they’re getting too much attention from Johnny Law and decide, hey, let’s ditch this stolen truck and screw those people locked in the back (I learned in San Diego that you NEVER put a cap on the bed of your pickup truck as that generally guarantees it’s going to get stolen and the next time you’ll see it is on the local news as the traffickers crash it at the end of a high speed chase trying to run from the cops) That is criminal if the word has any meaning at all. And even worse, under Obama the feds would complete the transaction. There is a case out of Brownsville where a outraged federal judge rebuked the Obama administration for aiding and abetting human trafficking.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2654208/Republicans-rally-judge-ruled-Obama-administration-intentionally-fostering-flood-illegal-immigrant-children.html

“Obama administration is aiding and abetting felonies’ by ‘delivering’ flood of illegal immigrant children to relatives in the US: Withering verdict of furious judge

– Federal Judge Andrew S. Hanen called out the Obama administration in December for ‘aiding and abetting felonies’

– The Department of Homeland Security, he wrote in a scathing decision, ‘has simply chosen not to enforce the United States’ border security laws’

– Republicans are playing a game of ‘we-told-you-so,’ seizing on Hanen’s ruling to claim that the Obama administration is encouraging a flood of illegal immigration, especially among children

– One congressman says the Obama administration is intentionally participating in ‘a felony – alien smuggling and human trafficking'”

Also in Texas we now have the phenomenon of the rape tree. Ever see a rape tree?

https://conservativetribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/rape-tree.jpg

As soon as the traffickers get women across the border they’ll rape them and leave trophies, panties or bras or jeans (now the woman has to complete the journey pantsless) on a tree. To of course humiliate the women and as a warning to all others about just who is boss. And what’s the woman going to do about it? Ranchers on the southern border find these rape trees on their property regularly. I know of some who have sold their property and left because years ago they had a great deal of sympathy for illegal immigrants they tell me the entire nature of this illegal immigration has changed. How many rape trees do you have to see before that sinks in. Since they can’t legally own machine guns for the most part they just can’t feel safe in their own homes. And it’s the same story along the entire southern border.

I’ve hunted down there a few times but no more. Even with a rifle I don’t feel safe myself. Now I’m partners in a lease near Amarillo which is about as far from the border as you can get in Texas.

And now the Kali Villistas (Democratic Party) wants these traffickers and smugglers to know that they can conduct their evil business in their state with impunity. Because if the humans who want to be trafficked and smuggled believe they will be caught and sent home they won’t be eager to pay their life savings just to risk dying in the desert or getting raped by the coyotes or waylaid by the Mexican drug cartels before they get to the border and forced into prostitution or to become drug mules.

Immigration enforcement isn’t just right and necessary for America it also saves lives.

After thinking about this a bit I have come to the conclusion that the State of CA just intends to use this law as intimidation in the hopes that smaller employers, without extra money lying around for lawyers, will simply follow the State law and refuse to cooperate with ICE. The alternative would be a long, torturous State and federal court case which, given the makeup of the leftists appointed to the Fed bench in California, will require going all the way to the SCOTUS. Process as punishment, plain and simple.

OleDirtyBarrister | January 21, 2018 at 5:23 pm

Trump and Sessions should show California the big stick.

First, Trump and Sessions should draft documents and have a private meeting with them showing them what the can file to shut down its marijuana business and start pursuing criminal charges, including forfeiture of the money that CA has collected.

Second, the feds should cut California off from discretionary federal assistance. A fire? A mudslide? A dam about to burst? Too bad, we don’t see grounds for declaration of an emergency and no federal money for you.

Inmates from the state pen have escaped? Too bad, the USMS is busy rounding up illegals, handle it yourself?

You need FBI forensics assistance or access to a federal database? Too bad, our computers are down and we are busy.

    Some of that could work. They can certainly threaten to start enforcing the marijuana prohibition. But the federal government cannot use even discretionary funding to persuade a state to comply with its wishes, let alone to compel it. Only Congress itself can do that, and even Congress (1) must make the condition unambiguous, and (2) may only persuade, not compel, which means it may deny new funding, or make small cuts to existing funding, but it may not cut existing funding so deeply that the state has no choice but to comply.

It amazes me that liberals will protect any felon or terrorist that sneaks across our border. They truly hate America.

    DaveGinOly in reply to cep32101. | January 21, 2018 at 9:53 pm

    The are promoting the safety and welfare of aliens over the safety and welfare of Americans. They are literally anti-American.

    Arminius in reply to cep32101. | January 21, 2018 at 10:17 pm

    They are proud of the fact they hate America and love criminals and terrorists. They certainly had a wet, sloppy love affair with Rasmeah Odeh recently.

    And when they think they’re among friends, like-minded people, they aren’t shy about saying exactly what they intend to do to ruin this country.

    I was at a city council meeting at the, get this, Cesar Chavez community center in Oakland. Oakland has been a sanctuary city since 1986. I knew there was not point in declaring any contrary opinions and even back then I figured I wouldn’t make it out alive. But mostly I didn’t want to interrupt the flow of crazy coming out the mouths of those people. It was very instructive to just sit there and listen.

    I’m sure they were resolving that it would be city policy to accept Mexican consular IDs as valid ID for all city government purposes. The reason I’m certain is that a Korean lady got up and asked why only Mexican consular IDs and not any other country’s consular IDs. And one of the council members told her it’s because we had stolen Kali from the Mexicans. Essentially, Mexicans get special rights not available to other illegal aliens. I mean, they still get most of the benefits. But a Korean or Russian illegal alien can’t use their own country’s IDs.

    As far as the left is concerned Western civilization is the source of all evil in the world and the US is the worst offender of them all.

    Which is stupid and means that they don’t know anything about world history or the rest of the world. And they aren’t interested in knowing. That’s the whole point about multiculturalism. To brainwash people into accepting the notion that every other culture is equal to each other, and superior to our own. And we must be made to suffer for our sins.

    This is why I call the kali democratic party the Villistas. They want to do everything in their power to aid the Mexican reconquista. We don’t have a right to Kali. In fact, we don’t have a right to any land in North America. We need to go back to Europe. Where Merkel and the “feminist super power” government of Sweden are busy beating up any of their own citizens who believe Swedes have right to Sweden or Germans have a right to Germany.

    And that’s the direction America-hating leftists want to take America. Of course, to gain power they have to deny they have any such agenda. Which is weird that they get away with it because they’re constantly talking about it in public forums when they think everyone in attendance agrees with them. And they’re constantly writing about their agenda if they’re academics. If you quote them they’ll just try to shout you down and call you names.

    Only bigoted, racist, homophobic, Islamophobic fans of the old white male patriarchy would be so evil as to actually cite facts. Facts are now hate speech and truth is no defense (this is now the law across Europe where now that the ruination the leftists have inflicted on their own countries has become too obvious to ignore they have to make it illegal to talk about it). They can talk and write on and on about how much they despise America in particular and Western civilization in general, and how when we’re attacked by terrorists and Israel is attacked by terrorists, we’re all just getting what we deserve.

    But quote them and HOW DARE YOU question their patriotism. Only a racist wants to know anything about the rest of the world or its history because only a racist would be interested in the first place. Try telling them that Spanish is just as foreign to this continent as English, that Spanish culture is part of Western civilization, that the ahadith collections are chock full of reports about how extremely white Muhammad was, that he slept with his slaves many of whom were black (apparently that’s only a crime against humanity when Thomas Jefferson did it), that Muhammad was extremely racist himself who called Ethiopians raisin heads and used an example of a black man to describe what Satan looked like. If you become Muslim you are now the oppressed brown other even if you’re Albanian, and I suppose sub Saharan Africans become white if they become Catholics or Anglicans.

    http://thedialog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/African.bishops-300×1791.jpg

    Look at all those racist old white men. If they convert to Islam leftists will think of them as cool black people again.

    That other countries such as Japan were far more imperialist then we ever were. Just ask a Korean. They’re still tearing down buildings in Seoul just because the Japanese built them. I recall having lunch aboard a Korean corvette, the An Yang. We were talking about North Korea, China, etc., just basically the regional situation. Everything was nice and calm. Then they found out I was stationed in Japan and they immediately got extremely emotional. They didn’t hate China or North Korea, but they obviously still hate Japan. One guy told me that he was glad the US had a military and Naval presence in Japan because “We have to keep an eye on those [email protected]” As the conversation went on I learned that by “we” he didn’t just mean the US and South Korea. They entire wardroom understood “we” as also including China and North Korea. And pretty much every other country Japan invaded in the ’30s an ’40s.

    Japanese kids don’t learn anything about that part of their history in school. Japanese history textbooks gloss over that period by essentially saying “Back then some bad stuff happend and, boy, do a lot of people hate us now.”

    So I found myself suddenly in an anti-Japanese alliance with the CHICOMs and the NORKs.

    Leftists think it should be the other way around. Asians should all stick together with Japan. Because in their ignorant universe of identity politics they’re all just undifferentiated Asians, the brown other, and they should hate us evil old white men who inflicted the patriarchy on them.

    Here’s how ridiculous it is. Michelle Malkin, who is an ethnic Filipina, wrote some kind words about the wartime Japanese imprisonment during WWIi. And Kieth Olberman who is admittedly an idiot but he spoke for a lot of leftists when he called her a self-hating Asian.

    Hello! A lot of people in or from the Philippines hate the Japanese because of their brutal occupation of their country during the war. On the other hand Pinoys generally don’t hate Americans despite our “colonialism” following the Spanish American war when we occupied it after seizing it from Spain. I recall one Filipino would-be revolutionary was quoted lamenting the fact that the Americans were just too nice, and as a result he couldn’t get a decent revolution going. Most people just weren’t interested. And we promised the people of the Philippines that they would have their independence in 1946. Then WWII intervened and a great many Filipinos thought we’d push that date back a few years. But, nope, we kept our word. Then about three decades back Filipino politicians started grousing about US military installations in their country. It was out of a misplaced national pride; they considered it an insult to the country. So what did we do? We left. We don’t stay where we’re not wanted. And now we’ve been invited back as they realize they made a mistake.

    Ask an older Chinese person how they still feel about the comfort women. The Chinese government is still demanding an apology from the Japanese government for that and other atrocities. And they still raise Cain when the Japanese PM visits the Yasukuni shrine.

    But by an large the Chinese don’t hate us. Most of the “brown others” around the world don’t hate Americans as much as leftists think they should hate us. They certainly don’t hate us as reliably as our own leftists.

    Try telling them that and give examples of how if we have a military presence in a country it’s not viewed as an occupation by the locals as much as our own leftists believe it is. It’s because we’re welcome. I’ve been told this more times than I can count be the locals where we maintain a presence or just conduct port visits. I was in Okinawa shortly after two marines and sailor raped a teen aged girl. If I had to rely on press reports I could easing have been convinced that Okinawan hated Americans. But since I was actually there I knew better. When I’d go off base many Okinawans would make a point of telling me that actually like Americans and their real anger was aimed at Tokyo. What our leftists who clog up the media like Keith Olberman were reporting was truly “fake news.” If you understand the history you’d know that the Kingdom of the Ryukus was an independent country until the 1870s when Imperial Japan invaded the islands, the largest of course being Okinawa, colonized it, and attempted to extinguish it’s culture. It was again a brutal occupation as that’s the only kind of occupation the Japanese knew how to do. It was actually one of the driving forces behind the development of Okinawan Karate.

    Actually the Samurai were brutal to their own “inferiors” in Japan as well. Farmers and towns people developed their own martial arts also, using whatever was handy so they could take on experienced warriors armed with some of the finest blades in the world. And they were pretty good at killing Samurai; some of their revolts against the Shogunate and their own local warlords lasted for years and there were hundreds of them during the Tokugawa era. But despite their own local differences pretty much all Japanese looked down on Okinawans as inferiors. Most Japanese don’t think of Okinawans as Japanese, and frankly most Okinawans don’t consider themselves Japanese.

    So their real issue wasn’t with us but they were angry with Japan for forcing them to bear an unfair burden of the US military presence. Japan was loading that island with American bases because they knew if the North Koreans or China ever get into a conflict with anyone those bases will become a preemptive target. So the Japanese wanted to get those bases as far away from their main islands an all their first-class Japanese as possible. So where else to put them then their southern most island among those second-rate Okinawans.

    And the Okinawans understood exactly what the government in Tokyo was doing, too. So they made a point of explaining that they liked Americans. Yes, they were angry about that rape, but although you’ll never see it reported by our MSM Japanese tourists on vacation in Okinawa regularly rape Okinawan girls. And they’re angry about those rapes as well. It wasn’t that they wanted the entire US presence gone. They just wanted it spread out across Japan so they weren’t the only target.

    The leftists in the press were simply projecting their biases and beliefs onto the situation. They were also reporting the story from Tokyo. I don’t think they could find Naha on map. Naturally the official spokesmen for the Japanese government weren’t going to tell the foreign press the truth about the situation. But basically since they already thought that since all Asians look alike they also think alike. And Asians are supposed to hate Americans and not each other. So that’s the story that the US press reported but that was NOT the truth of the matter.

    Try telling leftists that Asians don’t think they all look alike, since they’re close to each other they’re mostly old enemies and not in love with each other (Vietnam has a list of grievances against China going back thousands of years). That’s generally the case; your worst enemies are those closest to you and that doesn’t include us. The “brown other” peoples don’t have as long a history of conflict with us as they do with people they’ve been fighting over borders that they share. We’re not the problem with the world. Their heads will explode and stand by for the death threats. Such is their hatred for America and Western civilization. And to maintain their blind hatred that have to remain ignorant of world history, the roles other countries have played in it, and they have to remain truly ignorant of what other cultures really are like to believe in multiculturalism.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend