OT – Whitman Hired Illegal Worker

[Veritas]

Best wishes to you and your new bride. May you live happily ever after.

[gandalf]

This is a stupid thread.

Who cares if Meg Whitman hired an illegal to clean her home?

I don’t. Couldn’t give a crap.

Meg didn’t seem to mind either. Housekeeper probably did a good job. Worked hard, stayed out of trouble. Illegal? No problem.

Until Meg decided to run for office…

Because republicans don’t like illegal Mexicans.

GOP is for law and order (racism in parentheses).

See, you can’t really be a decent GOP candidate for governor if you’ve go around hiring illegals to wash your crap-stained panties.

Fucking Meg, upwardly mobile garbage.

I don’t care for Brown, but Meg is a loser.

Arnold has been good.

[gandalf]

This is a stupid thread.

Who cares if Meg Whitman hired an illegal to clean her home?

I don’t. Couldn’t give a crap.

Meg didn’t seem to mind either. Housekeeper probably did a good job. Worked hard, stayed out of trouble. Illegal? No problem.

Until Meg decided to run for office…

Because republicans don’t like illegal Mexicans.

GOP is for law and order (racism in parentheses).

See, you can’t really be a decent GOP candidate for governor if you’ve go around hiring illegals to wash your crap-stained panties.

Fucking Meg, upwardly mobile garbage.

I don’t care for Brown, but Meg is a loser.

Arnold has been good.

[gandalf]

This is a stupid thread.

Who cares if Meg Whitman hired an illegal to clean her home?

I don’t. Couldn’t give a crap.

Meg didn’t seem to mind either. Housekeeper probably did a good job. Worked hard, stayed out of trouble. Illegal? No problem.

Until Meg decided to run for office…

Because republicans don’t like illegal Mexicans.

GOP is for law and order (racism in parentheses).

See, you can’t really be a decent GOP candidate for governor if you’ve go around hiring illegals to wash your crap-stained panties.

Fucking Meg, upwardly mobile garbage.

I don’t care for Brown, but Meg is a loser.

Arnold has been good.

[gandalf]

This is a stupid thread.

Who cares if Meg Whitman hired an illegal to clean her home?

I don’t. Couldn’t give a crap.

Meg didn’t seem to mind either. Housekeeper probably did a good job. Worked hard, stayed out of trouble. Illegal? No problem.

Until Meg decided to run for office…

Because republicans don’t like illegal Mexicans.

GOP is for law and order (racism in parentheses).

See, you can’t really be a decent GOP candidate for governor if you’ve go around hiring illegals to wash your crap-stained panties.

Fucking Meg, upwardly mobile garbage.

I don’t care for Brown, but Meg is a loser.

Arnold has been good.

[gandalf]

This is a stupid thread.

Who cares if Meg Whitman hired an illegal to clean her home?

I don’t. Couldn’t give a crap.

Meg didn’t seem to mind either. Housekeeper probably did a good job. Worked hard, stayed out of trouble. Illegal? No problem.

Until Meg decided to run for office…

Because republicans don’t like illegal Mexicans.

GOP is for law and order (racism in parentheses).

See, you can’t really be a decent GOP candidate for governor if you’ve go around hiring illegals to wash your crap-stained panties.

Fucking Meg, upwardly mobile garbage.

I don’t care for Brown, but Meg is a loser.

Arnold has been good.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]

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?[/quote]

Unless additional proof comes out, I believe that she assumed the maid was legal. Look at the contents of the supposed bombshell letter.

Perhaps Meg should have called the Maricopa County Sheriff (tongue in cheek)

I agree 100% with your last point, though. I don’t see how the equivalent of a routine traffic stop helps with the immigration situation anyway. Show a drivers’ license and a fake SSN and move on. The AZ law is all hat as far as I’m concerned.
Immigration law is unevenly enforced and probably not fully enforceable without excessive cost.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]

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?[/quote]

Unless additional proof comes out, I believe that she assumed the maid was legal. Look at the contents of the supposed bombshell letter.

Perhaps Meg should have called the Maricopa County Sheriff (tongue in cheek)

I agree 100% with your last point, though. I don’t see how the equivalent of a routine traffic stop helps with the immigration situation anyway. Show a drivers’ license and a fake SSN and move on. The AZ law is all hat as far as I’m concerned.
Immigration law is unevenly enforced and probably not fully enforceable without excessive cost.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]

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?[/quote]

Unless additional proof comes out, I believe that she assumed the maid was legal. Look at the contents of the supposed bombshell letter.

Perhaps Meg should have called the Maricopa County Sheriff (tongue in cheek)

I agree 100% with your last point, though. I don’t see how the equivalent of a routine traffic stop helps with the immigration situation anyway. Show a drivers’ license and a fake SSN and move on. The AZ law is all hat as far as I’m concerned.
Immigration law is unevenly enforced and probably not fully enforceable without excessive cost.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]

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?[/quote]

Unless additional proof comes out, I believe that she assumed the maid was legal. Look at the contents of the supposed bombshell letter.

Perhaps Meg should have called the Maricopa County Sheriff (tongue in cheek)

I agree 100% with your last point, though. I don’t see how the equivalent of a routine traffic stop helps with the immigration situation anyway. Show a drivers’ license and a fake SSN and move on. The AZ law is all hat as far as I’m concerned.
Immigration law is unevenly enforced and probably not fully enforceable without excessive cost.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]

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?[/quote]

Unless additional proof comes out, I believe that she assumed the maid was legal. Look at the contents of the supposed bombshell letter.

Perhaps Meg should have called the Maricopa County Sheriff (tongue in cheek)

I agree 100% with your last point, though. I don’t see how the equivalent of a routine traffic stop helps with the immigration situation anyway. Show a drivers’ license and a fake SSN and move on. The AZ law is all hat as far as I’m concerned.
Immigration law is unevenly enforced and probably not fully enforceable without excessive cost.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Investor: BigGubment isn’t falling for the propaganda at all, he’s spreading it. If you haven’t noticed, he hasn’t responded to a single post attacking his lack of facts, or his clear Leftist slant.

This has nothing to do with Whitman and everything to do with a pre-planned smear on a GOP candidate.[/quote]

This might be propaganda. Though I suspect that the timing has more to do with something Gloria Allred wants, and is only peripherally related to the election. Allred is partisan. But more than that, she’s an attention whore. So there’s little chance the timing is for Jerry Brown. The timing is for Gloria Allred. And if this woman had worked for Jerry Brown, I doubt the timing would be any different.

It doesn’t appear it has any resemblance to a smear. The swiftboating of John Kerry? Now that was a smear. The birthers? That’s a smear. Claims with absolutely no factual basis and no relation to the election. This appears to be based on pretty good facts, even acknowledged facts. I don’t happen to think those facts are material.

But this is politics. Little nothings, like this should be, become big news. Anyone who is suprised that there’s politics in politics just hasn’t been paying attention.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Investor: BigGubment isn’t falling for the propaganda at all, he’s spreading it. If you haven’t noticed, he hasn’t responded to a single post attacking his lack of facts, or his clear Leftist slant.

This has nothing to do with Whitman and everything to do with a pre-planned smear on a GOP candidate.[/quote]

This might be propaganda. Though I suspect that the timing has more to do with something Gloria Allred wants, and is only peripherally related to the election. Allred is partisan. But more than that, she’s an attention whore. So there’s little chance the timing is for Jerry Brown. The timing is for Gloria Allred. And if this woman had worked for Jerry Brown, I doubt the timing would be any different.

It doesn’t appear it has any resemblance to a smear. The swiftboating of John Kerry? Now that was a smear. The birthers? That’s a smear. Claims with absolutely no factual basis and no relation to the election. This appears to be based on pretty good facts, even acknowledged facts. I don’t happen to think those facts are material.

But this is politics. Little nothings, like this should be, become big news. Anyone who is suprised that there’s politics in politics just hasn’t been paying attention.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Investor: BigGubment isn’t falling for the propaganda at all, he’s spreading it. If you haven’t noticed, he hasn’t responded to a single post attacking his lack of facts, or his clear Leftist slant.

This has nothing to do with Whitman and everything to do with a pre-planned smear on a GOP candidate.[/quote]

This might be propaganda. Though I suspect that the timing has more to do with something Gloria Allred wants, and is only peripherally related to the election. Allred is partisan. But more than that, she’s an attention whore. So there’s little chance the timing is for Jerry Brown. The timing is for Gloria Allred. And if this woman had worked for Jerry Brown, I doubt the timing would be any different.

It doesn’t appear it has any resemblance to a smear. The swiftboating of John Kerry? Now that was a smear. The birthers? That’s a smear. Claims with absolutely no factual basis and no relation to the election. This appears to be based on pretty good facts, even acknowledged facts. I don’t happen to think those facts are material.

But this is politics. Little nothings, like this should be, become big news. Anyone who is suprised that there’s politics in politics just hasn’t been paying attention.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Investor: BigGubment isn’t falling for the propaganda at all, he’s spreading it. If you haven’t noticed, he hasn’t responded to a single post attacking his lack of facts, or his clear Leftist slant.

This has nothing to do with Whitman and everything to do with a pre-planned smear on a GOP candidate.[/quote]

This might be propaganda. Though I suspect that the timing has more to do with something Gloria Allred wants, and is only peripherally related to the election. Allred is partisan. But more than that, she’s an attention whore. So there’s little chance the timing is for Jerry Brown. The timing is for Gloria Allred. And if this woman had worked for Jerry Brown, I doubt the timing would be any different.

It doesn’t appear it has any resemblance to a smear. The swiftboating of John Kerry? Now that was a smear. The birthers? That’s a smear. Claims with absolutely no factual basis and no relation to the election. This appears to be based on pretty good facts, even acknowledged facts. I don’t happen to think those facts are material.

But this is politics. Little nothings, like this should be, become big news. Anyone who is suprised that there’s politics in politics just hasn’t been paying attention.

[Author]

Posts