Patterico's Pontifications

9/16/2017

California To Become A “Sanctuary State” — But It Could Have Been Worse

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:30 pm

The concept of sanctuary cities has worked out so well — just ask the family of Kate Steinle! — that leftists have decided that the time has come to extend the concept to the entire state of California. The Los Angeles Times reports:

California lawmakers on Saturday passed a “sanctuary state” bill to protect immigrants without legal residency in the U.S., part of a broader push by Democrats to counter expanded deportation orders under the Trump administration.

The legislation by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), the most far-reaching of its kind in the country, would limit state and local law enforcement communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevent officers from questioning and holding people on immigration violations.

It does appear that the bill might not be as bad as the label “sanctuary state” would seem to suggest, however.

[T]he bill sent to Gov. Jerry Brown drastically scaled back the version first introduced, the result of tough negotiations between Brown and De León in the final weeks of the legislative session.

. . . .

Officially dubbed the “California Values Act,” the legislation initially would have prohibited state and local law enforcement agencies from using any resources to hold, question or share information about people with federal immigration agents, unless they had violent or serious criminal convictions.

After talks with Brown, amendments to the bill made this week would allow federal immigration authorities to keep working with state corrections officials and to continue entering county jails to question immigrants. The legislation would also permit police and sheriffs to share information and transfer people to immigration authorities if they have been convicted of one or more crimes from a list of 800 outlined in a previous law, the California Trust Act.

The amendments, if true, complicate the life of the blogger who wants to do a simple post saying: THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! THE DAMNED LEFT WILL GET US ALL KILLED! The State of California may have dodged something of a bullet here. As you know if you have read me for any length of time, I’m not just going to take the word of the L.A. Times for anything. But I’ve looked at the language of the latest amendments, from September 11, 2017 (five days ago), and it does appear that Governor Brown significantly cut back on the most dangerous desires of Democrat senators.

Even with the recent amendments, I agree with the California State Sheriff’s Association that the bill as amended removes too much power from law enforcement to protect the public. The CSSA explains that the “bill does not allow for notification to federal authorities, at their request, of the pending release of certain wanted, undocumented criminals – including repeat drunken drivers, misdemeanor hit-and-run drivers and those who assault peace officers.”

The complaint of the California State Sheriff’s Assocation is accurate. The language of the latest amendments limits, to certain specified situations, the ability of law enforcement to 1) “provid[e] release dates . . . in response to a notification request from immigration authorities” and 2) transfer a person to immigration authorities. For cases where someone is held in jail for “[d]riving under the influence of alcohol or drugs” such notifications or transfers can occur “only for a conviction that is a felony.” Thus, ICE will not be notified of the release date of illegal immigrants who are repeat drunk drivers unless they are convicted of a felony. And in California, DUI defendants can be charged with misdemeanors until their fourth offense.

This is a real problem, because repeat drunk drivers cause a lot of deaths. In May 2007, I began a series called Deport the Criminals First which highlighted specific cases where illegal immigrants had come into contact with law enforcement before committing crimes of violence, but had not been deported. The victims I discussed were true casualties of our country’s immigration failures — because a working system of deportation would have saved their lives. And out of dozens and dozens of posts I wrote over the years about people victimized and killed by illegal immigrants, many of those people had been killed by illegal immigrants who were repeat drunk drivers.

I encourage anyone who might be in favor of a “sanctuary state” law to examine my “Deport the Criminals First” series of posts. Josef Stalin reportedly said: “If only one man dies of hunger, that is a tragedy. If millions die, that’s only statistics.” So I made sure each victim’s name was mentioned, and tried to find a picture of them if possible. Showing the actual victims of these crimes, I believed, was important, so that these deaths were not ignored as “statistics.” Instead, I hoped, each death could be viewed as the individual tragedy that it truly was.

The last such post I wrote was on July 4, 2015, and was about the murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco. I laid out in detail how Steinle (who bore an eerie resemblance to my youngest sister) was the victim of San Francisco’s “sanctuary city” policy, as well as the incompetence of ICE in releasing the illegal to a known sanctuary city.

One Donald J. Trump took up the Steinle case and made it a cause célèbre of sorts, for which I believe he deserves credit. I never consciously thought about ending the series, but now that I think about it, I believe that Trump’s championing of Steinle’s case essentially meant that, as they say, “my work here was done.”

But Kate Steinle is not the only person who has died as a result of our dysfunctional immigration system. And if we adopt irresponsible “sanctuary city” and even “sanctuary state” policies as a matter of course, there will be more Kate Steinles.

As I say, we here in California may have dodged a bullet here. But the new law will probably cause people to be hurt or killed, though nowhere near as many as the original proposal. We must be vigilant, or more people will die.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

96 Responses to “California To Become A “Sanctuary State” — But It Could Have Been Worse”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. It sounds like CA is trying to parse its bill in a way that it can satisfy the racialist lobby but will not cause Trump to withhold any sweet, sweet federal money. Jerry wants his choo-choo train!

    BTW, it makes me angry when I read that “DUI defendants can be charged with misdemeanors until their fourth offense” because those repeat offenders are the dangerous ones. I know two people who had two drinks and got nabbed, barely crossed the threshold of impaired, and yet lost their licenses for a year, incurred thousands of dollars of costs, and drove anyways to work or else they would be on welfare too, even with the threat of prison if they caught. Is it right to criminalize these people and let the repeaters go scot free?

    Patricia (5fc097)

  3. “immigrants without legal residency in the U.S.”

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  4. Is it right to criminalize these people and let the repeaters go scot free?

    Yes, it is Patricia. And no it isn’t. It is because there should be zero tolerance for DUI. That means if a person is .0001 he is DUI, arrested, fined and I don’t care if he loses his job, house, wife, car, career and lives on the street. IF the real reason for DUI laws was to save lives then the Feds would pass a law requiring ignition interlocks on every car like they did with head rests, 10mph bumpers, seat belts, air bags and more. But it isn’t there to save lives. It’s a cash cow for the local and state constabulary and a cash cow for a myriad of “non-profits”. So the entire idea of DUI could be eliminated with ONE law but they won’t do that because they are greedy and do not care who dies.

    And no it isn’t because it isn’t fair and therefore is not equal treatment under law. Then again, in modern America any law that resembles Constitutionality is strictly coincidental. You know, like states making immigration policy which is one of the few things the feds should actually be doing.

    You

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  5. I do not know where that *You* came from. Computer gremlins?

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  6. What do you mean “to become”, Kemosabe? Isn’t this the state that documents “undocumented immigrants”?

    nk (dbc370)

  7. Brown to de Leon: “Watcha wanna go and tell ’em for, pendejo?”

    nk (dbc370)

  8. All interested law enforcement officers should purchase some “burner phones” and program ICE into the speed dial. Use as necessary.

    Mike (0fcd8e)

  9. Not in CA, I would say a sizeable % are members or progeny of the “Class of 1986″.

    urbanleftbehind (65b81e)

  10. I’m glad Trump says he supports Kate’s Law but the person who introduced this law over two years ago is Ted Cruz. He has fought to see it become law but the Senate Democrats said No. Cruz reintroduced Kate’s Law in January 2017. If Trump really wants Kate’s Law to pass, he should ask his Democratic friends (like Senator Schumer) to help make it happen.

    DRJ (d35869)

  11. So if Cal. can ignore the immigration laws and become a *sanctuary state* can Texas choose to ignore the federal firearms laws and allow machine guns and full auto weapons? Seems like a smart-assed Gov. could push the point.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  12. At Transylvania University in Lexington, Kentucky, illegal immigrant Paola Garcia, who has a DACA waiver, had a Facebook profile showing her under a picture of Donald Trump, with a caption readinmg “Not my President.” Fellow student Taylor Ragg posted a picture of her Facebook profile, saying, “Everyone go report this illegal at my school bragging about breaking the law.”

    After the illegal complained to University authorities and a grievance procedure was initiated, Mr Ragg is no longer a student at Transy, though, citing privacy laws, the school will not say if he withdrew or was expelled.

    Ain’t that wonderful? The school protects the illegal immigrant, and sees to it that the law abiding student who made her crimes public is gone.

    The Dana in Kentucky (ca408e)

  13. I don’t think being eligible for DACA makes one a “criminal.”

    Patterico (115b1f)

  14. Congress needs to preempt this field, unequivocally, to take away even such state-level lawlessness as the California Legislature has just written into state law.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  15. Asking the obvious question: would this law mean that a certain assistant prosecutor in Compton cannot report the presence of any illegal immigrant who happens to come to his attention, either by calling ICE directly, or publishing it on a blog?

    The inquisitive Dana (ca408e)

  16. Our esteemed host wrote:

    I don’t think being eligible for DACA makes one a “criminal.”

    One has to be in this country illegally to be eligible for a DACA waiver; doesn’t that, inter alia, define him as a criminal?

    The hard-hearted Dana (ca408e)

  17. The real doozy is SB 540, which will impose civil penalties on employers who voluntarily let ICE agents into their business to conduct “raids” (ie, arrest illegal aliens), and only lets employers allow ICE in if they have a warrant. Didn’t know it was legal for the state legislature to make it a civil penalty to give consent to search. Wonder who long this will withstand constitutional challenge?

    Pete (2f6a0b)

  18. One has to be in this country illegally to be eligible for a DACA waiver; doesn’t that, inter alia, define him as a criminal?

    I’m not a federal prosecutor, so I could be wrong. But I believe that being in the country illegally is not a crime. Entering illegally is under specified circumstances. If someone were brought illegally by their parents while a young child, I doubt that could be considered criminal.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  19. Immigration Form I-9 is required, under federal law, to be maintained at the employer’s main office, and to be made available for inspection by immigration officials upon demand. How can the state impose civil penalties for someone obeying federal law?

    The Dana who isn't an attorney (ca408e)

  20. Because civil law and criminal law are different. And people who violate civil laws are not called criminals.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  21. Anyone who is arrested more than 2 times for drunk driving is a serious and ongoing menace who is likely drunk every waking moment.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  22. So if Cal. can ignore the immigration laws and become a *sanctuary state* can Texas choose to ignore the federal firearms laws and allow machine guns and full auto weapons? Seems like a smart-assed Gov. could push the point.

    No, because there’s a constitutional right to enter the country, but no such right to own guns!

    What? That can’t be right!

    Kevin M (752a26)

  23. This is moving towards insurrection.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  24. So if Cal. can ignore the immigration laws and become a *sanctuary state* can Texas choose to ignore the federal firearms laws and allow machine guns and full auto weapons?

    That’s already the law. The federal and state firearms laws run parallel and no state is obligated to mirror the federal ones. Not anymore than they have enforce the Federal Internal Revenue Code.

    If anything, it’s the other way around. BATF has to notify local law enforcement when it issues a NFA stamp to someone in their jurisdiction and ask if they have any objections. Even with the NICS/Brady Bill background check, states can have their own systems and don’t have to use the federal one. Illinois is one of them.

    What a state cannot do is immunize its residents from federal prosecution. It’s not a defense that just because it’s legal in your state, you, the machine gun/silencer/sawed-off shotgun owner, do not have to follow the federal law.

    nk (dbc370)

  25. States that allow the private ownership of machine guns and silencers. http://www.onlythebestfirearms.com/faq.html

    nk (dbc370)

  26. Pennsylvania seems to be one of them. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  27. Someday a state is going to have sanctuary policy regarding Federal income tax. And then the Federal government is going to react very differently than they have for state marijuana legalization and state illegal-alien sanctuaries.

    Frederick (80401a)

  28. @11 Rev Hoagie

    I have a gun called a P 69 that’s chambered in 9×18 Makarov. Under the trigger guard it’s stamped Knoxville, TN. As it happens I bought it used in WY, but there have been various pushes regarding Intrastate gun sales. If the gun is made here, purchased here and stays here then the federal government should bugger right off, yes?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  29. NO GUN IS ILLEGAL DERP!!!

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  30. @12 Dana etc

    She was right. Donald Trump is America’s president. Hers is probably President Nieto.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  31. @pinandpuller:If the gun is made here, purchased here and stays here then the federal government should bugger right off, yes?

    If you grow wheat on your own property for your own consumption the courts have decided that is “interstate commerce” which Congress may regulate.

    “Should” bugger right off, but won’t.

    Frederick (80401a)

  32. You know the dark irony, is in pena nietos Mexico, dissident students like Garcia, stay Des:

    http://www.sinembargo.mx/15-09-2017/3308699

    narciso (d1f714)

  33. NO GUN IS ILLEGAL

    People are.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  34. Look who we see hear, one of those suspected leakers

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2010/10/20101019212440609775.html

    Maybe give Mr liberty needs to be updated

    narciso (d1f714)

  35. We’re arguing this the wrong way. It should be

    “…the growing Nullification Crisis. Not since the Civil War and slavery have states attempted to nullify federal law within their state as the do now with immigration. The insistence of some states on importing and exploiting cheap labor is eerily similar to the slave trade of the old South.”

    Kevin M (752a26)

  36. I ike that take a lot, Kevin M.

    mg (31009b)

  37. Imagine a world where the local swat team and or say an army unit out of 29 palms turns over dissident students to the local cartel or loses them, this is the world miss garcia ssema to find ok.

    narciso (d1f714)

  38. That is good, Kevin M., but I would add: “Not since the Civil War and slavery have Democrat controlled states attempted to nullify federal law within their state as the do now with immigration. The insistence of some states on importing and exploiting cheap labor is eerily similar to the slave trade of the old South.”

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  39. Fredrick

    Wickard should be a musical every bit as popular as Wicked.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  40. We need to increase the senate by a third by bringing in Celtic senators.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  41. David Gregory still hasn’t been arrested for holding up a 30 rd magazine in DC.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  42. Import guns and ammo from Russia: bad.

    Import illegal drunk drivers from the world over: good.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  43. Would helping violators escape apprehension be considered “aiding and abetting” or “conspiracy”?

    TennLion (d05404)

  44. narciso

    Is Mexico in a drug war or a civil war?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  45. All those DREAMERS from the US should be commissioned as Segundo Tenientes in the Mexican Army, such as it is.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  46. @36

    1. What federal law are they nullifying? Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, the states are not obligated to enforce federal law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prigg_v._Pennsylvania

    2. I agree that the immigrant workers are being exploited, however, it’s apparently an insoluble problem for businesses to determine if someone isn’t legal.

    Davethulhu (3a2442)

  47. Yes, a little from column a, a little from column b, going back to the 60s,Mexico has been schizofrenic crushing all internal opposition, that’s where the zeta mAde their homes smashing the ZapatistA but a independent foreign policy.

    narciso (d1f714)

  48. Gun and ammunition manufacture is not a Wickard v. Filburn situation. Every aspect of it involves physical interstate and even international commerce, from the metals to the nitrates for the gunpowder, and not least the tools to make them with.

    nk (dbc370)

  49. Zetas came from the Mexican special forces with a little Guatemalan gumbo, the kaibiles.

    narciso (d1f714)

  50. 38, but if those dissident students are “_______ Studies majors?”, do we give as large a sheest? If it was the crowd from Evergreen St. Or Middlebury, half this blog would happily provide the instruments of crime and the other half would sign the hole.

    urbanleftbehind (28c431)

  51. I thought the Zetas also grew out of their Northeastern states (Nuevo Leon, Coahuila and Tamaulipas) secession movement, or did that geographic placement happen out of coincidence?

    urbanleftbehind (28c431)

  52. I’m pointing out where oikophobia leads those without a program, Pena nieto looks like the groom on the wedding cake, but he,was certainly on the tAke from the cartels during the election and displayed flexibility up until the takedown of Guzman lost a, then all he’ll broke loose.

    narciso (d1f714)

  53. More of the latter, they were recruited by spiel Cardenas as muscle, but sort of like Mel Gibson on the last specialists, they went freelance.

    narciso (d1f714)

  54. Yeah, but AMLO is their Hilary (but even firther left) as in “keep out at any cost”.

    urbanleftbehind (28c431)

  55. No their doc brown or Corbyn, zorrilla is the wife of the fmr pan president, you see why he hasnt been shreaking like donald sutherland in body snaTchers

    narciso (d1f714)

  56. @Davethulhu:it’s apparently an insoluble problem for businesses to determine if someone isn’t legal.

    It’s been made unenforceable. Employers are allowed to employ illegals, and forbidden to do anything meaningful to avoid hiring them.

    Any corner gas station has the ability to determine if your credit card is a real number, and it might even have your photo on it. It is not “insoluble” in the sense that no one can figure out how to do it.

    It is illegal for employers to use documents to screen potential hires, that’s Title VII. It’s effectively illegal for employers to reject documents, that’s document abuse and again Title VII. If the employer accepts the documents of the person they have hired, and sends them on to be verified, and they come back not verified, it is effectively illegal to fire that person, you have to ask them to sort it out.

    So effectively it is not illegal to hire illegals, provided you don’t ask someone if they are illegal (which is illegal) and deliberately hire them anyway.

    E-Verify changes none of this. It does allow the employer the legal right to employ anyone whose eligibility cannot be confirmed.

    Frederick (80401a)

  57. Dave, there are laws against harboring illegal immigrants and sheltering them from federal authorities. When you sneak them out of the courthouse you are doing that affirmatively. And when you simply declare your city or state a “sanctuary” against federal enforcement, indicating that you will knowingly obstruct, evade and otherwise thwart federal enforcement, it is hard to argue you are not harboring.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  58. California has admitted an illegal alien to the BAR. I take this link to be authoritative: http://www.courts.ca.gov/24673.htm

    Hopefully none of the persons involved is an officer of the federal court.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  59. e-verify only exists cause the corrupt pigs at the failmerican department of homeland security can’t get the job done on border security

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  60. 1. What federal law are they nullifying? Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, the states are not obligated to enforce federal law.

    The states are required to obey federal law and not allowed to obstruct it. Their “job” isn’t enforcement of federal law but cooperation would seem logical. The states are not being asked to arrest, adjudicate, incarcerate and probate 11 million illegals. They are being asked to hold those who commit crimes and call ICE. That’s not unreasonable unless you have another agenda.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  61. Yes I don’t entirely buy his argument:
    https://amgreatness.com/2017/09/16/gorka-daca-trumps-war-gop-establishment2/?utm_term=TheDeplorables

    California seems to be like a whole season of dystopia segnenrs from sliders

    narciso (d1f714)

  62. Don winslows the cartel is a guide through Mexico’s boschian landscape, don is still stuck on hanging chads

    narciso (d1f714)

  63. Yes, CA has rewarded dystopia ever since the 1950s, but TX does not, FL is relatively welcoming if you are not a nail sticking out and IL/IN/WI gives you a leg up due to the far worse behaviors of its other bads.

    urbanleftbehind (28c431)

  64. Immigrunt toadies should thank the gods for Mexico. Imagine Pakistan as neighbor. Venezuela? China?

    Your glass is half-empty.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  65. Slovenia? :)

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  66. Well hell, Brits don’t appreciate the Poles, sometimes it is just an earnings game.

    urbanleftbehind (28c431)

  67. nk wrote:

    States that allow the private ownership of machine guns and silencers. http://www.onlythebestfirearms.com/faq.html

    Pennsylvania seems to be one of them. 😉

    And Kentucky as well!

    The Dana now in the Bluegrass State (e11fc4)

  68. Immigration Form I-9 is required, under federal law, to be maintained at the employer’s main office, and to be made available for inspection by immigration officials upon demand. How can the state impose civil penalties for someone obeying federal law?
    The Dana who isn’t an attorney (ca408e) — 9/16/2017 @ 4:57 pm

    There are actually criminal penalties attached to falsely filing an I-9 form. You have to sign, under penalty of perjury a 5 year felony under federal law, that you are eligible to lawfully work in this country. You also have to submit documents proving that you are eligible to work. Document fraud is another 5 year felony. Each time.

    As an employer this is infuriating. Supposedly I want to take advantage of cheap foreign labor. I DO NOT. But thanks to the labor laws I can not ask for additional documentation. And if what I am given appears to be legal, and I’m not a detective, I must accept it. The system is so screwed up I don’t even want employees anymore.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  69. 71. Steve57 (0b1dac) — 9/17/2017 @ 9:19 am

    . But thanks to the labor laws I can not ask for additional documentation.

    I think what it is, is that you can’t ask one potential employee to provide anything that you don’t ask all potential employees.

    And if what I am given appears to be legal, and I’m not a detective, I must accept it.

    And you are not supposed to ask for any proof, if I have it right, until AFTER a final decision to hire has been made, although maybe it can be part of an application process, if uniformly required at that stage.

    The system is so screwed up I don’t even want employees anymore.

    Well, do you want Congress regulating who, and for how long, you can hire, or not? Do you want Congress telling you who to fire, and when and when not to fire someone, or not? Do you want to keep thinhgs on hold, waiting for a bureaucrat to approve, or not?

    Sammy Finkelman (58e1fc)

  70. 62. Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7) — 9/17/2017 @ 4:14 am

    They are being asked to hold those who commit crimes and call ICE. That’s not unreasonable unless you have another agenda.

    It’s a violation of the writ of habeus corpus, plus it might mean that the jails will be holding the wrong people, as some people won’t post bail, and others then will have to be released.

    Sammy Finkelman (58e1fc)

  71. @Sammy:Well, do you want Congress regulating who, and for how long, you can hire, or not?

    Hilarious, Sammy. The I9 hoops are just one of the many laws and regulations regarding “who, and for how long, you can hire, or not?”.

    Checking employment eligibility should be a matter of swiping a Social Security card with a photo on it, and giving employers the option to refuse to hire at that point. Collectively Congress does not want the immigration laws followed, which is why we have all the fake process.

    Frederick (80401a)

  72. Well he scouted for spectre sicario, he just lad his last rodeo.

    narciso (93a7c8)

  73. Good comment, Hoagie 62.

    DRJ (15874d)

  74. In other words Sammy, laws and regulations that work in a sane and sensible manner to accomplish their declared objectives, is what Steve57 wants.

    If the law says you have to be eligible for employment, and the law and its interpretations by regulatory bodies and the courts make it impossible to actually follow the law, now what you have is completely pointless and expensive process.

    In Canada, for example, since they actually mean their immigration laws, they have only a handful of people illegally employed at any time.

    Whatever documents fulfill I9 should have your photo, your name, and be swipeable, and you should be allowed to use them before you hire. The technology exists, every corner gas station has it. There would be no more inconvenience than for using your corner grocery story, and your phantom bureaucrats holding up hiring for weeks while they scrutinize documents will have to get other jobs.

    Frederick (80401a)

  75. @Sammy: Here’s a page for employers in Canada with instructions to verify employment eligibility.

    Every step mentioned on this page is illegal under US labor law.

    You can check SINs with a phone call. If the documents have the wrong name, the employer is expected to ask for enough ID to establish the identity, AND the employee has to get their SIN paperwork updated. Employers are legally obligated to report potential fraud to the government. It’s a toll-free number.

    Frederick (80401a)

  76. By the way, Frederick, I love your, “of Hollywood” stores.

    I bet you haven’t heard that one before.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  77. I woke up at 6 and pumped out 25 pushups. At 9 I did another 10. Then at 10 I did fifteen. Then I fell back asleep. Why? Because I’m g***amned old.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  78. 74. Frederick (80401a) — 9/17/2017 @ 9:58 am

    eligibility should be a matter of swiping a Social Security card with a photo on it,

    And what happens if it gets lost, stolen, or misplaced?

    That’s just one thing. Do they get replaced really quickly, or not? Is a person allowed multiple copies? Usually that is not the case with identification documents because everyone knows a picture ID is not all that it’s cracked up to be. (They can have different documents, but not multiple copies of the same one)

    Collectively Congress does not want the immigration laws followed, which is why we have all the fake process.

    But I do think Senator Schumer wants the tax (and wage) laws followed, so he’ll go for that kind of enforcement.

    But you’re right.

    They also don’t want tracking of exits from the United States, because that will create too much trouble – they know it, but they can’t argue it. They’re not willing to reduce the penalty for overstaying for people from visa waiver countries, so they prevent it from being discovered at all..

    77.

    Whatever documents fulfill I9 should have your photo, your name, and be swipeable, and you should be allowed to use them before you hire. The technology exists, every corner gas station has it.

    Gas stations usually are where people go to test out stolen credit cards.

    Now the difference between this and credit cards, is that people don’t usually want their cards stolen.

    They do voluntarily give them to other people. People can ask other people to buy things for them. Credit card companies try to regularize it by allowing people to have “Authorized users.”

    What do you think about allowing people to name an authorized user for their Social Security card? That would solve a lot of problems.

    If a job is a sort of property right, why not? It’s a win-win situtation. We could even get rid of a lot of social welfare.

    How about having someone else actually do some, or all, of the work? The holder could be responsible for all taxes. This possibility was discussed in Joe Haldeman’s science fiction novel, “The Forever War.”

    There would be no more inconvenience than for using your corner grocery story,

    In a grocery store, there is also the option of paying cash,
    otr even borrowing from someone, or getting credit, and a person usually has more than one card.

    and your phantom bureaucrats holding up hiring for weeks while they scrutinize documents will have to get other jobs.

    You expect every single Mom and Pop store in the country, and homeowner to have a swiping machine? Maybe Schumer does, I don’t know.

    What if one person goes to PLace A to verify ID and another person goes to Place B, that doesn’t have a scanner, to work? Is ID checked every day?

    The hiring would not be held up for weeks. A person could indeed be hired while a failure to verify is appealed. I think that’s te approach e-verify takes now. There’d be some problems because of name changes, name variations, or lost documents. I recall people had a lot of trouble ince reneweing their driver’s licenses in California because their driver’s license, let’s say, used a nickname.

    Then, when and if the appeal is lost, the employer would be required to fire the person, and suddenly, months later.

    Small employers can do what they want. Big employers will have to follow all the twists and turns.

    Sammy Finkelman (58e1fc)

  79. I need a nap.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  80. In case anyone missed it, I was channelling Don Rickles. Who I miss dearly. And By the Way, I never liked you. Also Vinny got hurt on Tuesday.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  81. @ Frederick, who wrote (#77):

    Whatever documents fulfill I9 should have your photo, your name, and be swipeable, and you should be allowed to use them before you hire. The technology exists, every corner gas station has it.

    Of this much, there is no doubt. My Husky has a chip implanted in his neck, and if he runs away and manages to get to North Dakota, any vet there can detect and then access the information contained on that chip with the wave of a probe an inch above his fur.

    It’s not a question of technology, but indeed a question of the will to manage more appropriately the intersection between, on the one hand, efficacy in law enforcement (including preventing illegal alien entries), and on the other, privacy/dignity/liberty of the population at large. If there ever is a consensus to dial up efficacy in law enforcement, there will be at-least-adequate technological means to do that in the future, as there are today, as there were, in fact, going back to the earliest days of American immigration law and the founding of the Republic.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  82. The main problem with owning a machine gun is the price. Ronald Reagan and his buddy Tip O’Neill defunded the registration of new civilian-transferable machine guns in 1986, and it has remained defunded, and as a result the prices of the existing transferable ones have skyrocketed. The prices of silencers have gone down, on the other hand, and the selection and quality have gone up, but that doesn’t help people who want to turn money (ammunition) into noise (gunfire).

    nk (dbc370)

  83. Beldar, you have a Husky. Have you ever thought about dry land mushing?

    https://www.articrigs.com/

    I’m thinking about adopting some retired Greyhounds and giving then something to do.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  84. @ Steve57 (#86): Oh, we do that around the neighborhood most days. I just don’t have any wheels, but yeah, he drags me around. First week I owned him, he yanked so hard it pinched a nerve in my neck and I couldn’t feel my left arm for a week.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  85. @Sammy:And what happens if it gets lost, stolen, or misplaced?

    Do like they do with green cards, or with your credit card. You report it, someone takes care of it.

    You expect every single Mom and Pop store in the country, and homeowner to have a swiping machine?

    Holy crap, Sammy, every Mom and Pop store in the country ALREADY has this technology, for credit cards! You can put it on an iPad app! And the price for this service is so small you don’t notice it!

    A person could indeed be hired while a failure to verify is appealed. I think that’s te approach e-verify takes now.

    E-Verify CAN ONLY BE USED AFTER THE HIRE. And if E-Verify fails to verify, or if the employee quits cooperating, Sammy? NOTHING. The employer is not obligated to do a blessed thing. He has, according to the E-Verify handbook, the legal right to continue employment.

    Are you beginning to understand that the law works this way on purpose because the people responsible have no intention of reducing the number of people working illegally?

    All those people working on fake documents are paying taxes! It’s getting withheld from their paycheck before they see it just like legal workers! Why would the government turn this off?

    Frederick (80401a)

  86. Here’s the official E-Verify handbook, Sammy. E-Verify is not a good faith effort to enforce the employment laws.

    Some quotes, with my commentary:

    pg 10: All Employers participating in E-Verify MUST NOT: Use E-Verify to prescreen applicants for employment.

    You may have hired an illegal before you even put his info into E-Verify! E-Verify has forbidden you to check his status until you have hired him. So if the purpose were to keep illegals from being hired, Sammy, you would get to run the document before hire. If employment were like a credit card, you would not be able to swipe the card until the guy had walked out with all the stuff.

    pg 20: Matching photos is easy—simply compare the photo displayed by E-Verify to the photo on the employee’s document and determine if the photos are reasonably identical… Do not compare the photo displayed by E-Verify to the employee directly.

    In other words, if none of the employee’s documents look like him, but the document photos look like the E-Verify photo, you have to accept them. Same story with names.

    pg 49: The employee continues to work for the employer after receiving a Final
    Nonconfirmation result: E-Verify cannot verify that this employee is authorized to work in the United States. The employee had contested the Tentative Nonconfirmation, but was unable to resolve it. The employer chooses to exercise its legal right to allow the employee to continue to work.

    The employee continues to work for the employer after receiving a No Show result: E-Verify cannot verify that this employee is authorized to work in the United States. The employee had contested the Tentative Nonconfirmation, but did not take action to resolve it. The employer chooses to exercise its legal right to allow the employee to continue to work.

    The employee continues to work for the employer after choosing not to
    contest a Tentative Nonconfirmation: E-Verify cannot verify that this employee is authorized to work in the United States. The employee chose not to contest the Tentative Nonconfirmation. The employer chooses to exercise its legal right to allow the employee to continue to work.

    In other words, after the whole process is gone through, the law says you can continue to employ the person regardless of the outcome. So much for laws.

    Frederick (80401a)

  87. they may be rescue dogs but they’re still big dogs and they aren’t dead yet. So they need something to do. Steve57. Understanding dogs since the 1960s.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  88. I used to sail in a canoe, priding myself I wouldn’t spill my coffee.

    Then I got ****ing old.

    Now I sail in a homebuilt pirogue

    If you are waiting for Justin Timberlake to rescue you in his luxury yacht good ****ing luck.

    Anyone want to buy a canoe?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  89. Texas sanctuary city law has been partially approved by the appeals court, overruling the trial court.

    DRJ (d18ca6)

  90. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit has lifted part of Judge Garcia’s injunction that prevented the sanctuary city law from taking effect on September 1.

    DRJ (d18ca6)

  91. It’s been 4 months since the Texas sanctuary city bill passed but it’s working. Travis County (Austin) will honor ICE detainers.

    DRJ (15874d)

  92. Section 752.053(b)(3) provides that the local entities to which it is directed may “not prohibit or materially limit” persons who, in effect, have authority that may impact immigration, from “assisting or cooperating with a federal immigration officer as reasonable or necessary, including providing enforcement assistance[.]”

    That doesn’t prevet under the table, unofficial retaliation, and exclusion from discretionary promotions.

    Another effect of this bill, should it actually have the effect the legislature wants, would be to only allow people without good consciences to be law enforcement officers. That cannot be good.

    Sammy Finkelman (cd8d89)

  93. I foresee a rise in bribery and corruption.

    Sammy Finkelman (cd8d89)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4570 secs.