OT – Whitman Hired Illegal Worker

[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=ucodegen]
Where is it written that to have these, you have to have high taxes? You can have poor food safety with high taxes.. or low taxes. The real question is how effectively is our tax money being spent. Money is a type of resource. Wasting it in one area precludes using it for something else.

Elements within the government often chime that taxes are going up because there are now more people in the country. This ignores the obvious fact that with a larger population, there is also a larger taxpayer base. A 20% greater population also means 20% more taxes with all else held constant. What is also ignored is that with greater size, comes greater efficiency (of scale). The problem comes from the fact that to survive, a company has to be efficient else it ceases to exist – with the exception of a company that is a monopoly. Governments on the other hand, end up creating bureaucracies that have their survival based upon how many individuals are below the ‘head man’. Their survival is structured to be completely in-efficient due to how they handle the accounting. The bureaucracies are not rewarded for being efficient – they are penalized for it. NOTE: I am not stating that all government services need to be farmed out – that would be a straw-man argument. There is a balance. The one thing that does irritate me is when people take a look at another country and want to change this one to be like the country ‘over there’.. particularly when they could just simply move there if this country was such a problem. As you have a right to live as you wish.. so do I.
[/quote]

I agree with you.

In my opinion, government revenue should not, over time, grow more than population growth + inflation. So, no, I do not support higher overall taxes.

Government is effective only if we elect and appoint leaders that will enforce the laws.

The financial crisis, BP spill, and ecol i outbreaks happened because regulators where not regulating out of ideology. The government agencies were there, but the regulators did not do their jobs.

I do believe that we need to elect leaders who believe that the government works and does positive things for people.

If we elect leaders who believe that government does not work, then they will make sure that it doesn’t work.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
Where is it written that to have these, you have to have high taxes? You can have poor food safety with high taxes.. or low taxes. The real question is how effectively is our tax money being spent. Money is a type of resource. Wasting it in one area precludes using it for something else.

Elements within the government often chime that taxes are going up because there are now more people in the country. This ignores the obvious fact that with a larger population, there is also a larger taxpayer base. A 20% greater population also means 20% more taxes with all else held constant. What is also ignored is that with greater size, comes greater efficiency (of scale). The problem comes from the fact that to survive, a company has to be efficient else it ceases to exist – with the exception of a company that is a monopoly. Governments on the other hand, end up creating bureaucracies that have their survival based upon how many individuals are below the ‘head man’. Their survival is structured to be completely in-efficient due to how they handle the accounting. The bureaucracies are not rewarded for being efficient – they are penalized for it. NOTE: I am not stating that all government services need to be farmed out – that would be a straw-man argument. There is a balance. The one thing that does irritate me is when people take a look at another country and want to change this one to be like the country ‘over there’.. particularly when they could just simply move there if this country was such a problem. As you have a right to live as you wish.. so do I.
[/quote]

I agree with you.

In my opinion, government revenue should not, over time, grow more than population growth + inflation. So, no, I do not support higher overall taxes.

Government is effective only if we elect and appoint leaders that will enforce the laws.

The financial crisis, BP spill, and ecol i outbreaks happened because regulators where not regulating out of ideology. The government agencies were there, but the regulators did not do their jobs.

I do believe that we need to elect leaders who believe that the government works and does positive things for people.

If we elect leaders who believe that government does not work, then they will make sure that it doesn’t work.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
Where is it written that to have these, you have to have high taxes? You can have poor food safety with high taxes.. or low taxes. The real question is how effectively is our tax money being spent. Money is a type of resource. Wasting it in one area precludes using it for something else.

Elements within the government often chime that taxes are going up because there are now more people in the country. This ignores the obvious fact that with a larger population, there is also a larger taxpayer base. A 20% greater population also means 20% more taxes with all else held constant. What is also ignored is that with greater size, comes greater efficiency (of scale). The problem comes from the fact that to survive, a company has to be efficient else it ceases to exist – with the exception of a company that is a monopoly. Governments on the other hand, end up creating bureaucracies that have their survival based upon how many individuals are below the ‘head man’. Their survival is structured to be completely in-efficient due to how they handle the accounting. The bureaucracies are not rewarded for being efficient – they are penalized for it. NOTE: I am not stating that all government services need to be farmed out – that would be a straw-man argument. There is a balance. The one thing that does irritate me is when people take a look at another country and want to change this one to be like the country ‘over there’.. particularly when they could just simply move there if this country was such a problem. As you have a right to live as you wish.. so do I.
[/quote]

I agree with you.

In my opinion, government revenue should not, over time, grow more than population growth + inflation. So, no, I do not support higher overall taxes.

Government is effective only if we elect and appoint leaders that will enforce the laws.

The financial crisis, BP spill, and ecol i outbreaks happened because regulators where not regulating out of ideology. The government agencies were there, but the regulators did not do their jobs.

I do believe that we need to elect leaders who believe that the government works and does positive things for people.

If we elect leaders who believe that government does not work, then they will make sure that it doesn’t work.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
Where is it written that to have these, you have to have high taxes? You can have poor food safety with high taxes.. or low taxes. The real question is how effectively is our tax money being spent. Money is a type of resource. Wasting it in one area precludes using it for something else.

Elements within the government often chime that taxes are going up because there are now more people in the country. This ignores the obvious fact that with a larger population, there is also a larger taxpayer base. A 20% greater population also means 20% more taxes with all else held constant. What is also ignored is that with greater size, comes greater efficiency (of scale). The problem comes from the fact that to survive, a company has to be efficient else it ceases to exist – with the exception of a company that is a monopoly. Governments on the other hand, end up creating bureaucracies that have their survival based upon how many individuals are below the ‘head man’. Their survival is structured to be completely in-efficient due to how they handle the accounting. The bureaucracies are not rewarded for being efficient – they are penalized for it. NOTE: I am not stating that all government services need to be farmed out – that would be a straw-man argument. There is a balance. The one thing that does irritate me is when people take a look at another country and want to change this one to be like the country ‘over there’.. particularly when they could just simply move there if this country was such a problem. As you have a right to live as you wish.. so do I.
[/quote]

I agree with you.

In my opinion, government revenue should not, over time, grow more than population growth + inflation. So, no, I do not support higher overall taxes.

Government is effective only if we elect and appoint leaders that will enforce the laws.

The financial crisis, BP spill, and ecol i outbreaks happened because regulators where not regulating out of ideology. The government agencies were there, but the regulators did not do their jobs.

I do believe that we need to elect leaders who believe that the government works and does positive things for people.

If we elect leaders who believe that government does not work, then they will make sure that it doesn’t work.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
Where is it written that to have these, you have to have high taxes? You can have poor food safety with high taxes.. or low taxes. The real question is how effectively is our tax money being spent. Money is a type of resource. Wasting it in one area precludes using it for something else.

Elements within the government often chime that taxes are going up because there are now more people in the country. This ignores the obvious fact that with a larger population, there is also a larger taxpayer base. A 20% greater population also means 20% more taxes with all else held constant. What is also ignored is that with greater size, comes greater efficiency (of scale). The problem comes from the fact that to survive, a company has to be efficient else it ceases to exist – with the exception of a company that is a monopoly. Governments on the other hand, end up creating bureaucracies that have their survival based upon how many individuals are below the ‘head man’. Their survival is structured to be completely in-efficient due to how they handle the accounting. The bureaucracies are not rewarded for being efficient – they are penalized for it. NOTE: I am not stating that all government services need to be farmed out – that would be a straw-man argument. There is a balance. The one thing that does irritate me is when people take a look at another country and want to change this one to be like the country ‘over there’.. particularly when they could just simply move there if this country was such a problem. As you have a right to live as you wish.. so do I.
[/quote]

I agree with you.

In my opinion, government revenue should not, over time, grow more than population growth + inflation. So, no, I do not support higher overall taxes.

Government is effective only if we elect and appoint leaders that will enforce the laws.

The financial crisis, BP spill, and ecol i outbreaks happened because regulators where not regulating out of ideology. The government agencies were there, but the regulators did not do their jobs.

I do believe that we need to elect leaders who believe that the government works and does positive things for people.

If we elect leaders who believe that government does not work, then they will make sure that it doesn’t work.

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
I do believe that we need to elect leaders who believe that the government works and does positive things for people.

If we elect leaders who believe that government does not work, then they will make sure that it doesn’t work.
[/quote]
What I have been seeing too much is not that people are being elected who don’t think government works, but people being elected who really don’t care what the electorate wants. They are there to push their personal agenda – or for the freebies. These people will claim that they care, but their behavior changes once in office. The become ensconced and hard to remove.

[quote briansd1]
The financial crisis, BP spill, and ecol i outbreaks happened because regulators where not regulating out of ideology. The government agencies were there, but the regulators did not do their jobs.
[/quote]
I think it was not ideological, it was more a combination of lazyness and not rocking the boat. Much like how 9/11 occurred – where FBI agents on the ground were reporting that people of Arab nationality were taking flying classes and they didn’t seem to be that interested in learning how to land. The field agents reported it up the chain, and the top said that it wasn’t a problem. The only conspiracy I saw was one of sloth and laziness. Normally, if a division of a company performed in this manner, it would be liquidated, eliminated or the CEO would assign someone new to run it – putting the former head out to pasture. Unfortunately with government structures, it seems to be a little harder to do that (political reasons?). The heads of FBI/CIA should have been put out to pasture as a result of 9/11 – or they should have taken the Japanese way out. If I was in their shoes, I would have been very embarassed(putting it mildly). Instead, these same people were given more authority, and we lose some more rights.

Part of the reason why San Diego is playing around with the ‘strong Mayor’ structure, is to see it the Mayor could reach through the bureaucracy to clean things up. As to whether he has the political will.. ummm…

In terms of gov. accounting, I would love to see it change so that if there is a surplus in a division, it gets to carry over to the next year (normally allocated budget + surplus from last year). The max surplus a division can carry over might be a negotiated point (need to find a way to structure it to prevent gaming the system). The only problem I see it the bureaucrat and politicians attraction to anything that might have money in it (they seem to be parasitic in nature)

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
I do believe that we need to elect leaders who believe that the government works and does positive things for people.

If we elect leaders who believe that government does not work, then they will make sure that it doesn’t work.
[/quote]
What I have been seeing too much is not that people are being elected who don’t think government works, but people being elected who really don’t care what the electorate wants. They are there to push their personal agenda – or for the freebies. These people will claim that they care, but their behavior changes once in office. The become ensconced and hard to remove.

[quote briansd1]
The financial crisis, BP spill, and ecol i outbreaks happened because regulators where not regulating out of ideology. The government agencies were there, but the regulators did not do their jobs.
[/quote]
I think it was not ideological, it was more a combination of lazyness and not rocking the boat. Much like how 9/11 occurred – where FBI agents on the ground were reporting that people of Arab nationality were taking flying classes and they didn’t seem to be that interested in learning how to land. The field agents reported it up the chain, and the top said that it wasn’t a problem. The only conspiracy I saw was one of sloth and laziness. Normally, if a division of a company performed in this manner, it would be liquidated, eliminated or the CEO would assign someone new to run it – putting the former head out to pasture. Unfortunately with government structures, it seems to be a little harder to do that (political reasons?). The heads of FBI/CIA should have been put out to pasture as a result of 9/11 – or they should have taken the Japanese way out. If I was in their shoes, I would have been very embarassed(putting it mildly). Instead, these same people were given more authority, and we lose some more rights.

Part of the reason why San Diego is playing around with the ‘strong Mayor’ structure, is to see it the Mayor could reach through the bureaucracy to clean things up. As to whether he has the political will.. ummm…

In terms of gov. accounting, I would love to see it change so that if there is a surplus in a division, it gets to carry over to the next year (normally allocated budget + surplus from last year). The max surplus a division can carry over might be a negotiated point (need to find a way to structure it to prevent gaming the system). The only problem I see it the bureaucrat and politicians attraction to anything that might have money in it (they seem to be parasitic in nature)

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
I do believe that we need to elect leaders who believe that the government works and does positive things for people.

If we elect leaders who believe that government does not work, then they will make sure that it doesn’t work.
[/quote]
What I have been seeing too much is not that people are being elected who don’t think government works, but people being elected who really don’t care what the electorate wants. They are there to push their personal agenda – or for the freebies. These people will claim that they care, but their behavior changes once in office. The become ensconced and hard to remove.

[quote briansd1]
The financial crisis, BP spill, and ecol i outbreaks happened because regulators where not regulating out of ideology. The government agencies were there, but the regulators did not do their jobs.
[/quote]
I think it was not ideological, it was more a combination of lazyness and not rocking the boat. Much like how 9/11 occurred – where FBI agents on the ground were reporting that people of Arab nationality were taking flying classes and they didn’t seem to be that interested in learning how to land. The field agents reported it up the chain, and the top said that it wasn’t a problem. The only conspiracy I saw was one of sloth and laziness. Normally, if a division of a company performed in this manner, it would be liquidated, eliminated or the CEO would assign someone new to run it – putting the former head out to pasture. Unfortunately with government structures, it seems to be a little harder to do that (political reasons?). The heads of FBI/CIA should have been put out to pasture as a result of 9/11 – or they should have taken the Japanese way out. If I was in their shoes, I would have been very embarassed(putting it mildly). Instead, these same people were given more authority, and we lose some more rights.

Part of the reason why San Diego is playing around with the ‘strong Mayor’ structure, is to see it the Mayor could reach through the bureaucracy to clean things up. As to whether he has the political will.. ummm…

In terms of gov. accounting, I would love to see it change so that if there is a surplus in a division, it gets to carry over to the next year (normally allocated budget + surplus from last year). The max surplus a division can carry over might be a negotiated point (need to find a way to structure it to prevent gaming the system). The only problem I see it the bureaucrat and politicians attraction to anything that might have money in it (they seem to be parasitic in nature)

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
I do believe that we need to elect leaders who believe that the government works and does positive things for people.

If we elect leaders who believe that government does not work, then they will make sure that it doesn’t work.
[/quote]
What I have been seeing too much is not that people are being elected who don’t think government works, but people being elected who really don’t care what the electorate wants. They are there to push their personal agenda – or for the freebies. These people will claim that they care, but their behavior changes once in office. The become ensconced and hard to remove.

[quote briansd1]
The financial crisis, BP spill, and ecol i outbreaks happened because regulators where not regulating out of ideology. The government agencies were there, but the regulators did not do their jobs.
[/quote]
I think it was not ideological, it was more a combination of lazyness and not rocking the boat. Much like how 9/11 occurred – where FBI agents on the ground were reporting that people of Arab nationality were taking flying classes and they didn’t seem to be that interested in learning how to land. The field agents reported it up the chain, and the top said that it wasn’t a problem. The only conspiracy I saw was one of sloth and laziness. Normally, if a division of a company performed in this manner, it would be liquidated, eliminated or the CEO would assign someone new to run it – putting the former head out to pasture. Unfortunately with government structures, it seems to be a little harder to do that (political reasons?). The heads of FBI/CIA should have been put out to pasture as a result of 9/11 – or they should have taken the Japanese way out. If I was in their shoes, I would have been very embarassed(putting it mildly). Instead, these same people were given more authority, and we lose some more rights.

Part of the reason why San Diego is playing around with the ‘strong Mayor’ structure, is to see it the Mayor could reach through the bureaucracy to clean things up. As to whether he has the political will.. ummm…

In terms of gov. accounting, I would love to see it change so that if there is a surplus in a division, it gets to carry over to the next year (normally allocated budget + surplus from last year). The max surplus a division can carry over might be a negotiated point (need to find a way to structure it to prevent gaming the system). The only problem I see it the bureaucrat and politicians attraction to anything that might have money in it (they seem to be parasitic in nature)

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
I do believe that we need to elect leaders who believe that the government works and does positive things for people.

If we elect leaders who believe that government does not work, then they will make sure that it doesn’t work.
[/quote]
What I have been seeing too much is not that people are being elected who don’t think government works, but people being elected who really don’t care what the electorate wants. They are there to push their personal agenda – or for the freebies. These people will claim that they care, but their behavior changes once in office. The become ensconced and hard to remove.

[quote briansd1]
The financial crisis, BP spill, and ecol i outbreaks happened because regulators where not regulating out of ideology. The government agencies were there, but the regulators did not do their jobs.
[/quote]
I think it was not ideological, it was more a combination of lazyness and not rocking the boat. Much like how 9/11 occurred – where FBI agents on the ground were reporting that people of Arab nationality were taking flying classes and they didn’t seem to be that interested in learning how to land. The field agents reported it up the chain, and the top said that it wasn’t a problem. The only conspiracy I saw was one of sloth and laziness. Normally, if a division of a company performed in this manner, it would be liquidated, eliminated or the CEO would assign someone new to run it – putting the former head out to pasture. Unfortunately with government structures, it seems to be a little harder to do that (political reasons?). The heads of FBI/CIA should have been put out to pasture as a result of 9/11 – or they should have taken the Japanese way out. If I was in their shoes, I would have been very embarassed(putting it mildly). Instead, these same people were given more authority, and we lose some more rights.

Part of the reason why San Diego is playing around with the ‘strong Mayor’ structure, is to see it the Mayor could reach through the bureaucracy to clean things up. As to whether he has the political will.. ummm…

In terms of gov. accounting, I would love to see it change so that if there is a surplus in a division, it gets to carry over to the next year (normally allocated budget + surplus from last year). The max surplus a division can carry over might be a negotiated point (need to find a way to structure it to prevent gaming the system). The only problem I see it the bureaucrat and politicians attraction to anything that might have money in it (they seem to be parasitic in nature)

[AK]

I am not a Whitman supporter BUT …

The letter sent to Whitman by the SSA regarding the maid’s SSN specifically states: “This letter … is not a basis, in and of itself, for you to take any adverse actions against the employee … 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.”

AND … While employers are required to complete a Form I-9 attesting that the employee provided “facially valid” proof of identity and eligibility to work, It is ILLEGAL to arbitrarily reject valid or valid-looking documents, or to demand more proof than the law requires. That constitutes discrimination based on immigration status, national origin, etc.

3. The government makes mistakes too. I’d hate to be summarily dismissed because some agency sent my employer a nastygram by mistake. Worse than the time my high school report card got screwed up.

[AK]

I am not a Whitman supporter BUT …

The letter sent to Whitman by the SSA regarding the maid’s SSN specifically states: “This letter … is not a basis, in and of itself, for you to take any adverse actions against the employee … 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.”

AND … While employers are required to complete a Form I-9 attesting that the employee provided “facially valid” proof of identity and eligibility to work, It is ILLEGAL to arbitrarily reject valid or valid-looking documents, or to demand more proof than the law requires. That constitutes discrimination based on immigration status, national origin, etc.

3. The government makes mistakes too. I’d hate to be summarily dismissed because some agency sent my employer a nastygram by mistake. Worse than the time my high school report card got screwed up.

[AK]

I am not a Whitman supporter BUT …

The letter sent to Whitman by the SSA regarding the maid’s SSN specifically states: “This letter … is not a basis, in and of itself, for you to take any adverse actions against the employee … 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.”

AND … While employers are required to complete a Form I-9 attesting that the employee provided “facially valid” proof of identity and eligibility to work, It is ILLEGAL to arbitrarily reject valid or valid-looking documents, or to demand more proof than the law requires. That constitutes discrimination based on immigration status, national origin, etc.

3. The government makes mistakes too. I’d hate to be summarily dismissed because some agency sent my employer a nastygram by mistake. Worse than the time my high school report card got screwed up.

[AK]

I am not a Whitman supporter BUT …

The letter sent to Whitman by the SSA regarding the maid’s SSN specifically states: “This letter … is not a basis, in and of itself, for you to take any adverse actions against the employee … 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.”

AND … While employers are required to complete a Form I-9 attesting that the employee provided “facially valid” proof of identity and eligibility to work, It is ILLEGAL to arbitrarily reject valid or valid-looking documents, or to demand more proof than the law requires. That constitutes discrimination based on immigration status, national origin, etc.

3. The government makes mistakes too. I’d hate to be summarily dismissed because some agency sent my employer a nastygram by mistake. Worse than the time my high school report card got screwed up.

[Author]

Posts