Why isnt this lady in handcuffs and being escorted out of the country?

The best line - On Thursday, the SEIU announced that it will spend $5 million on radio and television ads in Spanish attacking Whitman.

What a bizarre country we line in.

By ANDY BARR | 10/1/10 8:25 AM EDT Updated: 10/1/10 10:32 AM EDT
After dueling press conferences and numerous statements Thursday, California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman seems no closer to being able to move past allegations that she knowingly employed an illegal immigrant as her housekeeper.

Whitman harshly condemned the story on Thursday, accusing Democrat Jerry Brown in a press conference of pushing the “lies” about her.

But immediately after Whitman finished ripping into Brown and attorney Gloria Allred for airing the accusation, Allred stepped up to the microphone at her own press conference to insist that she had “proof” that Whitman employed Nicky Diaz knowing she was in the country illegally.

Allred produced a 2003 letter from the Social Security Administration questioning whether the number Diaz had provided for her tax documentation was legitimate.

The letter, Allred showed with a giant, blown-up prop, had a handwritten note the attorney insisted belongs to Whitman’s husband instructing Diaz to check into it.

Whitman at first denied that she or her husband had seen the letter, speculating that Diaz may have hidden it from the couple.

But hours later, Whitman’s husband, Griff Harsh, released a statement admitting that “it is possible” that he saw the letter and wrote the note.

“While I honestly do not recall receiving this letter, as it was sent to me seven years ago, I can say it is possible that I would've scratched a follow up note on a letter like this, which is a request for information to make certain Nicky received her Social Security benefits and W-2 tax refund for withheld wages. Since we believed her to be legal, I would have had no reason to suspect that she would not have filled it in and done what was needed to secure her benefits,” said Harsh.

“It is important to note what this letter actually says: 'this letter makes no statement about your employee's immigration status.,” Harsh continued. “The essential fact remains the same, neither Meg nor I believed there was a problem with Nicky's legal status and I certainly don't recall ever discussing it with my wife, nor did I ever show her any letter about it. The facts of this matter are very clear: Ms. Diaz broke the law and lied to us and to the employment agency.”

Whitman has consistently stated that she fired the housekeeper as soon as she learned of Diaz’s illegal status — and she has tried at every opportunity to link Brown to the story.

Whitman’s campaign points out that Allred is a supporter of Brown and has tried to make the case that Brown has a history of pulling off stunts late in campaigns designed to discredit his Republican opponents.

Brown has not yet commented on the story, but many of his allies have begun to seize on the allegation to attack Whitman.

On Thursday, the SEIU announced that it will spend $5 million on radio and television ads in Spanish attacking Whitman.



Read more: Meg Whitman vexed by housekeeper claims - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43005.html#ixzz117sT1UUg)

I agree anyone who hires an illegal should be shipped out. That would solve our illegals problem.

Why isnt this lady in handcuffs and being escorted out of the country?

Who would clean the house?

-spence

I agree anyone who hires an illegal should be shipped out. That would solve our illegals problem.

She hired the maid through an agency, which she paid to check her citizenship. this was fraud on the housecleaners part.
No suprise you believe the maid is a "victim" instead of a criminal.

No suprise you believe the maid is a "victim" instead of a criminal.

How did you get that from my post?

I thought your post was about Witman. As I said, if no one hired illegals, they wouldn't want to come here.

How did you get that from my post?

I thought your post was about Witman. As I said, if no one hired illegals, they wouldn't want to come here.

There is only one criminal in that article and its not Whitman.

Does this mean that I have to fire the two illegals that work on my lawn?

I think that I found a loop hole, they are not mexican, they are guatemalan. :rotf2: :rotf2: :rotf2:

There is only one criminal in that article and its not Whitman.
My understanding is that she would only be in violation of a civil offense and not a criminal, certainly not worthy of handcuffs.

Considering there are 12 million or so illegal aliens in this country, you'd think a sense of priority would place a housekeeper who's here simply to improve her life pretty low on the list.

That's not to say she shouldn't be processed as an offender, but that to make an example of her doesn't make a lot of sense.

Of course, she could always be a terrorist.

-spence

There is only one criminal in that article and its not Whitman.

Never said otherwise. But if when the Whitman's found out there was trouble with the SS#, they followed up instead of telling the maid "to do something about this" or whatever the husband wrote on the letter she wouldn't have this issue now and if others did the same, the illegal problem would take care of itself.

Any politician who does hires illegals (Whitman, Zoe Baird), doesn't know the cost of a bread/milk or the minimum wage (L. McMahon) doesn't deserve to be elected.

My understanding is that she would only be in violation of a civil offense and not a criminal, certainly not worthy of handcuffs.

Considering there are 12 million or so illegal aliens in this country, you'd think a sense of priority would place a housekeeper who's here simply to improve her life pretty low on the list.

That's not to say she shouldn't be processed as an offender, but that to make an example of her doesn't make a lot of sense.

Of course, she could always be a terrorist.

-spence

how could that be? She is an illegal alien. Federal offense, no?

how could that be? She is an illegal alien. Federal offense, no?
I'm pretty sure that just being in the country illegally is a civil offense under Federal law.

This was a big part of the AZ legislation which sought to make it a "crime" by requiring all immigrants to carry papers indicating their current status.

-spence

I'm pretty sure that just being in the country illegally is a civil offense under Federal law.

This was a big part of the AZ legislation which sought to make it a "crime" by requiring all immigrants to carry papers indicating their current status.

-spence

I think Im going to puke, this country is F'd.

whew, theres still hope....

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or

Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
has committed a federal crime.

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.

If she's hot she should be able to stay
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lived in this state my whole life. Had to go up to Lynn to meet a vendor today, my first trip that far up Rt. 1A. My immediate thought, "Holy Sh#t this place is a dump."

Do you think the Boston hotels and cleaning companies have a shuttle service set up that runs regular trips between Boston and that area?

As a business owner, it's my obligation to retain documents to assure the people I hire have a legal right to work here. If I screw that up, it should be on me. However, if I do my due diligence and they turn out illegal, screw anyone who tries to put it on me.

Employers need to be held responsible but they are not the INS. Whitman allegedly obtained the proper documents from Diaz. It is up to the government to take it from there if they have any question about status.

This is one of those times that I have to say.... I completely agree with RIJIMMY.

whew, theres still hope....

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or

Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
has committed a federal crime.

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.
I think this is intended for those caught in the process, not for those already here, unless sufficient evidence existed to make a case...which is highly unlikely.

-spence

Had to go up to Lynn to meet a vendor today, my first trip that far up Rt. 1A. My immediate thought, "Holy Sh#t this place is a dump."


Hey, Easy there Chief....don't go picking on the "Jewel of the North Shore".....Some of us have roots there :hee:

Hey, Easy there Chief....don't go picking on the "Jewel of the North Shore".....Some of us have roots there :hee:

No offense intended... but the area I had to go to, along with the neighborhoods I passed on the way made me question the common sense of my vendor for being based in the area.

Lynn was known for the city of sin :)

Lynn, Lynn the city of sin, you don't go out the way you came in.

No offense intended... but the area I had to go to, along with the neighborhoods I passed on the way made me question the common sense of my vendor for being based in the area.

I agree

No offense intended... but the area I had to go to, along with the neighborhoods I passed on the way made me question the common sense of my vendor for being based in the area.

Just messin around...I know the place is a bit of a Chithole...That's why I moved out.

I don't know what he's vending but....Lynn has GE and North Shore Community College, is right on the Commuter Rail, is a quick 20 minute ride into Boston, Property is cheap, Labor is cheap, More Liqour licenses and Greek Sub Shops per capita than any other town on the north shore....and a 2 am Bar Closing Time....

Lynn was known for the city of sin :)

Lynn, Lynn the city of sin, you don't go out the way you came in.


Geesh, if you're gonna say it....ya gotta say it right. :hihi:

Lynn Lynn, City of Sin, You never come out the way you went in..

Who would clean the house?

-spence

Someone Legal, perhaps not as cheaply.

Considering there are 12 million or so illegal aliens in this country, you'd think a sense of priority would place a housekeeper who's here simply to improve her life pretty low on the list.

Come in the front door legally and make a better life. This country cannot afford to not educate our kids, feed our citizens, protect our country, give everyone health care, social security, and then let everyone in the world wanting to make a better life a sneak across a border to do it. We're almost broke, we cannot afford to be the gift that keeps giving.

I think this is intended for those caught in the process, not for those already here, unless sufficient evidence existed to make a case...which is highly unlikely.

-spence

Immigrants can be classified as illegal for one of three reasons: entering without authorization or inspection, staying beyond the authorized period after legal entry, or violating the terms of legal entry.[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#cite_note-53)
Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_8_of_the_United_States_Code), "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any immigrant who:[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#cite_note-54)


enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.

The maximum prison term is 6 months for the first offense and 2 years for any subsequent offense.



Where is the ambiguity?

Hey, Easy there Chief....don't go picking on the "Jewel of the North Shore".....Some of us have roots there :hee:

Could be worse, you could be from Lawrence !
Pretty pathetic how popular the Lawrence police chief is on the local news stations !

Could be worse, you could be from Lawrence !
Pretty pathetic how popular the Lawrence police chief is on the local news stations !

He's on the news pretty much every week....

Someone Legal, perhaps not as cheaply.
That was a joke.

Come in the front door legally and make a better life. This country cannot afford to not educate our kids, feed our citizens, protect our country, give everyone health care, social security, and then let everyone in the world wanting to make a better life a sneak across a border to do it. We're almost broke, we cannot afford to be the gift that keeps giving.
That's not the point. I'm all for better control of our borders, but from her perspective...she was just trying to make a better life.

Where is the ambiguity?

I don't think she could be charged under this section of code as she's already here...

-spence

That's not the point. I'm all for better control of our borders, but from her perspective...she was just trying to make a better life.




-spence

Spence - every criminal is "just trying to make a better life"

Spence - every criminal is "just trying to make a better life"
Well, that's a stretch.

The simple fact is that most Americans, if put in her position, would have done exactly the same thing.

That doesn't mean it's right (legally speaking) mind you, but there are moral implications to be factored in. I've heard of a saying in South America that you "can't fault someone for trying to get by" and to some degree this is reflected in the US. Would you fault a parent for stealing to feel starving children?

I'm not sure it's really that easy to relate.

-spence

Well, that's a stretch.

The simple fact is that most Americans, if put in her position, would have done exactly the same thing.

Americans (the U.S. kind) are more prone to change conditions in their country to their benefit rather than illegally migrating to another country. This country was founded by that type of revolution. There have been many revolutions south of the border. Perhaps they should keep trying till they get it right so their citizens don't have to leave. I hear they have some places that are amenable to the poor, like Cuba or Venezuala--good health care, everyone has a job or is taken care of. Those would be good models for the downtrodden to follow rather than risking everything to illegally sneak into such an ungrateful, oppressive, and selfish place like the U.S. Even Canada would be better, no?

That doesn't mean it's right (legally speaking) mind you, but there are moral implications to be factored in.

Which moral implications and whose morality? A great deal of the moral implications that resulted in U.S. law, it is said, derived from Judeo/Christian morality. But that morality also includes much tough love. The god of that morality can be very harsh with those who steal and and break the law. That morality does not preach salvation by government, but by personal conduct and personal charity.

I've heard of a saying in South America that you "can't fault someone for trying to get by" and to some degree this is reflected in the US. Would you fault a parent for stealing to feel starving children?

I'm not sure it's really that easy to relate.

-spence

I've heard that "saying" in North America as well. But "getting by" is vague, and when referring to criminal getting by, there is the implication that, if you're caught, nice try but you'll pay the penalty. One of the changes that Americans made was to provide for starving children--traditionally, much of that was done (and still is) by charity, but we've even legislated for such provisions. So it is not necessary to steal to feed starving children.

Does Whitman's illegal ex-maid have children?

That was a joke.


That's not the point. I'm all for better control of our borders, but from her perspective...she was just trying to make a better life.



I don't think she could be charged under this section of code as she's already here...

-spence

I figured it was tongue in cheek , almost funny too.

You're all for better control, except for those that want a better life? Then perhaps she should apply for legal immigration status and legally enter this country. Do you think immigrants that come through breaking our laws to get in generally will be law abiding citizens after some kind of amnesty? Sorry, I just have an issue with people breaking the laws and then being given wrist slaps at best.

I think our biggest problem with immigration is that we do not get enough of the best and brightest that come here legally and retain them. Instead, half the elected government turns and looks the other way for the main influx of immigrants we have. But as a country, we stopped looking forward to improve ourselves and instead became the baby sitter.

"I don't think she could be charged under this section of code as she's already here..."

Law no longer applies. Nice.

Well, that's a stretch.

The simple fact is that most Americans, if put in her position, would have done exactly the same thing.


-spence

not true, most americans immigrated here legally. How can you say most would do the same thing?

not true, most americans immigrated here legally. How can you say most would do the same thing?
You misread the point, which is, that if you were born and grew up as she did, you would likely come to the US illegally if you thought it was the best way to get ahead because of limited opportunities at home.

-spence

You misread the point, which is, that if you were born and grew up as she did, you would likely come to the US illegally if you thought it was the best way to get ahead because of limited opportunities at home.

-spence

Hmm, like my great grandmother who grew up in a famine in Poland? Or my grandfather growing up in the slums of Lebanon?
Or how about my wifes parents, her Dad was an indentured servant living in India? Her house had no refrigeration and no inside plumbing.
Hmm, I wonder why they all came here legally? But I bet thats all not nearly as hard as she had it in Mexico. I wonder if that mentality of taking the easy road, sneaking in, falsifying documents, lying, cheating, I wonder if that makes you a stronger citizen vs. the hard way of coming here legally, demonstrating hard work and perseverance to your children, friends, neighbors. Which one leads to a better America?

Hmm, like my great grandmother who grew up in a famine in Poland? Or my grandfather growing up in the slums of Lebanon?
Or how about my wifes parents, her Dad was an indentured servant living in India? Her house had no refrigeration and no inside plumbing.
Hmm, I wonder why they all came here legally? But I bet thats all not nearly as hard as she had it in Mexico. I wonder if that mentality of taking the easy road, sneaking in, falsifying documents, lying, cheating, I wonder if that makes you a stronger citizen vs. the hard way of coming here legally, demonstrating hard work and perseverance to your children, friends, neighbors. Which one leads to a better America?
You don't think many would prefer to come here legally if they could?

I think the challenge for someone like the subject of this thread is that unless you have a family connection or can show that your job skills are in high demand it can take many years to be approved if ever. I've also seen some reports that the true cost (in $$$) can be quite prohibitive.

That certainly doesn't justify the behavior, but I don't think you can compare it to other situations which may or may not be equitable. We don't really know her true motivation for coming to the USA, and immigration policy has changed a lot over the past century reflecting (and shaping) many trends.

From what we see about drug violence and the trafficking of immigrants across the border, it certainly doesn't look like it's the "easy road" to me. More justification for better border security and prosecution of business that hire illegal workers.

Remember, to try and understand why someone would come here illegally doesn't mean your seeking to legitimize it.

-spence

I figured it was tongue in cheek , almost funny too.
I'll take that as a compliment.

You're all for better control, except for those that want a better life?
Never said that.

Then perhaps she should apply for legal immigration status and legally enter this country. Do you think immigrants that come through breaking our laws to get in generally will be law abiding citizens after some kind of amnesty?
Amnesty is a tricky subject. There's a very good case against it, but there's also the 12M illegals already here. Doesn't seem feasible to round them all up and the economic fallout could be serious.

While we all hear of the exceptions in the news, I'd venture a guess most generally obey the law outside of being here illegally.

Sorry, I just have an issue with people breaking the laws and then being given wrist slaps at best.
The punishment should fit the crime, hence the AZ law change to make it criminal to be here without a valid status...so they can round 'em up and deport them which is difficult to do today for people who have been in the US for a long period of time.

I do think this is an area for the law to be more clear, it seems like an immigration judge has a lot of room to decide someone's fate. Regardless, I believe this should be in the Federal domain.

I think our biggest problem with immigration is that we do not get enough of the best and brightest that come here legally and retain them. Instead, half the elected government turns and looks the other way for the main influx of immigrants we have. But as a country, we stopped looking forward to improve ourselves and instead became the baby sitter.

Post 9/11 changes certainly seem to have impacted education and employment. Many IT business leaders have been very vocal about this.

"I don't think she could be charged under this section of code as she's already here..."

Law no longer applies. Nice.
No, it's just not the applicable part of the code.

-spence

Americans (the U.S. kind) are more prone to change conditions in their country to their benefit rather than illegally migrating to another country. This country was founded by that type of revolution. There have been many revolutions south of the border. Perhaps they should keep trying till they get it right so their citizens don't have to leave. I hear they have some places that are amenable to the poor, like Cuba or Venezuala--good health care, everyone has a job or is taken care of. Those would be good models for the downtrodden to follow rather than risking everything to illegally sneak into such an ungrateful, oppressive, and selfish place like the U.S. Even Canada would be better, no?
I don't think revolutions are easy or spontaneous. They require the right combination of conditions at the right time. With the inherent corruption and poverty present in many countries, I can see how a more selfish solution might be attractive to some.

Although, with the natural resources, workforce and expanding business south of the border, it will be interesting to see how the economies and people respond over the next few decades.

Which moral implications and whose morality? A great deal of the moral implications that resulted in U.S. law, it is said, derived from Judeo/Christian morality. But that morality also includes much tough love. The god of that morality can be very harsh with those who steal and and break the law. That morality does not preach salvation by government, but by personal conduct and personal charity.
It's unfortunate that God chose to filter his morality through us imperfect people. (Note: This may not apply to those fortunate enough to speak directly to God.)

I've heard that "saying" in North America as well. But "getting by" is vague, and when referring to criminal getting by, there is the implication that, if you're caught, nice try but you'll pay the penalty.
Definitely a slippery slope there, but I'd think it's also why immigration issues are handled as both criminal and civil elements of Federal law.

One of the changes that Americans made was to provide for starving children--traditionally, much of that was done (and still is) by charity, but we've even legislated for such provisions. So it is not necessary to steal to feed starving children.
Agree, sometimes it does take a village :devil2: :hihi:

Does Whitman's illegal ex-maid have children?
Not sure but from what I gather she cleans a mean house.

-spence

I don't think revolutions are easy or spontaneous. They require the right combination of conditions at the right time.

The same applies to illegally entering and staying in the U.S.--as you replied to Jimmy "it certainly doesn't look like it's the easy road to me."

But the 12 to 20 to 30 million illegals certainly could have joined with the oppressed masses they left behind to follow some glorious leader like Chavez or Castro to create a workers paradise back home instead of the quiet revolution of cheap labor in the U.S.

With the inherent corruption and poverty present in many countries, I can see how a more selfish solution might be attractive to some.

All political solutions are selfish.

Although, with the natural resources, workforce and expanding business south of the border, it will be interesting to see how the economies and people respond over the next few decades.

If we stop the illegal immigration, the economies and people will be forced to "respond." By allowing it, it provides the safety valve which allows the backward situations to perpetuate.

It's unfortunate that God chose to filter his morality through us imperfect people. (Note: This may not apply to those fortunate enough to speak directly to God.)

Sounds like maybe you spoke to god to know what he chose?

I would guess that it is that very imperfection which requires a moral compass. Perfection needs nothing else.

Then, again, what is a perfect person other than a god of sorts . . . or a Spence?

By the way, you didn't say to which moral implications or whose morality you referred.

Definitely a slippery slope there, but I'd think it's also why immigration issues are handled as both criminal and civil elements of Federal law.

Massive illegal immigration is not merely an "issue," but a major problem that affects the states, cities, "villages", and individuals in this country. Though immigration is in the purview of the Federal Government, it does not have the resources to handle it alone. It would require tens of thousands of new agents to be hired. Whereas, the assistance of local law enforcement provides a ready force that can assist in identifying illegals in the process of routine stops. This has already been done and agencies have been created for this to occur. It has manifestly been the intent of Congress, through its creation of those agencies that state and local entities are meant to assist. That the Feds are resisting implies to me that they are either protecting turf, which is odious considering they have stolen so much turf from the states, or else the current administration does not want to effectively stop illegal immigration.

Agree, sometimes it does take a village :devil2: :-spence

"Villagers" should have the local authority to impose various local ordinances and even to choose their version of health insurance. The Federal Government was not created to be a local village, but to protect the diverse villages from foreign invasions, even invasions such as massive illegal immigration. And the villagers should be allowed to detain and hand over such illegals to the subservient Federal Government. But it seems that some top-down politicians like to use populist phrases like "it takes a village" but, in reality, they don't trust the villagers, and they really mean "it takes a central control of the villages."

hilarious


You misread the point, which is, that if you were born and grew up as she did, you would likely come to the US illegally if you thought it was the best way to get ahead because of limited opportunities at home.

-spence

Originally Posted by spence
That's not the point. I'm all for better control of our borders, but from her perspective...she was just trying to make a better life.

spence[/QUOTE]
a housekeeper who's here simply to improve her life pretty low on the list.





spence[/QUOTE]
We don't really know her true motivation for coming to the USA

spence
a housekeeper who's here simply to improve her life pretty low on the list.


spence[/QUOTE]
We don't really know her true motivation for coming to the USA[/QUOTE]


That was her ploy. get a job working for Meg "Buy the election" Whitman, THEN set up a sleeper cell. of course! case cracked!

a housekeeper who's here simply to improve her life pretty low on the list.


spence
We don't really know her true motivation for coming to the USA[/QUOTE]


That was her ploy. get a job working for Meg "Buy the election" Whitman, THEN set up a sleeper cell. of course! case cracked![/QUOTE]



guess I should have provided the entire quote(contradiction) so as not to confuse the brilliant global warming scientists

"I think the challenge for someone like the subject of this thread is that unless you have a family connection or can show that your job skills are in high demand it can take many years to be approved if ever. I've also seen some reports that the true cost (in $$$) can be quite prohibitive.

That certainly doesn't justify the behavior, but I don't think you can compare it to other situations which may or may not be equitable. We don't really know her true motivation for coming to the USA,

oh but we do!
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
You misread the point, which is, that if you were born and grew up as she did, you would likely come to the US illegally if you thought it was the best way to get ahead because of limited opportunities at home.

-spence

Originally Posted by spence
That's not the point. I'm all for better control of our borders, but from her perspective...she was just trying to make a better life.

spence[/QUOTE]
a housekeeper who's here simply to improve her life pretty low on the list.
and immigration policy has changed a lot over the past century reflecting (and shaping) many trends."


stupidity like this is why we can't get anything done on immigration:

"That was her ploy. get a job working for Meg "Buy the election" Whitman, THEN set up a sleeper cell. of course! case cracked!"

she either can't be blamed for trying to improve her life or you are equating her with a terrorist if you suggest she shouldn't be here...

Although her motivation may have been honorable to her, the law is the law and she, just like myself and everybody else in this country, needs to abide by it.

She broke it so now she must take the consequences that come with it.

Although her motivation may have been honorable to her, the law is the law and she, just like myself and everybody else in this country, needs to abide by it.

She broke it so now she must take the consequences that come with it.


Rubber duck just fell from the ceiling...

It is amazing how the obvious escapes people

yep

Although her motivation may have been honorable to her, the law is the law and she, just like myself and everybody else in this country, needs to abide by it.

She broke it so now she must take the consequences that come with it.
I don't think anyone is arguing that she shouldn't be held accountable.

The context of the thread is RIJIMMY thinking she should be immediately dragged to the border in shackles. These aren't the consequences that typically accompany her violation.

-spence

These aren't the consequences that typically accompany her violation.

-spence

These are the consequences and this is what should happen to her if found guilty.

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or

Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
has committed a federal crime.

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.

The context of the thread is RIJIMMY thinking she should be immediately dragged to the border in shackles. These aren't the consequences that typically accompany her violation.

-spence

No, I just want her arrested. But instead she is being paraded around by liberals trying to use her as a political pawn. And to top it off, as I highlighted in the initial post, latinos are now putting up 5 million for adds against Whitman! So how does that help their cause? Now wealthy people will think twice before hiring anyone of latin decent, it will BACKFIRE on them!

No, I just want her arrested. But instead she is being paraded around by liberals trying to use her as a political pawn.
Tis the season.

And to top it off, as I highlighted in the initial post, latinos are now putting up 5 million for adds against Whitman!
She doesn't serve their interests.

So how does that help their cause? Now wealthy people will think twice before hiring anyone of latin decent, it will BACKFIRE on them!
I doubt it, unless there's a flood of legal workers out to perform low skilled labor people will still hire who they can get regardless.

-spence

[
I doubt it, unless there's a flood of legal workers out to perform low skilled labor people will still hire who they can get regardless.

-spence[/QUOTE]

At $27 an hour, would you rather flip burgers?

These are the consequences and this is what should happen to her if found guilty.
We discussed this earlier in the thread. I don't think this part of the code is applicable to her situation. The laws appear to delineate between those trying to get over the border, those who just recently crossed the border and those who have been here some time.

Sort of like meteor, meteorite and meteoroid :hihi:

-spence

Amazing to me how some have so much empathy for illegal immigrants
who can come here legally if they choose, and so little empathy for the ones
who wait on line to take their turn to come legally.

We discussed this earlier in the thread. I don't think this part of the code is applicable to her situation. The laws appear to delineate between those trying to get over the border, those who just recently crossed the border and those who have been here some time.

Sort of like meteor, meteorite and meteoroid :hihi:

-spence

Are you saying there is a statute of limitations attached to this that equals the length of time it takes you to get way with it and enter the country

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or

Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;

nevermind using false documentation

so - we know the Whitmans produced tax forms

Do we know if the illegal paid taxes? What SS # would she use? The fake one she gave the whitmans?

I bet she is guilty of immigrating illegally, using false documentation AND tax evasion. Now does she deserve to be arrested?

Are you saying there is a statute of limitations attached to this that equals the length of time it takes you to get way with it and enter the country
I'd venture a guess that it has more to do with the fact that if someone has been here for some time, there's likely no evidence that they violated that specific section of code. I'm not an immigration attorney, but everything I've read indicates that simply being here without a visa is a civil offense under Federal law.

-spence

nevermind using false documentation

so - we know the Whitmans produced tax forms

Do we know if the illegal paid taxes? What SS # would she use? The fake one she gave the whitmans?

I bet she is guilty of immigrating illegally, using false documentation AND tax evasion. Now does she deserve to be arrested?

I believe illegals contribute quite a bit to SS without receiving any benefits. Many also seem to pay taxes...I don't think the IRS really cares who sends them money.

What I do find interesting though, is that your animosity is directed entirely at the house cleaner, and not at the billionaire who received her services for what looks like 6 years after she likely knew the woman's status was suspect.

-spence

I believe illegals contribute quite a bit to SS without receiving any benefits. Many also seem to pay taxes...I don't think the IRS really cares who sends them money.

Emphasis on SEEM to pay taxes. They claim a rediculous number of dependents (I have heard 10 or so) and figure the microscopic little that gets witheld is price of admission to get their children and unwed spouse free stuff... Don't forget Auntie Zituni

I'd venture a guess that it has more to do with the fact that if someone has been here for some time, there's likely no evidence that they violated that specific section of code. I'm not an immigration attorney, but everything I've read indicates that simply being here without a visa is a civil offense under Federal law.

-spence

Not having proper documentation is some evidence that they have violated that section of the code. And it is certain evidence that some part of the code has been violated. The civil offense of being here without a visa is also subject to deportation. Even overstaying your visa faces you with removal proceedings to be deported from the U.S. If you overstay your visa for more than 180 days but less than a year you will face deportation and be inadmissible to the U.S. for three years. If you overstay it for more than a year, you will be inadmissible for 10 years. Not having a visa, a green card, or proper immigration papers is evidence of your breaking immigration law and makes you subject to deportation.

The woman Whitman fired, if the code is to be enforced, should be deported.

If it can be proved that Whitman did something illegal, she should be prosecuted. If not, it's typical oxymoronic dirty politics, and the voters should decide on the merits of the candidates' policies, not on mudslinging distractions.

If not, it's typical oxymoronic dirty politics, and the voters should decide on the merits of the candidates' policies, not on mudslinging distractions.



Yup, same old, same old politics.

If you can't win on your record snow them with :bs:

What I do find interesting though, is that your animosity is directed entirely at the house cleaner, and not at the billionaire who received her services for what looks like 6 years after she likely knew the woman's status was suspect.

-spence

Spence, you need a little common sense, seriously.
Its pretty well documented that thr Whitmans had all the correct documentation from the housekeeper. The agency had all the right documents from the housekeeper. When the Whitmans received the letter that the SSN may have a problem, the letter was full of legal disclaimers saying this this is not an indication of any issues. The husband wrote a note and had the housekeeper look into it. I've read that imiigration attorneys siad there was not much more the WHitmans could have done. So you say "she likely knew", this is the common sense part.......Whitman was running a multi-million dollar company, I'd guess shes traveling 20 days out of the month? So, you really think she "likely" knew? In her spare time she pondered the citizenship of her HOUSEKEEPER???? The Whitmans did everything by the book, everything.
The housekeeper, illiegally entered the country, falsified documentation, and lied to her employer. She was subsequently fired and is now suing her employer.
Yes, I am faulting the housekeeper, she is a CRIMINAL.
Hell, I had a buddy get caught with a fake id when he was 18 and it caused tons of legal issues for him, this lady looks to be the vicitim and so far has not been charged. Incredible.

Amazing to me how some have so much empathy for illegal immigrants
who can come here legally if they choose, and so little empathy for the ones
who wait on line to take their turn to come legally.
I think your assumption that immigrants choose to come here illegally (while legal options are readily available) isn't really true, not at least for the bulk of unskilled workers who enter the country to perform lower skilled work. There are quotas for these categories of applicants and very few are actually approved each year. Not to mention the cost which can be quite prohibitive.

Rightly so, the process doesn't want to take just anybody. A good question might be if the quotas are aligned with the demand. I've read that they are not, but don't know for sure. I've also read that in a few decades we may actually be trying to entice low skilled workers into the USA to keep the economy moving.

-spence

There are quotas for these categories of applicants and very few are actually approved each year. Not to mention the cost which can be quite prohibitive.

Maybe the Quotas would be higher if there were more jobs readily available for unskilled worker....if the bulk of these jobs weren't already being performed by people who came here illegally.

I've also read that in a few decades we may actually be trying to entice low skilled workers into the USA to keep the economy moving.

-spence

Entice Away...if the economy dictates that we need to increase our demand for Unskilled immigrant workers then the government might actually decrease all the red tape that is needed to enter the country. Wouldn't that make it easier for people to enter legally....the illegals may be shooting themselves in the foot by bypassing the system.

Not having proper documentation is some evidence that they have violated that section of the code. And it is certain evidence that some part of the code has been violated. The civil offense of being here without a visa is also subject to deportation. Even overstaying your visa faces you with removal proceedings to be deported from the U.S. If you overstay your visa for more than 180 days but less than a year you will face deportation and be inadmissible to the U.S. for three years. If you overstay it for more than a year, you will be inadmissible for 10 years. Not having a visa, a green card, or proper immigration papers is evidence of your breaking immigration law and makes you subject to deportation.
I believe deportation is a likely option, but not mandatory. Don't civil offenders go before an immigration judge who ultimately decides their fate? They could be deported, told to leave or given a stay for hardship...

The woman Whitman fired, if the code is to be enforced, should be deported.

If it can be proved that Whitman did something illegal, she should be prosecuted. If not, it's typical oxymoronic dirty politics, and the voters should decide on the merits of the candidates' policies, not on mudslinging distractions.
It's certainly mudslinging, no doubt about that. Dirty and underhanded? Probably...but also high quality stuff ;)

But it also does highlight the issue, that many while standing for stronger laws on illegal immigration also benefit from it. Another report just out alleges Lou Dobbs has the same conflict.

At least Colin Powell had the stones to just come out and say it.

-spence

The maid entered the country illegally, which if she was trying to build a better life and was not breaking any other laws, is somehitng we can all relate to.

However, she also obtained someone else's social security number, and claimed that as her own. That's another crime.

Furthermore, this woman (the illegal) is now letting political operative sattack her former employer. The Whitmans paid her $23 an hour, which is triple the minimum wage. This is how she pays back the Whitmans, by trying to derail her campaign?

I believe deportation is a likely option, but not mandatory. Don't civil offenders go before an immigration judge who ultimately decides their fate? They could be deported, told to leave or given a stay for hardship...

As we all know from many high profile cases, whether or not someone is actually guilty, nothing is mandatory until the judge says it is. Getting the "right judge" can make all the difference. That's not the point in this discussion. What little we know is what has been reported. From that information (all that is available for this discussion), there is nothing that warrants anything but deportation for this illegal alien. What a particular judge with his/her particular bias, agenda, ethnic/racial/religious background (which seems more pertinent than blind justice nowadays in politically charged cases) will do (whether even if she will be charged given the current reluctance to go after these cases) is uncertain.

It's certainly mudslinging, no doubt about that. Dirty and underhanded? Probably...but also high quality stuff ;)

Bravo! High quality dirt. Exactly what the public needs to decide who wins its vote. Alinsky would approve.

But it also does highlight the issue, that many while standing for stronger laws on illegal immigration also benefit from it. Another report just out alleges Lou Dobbs has the same conflict.
-spence

That illegal immigration benefits many (lower wages for employers/lower prices for consumers, etc. . .) is not some new "issue" that needs highlighting. Nor is it highlighted in this case. The Whitman's were not paying low wages, and the "issue" is using the woman as high quality dirt to influence an election.

I don't know about Lou Dobbs "conflict." Is someone slinging high quality mud at him? Does it concern the voters of California? The fact that many, if not most of us, not just Dobbs, Whitman, or whoever is fortunate enough to get "reported," benefit in some way from illegals is irrelevent to the illegality and the HARM it does to us as a nation. It is wiser to give up small gains that lead to large destruction.