=skeptic2;2911151]No, that is not true. Check the SSA's own site.
http://ssa.gov/pubs/10096.html#1
Thanks for the link, I was not aware that SS cards were given to non-citizens, however according to the site, they are only given to immigrants who are legally in country and eligible to work. "noncitizens authorized to work in the United States by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can get a Social Security number" So according to that, if someone has a SS card they supposedly have been checked by DHS and are eligible to work in the US.
She is not being held responsible for the employee committing fraud. She is being held responsible for not doing due diligence, especially because she is campaigning on cracking down on employers.
Yes she is, imo if the employee wouldn't have committed fraud meg probably wouldn't have hired her, since the employment agency wouldn't have sent her out. But we will never know since nikki did commit fraud, and Meg hired a employee that she believed, due to the documents provided, was legal to work.
From Meg Whitman's campaign site:
http://www.megwhitman.com/platform_topic.php?type=immigration&page=1
Meg will oppose any attempt by the Legislature to weaken employer verification requirements. In addition to putting more resources at the border, Meg believes the federal government and California need to work together to establish a system that allows employers to better verify the immigration status of their workers. The “Economic Fence,” an enhanced e-verification system, will be a major deterrent to illegal immigration.
Modeled after drug seizure raids, Meg will institute a system where state and local law enforcement agencies conduct inspections of workplaces suspected of employing undocumented workers. First-time offenders will be required to pay a fine and have their business license suspended for 10 days. Second-time offenders will pay an additional fine and have their business license suspended for 30 days. Third-time offenders will have their business license permanently suspended and pay a substantial fine and other penalties.
Sounds like she is for making it easier for employers to verify employment status of employees through an e-verify process. If she could of ran a check on her own instead of relying on the SSA, which makes it clear in the the letter that she received that she couldn't use the information they gave her to discharge the employee, she wouldn't be in the situation she is.
By taking such a position, she has set the bar higher for her own behavior.
I don't think so, she is taking the position that we need to make it easier for buisinesses to verify employment status, then after that if they dont, the raids and punishment will start. There is no possible way to secure the border to keep everyone out, but if they can't find employment, or housing what would be the reason to try to enter the US illegally?
Since you are well aware of social security fraud, as was I long before 2000, why wasn't Whitman? Why didn't she ask for a green card or other immigration documents? Certainly someone who is arguing for tougher standards for employers for hiring illegals should not have taken her documents at face value. Would she exonerate employers who were discovered to be hiring illegals and did no more than she to verify their status?
Of course your not saying that everyone that looks like they are mexican, is here illegally. There are plenty of hispanics who are legal residents and would not have a green card or other immigration papers, but would have a DL and SS card just like Nikki did.
She probably would not exonerate employers who did no more than she did, but that is because she wants to make it easier for the employers to verify than it was for her.
By no means am I excusing the housekeeper. Yes she did commit fraud, but she is not running for office, Whitman is. What would be her position if an employer received a letter from the SSA saying that an employee's number didn't match her name and the employer gave the letter to the employee and said, "Look into this."?
What would you of had her do differently than she did, first there is no proof as of yet that she ever saw the letter, or that her husband mentioned anything to her about it. The letter makes it clear she shouldn't use the info to fire the employee, unless she wants to face fed and or state charges. I would imagine that if the letter from the SSA said the numbers don't match and if you keep the employee employed you will be opening yourself up to fed and or state charges thing would have been far different. And that would go for the thousands of similar letters that the SSA sends to employers everyday.
I am no fan of Whitman, and am glad I no longer live in CA, but this is no more than a small story being blown way out of proportion in order to try kill her campaign, imo. Why is it Dems only care about illegals being employed when the employer is a republican. This story would have more a ring of truth if it was a right wing group(against illegal employment) had brought it up, the way it is, it seems like feigned outrage to me. What Meg did, she did as a private citizen, years ago. Why hasnt anyone asked the currentCA AG Brown why no charges have been filed against Nikki, it is his job. Or why hasnt Gloria Allred been sanctioned by the bar for giving up the evidence that may get her client incarcerated, her handling of this sure doesn't seem like she is being a good advocate for her client. With a lawyer like that, who needs a prosecutor.