Skip to comments.'Home Depot' clause would bar cities from requiring labor sites
Posted on 06/28/2007 6:00:10 AM PDT by P-40
WASHINGTON -- Home Depot is turning to Congress for help.
The home improvement company is tired of local governments forcing it to accommodate day laborers who turn up in its store parking lots seeking construction work.
The Senate has attached an amendment to a proposed immigration bill that would prohibit city councils from requiring home improvement stores to pay for shelters and services needed to maintain day labor sites.
The amendment is sponsored by Republican Senator Johnny Isakson. He says forcing companies to provide those services in order to receive permits is "extortion."
But local officials say home improvement companies have a responsibility to provide for the labor markets they attract. They also argue it's none of the federal government's business.
Another reason why not to shop Home Depot.
Wait, misread that one. Home Depot is right in this case! Imagine that.
You do read right?
Why would you boycott Home Depot, when Home Depot is saying that it should not be forced to provide facilities for (presumably) illegal daylaborers?
What Lowe’s doesn’t have this same problem?
Locals are right about one thing. It’s none of the feds business.
Gee, don’t local officials have a responsibility to enforce laws against loitering. I’d be willing to bet that the locale has them. Or did they take those off the books?
Pretty soon, the feds will be telling local governments what color to paint their buildings.
This does seem to be a local-law issue.
They already do: It’s called the Kennedy compound.
Does this mean that anyone who hangs out at a business should be fed and sheltered by that business?
Based on the information presented, I'd have to side with Home Depot.
OK, but who’s going to stop localities from trampling all over private property rights?
Fascinating; local government demanding a tax-paying law-abiding business accommodate illegal activity on private property.
Sorry, I posted as you did. Glad you saw that too.
That’s a different issue
Home Depot should not be forced to provide these accomodations.
However, the Federal government has no Constitutional power to tell the cities that they can’t enact such laws.
Home Depot can move out of the jurisdiction of these petty local tyrants.
>> I guess that means Congress should provide shelters for the hookers the congressmen attract?
It’s good to start the morning off with a belly-laugh... thanks!
Local governments are wrong to do this, but that doesn’t mean it’s a Federal issue.
Our local Walmarts have tried to cajole city governments into changing zoning laws, etc. in order to get their stores located where they wanted them.
Let them deal with the local officials in the same way. If they don’t like the municipality’s laws, take it to the public who elect the municipality’s leaders.
I assume this was shot down yesterday with the other amendments. Of course, if you have not plan to support the bill, as both Chambliss and Isakson assured all of us angry constituents, why do you work to add amendments? Hmmmm.
But it is still extortion by the locals.
Actually it is the Feds business. They should be there busting illegals and shipping them back home.
These labor sites are mostly ilegals hanging around looking for jobs. Send the illegals home and the problem is solved.
“Gee, dont local officials have a responsibility to enforce laws against loitering. Id be willing to bet that the locale has them. Or did they take those off the books?”
“The People’s Republik of Madistan” didn’t enforce theirs until things got really bad, i.e. open-air drug deals, Gang Bangers shootin’ up the streets at bar time, rowdy fistfights with chains and broken bottles after Hip-Hop concerts, etc.
They said those loitering laws discriminate against the “upstanding citizens” that are just out having fun! Yeesh!
(Hint: It wasn’t a bunch of Amish Youths coming in from the farm causing the problems. I’ve never SEEN a city so afraid of offending thugs in my life!)
This actually is a legitimate interstate commerce issue though. Local governments should not be able to target certain retailers to coerce them into supporting illegal activity.
I’ll take Home Depots side on this one. They are a supplier of materials, not a labor provider. If the Local Communities want to stop the Illegal Day Laborers from congregating, they need start penalizing those that hire them. Stop the hiring, stop the congregating. It’s a terrible thing for our local doughnut shops I realize, but something of this nature has to be done interim until we can get the Federal Government to honor the contract with America and enforce existing Border laws. It’s one of the primary responsibilities of the Executive Branch of our Government.
It also legitimately falls under interstate commerce.
It WOULD be a local-law issue if the illegals using the sites werent violation federal law.
Worked for Wally in a similar situation where a municipal government was running amok.
Not only that, but if a customer is ever harmed by one of these laborers, I’ll bet the city won’t pay the damages and legal fees Home Depot would incur from a lawsuit...
What I would throw up a couple of 4x4 posts and put some tin corrugated roofing up on top. Then when the illegals congregate, pick up the phone and call ICE. I wonder how quickly word would get around that Home Depot isn’t safe anymore for illegals..
Illegals are their business, and granted, day laborers are mostly illegals, but it's still none of the feds bizness if a local gubmint hassles a business about a day labor shelter.
“Locals are right about one thing. Its none of the feds business.”
The locals are forcing companies to provide facilities for people trespassing on their property.
The fed should be arresting those day laborers that are illegals.
Huh? Home Depot want to END laws that force them to accomodate illegal aliens.
Oh well. Pretty typical. I just got off the phone w/ a guy had to spend $300 on an electrician/permits to move his lit exit sign 3 feet, cuz some local authority told him to.
True. Especially since the locals are making sure they're conveniently located in one place.
They should charge the Day Laborers... Watch them disappear quickly.
Why doesn’t Home Depot have them removed for trespassing? Parking lots for businesses are usually private property. And I’d say loitering alone should get them removed. Laws for some, but not for others?
These laws are only enforced for citizen people hanging around their friends that don't fit an ideal mold.
By today's hopelessly liberal reading of "interstate commerce", pretty much anything is justified. But in this case, if you want to pretend that you respect the intent of the Constitution, no way this is a fed matter. Even though we all can assume most day laborers are illegal, you can't automatically equate one with the other. I could be a day laborer if I wanted. Someone with legal status could be a day laborer. So no, forcing Home Depot to accommodate day laborers is not the same as forcing them to accommodate illegals, even if the net result is the same. In fact, the locals could rightly BLAME the feds for the fact that so many day laborers are illegal. The locals just want to corral them into one place, and being local gubmint, they were able to force the business to do it. The feds job is to enforce immigration law, not local zoning law.
I have also noticed anytime there is a group of people holding anti-illegal signs and waving the U.S. flag, then the area is suddenly clear.
“Locals are right about one thing. Its none of the feds business.”
The Feds should cut off ALL federal funds to any city/county that provides/requires anything but a call to the Border Patrol to come and haul them awsy.
Deport the workers and their families will follow.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.