dagblog - Comments for "Maid in California"

The bottom line is that we

Rootman — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 04:09:23 +0000

The bottom line is that we are always going to have immigrants willing to do unpleasant things that Americans are not willing to do, such as being Meg Whitman's friend.

Horsemen 4Eva!WHOOOOOOO!Wow,

Michael Maiello — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 23:14:26 +0000

In reply to Never did I think that you of

Horsemen 4Eva!

WHOOOOOOO!

Wow, Dibiase was so young, there.

Never did I think that you of

DF — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 23:11:09 +0000

In reply to Oh sheesh you kind of lost me

Never did I think that you of all people would advocate a NEW WORLD ORDER. Say it ain't so, bruther!

Oh sheesh you kind of lost me

Michael Maiello — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 23:08:19 +0000

In reply to Whitman was paying $23

Oh sheesh you kind of lost me at the end there, but...

You're right, it does seem that she was paying a wage that would amount to about $48,000 a year. I've worked for some really rich people and I got to know them and I happen to know that their home staff did way better than that (and way better than me). But, I accept that Whitman was probably not in the market to hire an illegal immigrant and that she paid a middle class wage. More likely that she chose an agency that would hook her up with the best deal possible and that the agency uses illegals for both leverage and convenience. Illegal employees don't complain, no matter what happens.

Now... I'm going to say this just to bother you... But this whole phony superhighway Amero business... wouldn't necessarily be the worst thing in the world for us. Canada has enormous resources and a fully developed economy. Mexico is an emerging market with enormous resources as well. Sure, it has it's troubles but East Germany had it's troubles too and West Germany worries about reuinification because of it. Where's Germany now? Yup, strongest economy in Europe, one of the strongest in the world and, if judged according to it's size, the globe's heaviest hitter.

So maybe we should build that highway and adopt the Amero!

Evidence?

Austin Train — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:41:41 +0000

In reply to Whitman was paying $23

Evidence?

Whitman was paying $23

Bettybb — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:29:51 +0000

In reply to The personal politics of this

Whitman was paying $23 /hour..so she did not do it to save a few bucks.

I am a progressive Dem, but I am not sure that Whitman knew she was illegal before she was told in June 2009. Sure it appears there was a SS letter, but that letter stated that it was not about immigration status.

The real problem is that it would be very easy to prevent people working illegally here, all the government has to do is mandate E Verify and have SS follow up on the problem SSN it knows about. Jail dishonest employers who use illegal labor and the problem is solved.

But the moneyed interest (both parties) don't want that.

They are pursuing a North American Union, without our knowledge or consent, and part of that is open borders.

Gee, Canadians know about it. Mexicans know about it. The dollar is going to be replaced by the Amero.

As one Bush memo put it, since Americans will protest, it has to be done by "evolutionary stealth". Hence Spanish is being made the second official language of the USA. The North American highway is being built ( while the Feds continue to deny it), even though Canada and Mexico talk about it. There is no enforcement of our immigration laws because they want Mexicans to flood into the USA, become citizens and then vote for the North American Union. The infastructures of the three countries are being merged as are our economies.

Of course, it is not being done like in Europe, where the people of each country got to vote on a union and policies were put in place so each group could preserve their language and their culture and their social benefits. Nope, no protection for regular people with the North American Union! With 30 million of so Mexicans joining up, our social benefit system will be destroyed. But heck, the way it is being strucutured, the rich will get richer...so on it goes.

It's like when celebrities

Michael Maiello — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:23:50 +0000

In reply to The personal politics of this

It's like when celebrities purposefully go out to get drunk and use drugs and then get caught driving home. You're rich. Hire a damned car for the night and nobody will care about whatever else you do. Instead they try to save a buck. And don't tell me these people are rich because they're cheap. They're not. For the most part they're rich because they lucked or worked into one gig that pays an outsized bonus. Nobody, not even Warren Buffett ever actually pinched their pennies into multimillionairedom.

Yep, both the Repubs and the

Bettybb — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:13:12 +0000

In reply to Maid in California

Yep, both the Repubs and the Dem elites love their illegal immigrants. It keeps American wages nice and low, and subsidizes the dishonest employers who use them through American middle class taxes. But hey, those big campaign contributors are kept happy. Who cares that over the last 20 years, the American working and middle class has been destroyed! The rich have gotten richer!

The personal politics of this

DF — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:00:00 +0000

In reply to I've always been an open

The personal politics of this story are as rotten as you suggest. And I think this is likely to hurt her with voters, particularly those in the Latino community.

But it's also a microcosm of the Republican rhetoric on immigration. Whitman was happy to benefit from cheap labor and she's happy to benefit from a political scapegoat.

Also, I am forced to wonder this: Just how greedy do you have to be to do what Whitman has apparently done? With her money, she could legally employ a whole team of housekeepers without any significant difference to her financial picture. I wonder if she is now reconsidering her decision to save a few bucks an hour.

I've always been an open

Michael Maiello — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 21:52:23 +0000

In reply to Maid in California

I've always been an open borders kind of person, realizing of course that some business interests agree for nefarious reasons. Morally, I've never been able to get with this notion of having your country assigned to you by the accident of your birth. Sometimes I just feel French, you know?

To me, Meg Whitman's biggest sin here is her dishonesty. She calls this woman who worked for her for almost a decade "her friend." She fired this woman when she learned about her immigration status. She fired her supposed friend. What? She's wealthy. She could have hired the best immigration lawyer in the country to work the system on her friend's behalf. There's nothing that would make me believe that Whitman couldn't have gotten her employee on the path to citizenship. Indeed, there are even provisions in the law for domestic help (mostly for diplomats who have worked overseas, but still). If she can spend $120 million on her campaign, she could have spent $120,000 on legal help for her "friend."

Or, heck, she could have set her "friend" up for life. She could have said, "You know, I'm running or governor. This won't do. Welcome to early retirement, I think you'll be quite please with your annuity." They were "friends" after all.