You'd actually kind of expect this from the founder of E-Bay: Meg Whitman's housekeeper was an illegal alien. For 9 years Whitman employed this woman, firing her juuuuuuuuust about the time that she made the decision to run for Governor last year.
There are also allegations of cruelty and abuse, which I'm skipping over because it's one word against another. But Whitman isn't denying that Nicky Diaz – Santillan was illegal, only that she lied on her applications. Because, presumably, it's not the job of employers to do any kind of background checks. Listen, when I was running a movie theatre in Marina Del Rey I had to fire an Australian kid for insufficient documentation. And this was 20 years ago. THE TECHNOLOGY IS AT YOUR FINGERTIPS, MEG.
She keeps promising to lower the unemployment rate in California, and I have a feeling it's going to involve simply counting the migrant farmworkers. Look at that! We have more people employed than we have citizens! Just submitting the roster of her domestic staff could bring us down a whole percentage point.
Pro-business AND pro-illegal - that's gonna be a hard one for the baggers to digest.
AG Jerry Brown has launched an investigation into the forged drivers license and Social Security card the woman used, right?
ReplyDeleteNobody's saying she's not illegal.
ReplyDeleteGod forbid we should prosecute the people who HIRE illegal aliens. They'd keep flooding over the borders anyway, right? Anyone calling for the shutdown of the agency that Whitman used to get her maid? Of course not. They're probably rich white people.
So your answer is "No, AG Jerry Brown isn't investigating the (at least) 4 felonies commited by the housekeeper".
ReplyDeleteJust curious, if you were Whitman, what would you have done when you received the letter?
I'd have fired the maid if I were Whitman. But she denies ever getting the letter in 2003
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/30/whitman.housekeeper.charges/index.html
so it's kind of a moot point.
I would like to see Jerry Brown investigate A. the employment agency, B. Meg Whitman, and C.Nicky Diaz-Santillan to find out where she got the documents. If you aren't for all these investigations too, you're not serious about stopping illegal immigration.
Fire her based on what?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you have read the letter, right?
I'm with you on all three entities that should be investigated. But wouldn't an investigation of the housekeeper involve asking for proof of being in the Country legally, something you got up in arms over Arizona wanting to do?
How come you support that in this instance, but not in Arizona?
Also, we know her husband saw the letter, do you know that Meg did?
ReplyDeleteNot sure how things occured in your household when you were married, but did one of you handle the mail, like we do in my house?
All right, Meg Whitman, bears no responsibility because the laws forbid her to do background checks. What about the agency? Should they accept any blame for supporting illegals, or are they just innocent victims too?
ReplyDeleteWhat part of my previous comment where I agreed with you on whom should be investigated didn't you understand?
ReplyDeleteSo back to my earlier question, on what basis would you have fired the housekeeper?
You confused me by advocating for investigation and then advocating for letting Meg Whitman off the hook.
ReplyDeleteA better question is what basis did Whitman ultimately use to fire the houskeeper? That one seems good to me.
Whitman fired her after she confessed she was in the Country illegally.
ReplyDeletePrior to that revelation, what legal grounds did Whitman have to fire her?
Still wondering how your thought process works. You are against letting a sworn police officer asking immigration status during a legal traffic stop, yet you wanted Whitman to fire someone on the basis of a letter that specifically suggests one should not take action based on the letter itself.
How does that work?
My objection to the Arizona law is not that they can check your background during a routine traffic stop; it's that they can stop you whether you're doing something illegal-looking or not. Even if all your tail lights are working and you're within the speed limit and both your hands are on the wheel, if you "look suspicious" (look at though you're the kind of guy who might have just beheaded some guys out in the desert) they can stop you. That's communist Russia, not America.
ReplyDeleteSo you believe all illegal aliens should be employed as long as they don't say they're illegal? You're tough on these people!
You are 100% incorrect in your characterization of what the Arizona law allows.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you have read up on the law, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070
U.S. federal law requires aliens 14 years old or older who are in the country for longer than 30 days to register with the U.S. government,[5] and to have registration documents in their possession at all times.[6] The Act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents,[7] and obligates police to make an attempt, when practicable during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest",[24] to determine a person's immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien.
Your example sure doesn't sound like a "lawful stop", does it?
Back to Housekeepergate, whose side of this argument does the San Francisco Chonicle take, yours or mine?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/30/MN931FME32.DTL
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.
Liao added that it is "very important that the employer does not take adverse action against the employee" merely based on a letter from Social Security.
...
Had Whitman questioned Diaz's legal status after Diaz presented documents when she was hired, Whitman again would have exposed herself to discrimination violations.
"Not only is (accepting the documents) all the law required her to do, but there's a counterbalancing anti-discrimination law that keeps her from probing further or demanding different documents," said Crystal Williams, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in Washington.
Social Security records are riddled with errors, especially on female Hispanic and Asian names that follow a different order from English names, or are changed after a marriage or divorce.
"There are a lot of reasons other than immigration status that a Social Security number could be wrong," Williams said.
Once Diaz announced that she was in the country illegally, it was Whitman's legal obligation to fire her, attorneys said.
Still sticking to your guns here?
You clearly haven't read the Arizona law (imagine that!), because if you had, you would know that immigration status may only be checked/asked after a legal traffic stop.
ReplyDeleteYou also must not have read the San Francisco Chronicle either, as they take the exact same viewpoint as me:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/30/MN931FME32.DTL
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.
Liao added that it is "very important that the employer does not take adverse action against the employee" merely based on a letter from Social Security.
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.
...
Had Whitman questioned Diaz's legal status after Diaz presented documents when she was hired, Whitman again would have exposed herself to discrimination violations.
"Not only is (accepting the documents) all the law required her to do, but there's a counterbalancing anti-discrimination law that keeps her from probing further or demanding different documents," said Crystal Williams, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in Washington.
Social Security records are riddled with errors, especially on female Hispanic and Asian names that follow a different order from English names, or are changed after a marriage or divorce.
"There are a lot of reasons other than immigration status that a Social Security number could be wrong," Williams said.
Once Diaz announced that she was in the country illegally, it was Whitman's legal obligation to fire her, attorneys said.
Congratulations, to you however. It appears you are more to the Left than the San Francisco Chornicle, not an easy task!
You clearly haven't read the Arizona law (imagine that!), because if you had, you would know that immigration status may only be checked/asked after a legal traffic stop.
ReplyDeleteYou also must not have read the San Francisco Chronicle either, as they take the exact same viewpoint as me:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/30/MN931FME32.DTL
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.
Liao added that it is "very important that the employer does not take adverse action against the employee" merely based on a letter from Social Security.
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.
...
Had Whitman questioned Diaz's legal status after Diaz presented documents when she was hired, Whitman again would have exposed herself to discrimination violations.
"Not only is (accepting the documents) all the law required her to do, but there's a counterbalancing anti-discrimination law that keeps her from probing further or demanding different documents," said Crystal Williams, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in Washington.
Social Security records are riddled with errors, especially on female Hispanic and Asian names that follow a different order from English names, or are changed after a marriage or divorce.
"There are a lot of reasons other than immigration status that a Social Security number could be wrong," Williams said.
Once Diaz announced that she was in the country illegally, it was Whitman's legal obligation to fire her, attorneys said.
Congratulations, to you however. It appears you are more to the Left than the San Francisco Chornicle, not an easy task!
You clearly haven't read the Arizona law (imagine that!), because if you had, you would know that immigration status may only be checked/asked after a legal traffic stop.
ReplyDeleteYou also must not have read the San Francisco Chronicle either, as they take the exact same viewpoint as me:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/30/MN931FME32.DTL
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.
Liao added that it is "very important that the employer does not take adverse action against the employee" merely based on a letter from Social Security.
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.
...
Had Whitman questioned Diaz's legal status after Diaz presented documents when she was hired, Whitman again would have exposed herself to discrimination violations.
"Not only is (accepting the documents) all the law required her to do, but there's a counterbalancing anti-discrimination law that keeps her from probing further or demanding different documents," said Crystal Williams, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in Washington.
Social Security records are riddled with errors, especially on female Hispanic and Asian names that follow a different order from English names, or are changed after a marriage or divorce.
"There are a lot of reasons other than immigration status that a Social Security number could be wrong," Williams said.
Once Diaz announced that she was in the country illegally, it was Whitman's legal obligation to fire her, attorneys said.
Congratulations, to you however. It appears you are more to the Left than the San Francisco Chornicle, not an easy task!
I apologize for the multiple posts, Blogspot is being cranky!
ReplyDeleteThen she bears no responsibility for hiring someone that she knew had a bad social security number? Was she obligated to report that she had an employee who wasn't verified.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, based on what the letter says, Whitman did everything she could do in this situation. The SFChronicle agrees.
ReplyDeleteWay back in comment #3, you said you would have fired her. In comment #4, I asked "based on what?"
Knowing what you do now (assuming of course, you have read some of the information I have linked to, and pasted), would you still have fired her, and if so, based on what?
When I was running movie theatres, if I had hired someone with a bad social security number they'd have fired me.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, I can't believe that during the entire six years that Republicans ran the country they didn't get around to fixing it so you could legally verify someone's claim that they're a legal citizen. Obviously this issue isn't as important to you guys as you claim. You WANT illegals in this country because it has the effect of lowering the average wage.
Knowing what you do now (assuming of course, you have read some of the information I have linked to, and pasted), would you still have fired her, and if so, based on what?
ReplyDeleteI know it's hard for you to stay focused on direct questions asked of you, so I copied it and asked again for you.
Even based on what I've read, I cannot believe it is impossible to attempt to verify that your employee is legal. And over the course of six years, a more motivated employer than Whitman (or Con Agra) could find a way.
ReplyDeleteYou still aren't answering the question. You stated before that if you had received the letter, you would have fired the housekeeper.
ReplyDeleteDo you still feel the same way, and if so, what would you base her firing on?
This really isn't that hard a question to answer.
You either answer "no, I wouldn't fire her", or "yes, I would have fired her", and then provide the reason why.
Here is what I would have done. If I had hired her without verifying the ID first and then got a letter saying her SSID wasn't valid, I'd have kept her on but warned her that I was doing a more thourogh background check. Perhaps I'd use e-verify. It's free!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD
Then once I had the data, I'd let her go (because that's the law) or keep her and advise her to get her Social Security number problem fixed.
Sorry about all the nuance. If that's how Whitman spent those six or seven years after she got the letter, I have no problem with her.