« "How can you not love and admire the American fighting man" | Main | Cover Me »

What Should Meg Have Done?

So, Meg Whitman -- the Republican nominee for governor of California -- hired and then fired an illegal alien as a housekeeper. Bad Meg.

But as more and more details emerge, one question keeps nagging at me -- precisely when did Whitman make an error?

About 10 years ago, she decided she needed a housekeeper. So she went looking for one. She wanted to avoid hiring an illegal alien, so she did her homework -- she didn't just hire someone, she contacted an agency that would take care of all the paperwork and whatnot to make certain the housekeeper was legally entitled to work in the US. They found a woman who presented the required paperwork, Whitman liked her, and hired her -- paying her quite well.

Three years later, the Whitman family got a letter from the Social Security administration saying that the Social Security number her housekeeper had supplied was somehow defective. But, the letter said, under no circumstances should she take any other action than informing the housekeeper about the discrepancy and verify that it was accurate. The Whitmans, who had not received any such notice in the previous two years and had faith in the agency that had supplied them with their housekeeper, figured it was yet another government screw-up (gee, those NEVER happen) -- the letter itself essentially threatened them with legal consequences if they took any kind of action -- and gave the letter to the housekeeper, telling her to take care of it.

Several years later, the maid finally, tearfully confessed that she was an illegal alien, and the documents she'd supplied were forgeries. The Whitmans contacted an immigration lawyer on her behalf to see if they could help her legalize herself, but were told they couldn't -- and if they didn't fire her immediately, they'd be legally liable too. So they regretfully let her go.

So, when did the Whitmans make the mistake?

When they fired her? Nope. At that point, they knew she was an illegal. If they continued to employ her, they'd be committing a crime.

When they got the no-match letter? Should they have fired her immediately, or demanded proof that she was here legally?

Nope. The letter spelled it out -- they had no right to demand her Social Security Card:

"...ask the employee to give you the name and Social Security number exactly as it appears on the employee's Social Security card. (While the employee must furnish the SSN to you, the employee is not required to show you the Social Security card. But, seeing the card will help ensure that all records are correct.)"

As far as firing goes, the letter said this:

"This letter does not imply that you or your employee intentionally provided incorrect information about the employee's name or SSN. It is not a basis, in and of itself, for you to take any adverse action against the employee, such as laying off, suspending, firing, or discriminating against the individual. Any employer that uses the information in this letter to justify taking adverse action against an employee may violate state or federal law and be subject to legal consequences. Moreover, this letter makes no statement about your employee's immigration status."

Then, the mistake must have been in trusting the agency that supplied the Whitmans with the housekeeper.

But no, the agency is supposedly the "professionals" at verifying such details and complying with the law. The specific reason the Whitmans went to them was to use their expertise in complying with the law.

About the only thing the Whitmans could have done to avoid this whole situation was to simply not hire a Hispanic as a housekeeper. That seems to be the only solution -- because the system as it stands is designed to minimize the chances of actually identifying and deporting illegal aliens. Rather, it seems its main concern is to give every single break it can to suspects, going to extreme lengths to avoid catching and punishing those who have broken our immigration laws.

But if the Whitmans had practiced that kind of discrimination, with the intention of avoiding the entanglements they now find themselves in, then they would have been violating anti-discrimination laws. But such cases are notoriously hard to prove -- they were seeking a single employee, and didn't have much of a "staff" to begin with. Discrimination cases require either egregious conduct or a pattern of behavior. A single data point -- one hiring -- does not make a pattern. All they had to do was find something else objectionable about any Hispanic applicants, and they likely would have gotten away with it.

That's the ultimate message the left is pushing on the Whitman case. They are highlighting the fact that the system is set up to make it very hard for employers to guarantee they comply with the law.

And this is an entirely logical consequence of the Left's constant push to conflate legal and illegal immigrants. To them, there is no difference between the two -- which means that those of us who oppose illegal immigration are against legal immigration, too -- hence "anti-immigrant."

Here's how it works: imagine a large group of people. Some of them will get you in trouble if you hire them, others will not. You can differentiate between the two subgroups, but the Left is pushing very hard to blur the differences and keep people from making those determinations. So the safest thing to do, purely in self-interest, is to simply not hire any of them.

Immoral? Perhaps. But self-defense trumps all.

We need to rework the system to make it easier to draw the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, not harder. That's the real lesson out of the Meg Whitman case.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40274.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What Should Meg Have Done?:

» Maggie's Farm linked with Meg vs. Chris

Comments (78)

Run as a Democrat?... (Below threshold)
Brian The Adequate:

Run as a Democrat?

Brian,Congratulation... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Brian,
Congratulations. With only four words you have resolved this issue.

Brian,Congratulation... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Brian,
Congratulations. With only four words you have resolved this issue. My hat is off to you.

"You can differentiate b... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"You can differentiate between the two subgroups, but the Left is pushing very hard to blur the differences and keep people from making those determinations. So the safest thing to do, purely in self-interest, is to simply not hire any of them."

Case in point - several years ago in Florida they were trying to purge the voter rolls of ineligible voters; Felons, non-residents, non-citizens, etc. The Democrats got pissy about it and said okay, but you're not allowed to profile. You're allowed names only. No sex, race, nothing. So naturally, several people who were legally allowed to vote were purged because they had the same name as a non-citizen or felon or other reason. Then the Democrats run to a news reporter and accuse Republicans of blatant disenfranchisment and discrimination and what ever else they could think of.

Blur the lines then start slinging out the accusations.

Has Meg's housekeeper surre... (Below threshold)
JAT0:

Has Meg's housekeeper surrendered to ICE yet? Sorry - for a minute I thought someone actually enforced immigration laws.

I still cannot see what Meg did wrong?

Gee, I can see Hispanics li... (Below threshold)
Maggie Mama:

Gee, I can see Hispanics lining up at Whitman's house to get a job that pays $23 an hour. No, wait, I can see Americans lining up to do the job!

I know this is a dumb quest... (Below threshold)
Donna:

I know this is a dumb question, but why isn't the fact that the letter states that no adverse action should be taken made REALLY public? I mean MAINSTREAM public...ok, we know most won't, but I don't recall even Fox News pointing this out.

And the more important question is, if she was found to be here illegally...WHY IS SHE STILL HERE??? It's not like the immigration folks can't find her.

The Democrats want to take in every sorry person (felon or not) from all other countries to have all the more voters. That makes me sick.

Ms. Whitman did nothing wro... (Below threshold)

Ms. Whitman did nothing wrong in my eyes - but my question is why did she hire a Hispanic anyway? Are white, black or whatever American citizens not able to hired as housekeepers? Its a "besides the point thing" but its a question I've had for ages. Do Hispanic's clean better? Because if hiring one could put you into this much trouble for following the law, why hire one at all to begin with? JMHO

Damned if she did, damned i... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Damned if she did, damned if she didn't. Mice arrangement, set up so that no matter what you do it's a 'gotcha' situation.

I'm getting pretty tired of those...

Jolene:Whitman int... (Below threshold)
hermie:

Jolene:

Whitman interviewed from the list of applicants that the employment agency provided. They supposedly performed the necessary due diligence and in the best interest of their client (Whitman) provided those applicants whose qualifications they felt would meet their client's needs. Whitman made their selection based on what the agency already had prescreened. Whitman hired on a 'color-blind' basis. If she had hired a non-Hispanic based on the perception that a Hispanic could be potentially 'trouble', THAT would have been a basis for an equal opportunity lawsuit. The Agency was responsible for their prescreening the applicant and Whitman had no reason to doubt they did. Their new employee had a drivers license and SS card which were assumed to be valid.

NICE arrangement. NICE. A... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

NICE arrangement. NICE. Arranging mice is much harder, the little critters keep moving unless you whack 'em on the head just right - and arranging dead mice... that's just creepy.

Brian #1,Sorry Sir... (Below threshold)
SER:

Brian #1,

Sorry Sir, but you are more than "adequate" with that response. Bravo!

This is why the rats keep w... (Below threshold)

This is why the rats keep winning the rat race.

SHE LIED AND TRIED TO COVER... (Below threshold)
griff harsh:

SHE LIED AND TRIED TO COVER IT UP. THAT's WHAT SHE DID WRONG. SHE LIED. It's never the crime, but the cover up.

What Should Meg Have Don... (Below threshold)
Dane:

What Should Meg Have Done?

She should have followed the instructions on the letter from the Social Security Administration.

She didn't.

The letter was flag - it says there is a Social Security number mismatch.

Hello! Wake-up, Meg - this is important. If you care about following the law you'd better follow the instructions on the letter!

She didn't.

Asses like Meg Whitman give lip service to rousting out the damn illegals because the racists on the right applaud when she does - but when you look at Meg Whitman's actions.... she really doesn't give a crap whether Nicky's status was legal or not.

How can you hypocrites claim to support the immigration laws and at the same time you let Billionaires like Whitman get off scott-free for ignoring the law and hiring illegal immigrants?

The right says "crack down on employers of illegal immigrants!"

Unless, of course, it's someone rich and well-connected in the Republican Party - then you give them all slack they could possibly need and blame it on the nearest Democrat.

Fracking Hypocrites! You jump to kiss the hand of the rich every-single-time.

The letter is perfectly ... (Below threshold)
Dane:

The letter is perfectly clear - it spells out WHAT THE EMPLOYER IS SUPPOSED TO DO.

Meg didn't. Meg ignored the instructions.

(Have you noticed that the right wing bloggers never link to the letter - the letter is crystal clear as to what the employer is supposed to do.)

Meg failed to take the simple steps to insure she wasn't employing an illegal immigrant.

Broken link above - the let... (Below threshold)
Dane:

Broken link above - the letter is here....

tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0930_gloria_3.pdf

Question I've got - if she ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Question I've got - if she was employed through an agency, why didn't the letter go to the agency?

Meg's mistake was not deali... (Below threshold)
David Laudon:

Meg's mistake was not dealing with this earlier. Willie Brown was right when he said that Meg would have looked like a hero instead of a fool if she had hired an immigration attorney for her house keeper at the time she fired her. By letting Gloria Allred choose now to open up this can of worms, Meg has put herself on defense and lost control of the issue.

Suggestion. Compare the po... (Below threshold)
Norm:

Suggestion. Compare the portraits of the past CA governers that hang in the state capital with Jerry Brown's. Telling.

"Question I've got - if ... (Below threshold)
Dane:

"Question I've got - if she was employed through an agency, why didn't the letter go to the agency?"

Meg Whitman was the employer. apparently some agency referred Nicky to Meg, but Meg hired her and was the employer of record. Meg paid her directly. The letter came to Meg because she's the employer. Meg acted irresponsibly in that capacity.

..."if she had hired an immigration attorney for her house keeper at the time she fired her."

Excellent point. Meg should have followed the law at a minimum instead of just ignoring the letter, and if she'd taken action above and beyond it would have been exemplary - instead of lying about what she knew and when she knew it, etc - and instead of blaming Brown, etc.

Meg Whitman revealed a great deal about her self in this issue. It ultimately came out badly for her and now she's playing the victim. How pathetic. She's a billionaire who doesn't even bother to vote most years -- then she falls down and go boom because of her own actions (or inaction) and she quickly blames the nearest Democrat.

Despite all the huffing and... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Despite all the huffing and puffing by our SEIU rep, Whitman did nothing wrong. Nothing whatever. She acted perfectly reasonably in the circumstances.

This is just another inconsequential Red smear in the runup to an election.

Pretend she drove her housekeeper off a bridge and left her to drown, all the while wearing her Grand Kleagle uniform and chatting on the phone with the KGB on how to hurt Reagan's electoral chances - i.e., per Brian, pretend she was your garden variety Democrat.

Does that help?

Silly Jay,<blockquote... (Below threshold)
Kenny:

Silly Jay,

precisely when did Whitman make an error?
Her error was when she made so much money that she was able to afford a housekeeper, paying her $23 an hour.

In the eyes of the lefties, this is her mortal sin.

[note to self, can i do housekeeping on the weekends? gotta go get fake drivers license and social security card.... Carlos the housekeeper, at your service]

Dane, your explanation is w... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Dane, your explanation is weak and ignorant.

If you pay attention to the letter no where on the letter does it say that they are required by law to fill it in and return it to the SSA. The only requirement listed on the letter is how they CANNOT use it to question an employee's immigration status.

Notice that the form was partially filled in. Notice that items 1 and 4 are both filled in showing that she had used two different names, Nicandra Santillan and Nicandra Diaz.

Option 3 of things you should do says:
If the employee's Social Security card does not show the employee's correct name or Social Security number, or if the employee needs to report a name change or replace a lost or stolen Social Security card, have the employee contact any Social Security office.

At the bottom, Meg's husband scribbled "Nicky, please check this". It seems to me that he reasonably came to the conclusion that this was a clerical error based on a name change because of marriage or divorce and asked Nicky to deal with it as per instruction #3.

This letter is a smoking gun, but it is a smoking gun of exculpatory evidence.

If they knew she was illegal then why bother filling it in at all? If they already knew she was illegal, then why ask her to check on it?

Nicky is the one who just produced the letter, which means that SHE has been sitting on the letter for the last 7 years, not them. How were they supposed to return the letter when she had it in her possession?

Once he gave it to her, it is reasonable to assume that he forgot about it after 7 years. Can you remember every letter you received 7 years ago?

I'll never fault anyone for... (Below threshold)
Paul Hooson:

I'll never fault anyone for providing a job to a Mexican immigrant. Wages are only $7 a day there, and farm labor wages fell by a third because of NAFTA creating a wave of economic refugees after American corporate farms flooded the local Mexican market with cheap wheat and corn. It was one of the worst Clinton era economic policies.

Once again I have to compli... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Once again I have to compliment Eric on his patience while trying to explain the obvious to the obtuse.


Whitman did nothing wrong but Allred and libs will stick to Whitmans initial denial of having received the letter like flies on ****.

As others have intimated, a lot of folks would like to be "exploited" at $23/hour.

This is nothing more than a political hit-job right before an election.

Personally, I think Whitman should have waited until the next election. Let Brown and the dems finish off the California economy and the California democrat party with it.

Ah, the bootlickers are out... (Below threshold)
Dane:

Ah, the bootlickers are out in full-force - always at attention, ready to defend the rich and powerful - even if they act stupidly while doing so.

"How were they supposed to return the letter when she had it in her possession?

It was Whitman's resposnibility to fill out the form and return it.

The letter doesn't say "hand this to your potentially illegal employee and get them to fill it out and send it in if they want...."

The letter instructs the employer to fill it out and send it in. They were wrong to hand it Nicky in the first place.

Meg failed.

Once he gave it to her, it is reasonable to assume that he forgot about it after 7 years. Can you remember every letter you received 7 years ago?

Total red herring. Glad you like the salty taste of Meg Whitman's hand, and I'm sure her boots were never shinier.

He wasn't supposed ot give it to her.

The letter was addressed to the employer, Whitman.

The letter instructed the employer, Whitman, to fill it out and return it.

Meg Whitman failed.

And yes, I remember every letter I received for the last 7 years - you mean you can't?

But this is a perfect example of how the rich and powerful use the illegal immigrant to their satisfaction - as long and as hard as they wish - then throw them away if there's a sign of trouble.

Sure calls for immigration reform - and not the pitchfork kind the Arizona racists are trying to start.

C'mon you bootlickers - you must have more defenses for poor widdle Meg Whitman.

Sigh - poor Meg Whitman - caught lying about the letter and lying about what she knew and when she knew it.

And look how many people on he right are ignoring that she lied at the press conference when she accused Nicky of stealing her mail as an explanation as to why Meg failed to do what the SS letter told her, the employer, to do.

Note to all employers who a... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Note to all employers who are thinking of ever running for office (as Republicans; others can ignore this): roust every potential illegal alien on your payroll for proof of citizenship/ legal residency.

You've gotta give the liber... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

You've gotta give the liberals credit for walking the environmentalism walk: they're even recycling politicians now.

Dane,My congratula... (Below threshold)
Kenny:

Dane,

My congratulations to you for wanting to stick it to Meg Whitman because she didn't fill out and return one piece of paper, while completely ignoring the fact that the housekeeper was here in the country illegally, and had provided false papers to Meg Whitman.

No word yet on whether the social security number was a valid one and screwed up someone elses life in straightening that mess out, but if it was, thats OK with you too.

Gotta love the complete hypocrisy of the liberals,

Congratulations Dane

But this is a perf... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
But this is a perfect example of how the rich and powerful use the illegal immigrant to their satisfaction - as long and as hard as they wish - then throw them away if there's a sign of trouble.

Oh, lord. The shrillness is reaching new levels. The housekeeper was "used" at $ 23 per hour as well as payments into Social Security. The first "sign of trouble" (according to Diane) is the letter itself. The housekeeper stayed on the payroll for six years after the "sign of trouble." Hardly getting thrown away.

Whitman's husband is an addressee of the letter, and he has acknowledged that it's his handwriting on the bottom of the letter. So the letter itself does not show that Whitman herself ever saw it.

There's no there there. It's just more of the smoke and mirrors that we're used to seeing from the left.

Hooson, you do realize ther... (Below threshold)
John:

Hooson, you do realize there is a near 10% unemployment rate in this country right, you're also no doubt aware there is an entire population that lives under the poverty line here, real honest to goodness legal americans. What the hell do we need a sub culture of exploited Mexican workers for? Please stop with the Mexico is a hell hole so we owe them anything and everything. It's their country they should be working to change it.

Oh and Dane, when did you become a racist toward Mexicans? I would have thought you would be upset that Whitman fired the illegal at all, now it seems you're all for firing and I assume deporting illegals, does that mean you're going to vote Republican this election? You are really just a tool right, you'll switch your opinion to hurt a republican no matter the cost to the poor illegal, I mean undocumented worker doing the work Americans won't for $23 an hour.

I love the hypcorisy of the... (Below threshold)
Dane:

I love the hypcorisy of the right.

You cry about illegal immigrants, but we have illegal immigrants in our country only because there are employers who hire them. NO jobs, - no illegal immigrants.

So you find an employer who has employed an "illegal" and you whine and bitch because they were caught - they being the EMPLOYER, was caught.

Rich white folks do whatever they want in America, thanks to the boot lickers in the GOP who will, as this thread so amply shows, make excuses left and right over an employer who was notified 6 years ago of the problem with their employee's SS number - a clear red flag -- and who did NOTHING - thereby allowing the illegal immigrant to work for 6 years.

What hypocrisy.

If this was Jerry Brown or some other Democrat you boot lickers would be up in arms, but instead we need to coddle and console poor Billionaire Meg Whitman, whose quest to buy the office of governor in California has been inconvenienced by that nasty little bitch called "the law"...

What I would like to know i... (Below threshold)
John Hansen:

What I would like to know is can Allred be brought up on ethical charges for this. It is clear that she did not act on behalf of her client. No action that she has taken has increased the chances of her client receiving compensatory damages. Instead she has opened her client up to prosecution in order to advance the career of a politician she supports.

This has got to be a violation of lawyer ethics.

JLawson-"If she'd ... (Below threshold)
914:

JLawson-

"If she'd fired the maid when she got the letter, she'd have been in violation of labor laws. Not firing her means she's guilty of employing an illegal alien. So she couldn't fire her and wasn't supposed to keep her - WTF should she have done?"

She should have ran as a democrat.

10. Posted by 914 | October 1, 2010 2:03 PM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)

Case closed..

Dane, You have completely m... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Dane, You have completely misunderstood the purpose of the letter. Let's go to the Federal Register to get a description of that Form and it's purpose.

1. Requests for Self-Employment Information, Employee Information, Employer Information--20 CFR 422.120--0960-0508. SSA collects information on the SSA-L2765, SSA-L3365, and SSA-L4002 to credit the reported earnings to the proper earnings record. When SSA cannot identify Form W-2 wage data for an individual, we place the data in the earnings suspense file and send one of the forms cited above to the employee (and in certain instances to the employer) to obtain the correct name and SSN. If the respondent furnishes the name and SSN information that agrees with SSA's records, or provides information that resolves the discrepancy, SSA adds the reported earnings to the respondent's Social Security record. While SSA does not require respondents to provide the information to keep a benefit, if they do not furnish the missing or corrected information, we cannot credit the wages or self-employment income to the proper earnings record. The respondents are self-employed individuals and employees whose name and SSN information do not agree with SSA's records and their employers.

You might want to pay attention to the bolded parts there Dane.

The letter notifies the employee or the employer that there is a mismatch between them and the SSA due typically to typographical errors, name changes etc. The purpose is to clear up the error otherwise the employee loses out on Social Security benefits. There is no legal requirement for the employer to fill it out and return it. That is why they say "Please..." instead of "You are required to..."

To put it in the simplest terms that even you might understand Dane.

"SSA does not require respondents to provide the information"

Meg Whitman had no obligation to return the form. Unlike idiot savant's such as yourself most people wouldn't be expected to remember every piece of snail mail they received seven years ago so the Reasonable Person Standard applies.

What I would like ... (Below threshold)
What I would like to know is can Allred be brought up on ethical charges for this.

Heh. In every case that that ambulance chaser Gloria Allred is involved in, she should probably be brought up on ethics charges.

who was notified 6... (Below threshold)
Eric:
who was notified 6 years ago of the problem with their employee's SS number - a clear red flag.

That is absolutely untrue. The letter CLEARLY states "this letter makes no statement about your employee's immigration status."

Dane, you are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. You are lying and not doing a good job of it. If you think you are making your case this way, you are wrong. Everybody reading this can plainly see it. You don't have to like Meg Whitman, but lying about the evidence is just wrong.

Eric, I believe our Dane do... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Eric, I believe our Dane does not understand that government uses the words "may" and "shall" quite differently.

Get more informed at Number... (Below threshold)
Brittanicus Author Profile Page:

Get more informed at NumbersUSA & Judicial Watch. In conclusion--this smear on Meg Whitman in my book, has been instigated by Union goons, as a favor to Jerry Brown; with policy payback to come? Interesting thought? If E-verify had been in operation permanently in every business in the USA nine years ago, this maid called Nicci would have been detected and she would have been fired. Sen. Harry Reid must accept full blame for that, as he is responsible for weakening E-verify to a voluntary program.

I wrote "...who... (Below threshold)
Dane:

I wrote

"...who was notified 6 years ago of the problem with their employee's SS number - a clear red flag.

Eric, eager to lick the boots of a real live billioniare, replies: "That is absolutely untrue. The letter CLEARLY states "this letter makes no statement about your employee's immigration status."

Nice strawman argument.

What I said was that Whitman was notified 6 years ago of the problem with the employee's SS number, and that's true. That's what the letter said.

The letter went on stating that the employer was supposed to fill out the form and send it back to the SS administration.

Meg didn't - Meg failed to follow through.

A SS # mismatch for an immigrant is a huge flag to the employer.

Meg failed to follow up.

"Let's go to the Federal Register to get a description of that Form and it's purpose."

No, no more strawman arguments.

Instead, let's got to the letter and see exactly what it said instead. You know - the letter that Jay and no other right wing blogger is linking to...

The letter: tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0930_gloria_3.pdf

What it says:

Note the heading on the letter - in big bold print.

REQUEST FOR EMPLOYER INFORMATION

We are writing to you about the Wage and Tax Statement (W-2) for the employee shown below. Please complete the information on the reverse and return it to us promptly.

Meg failed to do that.

It calls for the employer to take action - filling out the form on the back.

Meg failed to do that.

Whitman said they never received the letter.

She lied.

Meg got in front of the TV cameras and suggested that Nicky hid the letter from her.

That was a lie too.

People, people, people: you... (Below threshold)

People, people, people: you're making two fundamental mistakes here.

1) You're attempting to reason with Dane, who has demonstrated time and again that he is utterly invincible to reason.

B) You're forgetting that one of the rules in Dane's World (Dane's World! Dane's World! Party Time! Excellent!) is that the rich are guilty until proven liberal. Non-liberal rich people are always guilty of whatever they're accused of, and more, and fully deserving of whatever punishments that can be inflicted.

J.

Dane,Again and again... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Dane,
Again and again you are wrong. What you are saying is that the letter should have prompted Meg Whitman to take action against Nicki. But the letter CLEARLY states that it is against the law for her to do so.

The Federal Register is not a strawman. Here is the government's description of the Federal Register.

Published by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Federal Register is the official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents.

It is the central repository for all government rules you idiot. I quoted verbatim the description of the process and the use of Form 0960-0508 for the Social Security Agency. And it says,

"SSA does not require respondents to provide the information".

You seem to have the entire process backwards. You say that Meg Whitman should have taken action against Nicki because of the letter when it says clearly on the letter that it is illegal to do so, and you criticize Meg for not returning the letter when she is not required to do so.

Again lying and misrepresenting the truth is not the way to win your argument.

Jay Tea, are you sure that ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Jay Tea, are you sure that Dane is not Lee Who Should Not Be Named? This degree of obtuseness was his trademark. It's hard to imagine that it can be copied.

There is absolutely no proo... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

There is absolutely no proof that Whitman ever saw the letter before Allred started flashing it around.

There is absolutely no proof that Whitman knowingly hired an illegal alien. The fact that Harsh and Whitman were paying money into Social Security on the number given to them by the illegal alien shows that just the opposite is true.

The handwriting on the letter shows that Harsh believed that the problem with the number was some clerical mistake. It makes no sense that he would've given the letter to the alien if he believed otherwise.

All the rest is only a distraction.

The fact that Hars... (Below threshold)
Eric:
The fact that Harsh and Whitman were paying money into Social Security on the number given to them by the illegal alien shows that just the opposite is true.

That's an excellent point. The existence of the letter is itself exculpatory to the claim that they knowingly hired an illegal alien. For the letter to be generated, the SSA received Social Security payments from Meg and her husband for Nicki. If they knew she was illegal, then why do that?

If they didn't know she was illegal then what's the problem? The letter itself says that they shouldn't interpret it as a statement on the employee's imigration status. The letter even warns against taking any action against the employee as a result.

The letter instructs them t... (Below threshold)
Dane:

The letter instructs them to fill out the form on the back and return it to the Social Security administration.

They didn't.

Simple instructions. It was in english. It was the employer's responsibility.

Whitman failed.

"It makes no sense that he would've given the letter to the alien if he believed otherwise."

It makes no sense that he would've given the letter to "the alien" (who goes by "Nicky") when the instructions were explicit - the employer was supposed to fill out the form.

They failed.

That's all it took for Meg Whitman to contribute to the illegal immigrant problem. If employers would just follow simple instructions like in this letter there wouldn't be jobs for illegal immigrant.

But thanks to Meg Whitman this particular illegal immigrant held a $23 an hour job for 6 years.

Meg Whitman said employers who hire illegal immigrants should be held accountable.

She isn't saying that now. Instead she accused Nicky of stealing her mail.

Well, I guess the only thin... (Below threshold)
LiberalNItemare:

Well, I guess the only thing you can really do is just not hire anybody who might be mexican.

Its the only way to be safe really - thanks dems.

"Again and again you are... (Below threshold)
Dane:

"Again and again you are wrong. What you are saying is that the letter should have prompted Meg Whitman to take action against Nicki."

Biullshit. I never said that, you moron.

All I've said and all I'm saying now is that Whitman should have had done what the SS administration asked -- filled out the form that the employer was asked to complete.

You keep throwing up strawman arguments - lying about what I said because it fits your bullshit narrative. I never said Whitman should have taken action against Nicky - I said she should have filled out the damn form and done it correctly - as the employer was asked to do.

"I quoted verbatim the description of the process and the use of Form 0960-0508 for the Social Security Agency."

And I quoted verbatim the letter - which clearly says the employer is to fill out the form and return it.

Whitman failed to do that.

You must like the taste of Whitman's ass since you are doing your best to kiss it, but the letter was clear - the employer was required to fill out the form.

They weren't sent sections of the federal register - they were sent a letter that said fill this form out and return it.

They failed to do so.

They didn't look up the federal register and decide they didn't have to - and they aren't claiming that as a defense - that's Eric's butt-licking at work.

They received a letter and were told to fill out the form on the back.

Simple English instructions.

They failed.

The result, Nicky spent the next 6 years working in the US as an illegal immigrant.

Congratulations, illegal immigration haters - you have met the enemy -- the employers who hire someone and ignore requests from the Social Security administration when they see a red flag - like a non-matching social security number mismatch.

And once again the hypocrisy of the right becomes crystal clear.

They rail against illegal immigration but defend employers who don't follow the Social Security administration instructions that would reveal the employee was here illegally.

Hypocrites, plain and simple.

What Should Meg Have Don... (Below threshold)
Dane:

What Should Meg Have Done?

Filled out the form as instructed by the Social Security administration.

The real dirty secret and s... (Below threshold)
914:

The real dirty secret and story is what are the blood sucking dems giving Niki to be exploited in this way??

Stimulus funds and legal status? C'mon jerry, cough it up!

It makes no sense ... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
It makes no sense that he would've given the letter to "the alien" (who goes by "Nicky") when the instructions were explicit - the employer was supposed to fill out the form.

Sure it does--Dr. Harsh probably had no time to devote to what must have appeared to have been a simple clerical error, and asked the alien to fill out the form. Hell's bells, for all we know, he might have asked her to fill it out and then to mail it for him.

It's interesting that the form was filled out. Either Dr. Harsh filled it out or the alien did. The alien would've seen no point in filling it out. She certainly wouldn't have wanted the thing to have been mailed back to the government.

Oh, and there's still no showing that Whitman ever saw the letter.


. . . "the alien"... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
. . . "the alien" (who goes by "Nicky") . . .

Thanks to her lawyer, Gloria Allred, before the end of the year she'll be going by "Prisoner Number 49296."

"REQUEST FOR EMPLOYER INFOR... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

"REQUEST FOR EMPLOYER INFORMATION"

"Please complete the information on the reverse and return it to us promptly."

"The letter instructs them to fill out the form on the back and return it to the Social Security administration."

No, the letter REQUESTS they fill out the form. There is no legal compulsion, therefore they were not instructed to fill it out.

Your use of language is distressingly imprecise. If I was a charitable person I would suggest that could be the source of your confusion. But I am not a charitable person.

Dumb Dane or Lying Dane. It... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Dumb Dane or Lying Dane. It's hard to tell which it is.

Dane's right - fire anyone ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Dane's right - fire anyone and everyone who doesn't speak flawless American English, and can and has proven he's an American citizen. Better safe than sorry, right, Dane?

The first time Dane is righ... (Below threshold)
914:

The first time Dane is right about anything including racism I will vote + for his ass

So far in 2 months he has garnered 500 - for every + Great job Dane. How does it feel to be so wrong all the time? Just like your zero in theif Barry shackle.

Let's strip away the BS. Li... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Let's strip away the BS. Liberals/ Communists/ Progressives/ Socialists/ Democrats/ Whatevers like Dane don't give a rat's ass about the housekeeper. It's a manufactured issue kept in the cabinet until the run up to an election to smear the candidate the Reds don't like.

Dan Rather is proud. Unemployed, but proud.

The letter spelled it ou... (Below threshold)
john:

The letter spelled it out -- they had no right to demand her Social Security Card:

Jay, you lie. The letter says nothing of the sort. And you even quote the piece of the letter that proves your lie:

"While the employee must furnish the SSN to you, the employee is not required to show you the Social Security card. But, seeing the card will help ensure that all records are correct."

The letter says SHE is not required to show it. It says NOTHING about YOU being prohibited from asking for it. In fact, the exact opposite. The letter explicitly states that "seeing the card will help". How do you think you're supposed to see the card if you don't ask for it? Stare at her with puppy dog eyes until she volunteers it?

"What Should Meg Have Done?"

Let's go to the letter again:

Please complete the information on the reverse and return it to us promptly.... THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO... Fill in the information above and return this letter in the enclosed envelope.

How's that for starters?

Eric dismisses these instructions because they don't carry the force of the law, as if Whitman is being charged with not returning the letter. Is that what you need to do the right thing? What happened to the party of personal responsibility?

Dane if the information was... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Dane if the information was required then their would have been follow up letters demanding an answer.

The real issue here is Nicky is in violation of US Immigration Law and should be deported.

I find it interesting that she remains in the country but the wives and Families of service personal who die defending this country are immediately deported, even though they went though the legal immigration process.

Meg did nothing wrong the reason people "hire" illegal Aliens is to one pay a sub standard wage which Meg and her husband did not due, second not pay the additional pay role taxes which they also did not do. The worked to comply with the labor laws. The facts of the case do not match any of the assertions being made by G. I AM All RED.

My parents legally immigrated to the US and in the 1980 we thought it would be great to allow others from the Caribbean and South America to have there shot at the American dream(which we saw as you can achieve your goals through hard work and self motivation). We posted adds in the overseas papers and in US papers. We then matched employees to employers, ensuring all the Immigration paper work was completed. The legal process is not overly difficult nor was it terribly expensive. Of the 60 people we placed we only had a hand full of problems. The issues that were on the employer side were remedied because the workers had full legal status. A couple of people tried to falsify paper work but that was eliminated because we were dealing with American consulate for verification.

As the business grew we started placing American help as well as foreign nationals.

If given the opportunity and right wages everyone will work. The problem that we found with citizens were they could make more money on welfare than the starting pay as an unskilled domestic. Those with experience earned more money, but the entry level positions did not complete with the government dole.

Sad part is that many illegal aliens pay much higher price and expose themselves to much greater risk than they would if the they went through the legal system.

John, you're full of shit. ... (Below threshold)

John, you're full of shit. By "they," I meant Whitman and her husband -- THEY have no legal right to demand to see the card. The quote you cited spelled it out.

Perhaps you misunderstood the indefinite pronoun. I understand; it was vague in that context. You might have thought I was saying the federal government didn't have the right. It's plausible, from what I wrote.

But you're a schmuck for the way you jumped all over it.

J.

The real moral of this squa... (Below threshold)

The real moral of this squalid saga is that We, The People, have abrogated our being our beloved fraternal republic and have surrendered our management of its government to the incremental insidiousness of the Fabian Fascists who have taken over the ownership, management and control of the vast RICO-racketeering criminal enterprises that prefer we know them by their street name: the "Democratic" potty, which manifestation of evil has incrementally insidiously infiltrated and has stolen our government and that now pretends to be the nation we once knew as the united (Sovereign) States of America.

Ms Whitman's misfortunes only include that she failed to do due diligence in the matter of hiring help. Other failings include that she - as are most who pretend to "republicanism" - is likely too damned stupid to play in a world owned by and whose rules are set by ruthless self-and own-culture-loathing scum whose entire envy-motivated, hatred-engined and rage-driven lives are lived for the purpose of destroying everything our God-given America is and/or has ever been -- and every one of us who loves her. To say such men as Jerry bloody Brown are lower than shark sh*t is to insult the bottom of the ocean.

In an Ayn Rand prophecy become nightmare, a truly Orwellian tipping of law and order and decency and morality and integrity on their heads, Ms Whitman has done absolutely nothing wrong.

And, until November 2, at least, that's all it takes, in America, to have done absolutely everything wrong.

(And that is long before we get to the minor parts already played and major role yet to be played by the 20-35-million-man increasingly-hostilely-colonizing criminal-alien army the "Democrats" have already treasonously Trojan-Horsed into our midst for just such times as these)

What Should Meg Ha... (Below threshold)
Eric:
What Should Meg Have Done? Filled out the form as instructed by the Social Security administration.

Help me out Dane. What do you expect would have happened, had they returned the letter as you keep insisting? What would have been the result?

Eric asks ....... ... (Below threshold)

Eric asks ...

.... Had they returned the letter, what would have happened? What would have resulted from that?

If Ms Whitman's experience had turned out anything like mine and my whole family's with INS/ICE - that hapless gang would have lost her file -- and have left her in limbo for about seven years.

As they likely already did!

First of all I though it wa... (Below threshold)
John:

First of all I though it was undocumented workers and according out liberal betters they are just poor people tryig to get along in a harsh world that owes them something. Now all of sudden it's FIRE THE BITCH AND GET HER ASS DEPORTED. Damn if that's not about a whiplash inducing turn around. No actually what it is is the typical liberal bull, they take whatever position helps them move forward no matter the inconsistency.

The real question for the california attorney general is why in heavens name isn't he and his law enforcement buddies arresting the maid for fraud and identity theft?

John, you're full of shi... (Below threshold)
john:

John, you're full of shit. By "they," I meant Whitman and her husband -- THEY have no legal right to demand to see the card. The quote you cited spelled it out.

Yes, Jay, I understood you just fine. And as I pointed about above, you lied. Your lie wasn't even spin; it was stark and blatant.

The quote you cited spelled it out. Is your reading comprehension that bad? I'll say it again, just as I said it above... show us where that part of the letter says what the employer is allowed to do or not do. It doesn't. It says the employee doesn't have to show it, but it says NOTHING about the employer being prohibited from asking for it.

And it EXPLICITLY says the "seeing the card will help". Are you really claiming that the letter says they can't ask to see the card?!

All you're doing is repeating that they had no legal right to demand the card. A) I've shown how you're full of shit, and the letter says no such thing. B) What about just asking for the card. Did they even try that?

Jay, first don't confuse me... (Below threshold)
John:

Jay, first don't confuse me with john, I'm not him obviously.
Second, I just can not believe all the liberals here shouting about responsibility blah blah, illegal aliens, Whitman didn't do the right thing and on and on and on. It's almost as if they support tightening our immigration laws and forcing the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to do the RESPONSIBLE thing and ENFORCE the immigration laws already on the books. So I assume the lefties are trying to imply Whitman is unfit to serve because she didn't return a SS admin letter or handle it the way they wanted. If that's the case there are a whole lot of people serving that are unfit, starting with OBAMA and HOLDER. So please clarify for me john, Dane, etal are we now in enforce immigration law mode or are we still just playing some bull $hit game to GET a republican?
Last point if the idiots in California want to vote agains Whitman over this and vote for, of all people, Jerry Brown great enjoy the ride to bankrupcy. But please please please don't drag the rest of us down with you. NO FEDERAL BAIL OUT OF CALIFORNIA, you have a better choice if you don't exercise it please suffer alone.

Dane, you nose picking trol... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Dane, you nose picking troll, I was an employer for years and I got such a letter twice. I had photocopies of employees' cards and what the letter had was what was on the card. In both instances I never heard from them again. Now it's entirely possible that at least one of these employees was illegal, but I had no way to know as the SSA had no desire to help in any way. All they wanted was for me to check the card again and notify the employee. Period. I was told to take no further action. As a matter of fact, they weren't inerested in taking any action either. They're entire demeanor was, "Oh well, ho-hum."

Even if Whitman had hand delivered the letter to the SSA herself this story would NOT change. So get off your sanctimonious high horse because you ain't got nothin here.

Oyster, you ignorant slut. ... (Below threshold)
dane2:

Oyster, you ignorant slut.

"All they wanted was for me to check the card again and notify the employee."

That's exactly what Whitman didn't do.

"Even if Whitman had hand delivered the letter to the SSA herself this story would NOT change."

Yes it would. She would have complied with SSA instructions, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You "conservatives" love to cry about how if Bush did or said whatever Obama did or said, he'd be crucified. Well guess what? That works both ways. If a Democrat did this you guys would be screaming bloody murder. And you would be correct.

"So get off your sanctimonious high horse..."

Honey, no one is more sanctimonious than you. Get over yourself.

What Should Meg Ha... (Below threshold)
Eric:
What Should Meg Have Done? Filled out the form as instructed by the Social Security administration.

Help me out Dane. What do you expect would have happened, had they returned the letter as you keep insisting? What would have been the result?

Dane 2.0And I want y... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Dane 2.0
And I want you to to eat shit and die. But you won't. So, are you morally culpable? Have you broken any laws? Or are you just a partisan dickhead?

Do you not understand the difference between voluntary and required?

Sorry, John.john, ... (Below threshold)

Sorry, John.

john, it's obvious that reading comprehension is not your strong suit, so I'll repeat the part that you apparently can't see:

...the employee is not required to show you the Social Security card.

The employer can ask, the employee can say no, and the employer can just suck it.

J.

I'd like to further dissemi... (Below threshold)

I'd like to further disseminate this info. Can you cite a source on the fact that Meg used an agency to find a housekeeper? Or give the name of the agency?

"The employer can ask, the ... (Below threshold)
dane2:

"The employer can ask, the employee can say no, and the employer can just suck it."

The employee still is required to provide a name and SS#. All Whitman had to do was fill it out and send it in. Why is that so difficult to understand?

"What do you expect would have happened, had they returned the letter as you keep insisting? What would have been the result?"

Irrelevant.

"What do you expec... (Below threshold)
Eric:
"What do you expect would have happened, had they returned the letter as you keep insisting? What would have been the result?" Irrelevant.

If it is irrelevant, why do you keep bringing it up?

So back to my last post doe... (Below threshold)
John:

So back to my last post does this mean she is unfit for office Dane, john? What does that say about the executive branch of the federal government who's responsibility is enforcement of the laws except they choose to ignore some and use race as a determining factor for others. How about the California Attorney General Jerry Brown, he has a confessed felon on the loose he doesn't seem to be stepping up to have her arrested, is he also unfit for office? I mean this is pretty petty stuff given the state of the State in California seems there must be more important problems to address, no? But you guys on the left are becoming all about the personal attacks right so you'll be ok when all the Obama dirty laundry comes out in 2012 right, I mean you're going down this road what's good for the goose and all that.

Something else that puzzles... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Something else that puzzles me...

The housekeeper was given the letter. (Per the story, with "Nicky, look into this" written on the letter.) Letter disappears, apparently.

6 years later - letter pops up after housekeeper gets fired for being an illegal alien, coincidentally with Whitman running for office.

So Nicky not only didn't 'look into this' - because it would have exposed her THEN as an illegal, she must have kept the letter for later use. (Or filed it with a lawyer, for later use?)

Yeah, and so it's all Whitman's fault? Sure it is...

I trust, meanwhile, someone... (Below threshold)

I trust, meanwhile, someone has checked the electoral rolls to be sure that the crocodile tear shedding criminal alien at the center of this hypocritical bulls*t, Nicky Diaz Santillan and all of her brood, are enrolled to vote?

Again.

For the dirty little secret behind all of this activity includes, as God Almighty and as anyone with even half a brain -- which of course excludes all but the crypto-fascist and full-blown fascist dhimmicraps -- knows well, that without the votes of all of their especially treasonously imported for the purpose, thirty-five-million strong increasingly hostilely colonizing criminal-alien army, there would be hardly a couple score "Democrats" elected across the land!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy