• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Meg Whitman Refutes Allegations by Former Housekeeper

Meg's employee is the one who wasn't loyal.

To be fair :rofl

I wouldn't be so loyal if you had fired me for not having 2 pieces of paper.

While we're on the subject (And by the way I think this is a non story, just asking in the interests of fairness)

How come Tough on Immigration Whitman didn't check this womans immigration status? I wonder if this would matter if it was a (D) Betcha it would ;)
 
Meg Whitman should have reported her, that would have been upholding the law.

Did Whitman report her when she found out that she was illegal? NO.

So much for Whitman not being at fault.

She was not required by law to report her. She was trying to give her a break even though she had been lied to for 9 yrs.
If she had reported her, all we'd be hearing would be what a heartless bitch, Whitman was. Some have already called her those things for refusing to help her more.
 
I think you misunderstood the statement. SSA only sends the letter if the employer has had more than 10 people whose SSNs and names did not match. It is possible that Whitman has had other illegals working for her.

Possible. But there have been zero accusations of this, except by you and others on the left.


And, it appears that the liar is not Nicky but Whitman and her husband.

Did you really just say Nikki is not a liar? Do you want to correct that, or do you plan on sticking with it? Individual "A" who saw a letter nearly 10 years ago and, allegedly forgot. Individual "B" who indicated she was here legally, provided stolen identity and falsified documents. I think most people would call "B" the bigger liar out of the two.

Having a strong spanish accent is not the same as not being able to speak English fluently. But if you are suspicious and you are an advocate of deporting all illegals, I'm surprised you haven't done it already.

I've heard the maid speak - she speaks fine, but with a heavy accent. Which is similar to my neighbor. I wasn't suspicious at all of my neighbor, until you told me I should be. You apparently have this position that all accented individuals are suspicious and should be referred to INS. At least this is what you support when it comes to Meg and her maid.


If you are being paid under the table, the IRS has no way of knowing you are working and not paying taxes. Your statement sound as if you were sure that the IRS had verified that taxes were paid.

She wasn't being paid under the table. Again, no one is accusing her of this, including the maid or either of the maid's attorneys. That would be a real scandal and would provide evidence to bolster Nikki's claim that Whitman knew of her status.

Lastly, the SSA just began sending not match letters to employers in 2004 (per the SSA website). Prior to that, they only sent them to the employees. How did the letter allegedly go out to the employer (whitman) in April 2003, before they were even sending them to employers?

SSA began sending no-match letters to workers in 1979 and to employers in 1994.
http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/nomatch2.htm

After reading some of the posts from conservatives who hate illegals and want to deport them, call them names and accuse them of taking their benefits and jobs, and want to deny their children born here their US citizenship all of a sudden turn nice and wouldn't report her. What a crock.

I think that illegals should be deported and it should be much harder for illegals to obtain jobs. I think children of non-citizens born in this country should not automatically be granted citizenship, just as it is done in every other coutnry. But, no. If I suspected someone of being illegal, I wouldn't turn that person in.
 
Last edited:
:lamo where? :lamo her argument was blown out of the water 12 pages ago....:lamo


j-mac
duh huh uh wow eh eh guess you really told her duh uh guffaw ha ha duh huh uh yuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh huh
 
I think you misunderstood the statement. SSA only sends the letter if the employer has had more than 10 people whose SSNs and names did not match. It is possible that Whitman has had other illegals working for her.

Agency spokesman Mark Lassiter said that from 2003-2006 an employer had to have more than 10 employees whose Social Security numbers and names did not match to receive a warning letter. It was not immediately clear how many domestic employees Whitman had during that time.

"An employer with one or two employees in 2003 to 2006 would not have gotten an employer ... letter," Lassiter said.


And, it appears that the liar is not Nicky but Whitman and her husband. The letter that they claim they never saw, apparently was partially filled out and it appears to be Whitman's husband's handwriting.

That is quite far fetch. You are assuming that the government did not make a mistake. Well, I for sure know the IRS and SSA make mistakes all the time, like giving a larger tax return check and then fining you when it is obviously their fault for sending the wrong amount(and it so happens to be compounded daily). I will wait until there are more evidence and something concerns me about this. If there were letters found in the trash as well, why not save one of them? then as they have 2, it may help Nicky's claim. But the evidence that Whitman used a middleman to hire Nicky Diaz, then it Nicky needs to prove that Whitman knew Nicky was an illegal before 2009. And that letter says it cannot be used to determine legal status, which blows that theory out of the water.
 
How come Tough on Immigration Whitman didn't check this womans immigration status? I wonder if this would matter if it was a (D) Betcha it would ;)

Umm, she did. She had the word of the employment agency, a social security number, a driver's license, and a signed document saying she was legal. What else should she have done?
 
CA is in desperate need of E-VERIFY, killed in the deep blue assembly in the form of ab2076, summer 08

why did sacto kill E-VERIFY, why is moonbeam against E-VERIFY?

why can't the dem campaign for CA gub talk about issues that affect and concern all californians where they live?

are you following ab32 which will impose killer TAXES on ENERGY, both production and consumption, in the midst of our golden state depression?

the standards on which ab32 will be ENFORCED were exaggerated by CA's corrupt and politicial air resources board by THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY PERCENT

what do you think of the man made, sacto sponsored DROUGHT that is killing our once greenly burgeoning CENTRAL VALLEY, where unemployment amongst the mostly hispanic population is THIRTY PERCENT?

do you like SMELT?

what's moonbeam gonna do to get our budget under control, how can a tax and spend extremist from oakland create a single JOB?

seeya at the polls, pals

and remember---if CA is even close, then illinois, missouri, upstate new york (where NINE dem incumbents are in danger), kentucky, virginia, west virginia, ohio, pennsylvania, arkansas, new hampshire, wisconsin, indiana, texas, arizona and districts and capitols all across the country are MINE
 
Whitman isn't much better in any of those categories. She opposes E-Verify and supports AB32.
 
tuesday's debate in san rafael:

The one hour debate at Dominican University in San Rafael also touched on Whitman’s opposition to new greenhouse gas regulations. She argued they’d kill jobs and should be suspended.

“It’s not fair to the employees in manufacturing, trucking, packaging – all the other industries – to drive those jobs out of state.”

Whitman, Brown clash in feisty, freewheeling debate | 89.3 KPCC

Brown said Whitman's firing of Nicandra Diaz Santillan was "kind of a sorry tale," noting that "after nine years, she didn't even get her a lawyer."

Whitman called for an "e-verify system" to make sure the documents presented by immigrants are valid.

Jerry Brown - Meg Whitman debate: Harsh words mark wild final gubernatorial showdown| PolitiCal | Los Angeles Times
 
Unfortunately, Meg has a bad habit of saying one thing and then saying another the next day.

Let me very clear on what I’ve said here. What I’ve said is that E-Verify is in existence many companies use it, but it does have a false negative and a false positive rate. Before we hold employers accountable, we have to make sure that the system will work,

She says she is for it, but she doesn't think it's good enough yet. It's 97% accurate! What more does she want?! She's trying to make everyone happy on this issue.

I haven’t made my final decision. In all likelihood, I will vote no on Prop 23, because I think the right thing to do is to have a one year moratorium.

She says she's against the greenhouse gas law, but only for one year! She wants to please conservatives by saying she wants to hold off on the greenhouse gas emission standards, but she likes the law to please liberals. You can't have it both ways Meg!

Meg Whitman on KFI, the John and Ken Show | Jerry Brown for Governor
 
:lamo where? :lamo her argument was blown out of the water 12 pages ago....:lamo


j-mac

Oh yeah! Were you the one that claimed the IRS said her taxes were paid only to say later that you assumed since they didn't come after her?

Or are you the one that claimed you were too nice and just let the maid go without reporting her - after making all types of claims that illegals should be deported, showing no mercy whatsoever, and all of a sudden you got soft?
roflmao.gif
 
Why do you hate Nicky?
You are as bad as alred and may get her in more trouble if she received tax refunds for the last 9 yrs. I'd think she might have to pay those back.

His posts don't show any dislike for Nicky. How would she receive tax refunds - the SSA claimed that her SSN was registered to someone else. If she paid taxes, the other person must have gotten credited with them. We really don't know that Whitman paid any taxes, all the righties can do on this thread is assume that she did because the IRS isn't coming after her. That is rich!:lol:
 
Meg's employee is the one who wasn't loyal.

Wasn't loyal - how do you figure that. 9 years working for someone that is cheating you?

Meg Whitman is a farce. She claims one thing, does another. She's all talk and no action. Like the rest of the cons, she talks tough on illegals and then goes and hires them behind everyone's back.
 
She was not required by law to report her. She was trying to give her a break even though she had been lied to for 9 yrs.
If she had reported her, all we'd be hearing would be what a heartless bitch, Whitman was. Some have already called her those things for refusing to help her more.

As a candidate for Governor and all her hoopla about getting tough on illegals, she sure was. And why would she want to give her a break? Most cons on this forum are very much against illegals, show them no mercy, deport them and their kids, so is all that just for show?

And who cares what anyone is going to say? Are cons more concerned about what others are going to say about them, call them heartless bitches, or are they concerned about following through on what they say they will do.

Whitman kept saying she wanted those who hire illegals to be held accountable - I guess she didn't mean herself.
 
I guess when you have to defend the record of the democrat party, all you can do is to make mountains out of molehills.
 
Possible. But there have been zero accusations of this, except by you and others on the left.
There is no way to prove it, but SSA did say they only send that type of letter to someone who has submitted at least 10 SSNs that were assigned to a name other than the one submitted. You do the math.

Did you really just say Nikki is not a liar? Do you want to correct that, or do you plan on sticking with it? Individual "A" who saw a letter nearly 10 years ago and, allegedly forgot. Individual "B" who indicated she was here legally, provided stolen identity and falsified documents. I think most people would call "B" the bigger liar out of the two.
We know that Nicky is a liar. She is here illegally - my statement was not worded accurately. I should have said Nicky is not the only liar here. There are no degrees of liars, you are either a liar or you are not. Whitman and her husband are lying. Nicky has commited a crime for being here illegally, Whitman for hiring her.

I've heard the maid speak - she speaks fine, but with a heavy accent. Which is similar to my neighbor. I wasn't suspicious at all of my neighbor, until you told me I should be. You apparently have this position that all accented individuals are suspicious and should be referred to INS. At least this is what you support when it comes to Meg and her maid.
As much as Whitman claims that she will get tough on illegals and that those who hire them should be held accountable, I would think she would have taken all the necessary precautions to make sure she didn't hire an illegal. All your suggestions are just excuses for someone that clearly broke the law, but like typical cons, you give them a pass.

She wasn't being paid under the table. Again, no one is accusing her of this, including the maid or either of the maid's attorneys. That would be a real scandal and would provide evidence to bolster Nikki's claim that Whitman knew of her status.
I was just pointing out that many employers do that to keep from being found out that they hire illegals. If that were to be the case with Whitman, it will be even harder for Whitman's story to be believed.
Lastly, the SSA just began sending not match letters to employers in 2004 (per the SSA website). Prior to that, they only sent them to the employees. How did the letter allegedly go out to the employer (whitman) in April 2003, before they were even sending them to employers?
Well, then I guess Meg Whitman is lying about that also.

By the end of the day, Whitman's campaign acknowledged it was possible that the couple had received a letter alerting them in 2003 that personal data submitted for the employee didn't match government records.

Whitman had vehemently denied receiving such a letter from the Social Security Administration in a news conference just minutes before the housekeeper, Nicky Diaz Santillan, unveiled it Thursday at the offices of her attorney, Gloria Allred.


Mark Lassiter, a spokesman for the Social Security Administration in Washington, D.C., said the agency's practice was to send so-called no-match letters between 2003 and 2006 to employers with 10 or more employees whose Internal Revenue Service records contained discrepancies between names and Social Security numbers.

Read more: Meg Whitman's campaign surprised by federal letter about their housekeeper - Sacramento Politics - California Politics | Sacramento Bee



Overview of Social Security Employer No-Match Letters Process
From your link:

SSA began sending no-match letters to workers in 1979 and to employers in 1994.


I think that illegals should be deported and it should be much harder for illegals to obtain jobs.
Employers should stop hiring them - and they should face criminal charges if they hire them. The gov has provided a method for them to check them out that would get the employer of the hook if the employee turns out to be illegal. It is free and Whitman should have used it.


I think children of non-citizens born in this country should not automatically be granted citizenship, just as it is done in every other coutnry.
That is not a correct statement. Every other country does not deny citizenship to children born of non-citizens. Where do you get your info?

Countries granting citizenship to people who are born in that nation include American Samoa, Antigua and Barbuda, Brazil, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Canada, Columbia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada and Guatemala. Also Honduras, Jamaica, Lesotho, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguey, Peru, Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Read more: Birthright Citizenship Laws | eHow.co.uk Birthright Citizenship Laws | eHow.co.uk


But, no. If I suspected someone of being illegal, I wouldn't turn that person in.
Perhaps that is what many do - the reason we have the problem.
 
Umm, she did. She had the word of the employment agency, a social security number, a driver's license, and a signed document saying she was legal. What else should she have done?

She could have used the program provided by the government that checks out people to see if they are legal. It is called E-Verify. It is free and it gets the employer off the hook if the employee turns out to be illegal. It is for their own protection, if they are serious about not wanting to hire illegals. I guess Whitman didn't want to know, if it is true that she didn't. But, I think Whitman knew all along, played dumb.
 
There is no way to prove it, but SSA did say they only send that type of letter to someone who has submitted at least 10 SSNs that were assigned to a name other than the one submitted. You do the math.
I was just pointing out that many employers do that to keep from being found out that they hire illegals. If that were to be the case with Whitman, it will be even harder for Whitman's story to be believed.

Oh, I get it now. You’re just throwing out wild speculations. It seems like that’s all you have, no? You’re basically saying “Some employers pay their maids under the table and don’t pay taxes. Even though some small evidence that Meg didn’t engage in this and zero evidence that she did, she still might have”. Very logical indeed.

It sounds like that could be kind of fun. Here let me try it out: “Many people that think Meg is guilty, pay for their addictions by being whores (thank you Jerry Brown). You think Meg is guilty, so you do the math.”

As much as Whitman claims that she will get tough on illegals and that those who hire them should be held accountable, I would think she would have taken all the necessary precautions to make sure she didn't hire an illegal. All your suggestions are just excuses for someone that clearly broke the law, but like typical cons, you give them a pass.

She did. She used an agency to hire the individual and confirm the legality of the maid. They obtained an I9, social security card, and a driver’s license. They actually followed all of the requirements of the law. Meg paid her a more than fair salary and paid taxes as per the maid’s two attorneys. Why would Meg do these two things if she had knowingly hired an illegal immigrant?

SSA began sending no-match letters to workers in 1979 and to employers in 1994.

Yes, I apologize. I typed the response quickly in between searching for information on a new engine for my “for fun car”. Misread that entirely.

That is not a correct statement. Every other country does not deny citizenship to children born of non-citizens. Where do you get your info?

Again, fast reply is my excuse. I try not to make blanket statements and will normally couch them in “almost all”. This time I screwed it up. So, allow me to restate. Almost all countries do not allow citizenship to children of non-citizens born in their country. I think this is good policy and we should follow them. The time when birth-right citizenship was a necessary policy, has long passed.
 
Last edited:
His posts don't show any dislike for Nicky. How would she receive tax refunds - the SSA claimed that her SSN was registered to someone else. If she paid taxes, the other person must have gotten credited with them. We really don't know that Whitman paid any taxes, all the righties can do on this thread is assume that she did because the IRS isn't coming after her. That is rich!:lol:

Seems like a pretty solid argument to me.
 
Wasn't loyal - how do you figure that. 9 years working for someone that is cheating you?

Meg Whitman is a farce. She claims one thing, does another. She's all talk and no action. Like the rest of the cons, she talks tough on illegals and then goes and hires them behind everyone's back.

How was Nicky the liar cheated?
 
Whitman kept saying she wanted those who hire illegals to be held accountable - I guess she didn't mean herself.

She did everything to check before Nicky was hired, she can't use the social security notice as a basis to suspect that she is illegal, and she fired her when she found out! What was she supposed to do differently?!
 
She could have used the program provided by the government that checks out people to see if they are legal. It is called E-Verify. It is free and it gets the employer off the hook if the employee turns out to be illegal. It is for their own protection, if they are serious about not wanting to hire illegals. I guess Whitman didn't want to know, if it is true that she didn't. But, I think Whitman knew all along, played dumb.

Why should she have to if she already has the word of the employment agency, a driver's license, a social security number, and a signed document?
 
Why should she have to if she already has the word of the employment agency, a driver's license, a social security number, and a signed document?

SSShhh, he thinks he's on a roll. Let him think that his train of thought is logical. Besides, most of the people arguing that Meg Whitman was at fault keep forgetting that Whitman hired Nicky Diaz through an employment agency and received proper documentation. So unless you want every employer to start running those expensive background checks on all their employers, no one would hire in a long time.
 
Oh, I get it now. You’re just throwing out wild speculations.
I wasn't talking about Whitman when I said that. That you have problems comprehending what you read is not my problem. But, are you trying to say that everything you claim is the absolute facts? You know exactly what Whitman was thinking and what she said, because you have a mind reader and a tape recorder of everything she has said?

It seems like that’s all you have, no? You’re basically saying “Some employers pay their maids under the table and don’t pay taxes. Even though some small evidence that Meg didn’t engage in this and zero evidence that she did, she still might have”. Very logical indeed.
The IRS hasn't confirmed anything. What is being said outside of court is irrelevant. You don't know what Whitman has done or hasn't done, just because you don't want her to be guilty doesn't mean she isn't.
Whitman's husband in essence is calling Whitman a liar - so if she lied about one thing, what makes you think she didn't lie about other things? And, Whitman didn't sign the I-9, failing to admit that she knew Diaz was authorized to work in the US.
So much for your evidence!

Update (MM): Whitman’s husband responds — and contradicts his wife’s plain defense that they never received the letter — by admitting that why yes, the handwriting on the letter could be his, but it’s the maid’s fault for not following up.
Michelle Malkin » Whitman’s illegal alien maid-gate update

And, I guess you are going to offer up some lame excuse as to why Whitman might not have signed the I-9 form like she was supposed to?

According to the I-9 form, Diaz-Santillan presented her California driver's license and Social Security number to the employer for review (Section 2 of the I-9 form, List A and B).
The employer did not sign the I-9 form made available to the public. The employer, therefore, failed to certify, under penalty of perjury, that to the best of her knowledge that Diaz-Santillan was authorized to work in the United States. If the employer did not sign the form, that is a violation of law.

Whitman's Illegal-Immigrant Maid

It sounds like that could be kind of fun. Here let me try it out: “Many people that think Meg is guilty, pay for their addictions by being whores (thank you Jerry Brown). You think Meg is guilty, so you do the math.”

Are you calling me a whore? Why don't you man up and come out and say it instead of playing your stupid games? Yes, I think Meg is guilty, so why does that make me a whore? Why are you resorting to insults? Is it because you realize you don't have much to go with other than your gut feeling for another conservative? A lame debater usually resorts to insults, I'm sorry that you have so little that you have to do that.


She did. She used an agency to hire the individual and confirm the legality of the maid. They obtained an I9, social security card, and a driver’s license. They actually followed all of the requirements of the law. Meg paid her a more than fair salary and paid taxes as per the maid’s two attorneys. Why would Meg do these two things if she had knowingly hired an illegal immigrant?
Because it was cheaper than hiring an American to do the work, and the American would not take her abuse and not do as good a job. She's not the only one that has done it, why do they all do it?

Yes, I apologize. I typed the response quickly in between searching for information on a new engine for my “for fun car”. Misread that entirely.
Oh, but the rest of your information is accurate?

Again, fast reply is my excuse. I try not to make blanket statements and will normally couch them in “almost all”. This time I screwed it up. So, allow me to restate. Almost all countries do not allow citizenship to children of non-citizens born in their country. I think this is good policy and we should follow them. The time when birth-right citizenship was a necessary policy, has long passed.

It doesn't matter what other countries do or don't do. Most conservatives claim to be supporters of the Constitution, but all of a sudden they seem to want to change it.
It also doesn't matter what you think is a good policy or not. It will take an Amendment to change the 14th Amendment, and I don't think those of us that are happy with the way the Constitution reads "all persons born in the United States" are going to roll over and let those who are so afraid that they will lose control, dictate what it should be.
 
Last edited:
According to the I-9 form, Diaz-Santillan presented her California driver's license and Social Security number to the employer for review (Section 2 of the I-9 form, List A and B).
The employer did not sign the I-9 form made available to the public. The employer, therefore, failed to certify, under penalty of perjury, that to the best of her knowledge that Diaz-Santillan was authorized to work in the United States. If the employer did not sign the form, that is a violation of law.

Whitman's Illegal-Immigrant Maid

Funny how you ignore the rest of the article.

Documents released by Republican California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman reveal that her former maid, Nicandra (Nicky) Diaz Santillan, made liberal use of fraudulent documents in order to obtain employment.

There is no indication that the Social Security Administration followed up or required any corrective action to be taken even though the maid was using a Social Security number that belonged to someone else. Likewise, the Internal Revenue Service continued collecting taxes while turning a blind eye to the fact that a felony was being committed.
 
Back
Top Bottom