Whitman's housekeeper

[Reba]

oh ok then *shrug*

by your logic - the LEO do not need to inquire about suspect's immigration status since it's a federal duty and everybody goes thru border monitored by federal agents. With that - it is automatically assumed that everybody in America is here legally. so I don't see any point in having LEO to inquire about one's immigration status. *shrug*

Huh?

 

[Jiro]

Huh?

that's exactly the same thought I have when ya'all seem to think the housekeepers from the agency are all here legally simply because they have ID and SSN card.

don't you think this ought to behoove her to perform a more thorough background check? It's just one housekeeper. I'm sure Whitman can afford to pay for private background service.

 

[Jiro]

 

[TXgolfer]

that's exactly the same thought I have when ya'all seem to think the housekeepers from the agency are all here legally simply because they have ID and SSN card.

Never said that....and obviously they are not. But Whitman meet her legal burden. *shrug*

don't you think this ought to behoove her to perform a more thorough background check? It's just one housekeeper. I'm sure Whitman can afford to pay for private background service.

Why??? She has references, documents and a background check done by an agency.

 

[Jiro]

Never said that....and obviously they are not. But Whitman meet her legal burden. *shrug*

so did the federal government.

Why???

so why do we need LEO to check for immigration status since we already have federal agencies like INS and ICE for it?

She has references, documents and a background check done by an agency.

I must have missed it but did articles say what the agency has done specifically?

 

[Jiro]

Whitman's Housekeeper Problem

It showed up in Tuesday's debate, when Tom Brokaw asked her how businesses can screen out illegal immigrants if she couldn't tell that one was working in her own house. It shows up on the campaign trail, when she cites the Latino unemployment rate and says it "breaks my heart, as it breaks yours."

That problem is not of Whitman's making, but she has made it worse by contradicting herself. Last year, she told the San Diego Union-Tribune that she favored a "path to legalization." When confronted about that in the Republican primary, she said she didn't realize that "legalization" is a "code word for amnesty," which she opposes. She said she meant to say she supports a temporary-worker program.

That program appears nowhere in Whitman's 48-page policy booklet, which she released in March. The one page that addresses immigration (under the heading of "other priorities") sticks exclusively to enforcement measures, such as getting state and local police to undertake workplace raids, and denying undocumented students access to state colleges and universities.

As policy, a temporary-worker program preserves the cognitive dissonance of the status quo: We want you, we don't want you. If you try to apply it to the real world of Diaz Santillan, it falls apart. She worked for Whitman for nine years. There is nothing temporary about that.

Nothing unusual, either. It's not exactly surprising that Whitman employed an undocumented maid. It's common in California.

I'm looking at Rasmussen Reports and the poll ain't looking good for Whitman. Brown is inching closer to 50% and Whitman's losing points one by one.

 

[TXgolfer]

so did the federal government.

so why do we need LEO to check for immigration status since we already have federal agencies like INS and ICE for it?

You are way off topic....but, because Arizona chose to protect itself. If you want a longer answer there are threads where that question would be on topic.

I must have missed it but did articles say what the agency has done specifically?

I was only interested in if Whitman had met her legal burden since that is what the thread is about.

 

[Jiro]

You are way off topic....but, because Arizona chose to protect itself. If you want a longer answer there are threads where that question would be on topic.

Off-topic? not at all. I'm questioning your logic because it's what it is. She preached about tough immigration enforcement and yet...... she can't enforce that in her own home.

I was only interested in if Whitman had met her legal burden since that is what the thread is about.

You dunno? Then you don't know if the agency has done background check as you stated in your post #124?

 

[Jiro]

btw - you say Whitman met her legal burden? Why is it that she did nothing in 2003 after receiving "NO-MATCH" notification from Social Security Administration?

this was Whitman's campaign talk - "If we don’t hold employers accountable, we will never get our arms around this [illegal immigration] problem"..... and yet..... if Whitman can’t even hold herself accountable for hiring an undocumented worker how can she hold others accountable?

 

[Foxrac]

I think that Whitman should move to NJ and run for NJ governor.

 

[Jiro]

I think that Whitman should move to NJ and run for NJ governor.

yay! closer for me to yank her chain

 

[TXgolfer]

btw - you say Whitman met her legal burden? Why is it that she did nothing in 2003 after receiving "NO-MATCH" notification from Social Security Administration?

As stated many times previously that "letter" (form) instructs the employer no to assume that the employee is illegal. The letter was linked earlier in the thread.

http://www.alldeaf.com/1675640-post19.html

 

[TXgolfer]

Off-topic? not at all. I'm questioning your logic because it's what it is. She preached about tough immigration enforcement and yet...... she can't enforce that in her own home.

You want citizens to enforce immigration? Works for me.

Anyway, she terminated her....that's pretty tough. She should have turned her in too. That was a mistake.

You dunno? Then you don't know if the agency has done background check as you stated in your post #124?

You said specifically.....

 

[Jiro]

You want citizens to enforce immigration? Works for me.

You stated in the past that you perform background check on all of your workers. why? what you looking for?

Anyway, she terminated her....that's pretty tough. She should have turned her in too. That was a mistake.

9 years later... along with obvious clues.... Clearly a wrong person for Governor job

You said specifically.....

no - you listed out what the agency has already done and I'm wondering how you know this.

 

[Jiro]

As stated many times previously that "letter" (form) instructs the employer no to assume that the employee is illegal. The letter was linked earlier in the thread.

AllDeaf.com - View Single Post - Whitman's housekeeper

and what action was taken to remedy this issue?

 

[Beowulf]

that's exactly the same thought I have when ya'all seem to think the housekeepers from the agency are all here legally simply because they have ID and SSN card.

don't you think this ought to behoove her to perform a more thorough background check? It's just one housekeeper. I'm sure Whitman can afford to pay for private background service.

Of COURSE she can and of COURSE she was aware of the background. It is amusing to see people milling about whining about lack of proof.

 

[TXgolfer]

You stated in the past that you perform background check on all of your workers. why? what you looking for?

Insurance

9 years later... along with obvious clues.... Clearly a wrong person for Governor job

Obvious clues???

no - you listed out what the agency has already done and I'm wondering how you know this.

Yet you said specifically Whitman claims the agency did a backgound check....I don't doubt it since that is what agencies DO.

 

[TXgolfer]

of COURSE she was aware of the background.

Really??? How so??? Because she spoke Spanish? Looked hispanic??

Afterall....she admits to being from Mexico in her questionaire........

 

[TXgolfer]

and what action was taken to remedy this issue?

Obviously they couldn't question the immigration status....it says so in the letter. Question is....if the issue wasn't remedied.....why was there no government follow up for 7 years???????????

 

[Jiro]

Insurance

and don't you think it would be prudent of her to do same?

Obvious clues???

ah... the "see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing" thing...

Yet you said specifically Whitman claims the agency did a backgound check....I don't doubt it since that is what agencies DO.

and she was able to work? sounds like a shoddy agency.