Whitman admits using undocumented immigrant as housekeeper

[peejay 327]

I'm not stupid. But instead of posting cute little cartoons, you might take a stab at refuting the statements I have made that obviously have rattled your cage.

[lostinblue 1,989]

The Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS) allows employers to match their record of employee names and Social Security numbers (SSNs) with Social Security records before preparing and submitting Forms W-2. Making sure names and SSNs on the W-2 match our records is important because unmatched records can result in additional processing costs for you and uncredited earnings for your employees. Uncredited earnings can affect future eligibility to (and amounts paid under) Social Security's retirement, disability and survivors program.

Proper use of SSNVS

SSNVS should only be used for the purpose for which it is intended.

Social Security will verify SSNs and names solely to ensure the records of current or former employees are correct for the purpose of completing an Internal Revenue Service Form W-2 (Wage and Tax Statement). A current employee is defined as a person who has received and accepted a job offer.

It is illegal to use the service to verify SSNs of potential new hires or contractors or in the preparation of tax returns.

Company policy concerning the use of SSNVS should be applied consistently to all workers; for example:

If used for newly hired workers, verify information on all newly hired workers.

If used to verify information on other workers in your database, verify the information for all workers in the entire database.

Third-party use of SSNVS is strictly limited to organizations that contract with employers to either handle the wage reporting responsibilities or perform an administrative function directly related to the annual wage reporting responsibilities of hired employees. It is suggested that contracts between the third-party and the employer stipulate that the functions being performed by the third-party contractor relate to wage reporting responsibilities and SSNVS should only be used for the wage reporting responsibilities of hired employees. It is not proper to use SSNVS for non-wage reporting purposes, such as identity, credit checks, mortgage applications, etc.

Anyone who knowingly and willfully uses SSNVS to request or obtain information from Social Security under false pretenses violates Federal law and may be punished by a fine, imprisonment or both.

Social Security may ban you and/or the company you represent from the use of SSNVS if Social Security determines there has been misuse of the service.

SSA returns all names and SSNs submitted. If the name and SSN do not match our records, SSA advises the following:

This response does not imply that you or your employee intentionally provided incorrect information about the employee's name or SSN.

This response does not make any statement about your employee's immigration status.

This response is not a basis, in and of itself, to take any adverse action against the employee, such as laying off, suspending, firing, or discriminating against the employee.

Restrictions on using SSNVS

Do not use SSNVS before hiring an employee.

While the service is available to all employers and third-party submitters, it can only be used to verify current or former employees and only for wage reporting (Form W-2) purposes.

Social Security will review usage of SSNVS to ensure that employers are using it for the proper purposes.

Do not use SSNVS to take punitive action against an employee whose name and SSN do not match Social Security's records.

A mismatch does not imply that the employer or the employee intentionally provided incorrect information.

A mismatch does not make any statement about an employee's immigration status and is not a basis, in and of itself, for taking any adverse action against an employee. Doing so could subject you to anti-discrimination or labor law sanctions.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

By Michael J. Mishak and Phil Willon, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from San Jose and Los Angeles — California Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman acknowledged Wednesday that she paid an undocumented worker to clean her residence and provide other services in her home for nine years but insisted that she had been unaware of the woman's immigration status.

Whitman, who has vowed to crack down on illegal immigration, said her family hired Nicandra Diaz Santillan through an employment agency to which Diaz Santillan had provided documentation suggesting she was an American citizen. Whitman said Diaz Santillan showed her a copy of her Social Security card and California driver's license, and campaign officials distributed those documents to the media.

Whitman said she fired Diaz Santillan in June 2009 after the woman revealed that she was living in the country illegally.

more...

Does this mean Moonbeam is going to be governor again?

[evli1966 88]

I generally will agree with you regarding Allred. She's a bottom feeding, self-promoter who likes to see her face on t.v.. However, if as is indicated in a story I read, she does have proof that Whitman knew she was an illegal immigrant and continued to employ her for 5 years, that changes things a bit. From what I read, there was a letter sent from the social security administration warning Whitman that the social security number that her maid was using did not match up with the name given and that there was potentially impropriety afoot.

I have only two question in regard to this, and it's two questions none of you asked:

1) Why is the housekeeper not in ICE's custody right now, with removal proceedings initiated?

2) Why is billionaire Whitman not slapped with a $500,000 fine?

:thumbs:

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Does this mean Moonbeam is going to be governor again?

He's already leading in the polls by nearly 10 percentage points. He had it in the bag the moment Whitman went negative against her Republican rival months ago. She's tried all she can to buy her way into the governor's mansion so it will be sweet justice to see her lose in November. And yes, Jerry Brown, is a hell of a lot better alternative to her.

[evli1966 88]

He's already leading in the polls by nearly 10 percentage points. He had it in the bag the moment Whitman went negative against her Republican rival months ago. She's tried all she can to buy her way into the governor's mansion so it will be sweet justice to see her lose in November. And yes, Jerry Brown, is a hell of a lot better alternative to her.

I will defer to youknowledge of that election or at least having more at stake there.

Whether or not they are a good politician for you or nto doesnot condone the illegal actions you was envolved in.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

He's already leading in the polls by nearly 10 percentage points. He had it in the bag the moment Whitman went negative against her Republican rival months ago. She's tried all she can to buy her way into the governor's mansion so it will be sweet justice to see her lose in November. And yes, Jerry Brown, is a hell of a lot better alternative to her.

Whitman, Brown Deadlocked—Boxer Holds Narrow Lead

SAN FRANCISCO, September 29, 2010—A month before the election, the races for California governor and U.S. senator are close and many likely voters are still undecided, according to a survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) with funding from The James Irvine Foundation.

In the governor’s race, Democrat Jerry Brown (37%) and Republican Meg Whitman (38%) are locked in a virtual tie among likely voters with 18 percent undecided. In the U.S. Senate race, incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer (42%) leads Republican Carly Fiorina (35%) by 7 points, with 17 percent undecided.

A sluggish national economy, double-digit unemployment, and a record-long state budget crisis are very much on the minds of Californians as the election approaches. Unconvinced by reports that the recession ended last year, nearly all residents (89%) say the state is in a recession. Asked to name the most important issue facing people in California, 62 percent say jobs and the economy—-nearly matching the record-high 63 percent who gave this answer in February 2009. More than four in 10 residents say they are very concerned or somewhat concerned that they or someone in their family could lose a job in the next year. Californians’ views of state and federal elected officials are reflected in approval ratings that are at or near record lows. And a significant number of likely voters are unhappy with the choice of candidates in the governor’s race as well. Only 45 percent are satisfied.

Of four ballot propositions included in the PPIC survey, just one exceeded the 50 percent threshold of support needed for passage, and it barely did so: Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana and allow it to be regulated and taxed in California (52% would vote yes, 41% no, 7% undecided).

"Neither the candidates nor the ballot measures have captured the imagination of the California electorate,” says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO. "There’s consensus about the problems, and voters are looking for a game-changer. They don’t see one on this ballot.”

More Independents Favor Whitman

The survey—completed just before a series of televised debates between the candidates—reveals a governor’s race that remains close among likely voters, as it was in July (34% Whitman, 37% Brown, 23% undecided). Independents were divided in July (30% Brown, 28% Whitman, 30% undecided) but have shifted toward Whitman (38% Whitman, 30% Brown, 19% undecided). Whitman is favored more by Republicans (71%) than Brown is by Democrats (63%).

http://www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?p=1051

[The_Dude 1,142]

I'm not stupid. But instead of posting cute little cartoons, you might take a stab at refuting the statements I have made that obviously have rattled your cage.

I didn't respond to your post, point by point because there was so much fail contained within it. It seems to be some sort of teabagger, anti-obama on everything template that you use for all your posts.

[Peikko 1,575]

He's already leading in the polls by nearly 10 percentage points. He had it in the bag the moment Whitman went negative against her Republican rival months ago. She's tried all she can to buy her way into the governor's mansion so it will be sweet justice to see her lose in November. And yes, Jerry Brown, is a hell of a lot better alternative to her.

Brown better than Whitman? Oh dear. I have no idea why you would say such a thing - do you know that he is trying to get an innocent man put back in prison for 'political reasons'? What a sleazebag.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[The_Dude 1,142]

Brown better than Whitman? Oh dear. I have no idea why you would say such a thing - do you know that he is trying to get an innocent man put back in prison for 'political reasons'? What a sleazebag.

The choice for governor this year is more like asking "Do you want it in the face, or the gut". This seems to be the next step beyond simply picking the lesser of two evils. I suppose the best I could say about Whitman is that she is a doe eyed neophyte who will spend the duration of her time in office fighting with state senators and unions and not change anything.

[Peikko 1,575]

The choice for governor this year is more like asking "Do you want it in the face, or the gut". This seems to be the next step beyond simply picking the lesser of two evils. I suppose the best I could say about Whitman is that she is a doe eyed neophyte who will spend the duration of her time in office fighting with state senators and unions and not change anything.

Maybe, I don't see her as being quite like that - and I see Brown as a career politician who will change nothing and the corruption will continue a pace - I don't think he has one original thought or idea on how to create and maintain jobs in CA - I think Whitman would tackle the corruption, whether or not she would succeed in doing anything about it, it is pretty systemic.

Reading about how he wants to get this guy back in prison really turned my stomach too - it is very, very sleazy.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[The_Dude 1,142]

Maybe, I don't see her as being quite like that - and I see Brown as a career politician who will change nothing and the corruption will continue a pace - I don't think he has one original thought or idea on how to create and maintain jobs in CA - I think Whitman would tackle the corruption, whether or not she would succeed in doing anything about it, it is pretty systemic.

Reading about how he wants to get this guy back in prison really turned my stomach too - it is very, very sleazy.

What turned me off about Whitman was hearing some of her talks about what she plans to do to clean up corruption. A majority of her ideas, she doesn't have the authority to do, which indicates to me that she is a complete neophyte.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What turned me off about Whitman was hearing some of her talks about what she plans to do to clean up corruption. A majority of her ideas, she doesn't have the authority to do, which indicates to me that she is a complete neophyte.

The California governor, unlike most states, is pretty impotent. Nobody really has to listen to him, and they rarely do. Too bad. What this state really needs is a strong executive, but that won't happen until the state constitution is fixed.

Edited October 1, 2010 by ##########

[The_Dude 1,142]

The California governor, unlike most states, is pretty impotent. Nobody really has to listen to him, and they rarely do. Too bad. What this state really needs is a strong executive, but that won't happen until the state constitution is fixed.

That and a strong set of candidates. Haven't hade one of those in decades.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

What should happen at this point is that they be assessed a TAX of $500,000 per day that they employed an illegal alien. Their home and prpoerty should be SEIZED and sold at auction. IF this was done, every other illegal alien would be out of work tomorrow and walking home the next day and NONE would walk back.

Won;t happen.

Dems want her to be made a citizen so she can vote for them. Repubs want slaves to work in their homes, businesses, etc.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Gary and Alla