• 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

Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

So Whitman did nothing wrong.

Employers who knowingly hire illegals should be prosecuted.

Either that is sarcasm or those two statements are independent from each other....

Yes, Employers who hired illegals knowingly should be prosecuted, but Meg Whitman did not know she hired an illegal and when Whitman found out, Whitman fired her. Whitman is not obligated to report on her, so she didn't.
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

Either that is sarcasm or those two statements are independent from each other....

Yes, Employers who hired illegals knowingly should be prosecuted, but Meg Whitman did not know she hired an illegal and when Whitman found out, Whitman fired her. Whitman is not obligated to report on her, so she didn't.

Whitman did nothing wrong. In fact she did everything right in my opinion. Right down to not turning her in. It shows she has a heart but not a bleeding heart to where she would continue to employ her after knowing the truth.
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

Sure there is, a national ID.

Exactly. And why isn't Meg talking about this? Why is her position to simply prosecute those who hire illegals, regardless of their intentions?

Until Ms. Whitman comes up with a legitimate explanation/solution, her campaign is doomed.

But Jerry Brown is exactly who this should be about.

Once again, this is not a thread about Jerry Brown. Feel free to start one if the man is so important to you, otherwise, please stay on topic.
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

I can't find any law that says employers can be prosecuted or fined if they were supplied with all the proper documents.
Are you saying Whitman wants them pay even if they did everything according to the law?

She's NOT MAKING ANY DISTINCTION. This is why she's an idiot. She's not focusing on the ONE thing that would make her own situation less politically damaging - the fact that she followed the right steps to avoid hiring an illegal.

Here are her official comments about the matter:

From her website:
Meg will oppose any attempt by the Legislature to weaken employer verification requirements.

From a speech at UC Davis:
We do have to hold employers accountable for hiring only documented workers, and we do have to enforce that law.

From her campaign brochure:
[To] institute a system where state and local law enforcement agencies conduct inspections of workplaces suspected of employing undocumented workers.

At the Cal State Fresno debate:
If we don't hold employers accountable, we will never get our arms around this [illegal immigration] problem.

Do you see anything in there that gives an out to employers who find themselves in the same situation she's currently floundering around in?

Of course, the issue of her not firing the woman once questions were raised, and not turning the woman in as soon as she knew, are additional problems for her politically - problems she's either incapable of or unwilling to address.

It'll be her doom.

Not that I really care. IMO, she's a moron.


Seems to me any employer who had all the documents but was lied to by the employee could sue somebody over it if they got fined.
I believe the ones we want to prosecute are those who intentionally hire illegals for cheap labor.
Otherwise, hispanics would have a very difficult time finding any kind of work.

BINGO and congratulations: You're smarter than Meg Whitman.
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

Exactly. And why isn't Meg talking about this? Why is her position to simply prosecute those who hire illegals, regardless of their intentions?

Until Ms. Whitman comes up with a legitimate explanation/solution, her campaign is doomed.

You are twisting Whitman's position. Can you please show where Whitman has called for what you claim?

Once again, this is not a thread about Jerry Brown. Feel free to start one if the man is so important to you, otherwise, please stay on topic.

Oh it is part of the topic, a part you may wish would not be discussed but never the less it is a part....

Imagine my relief to know that Brown, our current Attorney General, was not involved in this matter, even though it is well within the “October Surprise” time frame and even though Whitman is currently in a statistical dead heat with Brown for the governor’s office and even though Brown and Allred are close friends and associates and even though Allred is a “Super-delegate” for the Democratic Party in California and even though Allred has monetarily supported Brown in past campaigns…

Whitman maid scandal serves Brown too well - Letters to the Editor : The Orange County Register

Allred has downplayed her ties to Brown. But to the Whitman campaign – which released a photograph of Allred and Brown at a C-SPAN panel in 1994 – the celebrity attorney is long-time supporter of the former governor and a partisan Democrat.

Allred once worked on Brown campaign, but says maid case isn’t partisan | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

Gloria Allred, the attorney at the center of this week's spectacle over Meg Whitman's illegal immigrant housekeeper, spent time working for Jerry Brown's gubernatorial campaign in the mid-1970s, according to a decades-old article in an American Bar Association magazine.
Allred has downplayed her ties to Brown. But to the Whitman campaign – which released a photograph of Allred and Brown at a C-SPAN panel in 1994 – the celebrity attorney is long-time supporter of the former governor and a partisan Democrat.

Allred once worked on Brown campaign, but says maid case isn't partisan | California Watch

Yep, nothing fishy there......:roll:


j-mac
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

She's NOT MAKING ANY DISTINCTION. This is why she's an idiot. She's not focusing on the ONE thing that would make her own situation less politically damaging - the fact that she followed the right steps to avoid hiring an illegal.

Here are her official comments about the matter:

From her website:
Meg will oppose any attempt by the Legislature to weaken employer verification requirements.

From a speech at UC Davis:
We do have to hold employers accountable for hiring only documented workers, and we do have to enforce that law.

From her campaign brochure:
[To] institute a system where state and local law enforcement agencies conduct inspections of workplaces suspected of employing undocumented workers.

At the Cal State Fresno debate:
If we don't hold employers accountable, we will never get our arms around this [illegal immigration] problem.

Do you see anything in there that gives an out to employers who find themselves in the same situation she's currently floundering around in?

that is nonsense. You are intentionally twisting her positions.

For example what exactly is wrong with opposing any attempt by the Legislature to weaken employer verification requirements.???

In that paragraph you chose selectively to only pick out this sentence, I call foul!

In addition to that one sentence you picked out it goes on to say:

"In addition to putting more resources at the border, Meg believes that the Federal Government and California need to work together to establish a system that allows employers to better verify the immigration status of their workers."

why didn't you include that part?

Do you have transcripts of the speeches that you cite so that we may see what else you omitted?

j-mac
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

She's NOT MAKING ANY DISTINCTION. This is why she's an idiot. She's not focusing on the ONE thing that would make her own situation less politically damaging - the fact that she followed the right steps to avoid hiring an illegal.

Here are her official comments about the matter:

ntsFrom her website:
Meg will oppose any attempt by the Legislature to weaken employer verification requireme.

From a speech at UC Davis:
We do have to hold employers accountable for hiring only documented workers, and we do have to enforce that law.

From her campaign brochure:
[To] institute a system where state and local law enforcement agencies conduct inspections of workplaces suspected of employing undocumented workers.

At the Cal State Fresno debate:
If we don't hold employers accountable, we will never get our arms around this [illegal immigration] problem.

Do you see anything in there that gives an out to employers who find themselves in the same situation she's currently floundering around in?

Of course, the issue of her not firing the woman once questions were raised, and not turning the woman in as soon as she knew, are additional problems for her politically - problems she's either incapable of or unwilling to address.

It'll be her doom.

Not that I really care. IMO, she's a moron.




BINGO and congratulations: You're smarter than Meg Whitman.


Still not seeing where she wants to prosecute employers who have all the documents.



She says she won't weaken laws. The laws I found didn't talk of fining those who had the needed documents.

She was not required by law to turn her in. She did what she felt was the right thing and says if she had it to do over she would do the same.

If you were so serious about someone being held accountable for the crimes Nicky commited why are you only picking on Meg and not the agency? Nicky's the only criminal here.
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

She's NOT MAKING ANY DISTINCTION. This is why she's an idiot. She's not focusing on the ONE thing that would make her own situation less politically damaging - the fact that she followed the right steps to avoid hiring an illegal.

Here are her official comments about the matter:

From her website:
Meg will oppose any attempt by the Legislature to weaken employer verification requirements.

From a speech at UC Davis:
We do have to hold employers accountable for hiring only documented workers, and we do have to enforce that law.

From her campaign brochure:
[To] institute a system where state and local law enforcement agencies conduct inspections of workplaces suspected of employing undocumented workers.

At the Cal State Fresno debate:
If we don't hold employers accountable, we will never get our arms around this [illegal immigration] problem.

Do you see anything in there that gives an out to employers who find themselves in the same situation she's currently floundering around in?


What position is she in, exactly? She hired through an agency which adhered to the law. The woman had fraudulent documents. Knowingly hiring illegals is one issue, which Whitman has addressed and you have singled out. Fraud perpetrated by an individual worker is an entirely different issue which you seem to want to pin on her.

Of course, the issue of her not firing the woman once questions were raised, and not turning the woman in as soon as she knew, are additional problems for her politically - problems she's either incapable of or unwilling to address.

It'll be her doom.

Not that I really care. IMO, she's a moron.

Well glad we cleared up one thing: you want to think of her as a moron and you don't care about facts. Good, that's nothing we didn't already know.
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

Here, I'll spell it out nice and simple for you:

Meg Whitman isn't campaigning to prosecute only those who KNOWINGLY hiring illegals.

She wants to prosecute ANYONE that hires an illegal for ANY reason; whether they knew the person was illegal or not. You know, JUST LIKE HER.
:doh

Unless you're basing this on some other statement she made, that's very obviously not what she is saying. Nothing in the statements you've quoted indicates that she thinks employers who follow the proper steps to verify their employee's records should be punished if the employee turns out to have committed fraud.

NOW do you get it? She's a hypocrite, and an ignorant one, at that.

What is it with people misusing the word "hypocrite" lately?
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

I don't care what the woman's position is on hiring illegals. My point is, she's doing a piss-poor job of managing a PR crisis, and that makes her a moron.

From her website:
Meg will oppose any attempt by the Legislature to weaken employer verification requirements.

From a speech at UC Davis:
We do have to hold employers accountable for hiring only documented workers, and we do have to enforce that law.

Further, there is simply no other way to read/parse the above sentences than to accept that:

1. She will fight against any lessening of existing employer verification requirements, putting the onus entirely on the employer as to verifying an employee's work status.

2. Employers will be held accountable "for hiring ONLY documented workers," and those who do not will be prosecuted.

Despite the fact that she hired the woman in good faith, she learned (TWO years after hiring the woman) that there was a problem when she received a letter from the Social Security Administration telling her that the Social Security number that her housekeeper provided belonged to someone else. What did she do once she got that letter?

Gave it to the housekeeper for followup, and continued to employ her for another seven years. (Note: Telling someone else to "please check this" is not considered an adequate legal defense. Nor will it get you far in the world of politics.)

This is what the CA Labor & Immigration Law website has to say about such letters (and they BOLD this portion):

Ignoring these letters or any other evidence which raise questions about an employee’s authorization to work in the U.S. can create civil and criminal liability to you and your company.

Meg is both culpable and liable according to law, and despite the desperate attempts by Whitman supporters to change the subject and make Allred or Brown the issue, they aren't the issue.

The issue is Whitman's honesty, ethics, integrity and character, all of which are highly questionable.
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

I don't care what the woman's position is on hiring illegals. My point is, she's doing a piss-poor job of managing a PR crisis, and that makes her a moron.

You think she's a moron because she's doing a piss-poor job of managing this.
You think she's doing a piss-poor job managing this because you think she's wrong.
You think she's wrong because you're mistaken about the facts of the case, the legal issues, and what Whitman is saying.

Further, there is simply no other way to read/parse the above sentences than to accept that:

1. She will fight against any lessening of existing employer verification requirements, putting the onus entirely on the employer as to verifying an employee's work status.

2. Employers will be held accountable "for hiring ONLY documented workers," and those who do not will be prosecuted.

I just can't fathom how you think that. Absolutely nothing about either of those statements indicates that she believes employers who follow the rules should nevertheless be liable for employee fraud. If you think that she actually believes that, you should be able to find evidence of it (beyond an out-of-context sentence that doesn't actually say that).

Despite the fact that she hired the woman in good faith, she learned (TWO years after hiring the woman) that there was a problem when she received a letter from the Social Security Administration telling her that the Social Security number that her housekeeper provided belonged to someone else. What did she do once she got that letter?

Gave it to the housekeeper for followup, and continued to employ her for another seven years. (Note: Telling someone else to "please check this" is not considered an adequate legal defense. Nor will it get you far in the world of politics.)

If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd know that this has already been explained.

Whitman within law, immigration lawyers say

Whether or not Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman received a letter from the Social Security Administration saying her former housekeeper's false documents did not match its records, Whitman did not act unlawfully by keeping the housekeeper employed, immigration lawyers said Thursday. In fact, had she gone ahead and fired Nicandra Diaz Santillan based on such a letter, she would have exposed herself to potential anti-discrimination violations, lawyers said.

...


Lawyers said an employer's obligation upon receiving a no-match letter from the Social Security Administration is to check their own records for typographical or other errors, inform the employee that the records do not match and tell the employee to correct them. "There is no additional legal obligation for an employer to follow up or respond to SSA with new information," said Gening Liao, a labor and employment attorney at the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles, which defends immigrants

...

Nor was Diaz under any obligation to pursue the matter, Liao said. Correcting a mismatch is "primarily for the benefit of the employee," she said, to make sure they can collect all the benefits due them for their work.

I'm going to trust the opinion of immigration lawyers who are discussing this actual case over your interpretation of one portion of a law.
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

Ignoring these letters or any other evidence which raise questions about an employee’s authorization to work in the U.S. can create civil and criminal liability to you and your company. --CA Labor & Immigration Law
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

Ignoring these letters or any other evidence which raise questions about an employee’s authorization to work in the U.S. can create civil and criminal liability to you and your company. --CA Labor & Immigration Law

Do you really not see the difference between specific conclusions being offered by lawyers who are discussing this particular case and vague, open-ended language from a lawyer who is speaking in generalities?

It's possible that ignoring mismatch letters or other evidence could create civil or criminal liability. However, according to experts who have looked at this case, Whitman's actions in regards to this particular letter satisfied every aspect of the law.

I understand that you desperately want Whitman to be wrong here, but I think your position is entirely indefensible.
 
If you can't see that this whole flap was created by the Brown camp you are really of questionable mental judgment.

There is no ****ing way little Nicky would use the words or terms she used it her clearly orchestrated TV appearance with Gloria Allwet.
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

Do you really not see the difference between specific conclusions being offered by lawyers who are discussing this particular case and vague, open-ended language from a lawyer who is speaking in generalities?

It's possible that ignoring mismatch letters or other evidence could create civil or criminal liability. However, according to experts who have looked at this case, Whitman's actions in regards to this particular letter satisfied every aspect of the law.

I understand that you desperately want Whitman to be wrong here, but I think your position is entirely indefensible.

I don't give a rat's ass about Whitman (OR what you think). She's managing her campaign like a moron, and her ethics/integrity are crap. She's a loser by every definition that actually matters.
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

I don't give a rat's ass about Whitman (OR what you think).

So you admit that you were wrong about this whole issue.

She's managing her campaign like a moron, and her ethics/integrity are crap.
She's a loser by every definition that actually matters.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

So you admit that you were wrong about this whole issue.

Not at all (but your attempts to put words in others mouths will surely serve you well in your chosen profession).

In fact, I'm 100% correct: She's managing her campaign like a moron, and her ethics/integrity are crap. She's a loser by every definition that actually matters.
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

Not at all (but your attempts to put words in others mouths will surely serve you well in your chosen profession).

Imagine this scenario:

You go to a lecture by a lawyer who talks about civil liberties. He says that if the police stop you for speeding or some other offense, you may have the right to prevent them from searching your car. He then says that you should always speak with a lawyer to find out if you have a case.

Imagine you get pulled over by a cop for speeding and the officer suspects that you're impaired. He looks in your car and sees a bottle. He asks you to step out and does a field sobriety test, which you fail. He then searches your car.

You're angry about this, and want to argue that your civil rights were violated. Based on what that first lawyer said, you think you might have a case. You go to an expert criminal defense lawyer, tell him what happened in your scenario, and ask if you have a case.

He says that you absolutely don't, because once the officer suspected that you were intoxicated and saw the bottle, he could ask you to step out. Once you failed the sobriety test, he could search your car.

Now, if I asked you whether or not you had a case against the police, what would you say? Would you say that you have a case because the first lawyer said that in situations like yours, you might? Or would you say that you don't, because you consulted with an expert about your particular case who said that you don't?

Do you see why it's completely ridiculous to argue that Whitman broke the law here based on that one general statement, when experts looking at this actual case said she didn't?

In fact, I'm 100% correct: She's managing her campaign like a moron, and her ethics/integrity are crap. She's a loser by every definition that actually matters.

And like I said, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

Not at all (but your attempts to put words in others mouths will surely serve you well in your chosen profession).

In fact, I'm 100% correct: She's managing her campaign like a moron, and her ethics/integrity are crap. She's a loser by every definition that actually matters.
Why, exactly, are the three bolded statements the case, in your opinion?

I haven’t seen anything that would lead me to those conclusions…
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

The maid seems to have been manipulated by her political opponents.So are they suggesting everyone should make the assumption their mexican employee is an illegal immigrant? Im pretty sure she could have been burned the opposite way round if she had insisted a non illegal maid had been vetted really hard .People would say things like "she assumes all mexicans are illegal immigrants".
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

The maid seems to have been manipulated by her political opponents.So are they suggesting everyone should make the assumption their mexican employee is an illegal immigrant? Im pretty sure she could have been burned the opposite way round if she had insisted a non illegal maid had been vetted really hard .People would say things like "she assumes all mexicans are illegal immigrants".

This really is a no-win for Whitman. She had a driver's license, social security number, the word of the agency, a signed form, etc. They had no reason to believe it, the social security form could have easily been just a mistake when it was written down (probably what the husband believed), so what could she have done? This is a non-story.
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

why did meg pay soc sec for 9 years?
 
Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

why did meg pay soc sec for 9 years?

To get all the benefits of hiring an illegal, obviously. :2razz:
 
What's damning? This is damning.


This to a woman who worked in her home for nine years and had the temerity to ask for help.

**** you, Meg Whitman!

The woman who's suing Whitman at the behest of Gloria Allred claims that she said that. Given that those two have lied about everything else up until now, you'd have to be exceedingly gullible to take what they say at face value. …

Turns out Nicandra Diaz Santillan has more credibility than Meg Whitman on the matter.

I can say it is possible that I would've scratched a follow-up note on a letter like this. — statement by Meg Whitman's husband, Griffith Harsh

But, again, I draw people's attention to the nature of this candidate for public office, Meg Whitman, who when confronted with an unhappy circumstance, a trusted employee, a woman who has been working in her home for over nine years, asks for help; Meg Whitman fires her — over the phone, Meg Whitman fires her — nine years of loyal service and Meg Whitman fires her and tells her that she is never to contact her again.

That's the candidate who is asking for your vote; that's the bitch who wants to be governor of our state.
 
Turns out Nicandra Diaz Santillan has more credibility than Meg Whitman on the matter.

Because you say so?

But, again, I draw people's attention to the nature of this candidate for public office, Meg Whitman, who when confronted with an unhappy circumstance, a trusted employee, a woman who has been working in her home for over nine years, asks for help; Meg Whitman fires her — over the phone, Meg Whitman fires her — nine years of loyal service and Meg Whitman fires her and tells her that she is never to contact her again.

And like I said before, "the woman who's suing Whitman at the behest of Gloria Allred claims that she said that. Given that those two have lied about everything else up until now, you'd have to be exceedingly gullible to take what they say at face value."

...

That's the candidate who is asking for your vote; that's the bitch who wants to be governor of our state.

That's some pretty egregious anti-feminist language you're using there.
 
Back
Top Bottom