Pretty much just by being in business. It’s arguably beneficial to HD that people who are so inclined can get materials and grunt labor in one convenient place - symbiotic, as it were. And it’s certainly predictable that the day laborers will start hanging around any new big-box store, so I see nothing wrong in insisting that the stores take whatever measures are needed to keep that nuisance under control. We expect shopping malls to hire security personnel, no?
If Home Depot had been a bit proactive in keeping day laborers away (i.e, calling the police to report loiterers or whatever the legal term is), they could’ve avoided this legislation. As it stands now, HD adds the cost of running the day laborer shelters to their prices, and in the end, their customers (who, after all, are the reason that day laborers hang out in the first place) get to subsidize the entire setup.
Fine. If Home Depot wants workers to hang out on its property waiting for day work, then it can choose to put out amenities to attract them. My point is that they shouldn’t be required to do so.
There will always be the guys who skirt laws to keep their prices down. Those who are foolish and/or cheap enough to ignore illegal practices will hire them, and they deserve what they get.
My bitch is that a retailer (and therefore, all of its customers) shouldn’t have to support something of this nature. If NDLON negotiated to lease a small area of parking lot and put up the facility, provided amenities and maintained them, then they’d be supporting their own goals, but instead, they put up nada, and every customer gets to chip in.
Although they don’t have a monopoly on it, sufficient batshit craziness has come out of California in the form of laws to justify the generalization.
But they are not encouraging illegal activity by hiring security guards. Home Depot is. If I was in charge of the INS I’d go after HD, the same way they go after businesses that hire illegals. This can easily be construed as a payment of kind.
I think they’re nuts for doing this for another reason, as well. If some work is botched or some item goes missing, the homeowner might go to HD for recompense. If a homeowner goes back to find a day laborer and can’t find them, they might seek help for HD itself. If I were on a jury in such a case I don’t know who I’d think more deserving of feeling the pain. The homeowner, for hiring the illegal or HD for encouraging the illegal trade.
The should simply refuse to do it. Little Nemo makes a good point. They shouldn’t be forced to do this. And if they do it on their own, which they have a right to do, let them suffer any and all consequences for promoting illegal activity. The next time I’m near a HD I will make a point of stopping in and letting the manager know what I think. Come to think of it, I think I have some HD stock in my portfolio, I’m going to sell it and write a nice letter to the board of directors beforehand as to why.
Fair enough. What needs to be done then is for this activity to cause them some pain. If
i were a contractor, carpenter, etc., I would refuse to shop at HD and encourage my fellow tradesmen to do the same.
… so… Danceswithcats and Magellan01 are OK with this as long as the day laborers are legal, but if the are illegals it’s bad…right? or am I to assume they think all day laborers are illegals?
Chase trespassing and loitering day laborers off of their property.
Allow day laborers to hang out on their property as a convenience to their customers, and provide the necessary amenities (toilets, chairs, water) for them to do so without trashing the neighborhood.
Allow day laborers to hang out on their property as a convenience to their customers, but blow off the associated costs as an externality to be borne by the neighborhood.
The law removes (3) as a possibility, which seems reasonable to me. The immigration status of the laborers is irrelevant.
Given the crash in housing construction, probably not the case anywhere. HD is a place for legal workers to go to try to get jobs when nothing else has come up.
BTW, the HD nearest to me (which moved into the site of a defunct K-Mart) is right in a residential area.
What would you charge Home Depot with? Allowing people to congregate on its own private property? Your assertion that HD is effectively paying these people “in kind” is ludicrous.
To my knowledge, Home Depot is not responsible for checking the immigration status of every individual who steps onto their property. If we follow your argument through, then Home Depot (and every other retailer, for that matter) should begin to require a US passport or a green card or a valid visitor’s visa as a condition of entry to the parking lot.
As for the INS going after Home Depot “the same way they go after businesses that hire illegals,” the fact is that the INS (now DHS) has traditionally done jack shit about businesses who hire illegals. Their standard practice is to drop in, sweep up all the illegals and ship them home, then give the business a mild slap on the wrist and move on. The business, of course, waits for the INS to leave, then turns around and hires another bunch of illegals.
If the government were as zealous about prosecuting businesses that hire illegals as it is about catching illegals, i’d have more sympathy for American immigration policies. As it is, however, they talk a tough game, while ensuring that the only people punished are the illegals themselves. They’ve gotten a little bit better over the past few years, prosecuting some business owners, but the enforcement of American immigration policies has generally been targetted almost exclusively at the supply side (fences; border patrols; roundups), and not at the demand side (the Americans who actually hire the illegals). This is rank hypocrisy, in my opinion, and is also a method of enforcement that ensures the problem will not go away.
I don’t see why Home Depot should be held responsible because somebody on its property broke a law a hundred miles away sometimes last year. These people don’t work for Home Depot so how are they Home Depot’s responsibility?
In my opinion, the solution to illegal immigration is to legalize it. I don’t see why there should be a law against people coming to this country to work. That’s how my family got here.
Then why doesn’t the city build the shelters if they’re so worried about these knuckleheads? Putting it up the kiester of the buisness to put up what are essentially squatters huts puts HD or any other corporation at an unfortunate and unnecessary liability. If one of these jerkasses hurts themselves on, at, or near the shelter, you can bet your bottom peso that some douchebag lawyer with $$$ in his eyes is gonna sue, sue, sue.
I’d charge them with aiding and abetting the enemy. Seriously, IANAL, but if people are congregating on their property outside the store AND they encourage that behavior by building facilities for shade, rain, etc AND it can be shown that those people are illegals, I’d tell my team of lawyers to find something to charge them with. I’d make it more of a pain for them to have the illegals there than to chase them off.
When the snipers killed those people in DC I was hoping that one of the relatives of the victims was going to sue the people in Washington (or was it Oregon) that broke from protocol and let him ago to attend a later court date instead of deporting him.
And I am 100% with you on going after employers. I think this is the single most effective thing that can be done to combat illegal immigration. I am for many, many more prosecutions, much higher fines, and much more jail time for more of the owners/managers. But this has to be done to enough businesses so other’s don’t say "fuck it, what are the odds they’ll come knocking on my door. I say we offer rewards for tips. And that the reward money be paid for by the offender.
If the city built the shelters (assuming that they can legally do that on private property) that would mean not only is the city responsible for their upkeep and maintenance, but they would also have the liability you refer to. Why should the city open itself up for the headaches involved in this when they can just pass a law forcing a business to do so?
I’ve heard of this situation (day laborers hanging around in parking lots hoping to get hired) but have never actually seen it. I don’t know if it’s illegal in my area, or if the Lowe’s near me just doesn’t draw enough business for them to make it worthwhile. I’m not sure I’d want to hire someone hanging around a parking lot anyway; how do I know they can do what I’m hiring them for, how do I know they won’t steal from me, and what if they’re injured while they’re working for me? I’d rather spend the extra money hiring a professional.
Well, I’ll agree that he should have been deported. I don’t think I’ll agree that since they should have fallen under the stowaway rule. They were on a ship that was smuggling aliens into the country. Apparently only one person thought they did fall under that rule, and he was overruled.
Seriously, IANAL, but if people are congregating on their property outside the store AND they encourage that behavior by building facilities for shade, rain, etc AND it can be shown that those people are illegals, I’d tell my team of lawyers to find something to charge them with. I’d make it more of a pain for them to have the illegals there than to chase them off.