domain:parrhesia.substack.com
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
11hr ago
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.
SkoomaDentist
The Greater Finnish Empire
11hr ago
blames other women who show off the goods for free for making men want that kind of sex.
Just wait a year or three until the free image and video models manage to combine decent prompt understanding with uncensored training material and stock up on popcorn.
alsfhwe
11hr ago
I'm against this law because, even ignoring moral policing (and I'm against moral policing), how will it be enforced? Will Michigan set up their own GFW? Round up everyone and force them to install spyware? Install hypersensitive mics in every neighborhood and use ML to detect porn sounds? Imagine the money, resources, and time needed to prevent people from doing something in private that, right now, is widely accepted and extremely common. Money that could've been spent on, for example, lowering taxes or improving infrastructure.
This is different than CSAM, which is widely condemned and already illegal. There are no multibillion dollar websites distributing CSAM, you can't get easy access to it just by crossing state lines or using a VPN, and almost nobody is defending it (people defending basic rights like encryption and control over their own devices, e.g. opposition to ChatControl, aren't defending CSAM; those things would lower CSAM but have much worse consequences).
If this were to ever become law (and fortunately I doubt it), I bet it will be selectively enforced. Politicians in office and their families will watch whatever porn they desire and brag about it, but their opposition and "enemy tribe" celebrities will be charged on the smallest suspicion. Even if they genuinely don't watch porn, they could be indicted on fake evidence, and considering people thought "Shut up and Dance" was plausible, maybe even convicted.
Moreover, if cops have any incentive to prosecute this besides lawfare, lots of stupid but harmless people will be wasting their lives and taxpayer dollars in prison (as opposed to, worst case, wasting their lives more comfortably and wasting less taxpayer dollars at home). I can't imagine Michigan implementing anything that isn't trivial for anyone with the most basic technical knowledge, or basic ability to read and follow instructions, to bypass. But there are a lot of people who are very dumb, very tech illiterate, very unaware of current events, and very horny.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
11hr ago
Again, 2 million immigrants are gone in the last 9 months. Where price doubling?
It seems possible that there are simply so many illegal immigrants in the US that even herculean efforts at mass deportations will take years, e.g. enough time to gracefully offramp most industries.
dragonfly
11hr ago
If it helps, it's more like 30-40 hours. I don't know if you'll "get your shit totally rocked" though -- I think some of the reception is due to lowish expectations (previously unknown studio etc), but it's definitely a fun time.
Bingbong
11hr ago
IMO the optics are kind of the point of the current incarnation of ICE. Deportation is such a massive task that actually doing it at scale is very very difficult, so doing as much as possible to 'change the vibe' seems to have worked to discourage new illegals entering the country, increase self-deportation and create an atmosphere of fear. It also makes Trump's base feel that 'something is being done'.
FlyingLionWithABook
Has a C. S. Lewis quote for that.
11hr ago
If a federal judge can order ICE to release you, you have not been disappeared. You are very much in the system, documented, and his lawyers and the judge know his name even if the hospital does not, that's for sure.
In this case it looks like he got badly hurt during arrest and was taken to a hospital where he was admitted under a pseudonym and kept under guard. ICE says they were waiting for him to be released from the hospital and taken to their LA processing center before charging him. The judge said they had to release him from custody because they hadn't charged him yet. ICE did, and basically said they'd arrest him again after he gets out of the hospital and then charge him properly.
If your lawyer can talk to you and file court motions on your behalf, you have not been disappeared. When the NKVD showed up at your apartment in the dead of night and took you away, nobody saw or heard you again. That was proper disappearing! A lot of them were taken to the basement of the Lubyanka and shot in the back of the head.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
11hr ago
It does not appear he was "disappeared". Otherwise, how would the habeas corpus petition be filed in the first place?
Bingbong
11hr ago
Yeah the whole justice project thing seems to have headed down a weird pathway in recent years. Obviously scope-creep is natural for non-profits but I remember a good Motte comment a few months ago about how it essentially ran out of 'real miscarriages of justice' and now gets by on mostly liberating people who were 98% guilty of horrible crimes but may get clemency with some procedural wiggle room due to lazy prosecutors... which is like fine but doesn't feel like the point of the project.
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
11hr ago
That article seems to suggest that I'm correct.
Across the nation today, about 70% of workers in the U.S. farm sector are foreign born, according to the Federal Reserve of Kansas City. The National Milk Producers Federation says milk prices could nearly double if the U.S. dairy industry loses its foreign-born workforce, the group said.
70% of all your farm workers are foreign born and I have zero doubt that the vast majority of those would be illegal immigrants, because the entire reason they can get those jobs is their lack of labor protection and inability to protest terrible conditions. Remove them and the price of staples like milk will double - which is why I believe Trump and ICE are focusing on getting deportations into the news rather than actually fixing the problem.
gattsuru
11hr ago
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.
dragonfly
11hr ago
I often just leave my phone in another room and that solves that.
That said, I work in front of a screen all day with little supervision and tonnes of microwaits where the computer is slow than me by between 5 seconds and 5 minutes, so it's easy to get distracted with stuff I don't endorse. On the other hand at least it's usually the Motte or longer Youtube videos, rather than more heavily Now, This content.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
11hr ago
A federal judge has ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to temporarily end round-the-clock surveillance of a man hospitalized with a broken leg he suffered during his arrest [...] The man, who suffered a broken leg while being arrested in California on August 27, had been detained for more than 37 days [...] To date, ICE has not placed petitioner in removal proceedings, charged him with violating immigration law, set bond, issued a Notice to Appear or otherwise processed him [...] The man, registered by ICE with the pseudonym “Har Maine UNK Thirteen,” was arrested by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers at the Carson Car Wash in Carson, California, on August 27
So ICE arrested someone, detained him for 37 days in the hospital under armed guard, did not charge him with anything, denied him legal counsel, and used a pseudonym when registering him in the locator. That sure sounds to me like "ICE disappeared that guy".
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
11hr ago
We might be seeing the first signs of it, with Bari Weiss taking over CBS.
This has nothing at all to do with woke - this is very explicitly to deal with growing anti-Israel sentiment rather than the culture war.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
11hr ago
It's hard to gauge. Here's an article claiming that the raids have devastated the industry, but journalists/hate/insufficient/etc.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
11hr ago
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.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
11hr ago
You know what, I saw the admission to the other poster, and I always find myself liking and respecting people who do that.
Sorry for the heat.
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
12hr ago
Is there actually real, serious and muscular enforcement of immigration law against migrant workers? I was under the impression that Trump was explicitly preventing this from happening because illegal immigrants can be treated badly and help keep the costs of produce down.
Trump, who has appeared sympathetic to both farmers and immigration hawks, said Tuesday that the farm laborers aren’t easy to replace — an argument that runs up against critics’ argument that native-born workers could fill the jobs. The president said that “people that live in the inner city” won’t do the work.
“They’ve tried. We’ve tried, Everybody’s tried. They don’t do it. These people do it naturally. Naturally,” Trump said. “I said ‘what happens’ — to a farmer the other day — ’what happens if they get a bad back?’ He said, ‘They don’t get a bad back, sir, because if they get a bad back, they die.’ I said, ‘That’s interesting.’ In many ways, they’re very, very special people.”
If I'm wrong and Trump has been aggressively enforcing the laws against the employment of illegal immigrants I'd be happy to hear it.
DirtyWaterHotDog
12hr ago
Sadly, I don't. I did not read western news back then :(
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
12hr ago
The quibble is that if Jose is willing to work on a farm in California for what are shit American wages but still a better deal than staying home, the progressive view is that allowing Jose to stay is not advocating against our own interests or wealth redistribution, it's Jose contributing his labor to the economy and getting paid.
Open border, a functioning economy, a robust welfare state. Pick two, and the welfare state is functionally non-negotiable. This version of the progressive take is simply a lie. They manifestly don't care if Jose works, and would rather shut down the government than accept a limitation on their ability to give him taxpayer money.
The conservative view seems to be that if we got rid of all the illegals farmers would pay more and Americans would do it, of which I am skeptical.
Or that it could just be automated, and that it's insane to import tens of millions of farm workers right as we're looking at an AI/robotics era-defining revolution.
DirtyWaterHotDog
12hr ago
Frankly, I was indeed worried that the bar was that low.
Reviewing the job profile, these qualification demands are more rigorous than I gave them credit for. I said a lot of things today, and I have been corrected on a good few. I am glad that happened. Turns out that US is a liberal first world nation, and standards are standards. I am satisfied.
Do you think 'randos' and 'bottom-feeder men with anger problems looking to get the high of having power over someone else' can qualify for a secret clearance?
Not anymore
NYPD's 26 weeks in their police academy, but plenty for their specialised role.
It's 6 months in the academy and then ~2 years in probation.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
12hr ago
Exactly. And if right-wing militias start making organized, "attempted murder" attacks on feds they dislike, say, the ATF, then you'll be just as bloodless about that, right? Hardly anything to bother about. Just some kids with signs. Why are you overeacting?
You know, I used to not really have a handle on what your politics were. But you've been coming in hot and fast and ignorant lately, with maximum charity one way and maximum hostility the other. Are you feeling strange new feelings, like molten-veined partisanship?
Jiro
12hr ago
There's a million ways he could've implemented the ICE program, and he chose one with the greatest optics of cruelty.
No plan has good optics when faced by hostile media, as well as protestors deliberately trying to create bad optics.
The law is trying to change culture, when culture must change before the law does. I think porn is too normalized in today's culture, owing to sexual liberation and the toaster fucker problem. Trying to ban it won't work when people still want porn. The problem is that it's acceptable to talk about jerking off to porn as if it's something that should be encouraged rather than getting it on with a real person.
More options
Context Copy link