• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The Reason the Border will Never be Closed

A

Anonymous

Guest
Just another example of why none of the politicians (either party) really want the border closed- or E-Verify enacted....

It would screw up theirs and their rich folk friends sources for maids, gardeners, poolboys and nannies......



Meg Whitman offers to take polygraph test on maid charges

By Alan Duke, CNN
September 30, 2010 5:50 p.m. EDT

Meg Whitman, California's Republican nominee for governor, denied Thursday ever seeing a letter from the federal government questioning her former housekeeper's Social Security number.

Whitman said she would be willing to take a polygraph test, to prove that she was "really stunned" to learn just last year that Nicky Diaz Santillan was an undocumented worker.

Lawyer Gloria Allred, who represents Santillan, on Thursday released a copy of a 2003 letter from the Social Security Administration that she called "the smoking gun or smoking document" to prove Whitman knew her housekeeper was working illegally in the United States.

Whitman, at a news conference an hour earlier, insisted she and her husband never saw such a letter. She said Santillan sorted their mail and "might have been on the lookout for that letter."

The letter, shown to reporters Thursday afternoon, included a handwritten notation that Allred said was written by Whitman's husband, Dr. Griffith Harsh.

"Nicky Please check this Thanks," is scribbled at the bottom of the letter addressed to Whitman and her husband.

Santillan kept the letter after Harsh gave it to her and the information requested by the Social Security Administration was not provided, Allred said.

"Now that we've shown you the evidence, let's see if she's going to deny it,"Allred said.

Whitman, at a news conference a few miles away and an hour earlier, said she would take a polygraph test to prove she did not know her housekeeper was undocumented "If it comes to that."

"I would be delighted to do that," Whitman said.

The allegations became public Wednesday when Allred held a news conference with Santillan to say the former housekeeper was "exploited, disrespected, humiliated and emotionally and financially abused" by the former eBay CEO.

"Make no mistake, these allegations are completely untrue they lack any merit whatsoever," Whitman said Thursday.

Whitman called the charges a "political smear" orchestrated by her Democratic opponent, Jerry Brown.

Allred said Thursday she has had no contact with the Brown campaign.

The Whitman campaign gave reporters copies of immigration and IRS forms it said Santillan signed stating she was a legal resident of the United States when she first applied for employment as a housekeeper in 2000.

Allred claimed that back in August 2000, Santillan "was sent by an employment agency to interview with Meg Whitman for a job as a housekeeper. ... Nicky alleges that Ms. Whitman never asked if [she] was here legally," Allred said.

"The inconvenient truth of the hypocrisy of Meg Whitman as illustrated by her employment of an undocumented worker and her exploitation of her was going to be revealed, because Nicky wanted to be legalized," Allred said.

"Nicky was terminated in a sudden, cruel and heartless way," she added.

Allred said Santillan intends to file a claim for unfairly denied wages.

Whitman said she paid her housekeeper $23 an hour to work 15 hours a week. Sometimes, she said, Santillan worked fewer hours but was paid for more.

While Whitman called Santillan like a member of her family, the housekeeper described a cold Whitman firing her for political reason.

"When I met with Meg Whitman on June 20, 2009, I asked her for assistance," Santillan said. "I explained to her why I came to the United States. I explained that I was married and our economic situation in Mexico was very bad. We had no job, no food, no place to live and for that reason we made the decision to come here."

"Ms. Whitman just laughed," Santillan said. Whitman, Santillan claimed, also blamed herself for failing to previously ask for any documentation.

Whitman, according to Santillan, indicated four days later that she couldn't help the former housekeeper.

"She said, 'I cannot help you and do not say anything to my children. I will tell them you already have a new job and that you want to go to school and from now on, you don't know me and I do not know you. You have never seen me and I have never seen you. Do you understand me?'"

Allred also outlined what she said were abusive labor practices by Whitman, including not reimbursing the maid for mileage when she ran errands and not allowing her maternity leave.

"When Nicky indicated to Ms. Whitman in March 2005, that she needed to take a medical leave of absence for pregnancy, she alleges that she was told that unless she herself obtained someone to replace her, that her job might not be there for her when she returned."

Whitman denied the allegation, saying Santillan proposed the idea of having a friend fill in for her while she gave birth.

While Santillan used her personal car to "run a few errands," she never asked for mileage reimbursement, Whitman said.

Whitman has previously beat back allegations she was involved in a 2007 shoving altercation with an employee at eBay's California headquarters after the Silicon Valley chief felt unprepared for an upcoming media interview. The incident reportedly led to a $200,000 settlement.

Responding to the press conference, Whitman campaign lawyer Tom Hiltchak told reporters that, when hired in 2000, Santillan gave Whitman false documentation, including IRS forms, a Social Security card, a California drivers license, and Department of Justice immigration forms in which the stated she was in the United States lawfully.

Whitman is currently neck and neck with Brown in the polls.

The issue of immigration looms large in California, as in other states along the Mexican border. Whitman has come out against Arizona's controversial new anti-illegal immigration law, as well as California's controversial Proposition 187. However, she supports tough crackdowns on employers who hire illegal immigrants, requiring employers "pay a fine and have their business license suspended for 10 days" for first-time offenses, with steeper fines and penalties for repeat offenders.

I wonder if Meg thinks this should suspend her ability to be a politician- or if she's another that talks the talk- but can't walk the walk.... :???:
 

MsSage

Well-known member
E-Verify enacted
Too bad you didnt hear her say they DID but got no return letter from them.......

Get a real life ...ohhh sorry you cant cuz no one would put up with your hatred face to face.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Angusgord said:
hypocritexposer said:
Do you ever fact check anything you read, OT?
Do You??

yep and usually have the facts at my finger tips.



Below are comments by Hugh Hewitt on the matter. He interviewed the lawyer for this illegal immigrant yesterday as did Mark Levin last night.

I listened to both interviews. They both talked about how the letter did not say what the lawyer and the media are reporting, so I also went looking for the letter to verify it.

Hugh Hewitt
Falling off the Floor: Gloria Allred and the Democrats
Thu, Sep, 30, 2010
Meg Whitman easily bested Jerry Brown in a debate over the future of California on Tuesday night.

So California Democrats had to hope that one of their reliable warhorses would saddle up and do some damage to Whitman with some kind of smear that diverted attention from the knock-down that Brown suffered. Lawyer Gloria Allred turned up, right on schedule, with a headline grabbing, allegation-hurling press conference about the misdeeds of Whitman.

Turns out that Whitman had hired a housekeeper a few years back, after being provided all the necessary documents. Whitman was very serious about complying with the law as any CEO of a major public company ought to be, if only to protect the thousands and thousands of shareholders who cannot afford to have corporate leadership turn out to be law breakers.

Whitman was defrauded. The housekeeper lied. Many years later the housekeeper admitted her lies to Whitman, and Whitman dismissed her.

First the law. Don't believe me. Believe Erwin Chemerinsky, the very liberal dean of the University of California at Irvine Law School. After Allred's press conference I had Erwin on my radio program to state the law, which he did very quickly: Whitman had to fire the housekeeper or break the law.

Then I had Gloria on the program. The audio and transcript are posted at HughHewitt.com.

I have known Gloria for a number of years, and like her. But she's a lefty and publicity-hungry, so when she can combine both her political agenda and her ambitions for the spotlight, don't get between her and the camera. This is why she played herself in the movie Rat Race. Her publicity-seeking is so over the top that even she is willing to make fun of it on the big screen.

She last attacked a Republican candidate for governor when he was leading the polls shortly before a vote when she launched a broadside against Arnold in August of 2003. Her client, Rhonda Miller, alleged sexual harassment. Miller's suit was dismissed.

I began my interview with Allred by asking her how that case turned out. Allred objected to the line of questioning.

I played Erwin's answer to my straightforward question and asked Allred if Erwin had stated the law correctly.. Allred objected to the line of questioning.

I asked Allred if she could state the law. She objected to this line of questioning.

Allred hung up on me when it became obvious that I simply wasn't going to allow her to repeat her allegations without establishing first a theory of the law under which Whitman could be understood to have done anything wrong.

All across the county, Democrats are hanging up on calls from voters, or not answering the phone in the first place.

They aren't holding votes in Congress, and they aren't holding townhalls in their districts.

They make outrageous charges and then refuse, like Allred on my show, to state their cases or make their arguments.

I have waited 20 years in broadcast for the perfect moment to tell a nonsense-spewing guest that they can't handle the truth. I got to do it with Gloria.

Soon the entire country will get to do it to Democrats from the top of the ticket to the bottom. The nonsense and stunts must stop. The country has real problems, problems that trial lawyers cannot solve, that public employee unions cannot divert attention from, and for which the president, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have no answers.

Like Gloria Allred today, the entire party will be embarrassed after the decision is rendered.

Sadly, like Gloria, there is very little evidence that they will change their ways.


Here is the part of the letter that states that the employer is not to act in an adverse way towards the employee for the imformation containecd in the letter.

I would assume because it in no way says the employee is illegal, but asks for some verification on possible a few things.

Question: Why was this never followed up on by Immigratioon or the IRS? Why is this coming up now? The laywer claims the client came to her looking for some "milieage" that she is owed for driving her own personal vehicle.

So the lawyer exposes her client to perjury and fraud charges and possibly deportation over some mileage allowances that are owed? :lol: :lol:
ScreenHunter_01Oct011234.gif

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0930_gloria_3.pdf




Hugh interview

http://townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=784c07c5-7d35-4d8a-af59-5f7ed76dafdd

Mark Levin interview

http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1970739&spid=32364
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MsSage said:
E-Verify enacted
Too bad you didnt hear her say they DID but got no return letter from them.......

Get a real life ...ohhh sorry you cant cuz no one would put up with your hatred face to face.


Lawyer Gloria Allred, who represents Santillan, on Thursday released a copy of a 2003 letter from the Social Security Administration that she called "the smoking gun or smoking document" to prove Whitman knew her housekeeper was working illegally in the United States.

Whitman, at a news conference an hour earlier, insisted she and her husband never saw such a letter. She said Santillan sorted their mail and "might have been on the lookout for that letter."

The letter, shown to reporters Thursday afternoon, included a handwritten notation that Allred said was written by Whitman's husband, Dr. Griffith Harsh.

"Nicky Please check this Thanks," is scribbled at the bottom of the letter addressed to Whitman and her husband
.

Looks to me like they received a response- but didn't act on it.....
 

hopalong

Well-known member
oldtimer is so full of hatered he cannot see straight so he lets his BROWN eyes spoiut the same stuff over and over again and again without really knowing all the facts!!!!!

He gets a kick out of distorting facts.

Rh?????
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
MsSage said:
E-Verify enacted
Too bad you didnt hear her say they DID but got no return letter from them.......

Get a real life ...ohhh sorry you cant cuz no one would put up with your hatred face to face.


Lawyer Gloria Allred, who represents Santillan, on Thursday released a copy of a 2003 letter from the Social Security Administration that she called "the smoking gun or smoking document" to prove Whitman knew her housekeeper was working illegally in the United States.

Whitman, at a news conference an hour earlier, insisted she and her husband never saw such a letter. She said Santillan sorted their mail and "might have been on the lookout for that letter."

The letter, shown to reporters Thursday afternoon, included a handwritten notation that Allred said was written by Whitman's husband, Dr. Griffith Harsh.

"Nicky Please check this Thanks," is scribbled at the bottom of the letter addressed to Whitman and her husband
.

Looks to me like they received a response- but didn't act on it.....


Take a look at the letter OT.

Does it state that the employee was illegal? If the IRS knew she was illegal, why was no action taken by the authorities?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
MsSage said:
Too bad you didnt hear her say they DID but got no return letter from them.......

Get a real life ...ohhh sorry you cant cuz no one would put up with your hatred face to face.


Lawyer Gloria Allred, who represents Santillan, on Thursday released a copy of a 2003 letter from the Social Security Administration that she called "the smoking gun or smoking document" to prove Whitman knew her housekeeper was working illegally in the United States.

Whitman, at a news conference an hour earlier, insisted she and her husband never saw such a letter. She said Santillan sorted their mail and "might have been on the lookout for that letter."

The letter, shown to reporters Thursday afternoon, included a handwritten notation that Allred said was written by Whitman's husband, Dr. Griffith Harsh.

"Nicky Please check this Thanks," is scribbled at the bottom of the letter addressed to Whitman and her husband
.

Looks to me like they received a response- but didn't act on it.....


Take a look at the letter OT.

Does it state that the employee was illegal? If the IRS knew she was illegal, why was no action taken by the authorities?

Well- most "normal" people if they have a Mexican working for them- and the government sends you a letter questioning their SSN #- would immediately start asking questions and do some further checking...

And not hand it to the "questionable person" and tell them to handle it.... :shock: :roll:

Unless you didn't really want to know :???:

No wonder the illegal problem will never be taken care of.... Sounds like you support Don't Ask- Don't Tell :wink: :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
Looks to me like they received a response- but didn't act on it.....


Take a look at the letter OT.

Does it state that the employee was illegal? If the IRS knew she was illegal, why was no action taken by the authorities?

Well- most "normal" people if they have a Mexican working for them- and the government sends you a letter questioning their SSN #- would immediately start asking questions and do some further checking...

And not hand it to the "questionable person" and tell them to handle it.... :shock: :roll:

Unless you didn't really want to know :???:

No wonder the illegal problem will never be taken care of.... Sounds like you support Don't Ask- Don't Tell :wink: :lol:


Why were they not contacted again by the authorities, if they (authorities) knew she was an illegal?


If you weren't contacted again by the authorities would you not assume that any verification that was requested had been cleared up?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Take a look at the letter OT.

Does it state that the employee was illegal? If the IRS knew she was illegal, why was no action taken by the authorities?

Well- most "normal" people if they have a Mexican working for them- and the government sends you a letter questioning their SSN #- would immediately start asking questions and do some further checking...

And not hand it to the "questionable person" and tell them to handle it.... :shock: :roll:

Unless you didn't really want to know :???:

No wonder the illegal problem will never be taken care of.... Sounds like you support Don't Ask- Don't Tell :wink: :lol:


Why were they not contacted again by the authorities, if they (authorities) knew she was an illegal?


If you weren't contacted again by the authorities would you not assume that any verification that was requested had been cleared up?

They wouldn't have to ask/contact me (or most honest normal folks) twice....

And I'm sure when there is 15-20 million illegals in the country to check out- the SSN and immigration people don't have time to be sending out multiple letters asking for your help...
But many elitist folks like Whitman have little sense of responsibility.... :(
 

hopalong

Well-known member
normal would leave you out of the equation oldtimer

Ao you are saying that none of your friends in high places don't have maids or pool boys or garders oldtimer?
Are they legal??
If not as an officer of the court are you not legally bound to turn them in? are you not legally bound to arrest them as an officer of the court.
Huuum are you as not as much a part of the problem as the people you condem??? HOw do you know they are legal??
You know as well as the rest of us e verify does NOT work!!!! You have been showb that in the past but like shame oooo you refuse to believe FACTS!!!EH???
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
Well- most "normal" people if they have a Mexican working for them- and the government sends you a letter questioning their SSN #- would immediately start asking questions and do some further checking...

And not hand it to the "questionable person" and tell them to handle it.... :shock: :roll:

Unless you didn't really want to know :???:

No wonder the illegal problem will never be taken care of.... Sounds like you support Don't Ask- Don't Tell :wink: :lol:


Why were they not contacted again by the authorities, if they (authorities) knew she was an illegal?


If you weren't contacted again by the authorities would you not assume that any verification that was requested had been cleared up?

They wouldn't have to ask/contact me (or most honest normal folks) twice....

And I'm sure when there is 15-20 million illegals in the country to check out- the SSN and immigration people don't have time to be sending out multiple letters asking for your help... But many elitist folks like Whitman have little sense of responsibility.... :(


You would have just assumed that the employee had committed fraud with the fake SS# and also assumed that she was an illegal, when the letter from the IRS specifically told you not to assume that?


That's a little racist, don't you think?


The SSA would see a problem annually, would they not, when it came to tax time?

No-Match Letters: The SSA annually reviews W-2 forms and credits social security earnings to workers. If a name or a Social Security Number (SSN) on a W-2 form does not match SSA records, the Social Security earnings go into a suspense file while the SSA works to resolve discrepancies. In recent years, the SSA has been unable to match employee information with SSA records for 6-7 million workers a year. SSA has deposited $280 billion dollars in the earnings suspense file as a result of the cumulative effect of these no-matches.

http://www.vkblaw.com/law/nomatchletters.htm



So if it did not come up after this, why would the Whitman's not assume that it was a mistake on name that was taken care of? Was that not one of the reasons that were mentioned in the letter? Wouldn't they have been paying some sort of fine for not complying, if they had not?

No-Match Letters and the IRS: Although the SSA does not have any power to enforce its request for corrected information, the SSA is required by law to provide the IRS with information on no-match W-2 forms. The IRS is authorized by regulation to fine employers $50 for each incorrectly reported social security number and is planning to begin enforcing the regulation after it develops a program for imposing penalties. The agency has indicated that it is currently considering fining employers for infractions that take place in 2002 and issuing the fines as early as 2004. However, it is unclear if it will meet this timeframe.



then there is always the fact, that they did let her go when the maid confessed to being an illegal. So saying that they did nothing when they found out is a misrepresentation of the facts.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
1) get a "no-match" letter
2) verify information
3) submit corrections if any
4) advise employee to resolve any discrepancy
5) if discrepancy is not corrected, make effort to reverify documentation


Sounds like it was all done legit., if the Whitman's did not receive further information from the IRS or Immigration. Are there any "privacy laws" that would hinder the employer to check further?




New law in 2007
Immigration Law Advisory - What to do When the Dreaded "No-Match" Letter Arrives

Within 30 Days of Receipt of the Notification:


The employer must check its records to determine whether the discrepancy was caused by a clerical error, and, if so, correct the error with SSA or DHS, and verify that the corrected information now matches SSA or DHS records. Employers should retain a record of the manner, date, and time of such verification.

If such actions do not resolve the discrepancy, the employer must promptly request that the employee confirm that the name and social security account number in the employer's records are correct. If the information is incorrect, the employer must make corrections, inform the SSA or DHS of the correction, verify a match on the corrected information, and make a record of its actions.


If the employee confirms that the employer's record information is correct, the employer must promptly advise the employee of the date of receipt of the no-match letter and advise the employee to resolve the discrepancy with the SSA or DHS no later than ninety (90) days after the receipt date of the no-match letter or DHS letter.

Within 90 Days of Receipt of the Notification:


If the discrepancy cannot be resolved with either SSA or DHS within 90 days of receipt of the written communication from either agency, the employer must attempt to reverify the worker's employment eligibility by completing a new I-9 employment verification form using the same procedures as if the employee were newly hired, with certain restrictions. Thus a new Form I-9 must be completed within 93 days of the no-match letter, in accordance with the regulation providing three days to complete the form after a new hire.

If the employer cannot verify the employee's work eligibility through completion of a new I-9 form, the employer must decide whether to terminate the employee, or face the risk in any subsequent DHS enforcement action of being determined to have constructive knowledge and being penalized for the continuing employment of an unauthorized alien.

DHS takes the position that applying the safe harbor rule in a uniform manner for all employees whose account numbers or work authorization documents are challenged by the SSA or DHS without regard to perceived national origin or citizenship status should not subject an employer to liability for unlawful discrimination. Further,
DHS instructs that an employer should not terminate an employee until the process is completed, unless the employer obtains actual knowledge (such as through an admission by the employee) that the employee is not eligible for employment in the United States.

http://www.steptoe.com/publications-4786.html



“Safe Harbor Procedures for Employers Who Receive a No-Match Letter.”


http://www.socialsecurity.gov/legislation/DHS%20Regulation%20No-Match.pdf



But hey OT, if you are okay with not knowing all the facts and just jumping to the conclusion that the Whitman's broke the law, just because she is a conservative, go ahead. You seem more interested in voting for currupt Dems. that would smear their opponent, so they can allow more illegals into the country, than voting for someone who has now found herself tangled up in the Government bureaucracy and is willing to work to change the system.


Is this all Brown and the Dems. have to run/campaign on? Seems like it is working with voters like OT.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
E-Verify is an Internet-based, free program run by the United States governmentthat compares information from anemployee's EmploymentEligibility Verification Form I-9to data from U.S. government records. If the information matches, thatemployee iseligible to work in the United States. If there's a mismatch,E-Verify alerts the employer and the employee is allowed to work while he or she resolves the problem withineight days. The program is operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)in partnership with Social Security Administration.

How can you say Whitmans did everything when they did nothing but to tell the lawbreaker to take care of it :???: :shock:

That would be like getting a call from the auditor that they think someone working for you is embezzling your money- and then telling the suspect to handle it for you..... :roll: :p :lol:

Gee Hypocrit- I didn't realize you were such a supporter of illegal immigration?

And I don't care if its a Repub or Dem or whatever cult they follow---its all these folks like this- that flout the law by putting having their maids, gardners, and poolboys ahead of checking out employee status--that has created the huge problem we have--- and the reason the law has never been enforced since the Reagan Amnesty and passage of the law making it a crime in 1986.....

Maybe this is the reason the US Chamber of Commerce jumped in bed with the ACLU to try and outlaw E-Verify (which by the way if you remember is a Bush innovation if you think its so bad )...

Just another politician talking the talk- that can't walk the walk... :(

But Hypocrit and everyone on here will kiss her hiney and say what a great person she is because she has the magic (R) behind her name.... :wink: :lol: :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
E-Verify is an Internet-based, free program run by the United States governmentthat compares information from anemployee's EmploymentEligibility Verification Form I-9to data from U.S. government records. If the information matches, thatemployee iseligible to work in the United States. If there's a mismatch,E-Verify alerts the employer and the employee is allowed to work while he or she resolves the problem withineight days. The program is operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)in partnership with Social Security Administration.

How can you say Whitmans did everything when they did nothing but to tell the lawbreaker to take care of it :???: :shock:

That would be like getting a call from the auditor that they think someone working for you is embezzling your money- and then telling the suspect to handle it for you..... :roll: :p :lol:

Gee Hypocrit- I didn't realize you were such a supporter of illegal immigration?

And I don't care if its a Repub or Dem or whatever cult they follow---its all these folks like this- that flout the law by putting having their maids, gardners, and poolboys ahead of checking out employee status--that has created the huge problem we have--- and the reason the law has never been enforced since the Reagan Amesty and passage of the law making it a crime in 1986.....

Maybe this is the reason the US Chamber of Commerce jumped in bed with the ACLU to try and outlaw E-Verify (which by the way if you remember is a Bush innovation)...

Just another politician talking the talk- that can't walk the walk... :(

You didn't read a damn thing I posted from the SSA site or from the legal advice posted, did you?

they got the letter, checked again to see if everything matched the documentation they were given and advised the employee to look into it.

the letter clearly states that it was not a confirmation that she was an illegal, but may have been just a clerical error.

If Whitman did not receive anything after that, she probably assumed that the clerical error had been corrected.

When the employee confessed to being an illegal and that she used fake documentation to get the job through the employment agency, shew was fired.

Whitman followed the law and I have no doubt that she consulted with an immigration lawyer before doing so.

She wants to become Gov., so things like this can be changed and you're sticking up for the guy that is trying to smear her and keep the status quo.

Give your head a shake man.

this whole incident can either be used to teach people what is the proper way of handling a situation like this and making changes so it is managed beetter, or to smear a candidate becasue you don't like her stance on illegal immigration.



If such actions do not resolve the discrepancy, the employer must promptly request that the employee confirm that the name and social security account number in the employer's records are correct. If the information is incorrect, the employer must make corrections, inform the SSA or DHS of the correction, verify a match on the corrected information, and make a record of its actions.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
E-Verify is an Internet-based, free program run by the United States governmentthat compares information from anemployee's EmploymentEligibility Verification Form I-9to data from U.S. government records. If the information matches, thatemployee iseligible to work in the United States. If there's a mismatch,E-Verify alerts the employer and the employee is allowed to work while he or she resolves the problem withineight days. The program is operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)in partnership with Social Security Administration.

How can you say Whitmans did everything when they did nothing but to tell the lawbreaker to take care of it :???: :shock:

EXACTALLY WHAT THEY WERE TOLD TO DO!!! it figures you could not see that!!

That would be like getting a call from the auditor that they think someone working for you is embezzling your money- and then telling the suspect to handle it for you..... :roll: :p

Gee Hypocrit- I didn't realize you were such a supporter of illegal immigration?

And I don't care if its a Repub or Dem or whatever cult they follow---its all these folks like this- that flout the law by putting having their maids, gardners, and poolboys ahead of checking out employee status--that has created the huge problem we have--- and the reason the law has never been enforced since the Reagan Amnesty and passage of the law making it a crime in 1986.....

Maybe this is the reason the US Chamber of Commerce jumped in bed with the ACLU to try and outlaw E-Verify (which by the way if you remember is a Bush innovation if you think its so bad )...
e verify does not work and you know it
Just another politician talking the talk- that can't walk the walk... :(

But Hypocrit and everyone on here will kiss her hiney and say what a great person she is because she has the magic (R) behind her name.... :wink: :lol: :lol:

One thiung she does not have behind her name is MONTANA., yoy do more to harm that state worse than any other source, with all the lies and mistruths you cry about,
any of your high and mighty friends you claim to have have a maid?????

EH?
you ever try to e verify an employee?
EH?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
So you think the employers have no responsibilty to further check on their employee when they get notified by Social Security there may be a SSN # problem (the normal way illegals are often caught- mutiple SSN #'s)- and the government should do all the checking?

You are getting more Liberal than Pelosi..... :wink: :p :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
So you think the employers have no responsibilty to further check on their employee when they get notified by Social Security there may be a SSN # problem (the normal way illegals are often caught- mutiple SSN #'s)- and the government should do all the checking?

You are getting more Liberal than Pelosi..... :wink: :p :lol:


They did further check and followed up the way the Government has outlined.

If they had followed up any differently they would have been defending themselves in court against invasion of privacy charges or imporper dismissal.

You are fighting the wrong guys here OT.

I get a kick out of all the left's criticism of Arizona's immigration laws, when it comes to verifying immigrants legal status and then for you to criticize Whitman for not going further in checking for legal status.


the "do gooders" have pushed for these civli rights laws and when they are not followed they run to a lawyer like the illegal in Whitman's case did and cry foul.

Can you tell us why this lawyer is representing her client and when she took on the case?

Is she a Brown supporter and how did she come across her client?
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
So you think the employers have no responsibilty to further check on their employee when they get notified by Social Security there may be a SSN # problem (the normal way illegals are often caught- mutiple SSN #'s)- and the government should do all the checking?

You are getting more Liberal than Pelosi..... :wink: :p :lol:

here ya go oldtimer. try using it! you are getting weirder by the minute!!!

https://e-verify.uscis.gov/emp/vislogin.aspx?JS=YES
use your own nunber!!! only leave off a didgit and see what happens, or transpose one
see what comes up. more than likey you will have dreams of kissing Pelosi
and liking it>

If you think any one here is advocating what you claim you are mis guided as your hero, YOU!

eh????

Can you tell us the lead time in the SSI system in notifying an employer as to the possiblility of a error in a SS number??

EH??
can you
EH.?
Do you know the process?
Do you know if it is a title 16 process or a title 12?
EH??
 
Top