California AG: 'We will prosecute' employers who violate sanctuary laws

fox

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra warned employers Thursday of legal repercussions if they assist federal immigration officials in an impending crackdown in the sanctuary state, The Sacramento Bee reported.

Under a new state law – the Immigration Worker Protection Act – employers and businesses could face fines of up to $10,000 if they provide employee information to U.S. Immigration Customs, Becerra said.

If employers “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. We will prosecute those who violate the law,” he said at a news conference.

[url=]MSN
I have a couple thoughts on this, has california not been hemoraging buisness to more tax friendly areas for some time now?

Seems threatening a buisness with legal repurcusions is just going to hurry the exodus, I mean a state telling a buisness follow our rules but ignore the federal rules or else seems like something out of the twilight zone.

I am kind of old and my memory is kinda fuzzy but did we not have a little tiff around the 1860s that kind of settled who gets to order who around?

Should be interesting to see how the fed decides to pressure these companies as things move forward, I cannot imagine a normal govt agency accepting this let alone with the Donald in the oval office.

So what is your best guess on incoming response from the Fed over this?

Does the Constitution allow states to have laws interfering with federal laws?
Is this where the Supreme Court might get involved?

a reply to: DISRAELI

The Fed has to get involved, or they risk states starting to take power back.

Pretty sure the supreme court (if it reaches them) would smash this, that's why it blows my mind to see a state even try it.
They are litterally throwing money away on this, I see no chance that it holds up even in the 9th circus court of appeals.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Hello! Getting rid of the illegals in California will help to slow down it's financial bleeding! They are a bigger drain on the system than the tax advantage from the corporations or the illegals' contributions to the economy.

"Map: Illegal immigration costs California most, $23B, all states $89B"

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

a reply to: Irishhaf

The warning comes amid rumors of mass sweeps that will target illegal immigrants in Northern California. Under California’s sanctuary laws, local police are restricted from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.

The bottom line is, if police are restricted from cooperating with federal immigration authorities, then federal immigration authorities have no reason to follow California's law either. I dare California to sue the federal government for enforcing federal laws. Idiots.

.......just when you think they couldn't get any dumber.
Seems like they're perfectly fine following the law when it suits their agenda.

www.latimes.com...

State officials have estimated that services which go to California's illegal population add between $4 billion and $6 billion to state spending. The lion's share of that money goes to provide public education to children who are here illegally. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that states must provide public school education to all children, regardless of citizenship, and the state has no option but to abide by that decision. The second-largest cost is for imprisoning convicts who are illegal immigrants. The budget-balancer includes an option for trying to save money by shifting those prisoners to federal custody, although past attempts to do that have failed. The third-largest cost is for medical care in emergency rooms, a portion of which is paid by the state. Federal law requires emergency rooms to treat all patients, regardless of citizenship. The state also provides welfare benefits to some U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. In 2009, state officials estimated that denying those benefits would save about $640 million, but state lawyers said the move would probably be illegal because the U.S.-born children are U.S. citizens.

Like I said earlier. Dont wait for Cali to secede from the Union of States ,give em the royal boot. They want to be treacherous , treasonous and filled with malfeasance , get shed of em...

And they say snorting coc aine is good for the brain. Glad common sense is going the way of the "law is for the bad guys favor" these days.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
fox

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra warned employers Thursday of legal repercussions if they assist federal immigration officials in an impending crackdown in the sanctuary state, The Sacramento Bee reported.

Under a new state law – the Immigration Worker Protection Act – employers and businesses could face fines of up to $10,000 if they provide employee information to U.S. Immigration Customs, Becerra said.

If employers “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. We will prosecute those who violate the law,” he said at a news conference.

[url=]MSN
I have a couple thoughts on this, has california not been hemoraging buisness to more tax friendly areas for some time now?

Seems threatening a buisness with legal repurcusions is just going to hurry the exodus, I mean a state telling a buisness follow our rules but ignore the federal rules or else seems like something out of the twilight zone.

I am kind of old and my memory is kinda fuzzy but did we not have a little tiff around the 1860s that kind of settled who gets to order who around?

Should be interesting to see how the fed decides to pressure these companies as things move forward, I cannot imagine a normal govt agency accepting this let alone with the Donald in the oval office.

So what is your best guess on incoming response from the Fed over this?

Except.

You are leaving out one very important fact:

If ICE agents wish to access a California employer’s place of business to search for possible undocumented workers/persons, the employer is only liable for prosecution by the State if the ICE agents are allowed said access

WITHOUT A PROPERLY EXECUTED WARRANT.

You know, that bothersome Constitutional thing about illegal Search and seizure.

It’s right there under that other thing in the Constitution about the right to bear arms...

a reply to: Irishhaf

And then the feds will arrest anyone who breaks federal laws. This is going to be fun! Federal laws win.

a reply to: Bhadhidar

Right the state law says they have to have a properly executed search warrant and they must provide notification before they show up at the business, curious how that jibes versus the Federal statutes...

ETA: not the law but a resource;

Typically, an ICE investigative agent and an auditor will show up unannounced at the employer's principal place of business or at a specific worksite with a Notice of Inspection in hand. The agency can audit any business on a random basis or through tips from the public or other government agencies.

How HR can preparefor workplace ICE audits




ETA: also lets be honest the 4th amendment was gutted around the time of the patriot act, civil asset forfeiture, Rendition are just two examples.

California is gonna keep this up until it finally bites them in the ass, and deservedly so.

If an employer, LEO, or even a public official in California decides to support ICE, which they should, and many probably will, there are many, MANY ways for a Patriot to do it that sidestep this law from a technical standpoint. I mean honestly, how the hell are they gonna know?

Surely there are at least a few honest people with real principle left in California.

What if ICE waits outside the jobsites and get the illegals when they go home?

originally posted by: Trueman
What if ICE waits outside the jobsites and get the illegals when they go home?

And how would those ICE agents know which employees were undocumented and which were not?

Have we really devolved as a society where “Your paperz, pleez!” Is an acceptable demand?

Is this the cost of fear?

So much for the Home of the Brave, Land of the Free!

a reply to: Bhadhidar

When it comes to illegals, sure. In this case, your ID.

The cost of fear? Laughable, this very thread is fear mongering straight out the Cali AG office for those helping FEDERAL Law enforcement, aka, FEDERAL LAW.

Always bemuses me. How they figure they are going to catch large agro companies hiring 'illegals'?

Edit: The company keeps no records of the illegal immigrants they hire, won't tell the gubment, oh yah, we have ten thousand picking crops right now over in the fields...

Imagine trucks filled with agents bearing down on a single growers field to catch them red handed...

They're waiting for this, can see from afar the agents approaching and scatter. The trucks have to stop so they don't run over the fields of ripe crops, and chase them on foot. Therer is no way to mobilize that many agents to surround even one field to arrest and deport even a few of them.

We don't even have the man power to stop them crossing the border, let alone round up illegal migrants at a thousand workplaces.

This announcement is for show, as usual. The usual dog and phony show for the masses.

a reply to: Irishhaf

California doesn't want a border with Mexico any more.

originally posted by: Trueman
What if ICE waits outside the jobsites and get the illegals when they go home?

The 'job site' might be a large agriculture grow complex. They don't go home at night, they camp out in irrigation ditches on the property until the job is done. Then they are trucked to new 'job sites' like cattle to market.

Arresting them means pulling over every big rig truck on hiway 5 and searching it. You know what that would do to the commute?

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Bhadhidar

When it comes to illegals, sure. In this case, your ID.

The only ID I carry is my drivers license; never needed a passport, so never applied for a passport.

Why should I provide the government with one more way to keep track of me?

My family has been in this country, by direct family decendency, for more than 300 years. Are you saying that I need to always carry proof that I have the right to be here?

That I am required to submit to “The Government” whenever, and for whatever purpose, real or imagined, it deems convenient?

Then what is “freedom” really, if it can be denied even a citizen on what is essentially the whim of some tinpot agent?

I think this is more about a corrupt AG that is power hungry and looking to hide potential illegal voters.a reply to: Irishhaf