Sign-up, invite your team with the convenient Network Dashboard, and download the app to get your own secure and private Wickr network in minutes.
Take control of your most critical communications and data exchanges. No problem, Wickr has cross-network communications with other Wickr Pro and Wickr Me users. Our Wickr enterprise solution delivers compliance controls right out of the box and seamlessly integrates into your organizations IT workflows – Single Sign On (SSO), Mobile Device Management (MDM), integrations with our Wickr API and Wickr BOT – and for Compliance, into your organization’s secure logging systems for analysts.
The California statute simply directs state law enforcement to inspect these detention facilities for violations of law.
The federal government objects to such inspections, asserting: (1) that state law singles out these immigration detention facilities for inspection, and does not provide for similar inspection of facilities that are not related to immigration enforcement; and (2) California “has no lawful interest in investigating federal law enforcement efforts.” I think the federal government’s instinct here is wrong, or at least overstated, on both counts.
Smart teams and enterprises choose Wickr, the most secure, private, and compliance-ready collaboration platform trusted to protect your most critical communications.
With enterprise-ready features such as LDAP, SSO, network dashboard user provisioning, ensuring data compliance is made easy.
As I explain in more detail below as I parse the complaint in the lawsuit, I very much hope that as these matters begin receiving attention in the judicial forum, they will be analyzed with much more precision and doctrinal care, such that some of the bluster on both sides will ultimately fall away.
The complaint, filed in federal court in Sacramento in the Eastern District of California about eight weeks ago, asserts claims by the federal government against the State of California for three distinct state legislative enactments that fall under the “sanctuary” rubric: (1) California’s “Immigrant Worker Protection Act” (IWPA); (2) California Assembly Bill (AB) 103, relating to investigation powers of the California Attorney General with respect to certain immigration detention facilities; and (3) California Senate Bill (SB) 54, which limits state and local enforcement discretion to provide the federal government information relating to persons released from state detention who may be of interest to federal immigration authorities.
Assuming (and I think this is a pretty easy assumption) that enforcement of federal immigration laws is something as to which the president has lawful authority from Congress and/or the Constitution to undertake (regardless of how politically controversial particular immigration policies are), then state laws like the IWPA that stand (and are intended to operate) as non-trivial obstacles to the accomplishment and execution of the full purpose of enforcing federal law will likely be rejected by the Supreme Court. detention facilities in which noncitizens are being housed or detained,” pursuant to contracts between the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and public and private entities.
AB 103, the second target of the federal lawsuit, requires the California Attorney General or his surrogate “to engage in reviews of county, local or private . It seems that DHS, through the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, contracts with private entities as well as with state and local governments to house noncitizen detainees on behalf of the feds, until these detainees can be processed in federal immigration tribunals.
Get insights into the past and present so you can make more informed decisions about the future with our customer analytics.
Leverage easy, actionable insights to create bots that answer the right questions at the right time.
Investigating federal officials to see whether they are violating federal constitutional norms is something in which states do indeed have “a lawful interest.” (Note that in my discussion of the IWPA above, it was crucial to my prediction that the feds should win that the feds were within their constitutional power in enforcing the immigration laws in the workplace.)None of this is to say AB 103 is necessarily valid.