Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
(former)FormerSanDiegan
ParticipantOn the surface it sounds like an alligator property, but something at 2001 prices should cash flow reasonably well.
My advice would depend on the following:How much is the monthly rent ?
What would it sell for ?
How much is your monthly PITI ?
How much do you spend in maintenance/upkeep annually.
Participant[quote=doofrat]Why do Nigerians send out e-mails? Because they’re too far away to hold free seminars.[/quote]
Instant Classic !
Participant[quote=doofrat]Why do Nigerians send out e-mails? Because they’re too far away to hold free seminars.[/quote]
Instant Classic !
Participant[quote=doofrat]Why do Nigerians send out e-mails? Because they’re too far away to hold free seminars.[/quote]
Instant Classic !
Participant[quote=doofrat]Why do Nigerians send out e-mails? Because they’re too far away to hold free seminars.[/quote]
Instant Classic !
Participant[quote=doofrat]Why do Nigerians send out e-mails? Because they’re too far away to hold free seminars.[/quote]
Instant Classic !
Participant[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.Participant[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.Participant[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.Participant[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.Participant[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.Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
-
AuthorPosts
