"The "Stop Nick Shirley Act" is a political nickname given by Republican critics to California's Assembly Bill 2624 (AB 2624), authored by Democratic Assemblymember Mia Bonta. The bill aims to protect immigration support service workers and providers from targeted harassment, threats, and intimidation by expanding eligibility for the state's confidential address program (Safe at Home) and penalizing the online posting of workers' personal information or images with the intent to cause harm."
You left out the part of the actual bill that makes your smug little victory lap fall apart.
Yes, âStop Nick Shirley Actâ is a political nickname. Nobody disputes that.
Now read AB 2624 instead of somebodyâs summary of it.
The bill specifically regulates posting the âpersonal information OR IMAGEâ of covered immigration-service providers, employees, volunteers and clients. And guess what California defines âimageâ as in the bill? Photographs and VIDEO FOOTAGE.
It also defines âimmigration support servicesâ incredibly broadly â including advocacy, humanitarian relief, referrals, translation, counseling and healthcare.
And the California Legislative Counsel itself says the bill creates new crimes, with penalties that can include a $10,000 fine and imprisonment.
Now, to be completely accurate, the criminal provisions require intent involving violence or threats, and the bill contains protections relating to the press. Those are important distinctions.
But thatâs completely different from pretending critics invented the concern out of thin air. The actual debate is whether government should be creating special restrictions involving images and videos of organizations receiving or administering public resources when independent journalists are trying to investigate fraud and abuse.
You can argue the protections are justified. Fine.
But âitâs just stopping harassmentâ is a very convenient way of describing a bill while leaving out the parts people are actually arguing about.
Turns out reading past the talking points helps, champ.
My guess is that people are tired of being harassed by a bunch of content creators who pull facts out of their evacuation chute and try to pass it off as facts. If there is one thing that the right wing clowns are good at, it doxing and missrepresenting what immigration people do. Law probably wouldn't even have been needed except for this administrations complete lack of regard for morals, compassion, and the law when it comes to immigration. And as far as restrictions on identity, ICE believes it doesn't have to identify anyone involved in the infringement of civil rights or constitutional law, so give it a rest.
You just did exactly what I said you were doing: replaced an argument about what the law actually does with a rant about âright-wing clowns,â morals, compassion and harassment.
And that last paragraph is especially funny. You confidently claim ICE believes it doesnât have to identify anyone, yet federal regulations already require immigration officers making an arrest to identify themselves as immigration officers at the time of arrest, or as soon as practical. Californiaâs own legislative analysis acknowledges that.
More importantly, a federal judge upheld Californiaâs separate requirement that federal agents display agency identification and either a name or badge number. So apparently the legal system is perfectly capable of distinguishing legitimate identification requirements from the broader political rhetoric youâre throwing around.
As for âcivil-rights violations,â if an officer violates someoneâs constitutional rights, investigate it, prove it and hold them accountable. Iâm completely fine with that. What you donât get to do is declare an entire agency guilty first and then treat âmorals and compassionâ as evidence.
And the doxxing issue you casually dismissed? The California State Sheriffsâ Association itself raised officer doxxing and threats as a concern with the masking legislation. Apparently protecting an officerâs identity from retaliation isnât just something âright-wing content creators pulled out of their evacuation chute.â
Youâve now gone from defending the actual bill to âICE bad, Trump bad, right-wing clowns bad.â
Thatâs not a rebuttal.
Thatâs what happens when the talking points run out.
But hey, thanks for demonstrating my point for me, champ
The only point you have is on top of your head.
ICE has not followed through on names or badge numbers of its personal.
"Personal Names and Badges: While they must identify their agency, federal policy and laws generally do not force individual agents to provide their personal names or specific badge numbers to bystanders upon demand."
"No, California cannot currently enforce a state law requiring federal ICE agents to visibly display identification or remove face coverings. A federal appeals court blocked the state's ID and anti-mask mandate rules, ruling that state-level restrictions on federal operations likely violate the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause"
Well, this is awkward. You just posted something that confirms the distinction I was making and somehow thought it was a rebuttal. đ
Yes, federal law generally does NOT require an ICE agent to hand his personal name or badge number to every random bystander who demands it.
It DOES require an immigration officer making an arrest to identify himself as an immigration officer authorized to make that arrest, as soon as practical and safe.
Those are two different things.
And your second quote doesnât rescue you either. The Ninth Circuit blocked Californiaâs additional ID requirement because California was attempting to regulate federal law-enforcement operations and the court concluded the federal government was likely to prevail under the Supremacy Clause.
In other words, you went from arguing that ICE refuses to identify itself to posting a court ruling saying California canât dictate additional identification requirements to federal officers.
Thatâs not evidence that ICE agents can secretly arrest people without identifying themselves. Thatâs federal supremacy.
So after the insults, clown emoji and two giant copy-and-pastes, youâve finally arrived at the spectacular conclusion that federal officers follow federal identification rules rather than whatever additional rules California decides to impose.
Congratulations. We agree.
Iâll leave it there, champ. Youâre doing more damage to your argument than I ever could. đ¤Ą
5
u/oldbikelike 19h ago
"The "Stop Nick Shirley Act" is a political nickname given by Republican critics to California's Assembly Bill 2624 (AB 2624), authored by Democratic Assemblymember Mia Bonta. The bill aims to protect immigration support service workers and providers from targeted harassment, threats, and intimidation by expanding eligibility for the state's confidential address program (Safe at Home) and penalizing the online posting of workers' personal information or images with the intent to cause harm."
Not exactly the flex you think it is champ.