Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
(former)FormerSanDiegan
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.
ParticipantIt seems that everyone knows that home prices will decline over the next 6-12 months. That’s been published in every newspaper and financial magazine I can find over the past few months.
At what point will these future price expectation be baked into the market ? September, December, January 2011 ?
ParticipantIt seems that everyone knows that home prices will decline over the next 6-12 months. That’s been published in every newspaper and financial magazine I can find over the past few months.
At what point will these future price expectation be baked into the market ? September, December, January 2011 ?
ParticipantIt seems that everyone knows that home prices will decline over the next 6-12 months. That’s been published in every newspaper and financial magazine I can find over the past few months.
At what point will these future price expectation be baked into the market ? September, December, January 2011 ?
ParticipantIt seems that everyone knows that home prices will decline over the next 6-12 months. That’s been published in every newspaper and financial magazine I can find over the past few months.
At what point will these future price expectation be baked into the market ? September, December, January 2011 ?
ParticipantIt seems that everyone knows that home prices will decline over the next 6-12 months. That’s been published in every newspaper and financial magazine I can find over the past few months.
At what point will these future price expectation be baked into the market ? September, December, January 2011 ?
Participant[quote=Hobie]I would have thought the Whitman campaign would have anticipated this and would have a pre-planned counter attack. Her response in just denying it while true, appears weak.[/quote]
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.
It’s a catch-22.
What are we supposed to do as citizens if/when we find out that our employees are here illegally ?
The reality is that in practice immigration policy in this state is equivalent to the don’t ask, don’t tell policy.
We are too weak to change the law to allow legalization and we are too weak to enforce the current law and deport everybody.
Participant[quote=Hobie]I would have thought the Whitman campaign would have anticipated this and would have a pre-planned counter attack. Her response in just denying it while true, appears weak.[/quote]
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.
It’s a catch-22.
What are we supposed to do as citizens if/when we find out that our employees are here illegally ?
The reality is that in practice immigration policy in this state is equivalent to the don’t ask, don’t tell policy.
We are too weak to change the law to allow legalization and we are too weak to enforce the current law and deport everybody.
Participant[quote=Hobie]I would have thought the Whitman campaign would have anticipated this and would have a pre-planned counter attack. Her response in just denying it while true, appears weak.[/quote]
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.
It’s a catch-22.
What are we supposed to do as citizens if/when we find out that our employees are here illegally ?
The reality is that in practice immigration policy in this state is equivalent to the don’t ask, don’t tell policy.
We are too weak to change the law to allow legalization and we are too weak to enforce the current law and deport everybody.
Participant[quote=Hobie]I would have thought the Whitman campaign would have anticipated this and would have a pre-planned counter attack. Her response in just denying it while true, appears weak.[/quote]
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.
It’s a catch-22.
What are we supposed to do as citizens if/when we find out that our employees are here illegally ?
The reality is that in practice immigration policy in this state is equivalent to the don’t ask, don’t tell policy.
We are too weak to change the law to allow legalization and we are too weak to enforce the current law and deport everybody.
Participant[quote=Hobie]I would have thought the Whitman campaign would have anticipated this and would have a pre-planned counter attack. Her response in just denying it while true, appears weak.[/quote]
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.
It’s a catch-22.
What are we supposed to do as citizens if/when we find out that our employees are here illegally ?
The reality is that in practice immigration policy in this state is equivalent to the don’t ask, don’t tell policy.
We are too weak to change the law to allow legalization and we are too weak to enforce the current law and deport everybody.
Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood][quote=FormerSanDiegan]
Great idea. Count me in.
A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant![/quote]
The cost of the program would be $2.5 billion and would result in the employment of 240,000 for a year. There must be some severe cognitive dissonance going on in your head if you just make up BS when you can’t deal with the actual facts.[/quote]
I’m sorry I guess I was not clear enough.
If 2.5B for 240,000 jobs is good, then why not amp up the program to 50 Billion and make those jobs higher-paying ?
I assume that the 240,000 jobs pay more than the 10K it costs the goverment.
Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood][quote=FormerSanDiegan]
Great idea. Count me in.
A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant![/quote]
The cost of the program would be $2.5 billion and would result in the employment of 240,000 for a year. There must be some severe cognitive dissonance going on in your head if you just make up BS when you can’t deal with the actual facts.[/quote]
I’m sorry I guess I was not clear enough.
If 2.5B for 240,000 jobs is good, then why not amp up the program to 50 Billion and make those jobs higher-paying ?
I assume that the 240,000 jobs pay more than the 10K it costs the goverment.
Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood][quote=FormerSanDiegan]
Great idea. Count me in.
A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant![/quote]
The cost of the program would be $2.5 billion and would result in the employment of 240,000 for a year. There must be some severe cognitive dissonance going on in your head if you just make up BS when you can’t deal with the actual facts.[/quote]
I’m sorry I guess I was not clear enough.
If 2.5B for 240,000 jobs is good, then why not amp up the program to 50 Billion and make those jobs higher-paying ?
I assume that the 240,000 jobs pay more than the 10K it costs the goverment.
-
AuthorPosts
