Meg Whitman's Ugly Illegal Alien Mexican Maid Nicandra Diaz Rat's Her out

http://tiny.cc/xb1rhvu0bk

Meg Whitman’s Ugly Illegal Alien Mexican Maid Rat’s Her out

What amazes me it that the media here  in Oregon ignores the Race for Governor and hasn’t mentioned once that Meg is for stopping illegal aliens. It is extremely lame for Meg to claim no knowledge when she made Ebay a nightmare with her detail freakiness. There is such a thing as E-Verify.Although rich people are above the law.

Also like all ugly Latinas , this mexican Rat, bleaches her hair. Warning: Blonde hair is for White people. Why not arrest the Maid For Criminal Trespass into the United States? How come we don’t enforce laws against illegal aliens, but Americans get the book thrown at them?

Meg Whitman has some explaining to do on illegal immigrant housekeeper

September 29, 2010 | 2:31 pm

Pardon me, but I have a few questions here on California’s tough-on-immigration gubernatorial candidate, Meg Whitman, who seems to have had an illegal immigrant in her house for nine years.

Is that not the stuff of great fiction? Whitman says the housekeeper, Nicandra Diaz, had passed herself off as legal and had papers to back her up.

All right. That’s believable.

Whitman says the woman acknowledged in 2009 that she was undocumented, fearing that the truth would be dug up in the heat of the campaign.

All right, maybe.

Whitman and her husband were shocked, says Whitman, and immediately fired the housekeeper.

Also believable, even though the housekeeper claims, through attorney Gloria Allred, that Whitman knew she didn’t have papers.

But wait a minute. The no-nonsense candidate who opposes a path to legal citizenship, and wants the government to go after businesses that hire illegal immigrants, didn’t feel the need to report the housekeeper to authorities when she confessed?

What did she think might happen? That the housekeeper would go back where she came from? That someone else would hire her not knowing she was illegal?

Or did she maybe think to herself, privately, of course, that the housekeeper was a decent person trying to live a better life in a country where wealthy people like Whitman are all too happy to hire them, and not terribly inclined to probe their backgrounds?

What did the Whitmans pay the housekeeper, by the way?

Did they offer health insurance, or let the public pick up the tab at a county hospital, which many illegal immigrants use as a doctor’s office.

Do the Whitmans have any other domestics whose papers should be checked?

Does Jerry Brown?

Help me out, readers.

Anybody out there have any more questions for Meg?

— Steve Lopez

 

 

Shouldn’t the agency check papers before sending people out to work illegally? This lady knew she was working illegally right? She needs to stop playing the victim and move on.

Posted by: csula09 | September 29, 2010 at 02:36 PM

There are lot’s of questions raised by this issue and way too much speculation and dismissal by everyone out there without the benefit of a few more facts.

Allred would seem to have a copy of the Social Security Administration letter sent to the Whitmans because they give a specific date it was sent.

A spokesman for Whitman claims that the maid was the person who collected the mail implying that she tossed it out before the Whitmans saw it. Really?

Did Whitman pay the agency or did she pay the maid.

Did Whitman file 1099’s for nine years to the agency or the maid?

If Whitman filed 1099’s they were treating her as an independent contractor and not an employee. Whitman’s states she was an employee. Did she withold income tax, SS tax and provide workman’s comp?

Posted by: Joe | September 29, 2010 at 03:30 PM

I read she was paid $23 an hour – seems pretty nice

Posted by: Lakers | September 29, 2010 at 03:30 PM

Where is there any mention of an agency? The issue is that the housekeeper is alleging that Whitman knew that she didn’t have papers. If true, that, in and of itself, strikes a blow to Whitman’s character, the legitimacy of her word, and speaks to the grandiose irony that is contemporary politics.

Posted by: USC 11 | September 29, 2010 at 03:33 PM

I’d like to see what other dirty little secrets meg has in her closet…

Posted by: carlos | September 29, 2010 at 03:33 PM

What agency is csula09 writing about?

The truth is that no one checks the maids and gardeners immigration status. It’s pretty obvious they’re illegals since they generally tend to speak broken English and they’re working at minimum wage or lower with no benefits.

But, if someone wants to run for political office, maybe they should use their brains, reach into their multi-millionaire pockets and pay a little more to hire American workers.

Anyway, what really galls me about Meg Whitman is that she thinks that she buy the governship of California. It’s not for sale, Meg. Don’t confuse the state of California with eBay.

Posted by: jes | September 29, 2010 at 03:35 PM

And wasn’t Ms Whitman aware of the Social Security anti-fraud database that is available to all employers? Many politicians want to make it mandatory for all employers to run the SS numbers of potential employees through this site. Wouldn’t Ms Whitman have known about this as the CEO of a major corporation–or from doing her homework to support this plank of her platform?

Posted by: Margaret Taylor | September 29, 2010 at 03:39 PM

Whitman is a hypocrite who acts in contradiction to her stated beliefs. How can we expect her to stay true to her campaign rhetoric?

Posted by: ConcernedCitizen | September 29, 2010 at 03:51 PM

Given her comment that she wants the gov’t to go after big biz that hires illegals (READ: AGRIBUSINESS, CENTRAL VALLEY, et al) and after listening to her for over a year begin 90% of her sentences with the word, “so,”—–So how can Meg Whitman expect Californians to vote for someone who did not bother to register/vote for 28 years); blatantly still lies about the Clinton ad (debunked by Politifact and Brooks Jackson) and is now proven to be a first-class hypocrite?

Posted by: Howard | September 29, 2010 at 03:52 PM

People on either side of the illegal immigration debate should be asking themselves how well Whitman can handle government policies relating to millions of legal and illegal migrants, when she can’t handle getting it right for just one of them, who was working for a decade right under her nose?

Posted by: Tsco | September 29, 2010 at 03:53 PM

This sounds like a political dirty trick. It’s not every day that a women would hold a televised press conference to announce to everyone that she is an illegal immigrant. A better question would be to ask Ms. Diaz on why she decided to make the announcement now and why televise it with Gloria Allred on her side.

Posted by: kristin | September 29, 2010 at 03:54 PM

Steve,

Heard Whitman’s reaction on KNX News Radio. Her comments are definitely unbelievable nor credible. More to the point, blatant lies.

Shouldn’t the first clue have been in the first year when they reported her wages to the IRS?

And the Whitman’s never questioned her status for 9 years????

Did “Nicandra” have a “900” number instead of a social security number?

Was she classified as “Contract Labor” earning under $3500 per year?

What pay stubs were documented or was Nicandra paid in cash?

Or did Whitman carry Nicandra on EBay’s payroll?

I do believe Whitman’s history of lies just drove the final nail into the coffin of her once aspiring political career.

Randal Zuniga

Riverside, CA

Posted by: Randal Zuniga | September 29, 2010 at 03:55 PM

How is this woman exploited-she’s the liar. Claiming legal status & producing phony Social Security card. Also a salary of $23/hr for a maid, is damn good compensation. This is just another Allred extorion of soeone in the public eye. This former maid should now be deported.

Posted by: leslie Stein | September 29, 2010 at 03:59 PM

“What did the Whitmans pay the housekeeper, by the way?”

according to Allred, she was paid for 15 hours but often spent more time unpaid.

hypocrisy is SOP for the GOP.

Posted by: studio | September 29, 2010 at 04:11 PM

Come on people, this is simple. Whitman didnt’ care about the nanny’s status; she just wanted someone competent at the right price. This only becomes an issue when Whitman decides to run for Governor. You can’t run on a $119 million self-funded, anti-immigrant, ’employers should be held responsible’ campaign and have anyone believe you just never thought about it/asked/knew for 9 years… ….

Posted by: JB | September 29, 2010 at 04:12 PM

Whatever! Colin Powell has illegals working at his house. I was not going to vote but now I am and I am voting for MEG WHITMAN. Gloria Allred makes me SICK!

Posted by: hopeful22 | September 29, 2010 at 04:13 PM

Opportunity knocks for Diaz. Tears for the camera.

Posted by: El Guapo de la ciudad de Los Angeles | September 29, 2010 at 04:14 PM

USC11 & jes:

the agency was referred to in the presser – Whitman went to an agency to find suitable “aliens” to work her property, and probably gave no guidelines as to legalities as she had no intention of “spending” for public office at the time!

Posted by: studio | September 29, 2010 at 04:16 PM

She only needs to explain one thing.

How she can govern California better than Jerry Brown.

This orchestrated sideshow is a diversion intended to swing the election. The involvement of Gloria Allred tells it all. The fact that the LA Slimes and their “journalist” are fawning all over the story seals the deal for me.

Posted by: klkl | September 29, 2010 at 04:17 PM

Are candidates now required to pay health insurance for anyone working in their home? How about a gardener that mows the lawn once a week. If you are going to run for office someday are you expected to take out a Blue Shield policy on the lawnmower? I think this author is just trying to make points and they don’t seem real.

Posted by: James Andrews | September 29, 2010 at 04:19 PM

Here are a couple of questions.

Did Whitman pay the employer’s contribution to Social Security on the employee’s behalf? Did she withhold the employee’s Social Security contribution and remit it to the Social Security Administation?

Did Whitman withhold the employee’s payroll taxes and and remit them to the IRS and Franchise Tax Board?

How about unemployment insurance and disability insurance levies?

Posted by: Scott Hanlon | September 29, 2010 at 04:20 PM

Meg:

Why didn’t you sue the agency?

Why didn’t you report this to IRS, ICE and/or local law enforcement?

Why didn’t you help this woman find an immigration attorney to make things right?

Why didn’t you pay this woman mileage and expenses?

Why are you still running for governor?

Posted by: Eric | September 29, 2010 at 04:20 PM

If you don’t care about voting in elections, you’re probably not going to care about the legal status of your housekeeper. After all, you’re a behemoth of wealth, and details are for the other little people.

Posted by: Kit | September 29, 2010 at 04:23 PM

YES! I have a question: Can Whitman furnish us with records of their tax withholding and 1099 forms? Even if she didn’t know her maid was illegal, it appears that she’s not doing her taxes. And if she DID do her taxes, it’s almost impossible to believe that the IRS wouldn’t have come back on her with the discrepancy. Which is it, Meg? Tax evader or tax evader and employer of illegal aliens?

Posted by: Doug | September 29, 2010 at 04:27 PM

Everyone, including Steve, should do themselves a favor and do a little research on the topic before making comments and blog posts that make you sound completely aloof of what’s actually going on. The “agency” being referenced would be the employment agency that Whitman sought out to find her a housekeeper. And yes, it would be the agency’s job to check on that kind of thing and file the appropriate paperwork.

Point yourselves over to TMZ.com and you can see the plethora of information that has been released by both Whitman and Allred to the media and you can judge for yourselves. At least there are some websites that still do their homework. FYI, Whitman has provided a complete 14 page PDF job application filled out by Diaz, including her 1099 and W4 that she signed and legally confirmed herself to be a legal resident. Whitman also provided the scans of her drivers license and social security card submitted at the start of employment.

http://tiny.cc/xb1rhvu0bk

Posted by: RTFA | September 29, 2010 at 04:29 PM

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s