NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON'T want your name and/or email address published when sending VDARE email.
From: [Name Withheld]
I guess it finally had to happen. The longer this acrimonious, maneuver laden, and treacherous Senate/Bush immigration reform initiative has played out, the more behind the scene ooze has made its way into public view. That which was considered virtually impossible by those pundits on the immigration/border control side of this debate happened in the New York Times editorial titled: "Home Depot Amendment".
To what improbable event do I refer? The water heads at the Times actually got it about right (albeit inadvertently) when they laid out the sordid details on Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson's latest flip-flop on S.1639.
The gist of it is that on Wednesday Isakson withdrew his support for S.1639, ostensibly because he thought it did too little on Mexican border security. The real cause of Isakson's change of heart however was because his constituent phone banks were fried to a crisp from irate and vitriolic calls from true Georgians.
By Thursday, however, Isakson offered a reversal on his Wednesday constituent induced panic attack and renewed his support for S.1639 conditioned on his private designer amendment being attached to the bill. And his harlot colleagues satisfied him.
According to the Times:
The amendment would prohibit state and local laws that required big home-improvement stores to provide rudimentary shelter for day laborers. There aren't any such laws yet, but the City Council in Los Angeles, where Home Depot wants to open 13 stores, is considering one. Mr. Isakson's pre-emptive strike would be an extraordinary intrusion of federal power into a local land-use matter….
Now he wants the Senate to minutely tweak the grand bargain to allow his friends at Home Depot—he country's second-largest retailer, and a campaign contributor—to save some pocket change and to shuck off responsibility for the unruliness in its parking lots to its customers and neighbors.
The Times is correct in calling Isakson's amendment "squalid" So is everything else about S.1639 and the individuals behind it.