Neil Cavuto discusses illegal immigrants and Home Depot - 6.27.2007.1

Today on Neil Cavuto’s show (on Fox News from 4-5pm) Mr. Cavuto had on a guest, a professor whose name I did not catch, to discuss a proposed law. I need help on verifying what this law states, but it seems that Home Depot is being required to provide for Illegal immigrants that are looking for day labor in front of their stores.

Again, I need to read this proposed law (someone must be familiar with it and can provide me a link), but if this is the essence of the law, then someone has lost their mind. How can anyone realistically expect a company to provide for illegal workers?

First let’s think this through, which the professor defending this proposed law seems not to have done. In essence it means that if a panhandler is standing in front of your grocery store, as an example, you the owner must provide for that individual. You have a Mime; you need to provide them with shelter, water, restroom facilities, and anything else you would provide an employee. According to my understanding you must essentially take on another employee, that you have not hired, that provides no benefit to your business, which could theoretically sue you if you failed to provide these benefits to them.


Then add the fact that this person is an illegal immigrant (alien) and you have a person that has violated the law pays no taxes, and may well be taking money out of the economy if they send any money to their home country. There is a business plan.

Perhaps I am wrong. The law may not state this. I may be missing something, and I hope I am.

Now some may say this isn’t fair. They are just undocumented workers trying to make a living. That may be true but the document they are missing is a birth certificate proving U.S. citizenship. There is no obligation to take care of them. They have no rights in this nation and are criminals from the second they enter the nation. No matter what anyone may call them this is a fact. Anything done to benefit their lives is a kindness, not an obligation. If that is upsetting to these illegal aliens/immigrants/undocumented workers then they can leave. They don’t even need to sneak back home, the government will take them their, and it’s on our dime. They can thank us later.

Some will say, ‘This is just racism in disguise.’ How? Who is this racist against? I’ve made no distinction on what illegal immigrants I’m speaking about. Nor do I wish to create a system of preference. If you are not a citizen by birth, not naturalized, have no immigration papers or other documents saying the government welcomed you here; you need to be kicked out.

That means if you are from Tbilisi, Milan, Jakarta, Berlin, Tokyo, or Mexico City and you are here illegally the above applies to you. The fact that the majority of illegal immigrants are from a neighboring country is incidental to the above, not because of it. I don’t think most people would allow a neighbor to just walk into their house, take the food out of their refrigerator, order movies on their cable account, and take their movie DVD’s. Then if the neighbor got hurt in your house, you get sued and have to pay the medical bills. Sound like a bright idea? Would you do it? Of course not. It’s the same thing with nations as with people.

Mark my words, if the proposed law is enacted, it will not be limited to Home Depot. The bum on the corner will have the same rights as the illegal immigrant at Home Depot. It’s not about race; it’s about where my taxes go, and the cost of goods. Illegal immigrants make both go up, especially when dumb laws like this are made.

Worse still if, like many other trends, this catches on and several other states start adopting it. I mean this law is based in the same state that recently had a city ban smoking in your own home. Yes, there was a restriction on smoking [to be exact at least in apartment buildings] that applied to every person, even if you are over 21, can vote, a citizen with the right to something… what was it… the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing like being told you can buy a legal item but can’t use it as is intended.

But I detract from the point. This law is stupid as I have come to understand it. If anyone can provide me the exact wording, I’d love to see it. If anyone can explain why I or anyone should be forced to spend my hard earned money on factual criminals, I’d love to hear it.

This is what I think, what do you think?