By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On Saturday, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network led a demonstration at a Monrovia Home Depot, involving a “buy-in” where participants purchased and immediately returned ice scrapers. The action aimed to pressure the company to address immigration enforcement activities near their stores, particularly following the death of a day laborer fleeing ICE agents. Protesters, some wearing aprons with anti-ICE slogans, marched through the store while organizers blocked vehicle access to the front of the store during a news conference. Home Depot stated they do not coordinate with ICE and are not involved in the operations, adding that they are required to follow all federal and local rules and regulations.
Read the original article here
Day laborer organizers protest Home Depot, pressuring it to “scrape ICE out of their stores.”
Okay, let’s break this down. The core issue here is day laborer organizers protesting Home Depot, demanding that the company take action to prevent ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) from operating within or near their stores. The primary concern, as I understand it, is the potential for ICE to target and detain individuals, presumably undocumented workers, in the vicinity of Home Depot locations. The protestors want Home Depot to somehow stop ICE from doing this. And it looks like it’s becoming a pretty hot topic.
From an outsider’s perspective, this situation is quite interesting. Some folks are asking, “How exactly is Home Depot supposed to prevent ICE raids?” It’s a valid question. Home Depot isn’t a law enforcement agency. It doesn’t have the authority to simply tell ICE to leave or to prevent them from carrying out their duties, unless of course ICE is operating on private property and doesn’t have a warrant. However, it seems pretty clear that a private business like Home Depot *can* take steps to make it more difficult for ICE to operate within its space, at least to some degree. They could, for example, deny access without a warrant. They could also instruct security to monitor for any unlawful activities by ICE. Some are suggesting this could involve security personnel meeting agents at the door, and demanding a warrant before entry.
There’s a lot of debate on how exactly Home Depot should deal with ICE. Some people argue it’s a moral imperative, and that Home Depot should actively resist ICE operations. Others seem to think the focus is misplaced, arguing that Home Depot shouldn’t be held responsible for the actions of a federal agency. Several comments point out the company’s past political affiliations, with some labeling it as a “hard right led business,” specifically highlighting the founders’ political leanings and donations. This information certainly doesn’t help Home Depot’s current situation. This could be one reason why some people are extra motivated to protest.
On the other hand, there are many people who see the protests as an overreach. The argument is that Home Depot isn’t actively collaborating with ICE, so targeting the company is unfair. They believe that ICE is simply carrying out its duties, and that the protests are misplaced. Some people compare it to getting a ticket in front of someone’s house, even if you don’t like the person who owns the house, it has nothing to do with the ticket. The main point they seem to make is: how could Home Depot possibly stop ICE from doing anything?
The matter of legal authority also arises. Can Home Depot, as a private property owner, legally prevent ICE from entering its premises? The answer appears to be “yes,” at least without a warrant. Some have emphasized that businesses can tell ICE to leave, just like any property owner. This point is supported by the fact that ICE generally needs a warrant to enter private property, and without it, they are operating outside the law.
The other arguments address the scope and potential consequences of the protests. Some individuals suggest that the protestors may be looking to disrupt daily life, and that their tactics might be counterproductive. As the government becomes more authoritarian, the argument is that this sort of direct action will be hard to differentiate from the impacts of an authoritarian regime, which would make life uncomfortable for everyone. On the other hand, some people don’t think this is that big a deal. They think that Home Depot should be made to feel uncomfortable.
One interesting point made is about the day laborers themselves. Some people claim that day laborers are causing problems around Home Depot stores, leaving trash and otherwise disturbing the peace. This may not be the prevailing opinion, but it helps explain the context around the protests. The idea is that it’s not really Home Depot’s fault.
The question of Home Depot’s political leanings is brought up. Some argue that Home Depot’s historical ties to conservative politics make the company an appropriate target, given the perceived anti-immigrant stance of the current administration. Others, however, suggest that Home Depot’s ownership and political affiliations are more complex than some may realize. It’s a public company, and its largest shareholders are investment funds, though one of the founders, Bernie Marcus, was a Trumper. And the other founder, Arthur Blank, has also supported Biden and the democratic party. This is not going to be an easy situation for the company to navigate.
So, in conclusion, the core issue is whether Home Depot should do more to prevent ICE activity in and around its stores. It is a complex issue, with legal, political, and moral dimensions. The protests and the debate around them highlight the different perspectives on immigration enforcement and the role of private businesses in such matters.