site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   9616 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

E-Verify is also old enough to vote. It's just not mandatory at the federal level. It is mandatory in some states, so it's not like it's a half-baked system which wouldn't work at scale. It exists, and it works in practice, but it's still not mandatory everywhere. As far as I can tell nothing is preventing Congress from passing a law to make it mandatory, other than "congress has decided it no longer needs to do its job".

Anyway, I'm looking at the examples you gave:

  • Illinois SB0508 - this... just looks like it's saying "employers who use E-verify still have to comply with all other relevant employment law"? Is there a particular part of this you object to? Maybe the bit which says "An employer shall ensure that the System is not used for any purpose other than employment verification of newly hired employees and shall ensure that the information contained in the System and the means of access to the System are not disseminated to any person other than employees who need such information" - is your objection that actually Illinois should allow E-verify to be used for employment verification of existing employees as well?
  • California AB 450 QA - As far as I can tell, this says "Employers shall not voluntarily and actively assist immigration officials in accessing areas which are closed to the public, or actively provide records to immigration officials, unless those immigration officials have a warrant or subpoena. If immigration officials insist anyway employers have no obligation to try to stop them". That seems fine and very much in line with other regulations in California, e.g. CA Civ Code § 56.10 which says "A provider of health care, health care service plan, or contractor shall not disclose medical information regarding a patient of the provider of health care or an enrollee or subscriber of a health care service plan without first obtaining an authorization, except as provided in subdivision (b) or (c)" and subdivisions (b) and (c) are basically "(b) there's a warrant or equivalent" or "(c) the information is being disclosed to the insurer / other parts of the medical system". I like this law. Law enforcement agents should need either a warrant or reasonable suspicion - I don't like fishing expeditions by law enforcement, and this law seems to specifically prohibit employers from assisting in fishing expeditions where there is no warrant and no probable cause.

As far as I can tell nothing is preventing Congress from passing a law to make it mandatory, other than "congress has decided it no longer needs to do its job".

Congress is doing its job of being partisan. Democrats do not want E-Verify to work, so they oppose legislation that would make it work. That isn't not doing your job, its just doing your job in a way that gets stagnant results. The fact that large numbers of Democratic voters prefer a functioning E-Verify, and overwhelming numbers of Republican voters prefer it is of no moment if they do not punish at the polls non-compliance with that desire. Republican voters have carried out that displeasure via Trump, Cotton, etc. Democrat voters have not punished this specific non-compliance with their expressed policy desires, so the elite Democratic party position remains unchallenged in law until enough voters get angry to put 60 yes votes in the senate.

Or they get rid of the filibuster.

Illinois prohibits employers from using eVerify to any extent not mandated by the federal government, prohibits local jurisdictions from doing anything not mandated by the federal government (even for their own employees!), and requires employers to notify employees within 72 hours of receiving notification of an i9 audit.

California prohibits employers from complying with federal administrative warrants ("Documents issued by a government agency but not issued by a court and signed by a judge are not judicial warrants. An immigration enforcement agent may show up with something called an “administrative warrant” or a “warrant of deportation or removal.” These documents are not judicial warrants"), and from voluntarily providing any employment information. If you're willing to call the current state of eVerify a fishing expedition, that's on you, but I'm not going to take it seriously.

Q: What should employers do if an immigration enforcement agent seeks to enter the employer’s place of business?
A: Employers, or persons acting on behalf of the employer, shall not provide “voluntary consent” to the entry of an immigration enforcement agent to “any nonpublic areas of a place of labor.”
This provision does not apply if the agent enters a nonpublic area without the consent of the employer or other person in control of the place of labor or if the immigration enforcement agent presents a judicial warrant. In addition, employers are not precluded from taking an agent to a nonpublic area if all of the following are met: (1) employees are not present in the nonpublic area; (2) the agent is taken to the nonpublic area for the purpose of verifying whether the agent has a judicial warrant; and (3) no consent to search the nonpublic area is given in the process.
See Government Code Section 7285.1.

Q: What does it mean to provide “voluntary” consent to the entry of an immigration enforcement agent?
In general, for consent to be voluntary, it should not be the result of duress or coercion, either express or implied.
An example of providing “voluntary” consent to enter a nonpublic area could be freely asking or inviting an immigration enforcement agent to enter that area. This could be indicated by words and/or by the act of freely opening doors to that area for the agent, for instance.
Whether or not voluntary consent was given by the employer is a factual, case-by-case determination that will be made based on the totality of circumstances in each specific situation.
This law does not require physically blocking or physically interfering with the entry of an immigration enforcement agent in order to show that voluntary consent was not provided.

Q: What should employers do if an immigration enforcement agent tries to access, review, or obtain employee records?
A: Employers, or persons 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.” This provision does not apply if the agent accesses, reviews, or obtains employee records without the consent of the employer or other person in control of the place of labor. In addition, exceptions to this provision apply if: • The immigration enforcement agent provides a subpoena for the employee records; or • The agent provides a judicial warrant for the employee records; or • The employee records accessed, reviewed, or obtained by the immigration enforcement agent are I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms and other documents that are requested in a Notice of Inspection issued under federal law.

Q: Does AB 450 require employers to defy federal requirements?
A: No. Compliance with AB 450 does not compel any employer to violate federal law. Rather, it may require employers in some instances to decline requests for voluntary cooperation by federal agents. However, the statute makes clear that its provisions only apply “[e]xcept as otherwise required by federal law” and do not restrict or limit an employer’s compliance with any memorandum of understanding governing use of the federal E-Verify system.

That, again, seems fine? My impression is that the stuff about voluntary vs involuntary search is that it mainly has to do with what evidence is admissible in court - law enforcement agents are going to be able to go where they want whether or not your cooperation is voluntary.

And in terms of documents, documents that are actually relevant to work eligibility are already covered as things that employers should cooperate with if there's an administrative warrant. My understanding is that what you can't do is hand over the Workday login to ICE and invite them to go on a fishing expedition unless you are compelled to do so.

All that said I am not a lawyer, maybe I'm reading the law wrong? ChatGPT agrees with my interpretation when I ask it, but it also agrees with your interpretation when I ask it.

My impression is that the stuff about voluntary vs involuntary search is that it mainly has to do with what evidence is admissible in court - law enforcement agents are going to be able to go where they want whether or not your cooperation is voluntary.

The California bill has absolutely zero to do with what's admissible in court -- not just because immigration courts are federal processes where it can't apply, but also because it includes a fine aimed at employers who voluntarily cooperate with federal agents, or voluntarily provide documentation to federal agents.

And in terms of documents, documents that are actually relevant to work eligibility are already covered as things that employers should cooperate with if there's an administrative warrant.

The law requires employers to ignore administrative warrants for personnel records. It's in the FAQ you're quoting!

My understanding is that what you can't do is hand over the Workday login to ICE and invite them to go on a fishing expedition unless you are compelled to do so.

Or access to a nonpublic area of a workplace. Or specific employee records. Even if given an administrative warrant, you can not do so without risking tens of thousands of dollars per instance. Or to reverify existing employees, such as, just as a theoretical exercise, an employer isn't quite sure if they did that initial eVerify check.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats