Newsusnewscaliforniaimmigrationfederalismnewlawice

Tue Jan 2, 2018, 10:51 PM

California: Cooperate with federal authorities you'll pay a fine.

Apparently the state of California doesn't want it's businesses giving help to the ICE

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB450

The law in whole:

"SECTION 1. Section 7285.1 is added to the Government Code, to read:
7285.1. (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.
(b) An employer who violates subdivision (a) shall be subject to a civil penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000) up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation and five thousand dollars ($5,000) up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation. If a court finds that an immigration enforcement agent was permitted to enter a nonpublic area of a place of labor without the consent of the employer or other person in control of the place of labor, the civil penalty shall not apply. “Violation” means each incident when it is found that subdivision (a) was violated without reference to the number of employees, the number of immigration enforcement agents involved in the incident, or the number of locations affected in a day.
(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.
(d) The exclusive authority to enforce this section is granted to the Labor Commissioner or the Attorney General and enforcement shall be through civil action. Any penalty recovered shall be deposited in the Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund.
(e) This section applies to public and private employers.
SEC. 2. Section 7285.2 is added to the Government Code, to read:
7285.2. (a) (1) Except as otherwise required by federal law, and except as provided in paragraph (2), an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not provide voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records without a subpoena or judicial warrant. This section does not prohibit an employer, or person acting on behalf of an employer, from challenging the validity of a subpoena or judicial warrant in a federal district court.
(2) This subdivision shall not apply to I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms and other documents for which a Notice of Inspection has been provided to the employer.
(b) An employer who violates subdivision (a) shall be subject to a civil penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000) up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation and five thousand dollars ($5,000) up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation. If a court finds that an immigration enforcement agent was permitted to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records without the consent of the employer or other person in control of the place of labor, the civil penalty shall not apply. “Violation” means each incident when it is found that subdivision (a) was violated without reference to the number of employees, the number of immigration enforcement agents involved in the incident, or the number of employee records accessed, reviewed, or obtained.
(c) The exclusive authority to enforce this section is granted to the Labor Commissioner or the Attorney General and enforcement shall be through civil action. Any penalty recovered shall be deposited in the Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund.
(d) This section applies to public and private employers.
SEC. 3. Section 7285.3 is added to the Government Code, to read:
7285.3. In accordance with state and federal law, nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted, construed, or applied to restrict or limit an employer’s compliance with a memorandum of understanding governing the use of the federal E-Verify system.
SEC. 4. Section 90.2 is added to the Labor Code, to read:
90.2. (a) (1) Except as otherwise required by federal law, an employer shall provide a notice to each current employee, by posting in the language the employer normally uses to communicate employment-related information to the employee, of any inspections of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records conducted by an immigration agency within 72 hours of receiving notice of the inspection. Written notice shall also be given within 72 hours to the employee’s authorized representative, if any. The posted notice shall contain the following information:
(A) The name of the immigration agency conducting the inspections of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records.
(B) The date that the employer received notice of the inspection.
(C) The nature of the inspection to the extent known.
(D) A copy of the Notice of Inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms for the inspection to be conducted.
(2) On or before July 1, 2018, the Labor Commissioner shall develop a template posting that employers may use to comply with the requirements of subdivision (a) to inform employees of a notice of inspection to be conducted of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records conducted by an immigration agency. The posting shall be available on the Labor Commissioner’s Internet Web site so that it is accessible to any employer.
(3) An employer, upon reasonable request, shall provide an affected employee a copy of the Notice of Inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms.
(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:
(A) A description of any and all deficiencies or other items identified in the written immigration inspection results notice related to the affected employee.
(B) The time period for correcting any potential deficiencies identified by the immigration agency.
(C) The time and date of any meeting with the employer to correct any identified deficiencies.
(D) Notice that the employee has the right to representation during any meeting scheduled with the employer.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, an “affected employee” is an employee identified by the immigration agency inspection results to be an employee who may lack work authorization, or an employee whose work authorization documents have been identified by the immigration agency inspection to have deficiencies.
(c) An employer who fails to provide the notices required by this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000) up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation and five thousand dollars ($5,000) up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation. This section does not require a penalty to be imposed upon an employer or person who fails to provide notice to an employee at the express and specific direction or request of the federal government. The penalty shall be recoverable by the Labor Commissioner.
(d) For purposes of this section, an “employee’s authorized representative” means an exclusive collective bargaining representative.
(e) This section applies to public and private employers.
(f) In accordance with state and federal law, nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted, construed, or applied to restrict or limit an employer’s compliance with a memorandum of understanding governing the use of the federal E-Verify system.
SEC. 5. Section 1019.2 is added to the Labor Code, to read:
1019.2. (a) Except as otherwise required by federal law, a public or private employer, or a person acting on behalf of a public or private employer, shall not reverify the employment eligibility of a current employee at a time or in a manner not required by Section 1324a(b) of Title 8 of the United States Code.
(b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), an employer who violates subdivision (a) shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000). The penalty shall be recoverable by the Labor Commissioner.
(2) The actions of an employer that violate subdivision (a) and result in a civil penalty under paragraph (1) shall not also form the basis for liability or penalty under Section 1019.1.
(c) In accordance with state and federal law, nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted, construed, or applied to restrict or limit an employer’s compliance with a memorandum of understanding governing the use of the federal E-Verify system.
SEC. 6. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application."

This will put California employers directly in the line of fire between ICE and the Sacremento Statehouse Goon Squad. You've got to wonder how many businesses are going to just shut up shop and, if possible, move to somewhere else. And how long will this stand up to judicial scrutiny? It does seem to be written with the idea that more than one provision could be struck down once it leaves the environs of the 9th Judicial District. And isn't it amazing that Democrats are discovering the ideals of Federalism?

28 replies, 843 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 28 replies Author Time Post
Reply California: Cooperate with federal authorities you'll pay a fine. (Original post)
cologeek Jan 2018 OP
SolChic Jan 2018 #1
Scary Red Jan 2018 #2
cologeek Jan 2018 #3
BAMN Jan 2018 #4
Scary Red Jan 2018 #5
Racing Slick Jan 2018 #6
Post removed Jan 2018 #8
Racing Slick Jan 2018 #10
Banshee 3 Actual Jan 2018 #18
Let it go Jan 2018 #20
nolidad Jan 2018 #24
BAMN Jan 2018 #25
oflguy Jan 2018 #26
Racing Slick Jan 2018 #13
Banshee 3 Actual Jan 2018 #17
Charlie Mike Jan 2018 #22
oflguy Jan 2018 #27
nolidad Jan 2018 #23
oflguy Jan 2018 #28
His Daughter Jan 2018 #7
CornFed Jan 2018 #9
cologeek Jan 2018 #11
His Daughter Jan 2018 #12
cologeek Jan 2018 #14
His Daughter Jan 2018 #15
cologeek Jan 2018 #16
oflguy Jan 2018 #19
Let it go Jan 2018 #21

Response to cologeek (Original post)

Tue Jan 2, 2018, 11:04 PM

1. Wow, I can't believe I just read this. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cologeek (Original post)

Tue Jan 2, 2018, 11:31 PM

2. "State's rights" is a bitch when it works for minorities, innit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 2, 2018, 11:50 PM

3. Like I said, it's amazing that the Dems now acknowledge that there's a 10th Amendment.

Up to now it was "right wing insanity" to suggest that sort of thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 2, 2018, 11:59 PM

4. Minorities?

What the fuck are you talking about? This is about illegal fucking immigration. You know there are illegals here that are white, right?

Who the fuck cares what the color of their skin is. Illegal is fucking illegal.

But please do continue to coddle fucking criminals.

States rights? So you would be okay if states made slavery legal? Yeah right.

Great fucking argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BAMN (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 12:35 AM

5. You do know that Hispanics are considered a minority, don't you? And...

all of this "illegal" bullshit is aimed squarely at various Hispanic groups, not Irish, Italian, Chinese, or any other immigrant groups that have a presence here.

Thew guy who does my lawn is a criminal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 12:42 AM

6. Maybe that's because 99% of the CRIMINALS here illegally

 

are Hispanics.

Being Hispanic does not give them a free pass to violate the laws of a sovereign nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Racing Slick (Reply #6)


Response to Post removed (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 01:10 AM

10. Talk that shit behind that keyboard

 

You're safe, little man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 02:27 AM

18. Actually IF you know he is an Illegal Alien YOU are also a criminal under FEDERAL LAW

8 U.S. Code § 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens


SOURCE- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324a

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 05:55 AM

20. Hispanics are white. Theyre Europeans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 08:46 AM

24. Wel let me see:

If the super majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic- now maybe I am just spitballing here- but maybe just maybe we should look at Hispanics closer than say Norwegians or ghanians.

If the guy who does your lawn violated the law in crossing the border illegally, yes he is a criminal!

It may not have the social impact of murder, but we either enfoce laws or toss them aside ! We either control our borders or don't.

How many illegals entering America is too many for you, before you want to see the laws enforced?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 10:09 AM

25. Are hispanics illegal?

Another great fucking argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 11:14 AM

26. If he is in the country illegally, then yes he is a criminal........SURPRISE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 01:19 AM

13. Were going, to run them all back south of the border

 

Think about that, boy.

Run their asses like jack rabbits.

REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 02:24 AM

17. lets examine your ignorance

You ASSUME Illegal Aliens are minorities

Illegal Aliens cane be Any race and Nationality

The Irish who are white are a large bloc of Illegal Aliens


You ASSUME states can decide immigration policy in the USA
This alone is Obtuse beyond belief. Since 1790 the FEDERAL government has set Immigration policies Since they are responsible for Border enforcement and who is a citizen.

Here , Educate yourself-

United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790
http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg103.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 06:14 AM

22. Why do you associate minorities with criminal activity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 11:16 AM

27. I know, Red's post was very racist

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 08:41 AM

23. Well we knew Gov. Moonbeam loved illegal immigration, but now

he has shown his totalitarian personna!

Telling people what they can and cannot do in private places or personal property as far as cooperating with federal law enforcement agents is scary!

So much for freedom. Folks like moonbeam were so against the Conn. birth control law long ago (rightly so) but now the left has gone so MArxist they are enacting the same kind of marxist control of people in the privacy of their companies, homes, restaurants etc.

This law will be overturned. threatening people with fines for reporting criminal activity (yes being an illegal immigrant is a crime) is in itself illegal.

If Gov. Moonbeam wants to give sanctuary in public places- that is his purview, but he cannot pass a law that violates the law!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 11:18 AM

28. A few months in jail should adjust Moonbeam's attitude

Break the law, pay the consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cologeek (Original post)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 12:59 AM

7. I have a hard time believing this will hold up to any kind of legal scrutiny

The state has no business telling private businesses what they can or cannot do in terms of interaction with Federal authorities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to His Daughter (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 01:09 AM

9. I agree. And what's to stop the Feds from hiring contractors do the work to circumvent this law?

A perpetual cat-and-mouse game that the State of California would lose...bigly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to His Daughter (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 01:13 AM

11. I think you're right.

But how many smaller businesses are going lose because they are put in the middle of the fight? I think in the end this is going to impact California's economy badly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cologeek (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 01:16 AM

12. All they have to say is that they believed that ICE had the authority to demand it...

Lose intent, lose the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to His Daughter (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 01:42 AM

14. Yeah, but how far up the line court wise will they have to go to get cleared?

You know the 9th Circuit will uphold this. It's going to cost business owners a lot in legal fees, whichever way they jump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cologeek (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 02:03 AM

15. Actually I would see the the Pacific Legal Foundation and others helping out

They would first have to be prosecuted etc. I just don't see that happening, even in a place like San Francisco

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to His Daughter (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 02:05 AM

16. I hope your right!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cologeek (Original post)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 03:03 AM

19. Now that California is its own sovereign country

Last edited Wed Jan 3, 2018, 06:24 AM - Edit history (1)

Complete with its own immigration laws, should we no longer accept their electoral votes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cologeek (Original post)

Wed Jan 3, 2018, 05:59 AM

21. Trumps ICE director says theyre ramping up ICE agent presence in California.

If the state won’t protect citizens the feds will.

The feds fund the states efforts but they have their own people to do the job. And they won’t ignore ancillary lawbreakers like the state probably would.

'CA Better Hold On Tight': ICE Dir Promises Doubling of Officers After 'Sanctuary' Law Signed

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/01/02/ice-director-rips-california-governor-jerry-brown-sanctuary-state-law

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Newsusnewscaliforniaimmigrationfederalismnewlawice