OT – Whitman Hired Illegal Worker

[meadandale]

[quote=briansd1]Kicking her “family member” out after 9 years is not a compassionate way to treat a person who’s served her well.[/quote]

Yet you are all for cracking down on employers and increasing workplace raids (based on your repeated assertions that Obama is doing more about the immigration problem than GW). What do you think happens to these employees being employed illegally when their employer is ‘caught’?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1][quote=FormerSanDiegan]

If you think about it, it’s the only thing she could have done. Imagine the damage to her campaign (particularly in the primary) if she would have hired immigration attorneys to assist her illegal immigrant employee. Soft on immigration does not play to her base.[/quote]

FSD, I believe that there is more to this.

Whitman is a billionaire for God’s sake. She could easily have arranged for a third party to take care of her maid (family member she claimed).

Kicking her “family member” out after 9 years is not a compassionate way to treat a person who’s served her well.[/quote]

If WHitman had another family member “take care of” the maid, it would eventually come out that she knowingly harbored an illegal alien. This would not be looked at too fondly by the Republican base. It’s a lose-lose position for her.

I think there is more too this, too. Did the maid suddenly realize she was illegal, or was her timing in revealing it to Whitman and attempt by her (or someone else) to exploit the fact for personal gain ?

The whole thing smells rotten on both sides.

But in the end, the maid violated CA’s don’t-ask-don’t-tell immigration policy, and is now a victim.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1][quote=FormerSanDiegan]

If you think about it, it’s the only thing she could have done. Imagine the damage to her campaign (particularly in the primary) if she would have hired immigration attorneys to assist her illegal immigrant employee. Soft on immigration does not play to her base.[/quote]

FSD, I believe that there is more to this.

Whitman is a billionaire for God’s sake. She could easily have arranged for a third party to take care of her maid (family member she claimed).

Kicking her “family member” out after 9 years is not a compassionate way to treat a person who’s served her well.[/quote]

If WHitman had another family member “take care of” the maid, it would eventually come out that she knowingly harbored an illegal alien. This would not be looked at too fondly by the Republican base. It’s a lose-lose position for her.

I think there is more too this, too. Did the maid suddenly realize she was illegal, or was her timing in revealing it to Whitman and attempt by her (or someone else) to exploit the fact for personal gain ?

The whole thing smells rotten on both sides.

But in the end, the maid violated CA’s don’t-ask-don’t-tell immigration policy, and is now a victim.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1][quote=FormerSanDiegan]

If you think about it, it’s the only thing she could have done. Imagine the damage to her campaign (particularly in the primary) if she would have hired immigration attorneys to assist her illegal immigrant employee. Soft on immigration does not play to her base.[/quote]

FSD, I believe that there is more to this.

Whitman is a billionaire for God’s sake. She could easily have arranged for a third party to take care of her maid (family member she claimed).

Kicking her “family member” out after 9 years is not a compassionate way to treat a person who’s served her well.[/quote]

If WHitman had another family member “take care of” the maid, it would eventually come out that she knowingly harbored an illegal alien. This would not be looked at too fondly by the Republican base. It’s a lose-lose position for her.

I think there is more too this, too. Did the maid suddenly realize she was illegal, or was her timing in revealing it to Whitman and attempt by her (or someone else) to exploit the fact for personal gain ?

The whole thing smells rotten on both sides.

But in the end, the maid violated CA’s don’t-ask-don’t-tell immigration policy, and is now a victim.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1][quote=FormerSanDiegan]

If you think about it, it’s the only thing she could have done. Imagine the damage to her campaign (particularly in the primary) if she would have hired immigration attorneys to assist her illegal immigrant employee. Soft on immigration does not play to her base.[/quote]

FSD, I believe that there is more to this.

Whitman is a billionaire for God’s sake. She could easily have arranged for a third party to take care of her maid (family member she claimed).

Kicking her “family member” out after 9 years is not a compassionate way to treat a person who’s served her well.[/quote]

If WHitman had another family member “take care of” the maid, it would eventually come out that she knowingly harbored an illegal alien. This would not be looked at too fondly by the Republican base. It’s a lose-lose position for her.

I think there is more too this, too. Did the maid suddenly realize she was illegal, or was her timing in revealing it to Whitman and attempt by her (or someone else) to exploit the fact for personal gain ?

The whole thing smells rotten on both sides.

But in the end, the maid violated CA’s don’t-ask-don’t-tell immigration policy, and is now a victim.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1][quote=FormerSanDiegan]

If you think about it, it’s the only thing she could have done. Imagine the damage to her campaign (particularly in the primary) if she would have hired immigration attorneys to assist her illegal immigrant employee. Soft on immigration does not play to her base.[/quote]

FSD, I believe that there is more to this.

Whitman is a billionaire for God’s sake. She could easily have arranged for a third party to take care of her maid (family member she claimed).

Kicking her “family member” out after 9 years is not a compassionate way to treat a person who’s served her well.[/quote]

If WHitman had another family member “take care of” the maid, it would eventually come out that she knowingly harbored an illegal alien. This would not be looked at too fondly by the Republican base. It’s a lose-lose position for her.

I think there is more too this, too. Did the maid suddenly realize she was illegal, or was her timing in revealing it to Whitman and attempt by her (or someone else) to exploit the fact for personal gain ?

The whole thing smells rotten on both sides.

But in the end, the maid violated CA’s don’t-ask-don’t-tell immigration policy, and is now a victim.

[pjwal]

Today’s polling shows a slight uptick for Whitman most certainly as a result of this nonsense.

[pjwal]

Today’s polling shows a slight uptick for Whitman most certainly as a result of this nonsense.

[pjwal]

Today’s polling shows a slight uptick for Whitman most certainly as a result of this nonsense.

[pjwal]

Today’s polling shows a slight uptick for Whitman most certainly as a result of this nonsense.

[pjwal]

Today’s polling shows a slight uptick for Whitman most certainly as a result of this nonsense.

[briansd1]

[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]Kicking her “family member” out after 9 years is not a compassionate way to treat a person who’s served her well.[/quote]

Yet you are all for cracking down on employers and increasing workplace raids (based on your repeated assertions that Obama is doing more about the immigration problem than GW). What do you think happens to these employees being employed illegally when their employer is ‘caught’?[/quote]

I don’t see the contradiction here.

Supporting certain policy is separate from doing the compassionate thing on an individual level.

You may support strong punishment for drunk driving. But if you son gets in trouble for drunk driving, will you not do what you can to help your family member?

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]

If WHitman had another family member “take care of” the maid, it would eventually come out that she knowingly harbored an illegal alien. This would not be looked at too fondly by the Republican base. It’s a lose-lose position for her.
[/quote]

Whitman was “harboring” her housekeeper all along for 9 years. Whitman likely wanted to keep the information out of the primary and out of the knowledge of her Republican base.

We don’t fully know why the housekeeper is not legal.

Whitman could have referred her to an attorney for assistance. Whitman could have paid her severance to make the transition easier.

It’s hard to say what the housekeeper’s options are to remain in the US legally. Maybe she qualifies for asylum. Maybe she is dating a US citizen whom she could marry for legal status.

If Whitman had treated her housekeeper like a “family member”, then the housekeeper might not have turned to the other attorney.

Also, if during 9 years of living closely with the housekeeper, Meg Whitman did not know that her housekeeper was an unauthorized migrant worker, how would the police in Arizona figure out who is legal from a 30-second stop?

[briansd1]

[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]Kicking her “family member” out after 9 years is not a compassionate way to treat a person who’s served her well.[/quote]

Yet you are all for cracking down on employers and increasing workplace raids (based on your repeated assertions that Obama is doing more about the immigration problem than GW). What do you think happens to these employees being employed illegally when their employer is ‘caught’?[/quote]

I don’t see the contradiction here.

Supporting certain policy is separate from doing the compassionate thing on an individual level.

You may support strong punishment for drunk driving. But if you son gets in trouble for drunk driving, will you not do what you can to help your family member?

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]

If WHitman had another family member “take care of” the maid, it would eventually come out that she knowingly harbored an illegal alien. This would not be looked at too fondly by the Republican base. It’s a lose-lose position for her.
[/quote]

Whitman was “harboring” her housekeeper all along for 9 years. Whitman likely wanted to keep the information out of the primary and out of the knowledge of her Republican base.

We don’t fully know why the housekeeper is not legal.

Whitman could have referred her to an attorney for assistance. Whitman could have paid her severance to make the transition easier.

It’s hard to say what the housekeeper’s options are to remain in the US legally. Maybe she qualifies for asylum. Maybe she is dating a US citizen whom she could marry for legal status.

If Whitman had treated her housekeeper like a “family member”, then the housekeeper might not have turned to the other attorney.

Also, if during 9 years of living closely with the housekeeper, Meg Whitman did not know that her housekeeper was an unauthorized migrant worker, how would the police in Arizona figure out who is legal from a 30-second stop?

[briansd1]

[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]Kicking her “family member” out after 9 years is not a compassionate way to treat a person who’s served her well.[/quote]

Yet you are all for cracking down on employers and increasing workplace raids (based on your repeated assertions that Obama is doing more about the immigration problem than GW). What do you think happens to these employees being employed illegally when their employer is ‘caught’?[/quote]

I don’t see the contradiction here.

Supporting certain policy is separate from doing the compassionate thing on an individual level.

You may support strong punishment for drunk driving. But if you son gets in trouble for drunk driving, will you not do what you can to help your family member?

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]

If WHitman had another family member “take care of” the maid, it would eventually come out that she knowingly harbored an illegal alien. This would not be looked at too fondly by the Republican base. It’s a lose-lose position for her.
[/quote]

Whitman was “harboring” her housekeeper all along for 9 years. Whitman likely wanted to keep the information out of the primary and out of the knowledge of her Republican base.

We don’t fully know why the housekeeper is not legal.

Whitman could have referred her to an attorney for assistance. Whitman could have paid her severance to make the transition easier.

It’s hard to say what the housekeeper’s options are to remain in the US legally. Maybe she qualifies for asylum. Maybe she is dating a US citizen whom she could marry for legal status.

If Whitman had treated her housekeeper like a “family member”, then the housekeeper might not have turned to the other attorney.

Also, if during 9 years of living closely with the housekeeper, Meg Whitman did not know that her housekeeper was an unauthorized migrant worker, how would the police in Arizona figure out who is legal from a 30-second stop?

[briansd1]

[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]Kicking her “family member” out after 9 years is not a compassionate way to treat a person who’s served her well.[/quote]

Yet you are all for cracking down on employers and increasing workplace raids (based on your repeated assertions that Obama is doing more about the immigration problem than GW). What do you think happens to these employees being employed illegally when their employer is ‘caught’?[/quote]

I don’t see the contradiction here.

Supporting certain policy is separate from doing the compassionate thing on an individual level.

You may support strong punishment for drunk driving. But if you son gets in trouble for drunk driving, will you not do what you can to help your family member?

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]

If WHitman had another family member “take care of” the maid, it would eventually come out that she knowingly harbored an illegal alien. This would not be looked at too fondly by the Republican base. It’s a lose-lose position for her.
[/quote]

Whitman was “harboring” her housekeeper all along for 9 years. Whitman likely wanted to keep the information out of the primary and out of the knowledge of her Republican base.

We don’t fully know why the housekeeper is not legal.

Whitman could have referred her to an attorney for assistance. Whitman could have paid her severance to make the transition easier.

It’s hard to say what the housekeeper’s options are to remain in the US legally. Maybe she qualifies for asylum. Maybe she is dating a US citizen whom she could marry for legal status.

If Whitman had treated her housekeeper like a “family member”, then the housekeeper might not have turned to the other attorney.

Also, if during 9 years of living closely with the housekeeper, Meg Whitman did not know that her housekeeper was an unauthorized migrant worker, how would the police in Arizona figure out who is legal from a 30-second stop?

[Author]

Posts