Deport the workers and their families will follow.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
Posted on 06/28/2007 6:00:10 AM PDT by P-40
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. It’s 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!
catch-22: government (doesn’t matter which level) requires private business to accomodate illegal activity “or else”. next same government goes after said business for becomming a magnet for illegal activity.
The 2nd amendment.
See that No Soliciting sign? If Home Depot is required to be an Employment Agency then they should get a cut from the Contractors. In fact, I would ahem “shake them down” perhaps an Employment Procurement Charge added to the order or account for those Contractors who hire the Day Laborers on Home Depot property?
Baloney. It's not their job to enforce immigration laws, for one thing. It's the feds job. Second, day laborers may be mostly illegal, but it's not a given. They just want to corral them up so they don't muck up the surrounding area. They are dealing with the feds mess, not the other way around. The shelter at the Home Depot is none of the feds business.
Not withstanding the potential for new business, the local governments are way out of line to require accommodations.
Go to hell!
Loitering on private property? If the home depot doesn’t complain, it’s not their business, is it? They could pass an ordinance, I suppose. But instead they just said put em in a pen.
LOL. Sen. Voinavich? Is that you?
It does. The prostitutes are housed in the Hart, Dirksen and Russell office buildings.
Would like to know WHERE this is happening so we can write our commissioners.
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.