California’s Immigrant Worker Law Hands The Trump Administration A Golden Opportunity To Curtail The Golden State

imagesBelow is my column in the Hill newspaper on the new California law that the state Attorney General is pledging to enforce against employers who are cooperating with federal immigration authorities.  There are ample grounds for either businesses or the federal government or both to bring a legal action.  The arguments of California in Arizona v. United States — and the holding in that case — could prove damaging to the position of the state.


In 2012, California politicians and activists rallied across the country to call upon the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down an Arizona law enforcing federal immigration laws. They argued that such a measure is clearly preempted by federal law, which should solely dictate immigration policy. The Supreme Court in Arizona v. United States ultimately struck down parts of the law at the behest of the Obama administration.

Now, just six years later, it is California that has passed a law obstructing federal enforcement. Advocates are now insisting that California’s Immigrant Worker Protection Act must stand despite ordering businesses not to cooperate with federal enforcement. To prevail, the Supreme Court would have to issue a seemingly conflicted ruling that, while Arizona’s law assisting in immigration enforcement was unconstitutional, it is perfectly constitutional for California to pass a law inhibiting such enforcement.

This month, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra issued a warning to California employers that they could face prosecution, including fines up to $10,000, if they assist the federal government in its efforts to identify or apprehend illegal immigrants. Becerra threatened that if employers “voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office.” He added that the state “will prosecute those who violate the law.”


The law, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown last year and activated on Jan. 1, prevents employers from cooperating with federal authorities. These limitations include provisions requiring employers to demand a warrant before granting them access to a worksite, preventing employers from voluntarily sharing confidential employee information with federal authorities without a subpoena, requiring employers to notify their workers before any federal audit of employee records, and prohibiting employers from re-verifying information on employment verification forms, unless compelled to by federal law.

For the feds, the law reads a lot like “snitches wear stitches.” Employers are expected to stay mum when federal officials come calling. While past “sanctuary laws” bar government officials and law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration officials, this law bars private citizens from doing so. Thus, an employer or homeowner can always voluntarily cooperate with police in waiving the need for a warrant. Indeed, most citizens agree to allow agents to conduct a search or inspection to show that they are in compliance with federal law. Now, however, California will prosecute those who elect to grant entry to law enforcement without a warrant.

In fairness to California, its brief opposing Arizona’s law in 2012 did acknowledge that states retained the right to pass immigration laws “regulating civil rights, consumer protection, or workplace safety for all persons in the state.” However, California told the court that any state interference with federal policies of removal is strictly unconstitutional as an interference with federal priorities and policies. The brief insisted that “removal’s inherently national character extends to enforcement activities in aid of removal, such as arrest and detention and “such enforcement inevitably targets foreign nationals” and rests solely with the federal government.

Indeed, California argued that a “patchwork of separate removal policies would undermine ‘the nation’s need to ‘speak with one voice’ in immigration matters.’” Thus, California argued that the Court should not allow a state to “interfere with the achievement of the federal priorities that Congress has set” and Arizona should be blocked on the ground that its law “conflicts with Congress’s national removal policy.” The person who signed that brief for California was Kamala Harris, then California’s attorney general and now the state’s junior U.S. senator.

The Framers had particular concern over the actions of border states and how their laws or actions might impact foreign relations. In Federalist No. 3, John Jay wrote that the “neighborhood of Spanish…territories, bordering on some states and not on others, naturally confines the causes of quarrel more immediately to the borderers. The bordering states, if any, will be those who, under the impulse of sudden irritation, and a quick sense of apparent interest or injury” are the most likely to be pulled into conflicts with international implications. Jay was specifically referring to the potential for armed conflicts with foreign nations, but the concern was that border states will have the greatest interest in interfering with federal policies concerning border issues and foreign relations.

Under California’s law, an employer is subject to prosecution if he or she wants to cooperate with the federal government and allow such things as a warrantless entry. It also limits information sharing and requires a “heads up” for undocumented workers that federal officials are looking at their status, a warning that is likely to cause many to bolt.

There are legitimate issues over the federal government requiring state police to hold a person without a warrant. However, the Immigrant Workers Protection Act moves far beyond any prior incursion into federal immigration enforcement. Notably, California politicians like Harris have objected to the federal government making demands on state officials to enforce immigration laws. But this law forces private citizens to hamper federal enforcement. It effectively tells employers to choose between the federal and state governments, including ordering them to take actions that would directly undermine federal enforcement.

Becerra and California have put private businesses and citizens in the path of federal enforcement. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is unlikely to be deterred by the involuntary conscription of private businesses as a barrier to enforcement. There is a long-standing adage that “hard cases make bad law.” California may have just handed Sessions a golden opportunity to curtail the Golden State.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

110 thoughts on “California’s Immigrant Worker Law Hands The Trump Administration A Golden Opportunity To Curtail The Golden State”

  1. One of the claims in the investigation against President Trump is Obstruction of Justice. Wouldn’t the California AG’s fit within the definition of Obstruction of Justice?

  2. California has made it quite clear that it will protect and encourage illegal immigration at all cost, even that paid by citizens and legal visa holders.

    If you commit a violent crime, CA will protect you to keep you on her streets. So, where would violent illegal immigrants be lured?

    The only fair and safe system is legal immigration. You have minimum criteria, such as that the applicant not be a violent criminal, and that he or she does not break US law. Then you balance the numbers of immigration with our nation’s natural resources, benefits system, and job opportunities. For instance, when unemployment is high, you do not employ massive numbers of people competing for dwindling jobs. Minorities tend to bear the brunt of that mistake. You also adjust the criteria of applicants periodically. Some years, we may have more room for unskilled workers, other years, it’s skilled workers we need. That should be nimble and responsive to the profile of our country. If our benefits system starts straining, then the numbers get adjusted in favor of those who can hit the ground running. If the benefits system has more room, we can accept more indigent people. The fact no one really talks about is that we simply cannot fit the world’s entire population in the US. So we will always have to choose who comes. And that’s hard. But that’s reality.

    You make the wrong thing hard, and the right thing easy. You take away benefits and programs for illegal immigrants, and make it difficult to find work. You streamline legal immigration, giving financial aid to those who need it to go through the process. Improve the training and classes they take as part of the process to smooth integration.

    No one has ever explained to me why it is racist or rude or unfair to expect Mexicans and South Americans to all go through the legal immigration system. Does being our closest neighbor mean that it’s rude to expect them to follow our immigration laws? How dare you! We live a mere 500 miles away! Only the Latvians and Indians should have to follow the law! They live farther! No one has actually explained to me why we should allow unfettered illegal immigration rather than depending solely on the legal process. Why would anyone support a system whereas people wouldn’t undergo a basic background check? Why would anyone support keeping violent felons on the street instead of deporting them?

    Whenever I ask, I am usually told that Republicans are racist, etc. I wish someone would make a cogent argument, because I am at a loss, other than to acknowledge the obvious reason that illegal immigrants vote Democrat. And yes, illegal immigrants vote all the time in CA. You don’t even need to bring a phone bill, let alone any proof of citizenship to vote in CA. Therefore, I understand why the politicians want massive illegal immigration, but not the Democratic voters.

    Already, there is periodic water rationing in permanent drought state CA. They remove the water harvesting native chaparral, grade to maximize storm water runoff rather than letting it penetrate, pack the native hillsides with dry alien brush and grasses that burn like tinder, and then blame global warming for all the manmade fires. We have periodic energy blackouts when the demand outstrips the supply of our utility companies. The traffic on our potholed streets is so onerous that it can take hours to drive 50 miles. Traffic and taxes drive many people from the state. These are consequences of our policies.

    There are consequences to illegal immigration. And the truth that there are many very nice, hard working people among them, does not mean that they should not go through the legal immigration system.

    I’m nice. I’m not allowed to break the law.

    1. May I add that I hold zero animosity or blame towards illegal immigrants.

      We effectively told them this was OK to come illegally. CA lets dayworkers congregate on the street and mob passing cars, where they won’t let legal citizens do the same. I’ve had people pile into my truck, arguing with each other, when I happened to park nearby, with my baby inside, near these sites. They give benefits and support and free legal aid and shield them from deportation.

      How can I blame anyone when CA rolled out the red carpet? This is not their fault. We communicated loud and clear, with actions such as the above, that this was OK and encouraged.

      In addition, Democrats can claim they want border security all the time. In deed – they fight tooth and nail like it’s an existential crisis against any attempt to strengthen the border, such as erecting any kind of barrier. It’s easier to call off Border Security and ICE when they are in power, than it is to deal with a permanent barrier structure.

      It’s this kind of behavior, discussed in the article, that puts citizens and invited guests at great physical peril, that has driven me away from the Democratic Party like it was The Walking Dead. I used to be more sanguine, like you like peas and I like carrots. Who cares about party distinctions? But votes have consequences that can hurt us, like Obamacare and putting violent illegal alien felons on the street, while the politicians who do it have armed security. I wish the voters would realize they do not enjoy the security of their politicians, and will pay the consequences like the rest of us.

      Speaking of Obamacare, I called a new doctor to make an appointment for my husband. They would not even schedule him until he gave them his insurance group #, to ensure he did not have an individual Obamacare policy. So good doctors are still not taking Obamacare. Since I first starting griping about this effect years ago, I never have found a single doctor who accepts Obamacare. I had to give up being a full time Mom because of Obamacare, and paid many thousands more dollars while on it, which makes me have harsh opinions of uninformed voters who put me in that position.

    2. Karen, you have mentioned California’s water problem many times. It has existed for decades and very little has been done except to destroy portions of its environment. I often wonder why the government never did anything about it over these decades.

      I probably posted this before, but we have an example of an area in the world that severely lacks water yet one tiny country was able to correct the problem to such an extent that they now are an exporter of water.

      Israel Proves the Desalination Era Is Here
      One of the driest countries on Earth now makes more freshwater than it needs

      1. Allan – I agree with you completely. That is one of the reasons for my frustration with High Speed Rail. It has gone so far over budget that it may well exceed $100 billion once completed. This is for a vacation train to San Francisco. Water is required for life. It’s not even a question to me, what the priorities should be. We could have used that money to build more reservoirs. In addition, there are ways to grade and landscape areas to encourage shallow underground aquifers to recharge.

        Geologists have discovered that CA used to experience 100 year droughts with regularity in the past, even lasting up to 1,000 years. We are in no way prepared for that.

        In addition, population growth places an exponentially greater strain on states like CA with limited water resources.

        Thank you for the link on desalination. I’ve been interested in that technology.

        Saudi Arabia is unfortunately headed in the other direction. It is rapidly exhausting thousand-year aquifers, deep aquifers were water is just finally finishing penetrating to the aquifer when Romans ruled the world. They grew circular wheat fields and raised vast dairies on water resources they really didn’t have. A reckoning is building. God help them if they use up all their water, and fossil fuels get finally replaced with clean, renewable, low polluting, affordable energy. They are not planning for the future.

        1. “That is one of the reasons for my frustration with High-Speed Rail. It has gone so far over budget that it may well exceed $100 billion once completed.”

          Karen, I know one of the experts in the field who is personally consulted to discuss with governors and other state agencies on the feasibility of high-speed railroads. We were discussing one location (of mutual interest) which made absolutely no sense to this expert who said that most of the proposed locations wouldn’t work or be economically feasible. One needs very high density to make them work.

          1. One needs very high density to make them work.

            Oh, there’s high density alright, just in the head’s of those thinking this was a good idea.

          2. A High Speed Rail hydrologist had to explain to us how when they put the track through, they will drain any and all water resources they find. In a drought state. He also had to explain how they planned to put over 20 miles of track underground. In an earthquake state.

            When I expressed my concern for the workers put underground for over 20 miles to carve out a rail line near fault lines, he said he sure wouldn’t want to go down there.

            HSR is a political stunt, a very costly one.

            It doesn’t take any cars off of our congested roads. After all, how many people sitting on the freeway in Los Angeles County are on their way to San Francisco, during rush hour? Not that many. What a waste of resources.

            I agree with you that rail lines, and metros, work well in the cities proper. There’s the London Tube, for example. They do not work outside of cities, and underground tunnels have absolutely no business anywhere near seismic activity. It’s mad.

            1. We have to think ahead. Driverless cars are here. Car ownership will plummet and the need for street parking and parking lots will drastically decline. We have the Internet and can video conference everywhere. We are in a major transition time.

              1. Allan,

                I agree with the last two sentences of your comment but while I know that many believe from much current information on the upcoming widespread adoption of driverless cars, I on the other hand forsee that once there is a breakout of these cars there will come into play the reality of problems that will make these cars too difficult to fully integrate.

                There are two main problems, technical and human. For one despite some promising successes in the operation of these cars, the sampling of what has been experienced is very small. That is, the number of vehicles in operation is trivial compared to the whole of vehicles. Also what is promised as being successful are cars running under highly controlled environments either at low speed or on highways with lesser incursions into traffic. There are so many more variables that software cannot account for. The vehicles have not been tested adequately in inclement weather. But aside from these issues, with any software driven system there will be bugs. It is one thing for a software control of engine operation, but if a fault expresses itself we are not talking about just shutting down an engine, but a malfunction can send a four thousand pound vehicle travelling at sixty miles per hour is more of a threat. It will truly bring new meaning to the term “blue screen of death”. Moreover, there is the idea of interconnected vehicle travelling together to reduce drag and increase safety. But in this case there exists the risk of cascading failures that can cause multiple vehicles to fail unexpectedly. We saw this type of cascade happen many years ago with the implementation of computerized stock trading.

                Since the automated trading systems tended to have the same settings and decision making, when market conditions created a common condition to elicit change, there were several sell-offs resulting from the automation running away. In fact, the exchanges had to integrate automated suspensions of trading to prevent these runaways. With integrated systems that could happen with automated cars.

                There also remains the untested legal and legislative risk.

                The courts haven’t tested cases assigning liability for collions or injuries resulting from driverless cars. off the cuff, what would happen during a hit and run involving death? Hit and run, because the vehicle failed to register a collision or one where the vehicle without striking another caused a vehicle to collide with an object. Where does the liability result? There exists the possibility that the manufacturer of the vehicle can be held criminally liable. There does come the liability of intent. But if a state or court decides an intent element is not needed as an element for a hit and run or it accepts criminal negligence the manufacturer as a corporate entity could be held criminally liable. It would only take a few hundred incidents of this before the manufacturer might reconsider deploying any more of these cars.

                The legislative risk is that we see politicians completely overreact to a few high profile mishaps and drop the hammer on these vehicles in a knee jerk reaction. We see this all the time. If an all out ban is not reached the regulations might prove too costly.

                As for humans, from a technical standpoint while computers far exceed people in the ability to crunch numbersand complete mathematical formulae, they are only in their infancy as to how to adapt to human behavior or anticipate such behavior. Much of driving relies on anticipating what the other driver will do. Machines cannot yet fully anticipate such things. On the other side, anticipating computer decisions might often be counterintuitive from the perspective of of a human driver.

                Plus, there is what I believe to be a fatal flaw. People as a whole are greatly deficient in maintaining their vehicles. For some, changing the oil on a regular basis proves to be elusive. These systems and sensors are going to need to be maintained to the standards of the laboratory. This isn’t going to happen. The same was said about flying cars. They too will never happen on a wide scale. Think of this. For every vehicle you see broken down on the side of the highway will be the same number of flying cars that crash into people’s houses when they fall out of the sky form mechanical failure.

                For myself, I see the driverless car and the exuberance displayed by big moneyed ventures will fall just as the Dot Com crash of the early 2000s. It was a time when people believed that you could put anything on the internet and it would be a gold-mine. When the market crashed on all these pie in the sky ideas, the correction reset and many ideas relegated themselves to the traditional role they played before the internet. You could have a person book a home errand running service and licensed massage therapist on the internet (such as what did) and when that went bust, people just went back to the brick and motor therapist and decided they did not need the fetching service.

                1. Darren, I appreciate this complete assessment of driverless cars where all of your points are on target and very badly need to be addressed.

                  Let me make four specific points in response:

                  1) Stock market trading relies upon a different set of parameters. I believe the driverless car will have an opt-out that acts like a dead man switch. Further, I believe all cars will be communicating with one another directly or indirectly.

                  2) Legal problems. We face the same thing in air accidents. For some reason, the greater blame will be placed on the machine than on the man. I believe, however, accidents, injury and death will decline.

                  3) I believe that maintenance will not be a problem. Already my newest car informs me of maintenance issues automatically. Driverless cars mean they can get their maintenance while you sleep.

                  4) The technology is here and just needs to be refined for the purpose.

                  I believe driverless cars will lead to almost a complete end to personal driving. Why even own a car when it can come whenever you need it and it will not need to be parked? That ends huge costs and problems though I am sure some will still want to own their own cars.

                  Where will it be the most concentrated and take off the quickest? I think the big cities. NYC traffic is impossible. Going east-west might be slower than walking at times and it is not uncommon for people to get out of a cab early because the cab ride in specific areas takes a lot longer than walking.

                  Once the cars are driverless they don’t need to park which opens up more lanes on the streets. Why would people come into the city driving their own cars when parking is $20+ an hour? Already many of the young are not even getting drivers licenses. Do you think Uber will continue paying for drivers when they are not needed? From there I believe it will spiral outwards and in a very short time the driverless car will take over and many will be rented rather than owned.

                2. New technology should never be rolled out on a large scale during the beta test stage (See Beta players and Wind Turbines).

                  We have repeated hacks, viruses, and general computer issues. Computers get slow and need maintenance. They get buggy. They become obsolete every 2 years. They get bombarded with Black Hat viruses so often that anti-virus software is a booming business. Computer sabotage and espionage has been an arrow in the quiver of our international intelligence communities and military, as well as other nations.

                  Why in the world would every single human being put themselves and their kids into vehicles driven by a computer? I was just plagued by rainbow wheel incessantly last week.

                  Things can happen so very fast on the road. Safety measures run by software can be very helpful, such as warnings when you are baking up if an object or child is in the way, but I would never put complete control irrevocably to any vehicle. Cruise control just keeps a constant speed, and connection with the brake turns it off. Don’t make the cars autonomous. It’s just begging for a disaster, such as a terrorist attack or system failure.

                  Remember the Toyota accelerator suddenly engaging and all those accidents? Imagine if there was a system malfunction in a truly driverless car, and there was no brake pedal, no way to put it in neutral, and no steering wheel. You would just be along for a very short ride.

                  1. Oh, I just remembered another automated failure – the automatic safety belt. Those things would malfunction, and squeeze you unmercifully. I had that happen, where a friend’s auto safety shoulder belt moved around me as I entered the vehicle, got snug…and then kept getting tighter and tighter. I had to get the door back open to release it.

                  2. “but I would never put complete control irrevocably to any vehicle.”

                    That is what many people feel, so initially, the cars will have humans running them, but the brain behind the car will be a computer, not a human. When I had to fly a special charter across the Atlantic we were in a private jet that just held my wife and I. The pilot door was always open so I spoke to them. I couldn’t understand how both were reading during the flight. They told me the plane flew itself and that I wouldn’t want them flying it and that the plane’s computer did a much better job.

                    AS far as computers having to be updated, that can happen very inexpensively and quickly. Some of the equipment I used had updates perhaps up to once a month. A special chip would be mailed for the old one to be removed and the new one put in. The actual cost of the chip was negligible and time to change it was about 1 minute. This piece of equipment was used within the space shuttle.

                    In ten years time, I believe driverless cars will be common at least in certain locations.

    1. Autie T rumper wants to send da dreamers packin. Gettin bored with da fake progressive. Linda is da real progressive.

  3. If the state takes the position it does not have to follow federal law, then why can’t municipalities declare they don’t have to follow state or federal laws? Ultimately individuals could argue they don’t need to follow local, state or federal laws. If we only had some guidance on what entity is the supreme law of the land.

    By the way, we already have a pathway to citizenship. Ironically, the people supporting rights for those not born here (illegal immigrants), are the very same people supporting the right to prevent babies from being born here (abortion). Unless of course it’s a baby born here from parents in our country illegally (anchor babies).

    1. With respect to your first paragraph, Olly, your reductio ad absurdum is relevant and, therefore, perfectly valid. When you get a chance, could you explain the difference between a valid reductio ad absurdum versus a straw-man fallacy to your good friend Allan. I’d appreciate that even more than your first paragraph, if only you would.

      1. “When you get a chance, could you explain the difference between a valid reductio ad absurdum versus a straw-man fallacy to your good friend Allan. ”

        Diane, Olly doesn’t have to do that for your arguments provide good examples of both.

  4. On a related note, the DACA thing is sort of amusing, really. Obama asked Congress to pass it as a law and Congress, at the time controlled by Democrats in both houses, refused to do so. All of these California bleeding hearts yawned and went to the vineyards to sample wine. Outrage = zero.

    Obama passed DACA as an executive order, not only usurping Congress’ role as lawmaker, but actually directly going against the will of Congress, and California bleeding hearts all cheered lustily, ignoring the cautions that what was done by the executive order of one president could be undone by the executive order of another president. They weren’t worried because Democrats could never lose a presidential election.

    Trump then says he is cancelling the executive order but will sign a DACA bill if Congress passes one. Congress does not pass one, but no anger is directed at Congress for TWICE not passing a DACA bill, and enormous anger and accusations of racism are directed at Trump for cancelling an executive order that, being executive overreach, should never have been issued in the first place.

    No, I am by no means a Trump supporter, am a constant Democratic voter, but I continue to be astonished by the abysmal failure of political rationality in this country.

    1. No to DACA. NO to Amnesty. There have been 7 amnesties since President Reagan who promised us, promised, that there will be no more amnesties. Politicians lie. All of these people need to be deported. The 1965 Immigration Act was an act of soft genocide and treason. The purpose of government is to protect its citizens. In the 1965 Immigration Act, it overturned the 1925 Nationalities Act which sought to preserve the Northern European racial character of America. The 1965 Immigration Act is about turning America into the Tower of Babel. What this means, that if you are for DACA, that means you are for ethnic dilution of the WASPs, and turning them into a minority in their own country. The WASPs are being disenfranchised. Look at California, once a white state and Republican. Now Hispanic and looking more and more like Cuba and Venezuela. Do you really want that? The 1965 Immigration Act directly harmed the Common Good and therefor is NOT a just law. It is an act of genocide and it was purposely planned that way by the Jews who planned and orchestrated the 1965 Immigration Act. (q.v. MacDonald “Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy”, It was about de-Nazifying America which is about destroying its homogeneity.

      The acts of the 1965 Immigration Act are null and void. It also makes the American government illegitimate now. What government genocides its own ethnic majority? That is what DACA is. That is what Amnesty is—genocide by ethnic dilution. There is no “political rationality” because this amnesty is driven by a Marxist/International Socialist Agenda of rebuilding the Tower of Babel. Of mixing the races together which is the goal of Freemasonry and International Socialism. Our elite are Masons. Half of the FFofA were Masons.

      We are being genocided. And President Trump is the only person that stands up for us.

            1. Foxtrot, no matter how low I stoop I will never get lower enough to reach their level. Thanks.

            1. Diane asks “Are you a victim of genocide, Allan?”

              Personally no for I would be dead, but in the real sense, yes, many, and they would otherwise have been around for me to hug.

              Foxtrot, do you see what type of bat guano we are dealing with?

              1. How many living victims of genocide might there be, equivocal Allan?

                Shall we include their descendants as victims of genocide? If so, then how many?

                1. It seems, Diane, you are asking a bunch of ignorant questions. Genocide has occurred all throughout the world due to people like Stalin who you admire even though you might only adhere to his practices and not like the man.

                  If you want to revise your questions into answerable and quantifiable one’s then reframe the question in a more appropriate fashion. Better yet be more direct and ask the question you really wanted to be answered.

              2. Allan:

                Diane: “Are you a victim of genocide, Allan?”

                Allan: “Personally no for I would be dead ….”

                You win the internet today!

    2. Good post Bill!

      but I continue to be astonished by the abysmal failure of political rationality in this country.

      Once I got past being astonished and realized both parties are pulling on the same end of the rope, then I aligned myself with their opponent…the rule of law.

      1. Amazingly despite what many of the crazies have said Trump has handled his official duties remarkably close to what the rule of law intended.

        1. All you need to know how crazy people are, President Trump cannot exercise his executive authority without getting sued. And when he does unwind an unconstitutional executive order like DACA and put it back in the hands of the legislative branch where it belongs, he’s blamed for that as well. That’s all you need to know that these folks don’t give a damn about the rule of law or separation of powers.

          1. As usual, Olly, you are on target. Rule of Law and the Constitution are what should prevail, but as we now have been clearly shown there was an attempt by a prior administration to void the Constitution, the Rule of Law and a duly elected President. The Attorney General’s office, FBI, and IRS are three of the major government agencies where there is proof of abuse of power. Congress has demonstrated disdain for the Constitution and judges on the lower benches are using their power to enter the political process without concern for the separation of power. If these abuses are not stopped now we are in great danger of losing our freedom in the coming years.

            1. Thanks Allan. The problem with the Rule of Law and Separation of Powers it is boring. It doesn’t lend itself to self-aggrandizement. How does a candidate become electable to a constituency that is enamored with self and not such mundane things like equal justice under the law, tripartite government and federalism? In a world where people expect things to be done yesterday, government is slow. Never mind it’s supposed to be slow, or at least deliberative; that doesn’t sell very well when the next election is right around the corner.

    3. Bill H, do you remember Chuck Schumer as a Congressman? If I remember correctly he supported the wall and wanted to end what today is known as chain migration. You might be a constant Democrat, but it seems that the floor under the Democratic Party has shifted in a direction intended to change America in the wrong direction.

  5. Prof. Turley don’t you think that race plays here? I mean really— Xavier Becerra—is not Xavier Becerra taking care of his own? The 19th century British (Marano) legislator, Benjamin Disraeli, noticed that “race is in everything”. Is not the point of Xavier Becerra to protect his own? What does Xavier Becerra have to do with WASP America? Except its destruction and taking California for Mexico?

    I mean really where is the consistency? California fought Arizona and then does the opposite—all their moves showing their favoritism towards Hispanics! Come on, Prof Turley—are you that blind? Can’t mention the elephant in the room—when the Elephant is 80 million Central Americans? That is one large Elephant one must grease right, Prof. Turley?

    1. Darn straight! Leftist/Democratic Hispanics have stolen a racist page from Leftist/Democratic Blacks and now argue that white people laws don’t apply to them.

      Everybody from Ireland, for example, or Eastern Europe, must obey Immigration Laws, but not Hispanics! They are sooo special! Isn’t that the very epitome of “racial superiority???”

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  6. California needs to secede from the Union. America needs to exclude them and build a Wall on the Eastern Borders of California. All Californians are the same so they all need to be fenced out from the rest of America. STATES’ RIGHTS!

    1. Very good idea! Let’s secede as soon as possible! Then we will not need to send any more our taxes to the federal government! We can use them in California for Californians! Extraordinary idea! I am all for it!

  7. What do you do when your governor and AG decide to run your state right into the rocks? Why you leave, of course. Sayonara, third world California. Have the last American turn out the lights.

    1. They do indeed leave, and they bring their BS with them. In all earnestness, wealthy Californians are colonialists in every sense of the word. I actually wish they’d just stay put, as we don’t want them or their nonsense.They will be done if tech starts leaving, and if they get their ludicrous tax proposal passed, it just might.

  8. Yet another ridiculous law that will compel businesses to leave CA. Risking the economic bottom line so that illegal immigrants don’t have to sweat. Makes perfect sense if you’re a neoMarxist loon. Where do CA elected officials get their law degrees? Online?

    1. It’s largely symbolic. DHS/ICE can still do worksite raids in CA…they just have to come with a warrant in hand. Watch for action in Feb. By March, we might even see CA public officials indicted for Sec. 8 of the INA for harboring illegal immigrants (interfering with fed officers to prevent their detection).

      Dems are all talk, all theatrics based on symbolism.

      1. pbinca, I agree, the Dem party is a bunch of virtue signallers. But this part of the law is particularly disconcerting: “…prohibiting employers from re-verifying information on employment verification forms, unless compelled to by federal law.” So what if Joe Sixpack gets a tip that he’s hired an illegal. I read the statute as stating that Joe cannot, using his own $ and of his own volition, attempt to try to verify his employee’s immigration status. I don’t see how that could possibly hold up in court. Am I misreading the law? Of course, this isn’t going to affect large corporations who use highly-skilled workers, but there are many small businesses in CA who may be affected.

  9. I’m never one to give unbridled support to “states rights.” I will say that the views of many on the right are quite flexible as to whether states actually have them or not on issues like legalized marijuana or immigration. The philosophy seems to be that states have rights unless the Fed doesn’t like the ones they stand up for?

    1. “States Rights” is a contrived term, usually spelled out by Klansmen like this: STATES’ RIGHtS!. However,the term “rights” is not correct. States have “powers”. The federal entity has “powers”. Individual people have “rights”. Illegal immigrants have less rights than legal citizens. The federal government has powers which prevail over powers of states.
      California has a history of federal power being imposed on non citizens and even citizens born in the United States. After Pearl Harbor was bombed the federal government rounded up Japanese non citizens who were here legally, or illegally and also American citizens of Japanese blood. The “Japs”, as they were called , were locked up in concentration camps in California.
      The Supreme Court approved all of this in the Korematsu decision. That case is not discussed by Turley or blog commentors. Hugo Black wrote that opinion.

      State officials who stand in the way of the federal officials in rounding up ISIS members should be rounded up by the feds and locked up in a concentration camp in Arizona.

    2. ” I will say that the views of many on the right are quite flexible as to whether states actually have them or not on issues like” …. “immigration.”

      The Constitution provides a written right to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization. Though the word immigration is not mentioned in the Constitution the federal government has an explicit right to control its borders. Therefore anyone entering the US without permission is illegal.

      Sometimes poor policy or poorly written policy creates problems. Milton Friedman explained one of the major underlying problems that existed then and now: ” “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state”.

  10. California is shot in the you where. How can anyone other then illegals survive there?

    1. According the World Population Review, there are 39.78 million people in California and “[i]t’s also been estimated that up to approxmiately 6.3% of California’s population is made up of illegal aliens.”

      Admittedly, WPR did not say whether the estimated illegal alien population was included in figure cited for the total population. Nevertheless, your rhetorical question suggests that at least 37 million current residents of California can no longer survive there, supposedly because only the 2.5 million illegal aliens can survive there. Thus, your rhetorical question is what the logicians call a contrafactual argument. Chances are that most logicians would also call it a xenophobic argument, as well.

      1. It’s more than 6.3 %, a lot more. Spend a few years there, you’ll see. Statistics from CA are notoriously and sometimes intentionally skewed. It’s yet another reason I will defend the elector college with my dying breath.

        1. Interesting to be willing to defend it to your death and not even be able to name the Electoral College properly or know that its name should be capitalized.

        2. Well, we have a new player. His name is James. Oh boy. Oh boy. Welcome James.

          James thinks he can determine the illegal alien population of California just by spending a few years there, visiting over forty cities and making simple naked-eye observations of the local populace. And since The World Population Review says otherwise, therefore James says WPR is notoriously [but only sometimes] intentionally skewed.

          I doubt that James knows which sense of the term “skew” he intended in the context of statistics that he dismisses out of hand because they don’t comport with his naked-eye observations of the local populace.

        3. Welcome James. Statistics from CA are notoriously and sometimes intentionally skewed. I believe L4D doesn’t trust your opinion. She would prefer to trust data coming out from a state that believes it is the supreme law of the land. Yeah, that’s reasonable. And of course Bill H. went the spell check route to discredit your comment; completely ignoring the fact he clearly understood what your wrote.


          1. Chief, I have every reason to suspect that James does not recognize the distinction between illegal aliens versus Hispanics; since James claims that all we have to do to confirm his suspicion is to spend a few years there, visit over forty cities and eyeball the local populace. No wonder the cited statistic looks skewed to James. James, himself, is skewed.

            1. You gleaned all that from one post? He never mentioned Hispanics yet you inferred that’s what he meant. That’s called bias. I suspect James is biased toward federal law on immigration,using reason, you apparently are biased towards the state, using emotion. Having lived in CA now for 39 years, it is reasonable to conclude a state choosing to spend billions on a high-speed rail project (to nowhere), but spending next to nothing for water storage, does not have our best interests at heart.

              1. Olly, there are several posts from James on this thread. The longer one downstream from here may be of interest to you with respect to my “biased gleanings.”

        4. Welcome, James. Late4Dinner formerly known as Diane has a lot of problems with numbers and covers up her inadequacies with a lot of meaningless verbiages. Sometimes she uses uncommon words to make one think that there is substance behind her remarks. If there were substance she probably would still refer to herself as Diane and wouldn’t have needed to change her name. She confuses fact with opinion and with contrived numbers to prove her points. She hates raw numbers because she doesn’t know how to use them and they are harder for her to play around with. She infers a lot of garbage as Olly mentions. YNOT will stick to Diane as YNOT doesn’t appear to have its own mind. If you want to meet Ken personally find a barnyard.

          1. L4D provided two links to back-up the numbers she cited. James provided zero sources to back up his anecdotal evidence. There is exactly one way that James’ anecdotal evidence could be correct: If all of the Hispanics whom James has seen in his travels in California were illegal aliens in James’ eyes. But that is the same as saying that the only way that James could be correct is if James were incorrect–which he is, of course. Ergo James’ anecdotal evidence is contrafactual.

            1. Diane, you could never manage numbers and you still can’t. All you are good at is being presumptuous and placing big words next to one another whether or not the sentences have any truthful meaning.

      2. Another California bashin day on da Turley’s. Give me a home in San Francisco where I can eat all da burritos and Szechuan food I want.

        1. Be careful Ken. Folks have been known to lose their dialects eating Szechuan food. You’re safer with burritos–extra sour cream & cerveza fria.

          1. Diane – you really need to eat the Sonoran or New Mexican burritos. Baja burritos are pretty flat. 😉

  11. If I decide to stop paying taxes to the anti-American enterprise that is the California State Government, do you think the Feds will back me up? Would I have any kind of legal argument if I choose not to support an a government that defies federal law?

    1. Emanuelle Goldstein – be sure to pay your federal taxes, they have NO sense of humor. You might get support (like a rent strike) against CA. That could be interesting. All CA businesses put their CA taxes in escrow until this is settled. The train to nowhere is not going anywhere anyway. Plus, we need a Resistance movement in CA to help business owners who want to obey the federal law.

  12. The State of California is correct. Illegal immigrants take priority over ordinary Americans. Americans have lived long enough in America. It’s time to give the illegal immigrants their right to do as they wish in America.

    1. Don’t worry about a thing, DB. All you need to know is that California is doing something pro-Leftist and pro-illegal immigrant (of course, being Leftist), so that’s a good thing! Maybe not so good for legal Americans. But who cares about them? Like you, I’m tired of legal Americans whining about American rights and all that crap.

  13. Don’t even wish that it’s the sworn duty of the military to do exactly that in defense of the Constitution and they DO NOT like the left better for the moment to follow their advice on Ballots Not Bullets and leave the rough stuff to the active duty professionals who have the legal right and responsibility.

  14. That kicks Jerry Brown, the Hawaii rogue judge and the 9th circuit dead in the buttocks. It’s a classic example of anything said or done to advance TheParty is the truth … for the moment. and you thought we were kidding about the similarities between DNC , Socialist Progressives and Marxist Leninism. the arrogant left continues to shoot off it’s feet along with it’s mouth one toe and one tooth at a time.

    Law of conflicing positions. Can’t have it both ways.

  15. This CA law is a violation of the Supreme Court ruling that declared that Federal Law always trumps State Law.

    It would have been a nice band aid, if at least the CA AG gave every single employer a 24/7 active telephone number, whereby CA employers had access to a CA AG defense attorney to handle every single interaction between the employer and any Federal law enforcement person. If that was the case, at least the employer would have the protection of the State’s attorney to defend them against the Feds.

    I am the last one in the world to ever rule in favor of law enforcement, but if you gotta pick your poison between the State of CA and the Feds on the subject of immigration, I’d pick the Fed every time, at least as of today.

    1. Should have included this above, sorry: How the hell can the CA AG make illegal a conversation with anyone, including a Federal LEO? And ditto, how can he prosecute the employer for allowing any lawful person from accessing the employer’s own property? Total insanity, par for the course in that insane asylum AKA Kahleefohnia.

      Progressive opinion is that the more immigrants, the wealthier is the area of immigration. 20% of CA’s population now lives below the poverty line. Boy, it’s working great there! They’ll be up to 50% poverty rate in no time! Well done, Moonbeam!

      1. Becerra is a lifelong politician, following a brief </= 2-year stint providing legal aid for the mentally ill. He was a Congressman from 1993-2017, and his law license lapsed. Like most chronic Congressmen, he forgot how the law actually works. His AG appointment from Moonbeam was a surprise to everyone, but it was obviously intended to provide the power and visibility Becerra needs to further his political aspirations, which, I would imagine include Gov. of CA and then POTUS. He will need this voting bloc and their enablers in the near future.

      2. “How the hell can the CA AG make illegal a conversation with anyone, including a Federal LEO? ”

        Simple. The government has the power to intimidate and sue where the individual or corporation has little recourse except to fight at their own cost. The government can spend the taxpayer’s money forever keeping a case open and even if they know they have lost the case they can force the individual or the corporation into a settlement where the individual or corporation pays what amounts to be a fine even though nothing wrong was done.

    2. That is correct. It is why the Obama administration resorted to executive order. This was stupid, of course, as executive order isn’t law, either. It’s funny to me – Common Core, which was legit (unlike the DACA) has officially crapped out and is being phased out. I don’t see anyone protesting about it. Ditto any of the other bad ideas that were codified over the past ten years. I am still convinced this is largely driven by badly parented millennials acting their age, and elders happy to exploit them. Definitely saw that in CA (and I visited 40 different cities over a period of years) – kids barely old enough to buy beer who would have at best made decent interns often held high level positions due to corruption and simple stupidity.

    1. Richard III fits you well, George. You might want to double-check the epilogue on that play, though.

    2. President Trump must now send the military into California and prosecute all of the seditionist officials.

      California and liberals throughout the country have made a mockery of taxation by weaponizing it; making it punitive, confiscatory and political.

      California and liberals throughout the country are and have been in blatant violation of the constitutional limitations on taxation to “general Welfare”.

      California and liberals throughout the country have usurped the power of the federal government to establish the criteria and parameters of immigration.

      California and liberals throughout the country have violated the Constitution and abrogated the right to private property through so-called affirmative action, fair-housing and non-discrimination laws.

      California and liberals throughout the country have aided and abetted known criminals.

      Individual welfare, in any and all forms, is omitted and, thereby, excluded from and precluded by the Constitution. Congress and state legislatures merely have the power to tax for “general Welfare”, distinctly not individual welfare. Congress has only the power to tax for the benefit of all not one (roads, water, utilities, currency, post office, sewers, etc.). Congress has only the power to tax to facilitate the freedom of all, not impose central planning, redistribution and social engineering for the benefit of favored individuals and special interest groups. Americans in every state benefit from the national, constitutional limitations on taxation.

      Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

      “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…”

Comments are closed.