Gloria Allred is doing more to drive illegal immigrants underground and to target Latinos for racial profiling than anything the State of Arizona has even thought of doing.
Allred dropped a late-September surprise on Meg Whitman based on the allegation that Whitman did not do enough to verify the status of her Latino housekeeper. Whitman, by all accounts, obtained the usual required documentation when she hired the housekeeper.
The thrust of Allred’s attack is that after Whitman or her husband received a letter from the IRS alerting them to a possible discrepancy in the housekeeper’s social security number, Whitman did not do enough to follow up. Instead, according to Allred, Whitman’s husband gave the letter to the housekeeper and left it to the housekeeper to clear it up. (Note: This is Allred’s account, it is not yet clear that this account will be verified.)
Allred may be right that the employer (in this case Whitman and her husband) should not have left it up to the housekeeper to clear up the problem, and should have been more suspicious. Had Whitman or her husband followed up, the housekeeper would have been fired several years ago.
Call Allred a strict constructionist when it comes to the immigration laws, just like the people who are excoriated by the left as racists for seeking enforcement of federal immigration laws.
The message Allred is sending is that if you are going to hire an immigrant, not only must you dot every federal immigration law “i” and cross every federal immigration law “t”, you also must not trust the immigrant if a problem arises. At least not if you want to run for public office.
So why isn’t the left excoriating Allred? Why isn’t Allred being called the most vile names usually reserved for Tea Party supporters or Republicans?
Because this time political correctness and the use of the race card would not help to defeat a Republican running for Governor of California.
Update: Allahpundit has a good explanation of why Allred’s allegation about the social security discrepancy does not amount to much.
The other interesting aspect, quite apart from politics, is Allred’s willingness to expose her client to legal harm even though the client does not have any meaningful legal claim. This is not a case where Allred’s client is a crime victim who comes forward to the police. There does not appear to be a violation of any law by Whitman, but there does appear to be both immigration and possibly criminal violations by Allred’s client, who filed false documents with the government. By going public as she has, Allred has exposed her client to significant legal jeopardy in order to score publicity and political points for Allred.
Update 10-1-2010: Mark Levin has a must listen-to interview with Allred. Allred refused to answer whether her client forged social security documents. Levin makes a point similar to mine about Allred exposing her client to legal jeopardy. At 13:00 of the audio, Allred dances around and evades answering the question of whether she has been in touch with any intermediaries from the Brown campaign.
——————————————–
Related Posts:
Arizona Appeal To Be Argued Election Week
Saturday Night Card Game (The Arizona Immigration Bill Is Not Racist)
Hey, Rhode Island Already Checks Immigration Status At Traffic Stops
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
You're really just a water-carrier, huh?
According to the law, you cannot require more documentation than they did without running afoul of ethnic profiling prohibitions and you may not fire an employee on the basis of a SS no match letter.
Believe it or not.
The chance of the government locking up this useful idiot is practically nill. She is part of the cause to keep a Republican out of a Democratic owned governorship.
In fact, she will be receiving government sponsored benefits in the near future for her service.
cf is correct — you cannot legally do anything to confirm eligibility.
Allred's throwing crap against the wall and hoping it sticks. What she doesn't understand is that she's exposing the ludicrous state of modern immigration law enforcement.
Cf, the sad thing is, I can and DO believe it.
jpe, so not buying a politically motivated half-assed nitpicky accusation just so you can say you're "fair" makes you a water carrier?
And Allred's misuse of this women is disgraceful.
Bill, I do expect people to not hire illegal immigrants if they want to run for public office. What's the problem with that?
Cf, what statute are you talking about and has there ever been a conviction on that basis?
@NS – I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and it seems that Whitman took the right steps to see that she complied with the law. If the employee misrepresented her status, used forged or otherwise false documents, I don't see why Whitman should be blamed. The letter regarding the social security mismatch — a copy is at the HotAir post linked in the update — expressly forbids the employer from using the mismatch letter as the basis for taking negative employment action against the employee. Could there have been better follow up? That's unclear because as the HotAir post points out, not all the information has been released. Does it rise to the level that Allred is alleging, or constitute a ground not to elect Whitman? No.
@NS –
"Employers should not ask whether or not a job applicant is a United States citizen before making an offer of employment. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 12986 (IRCA) makes it illegal for employers to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, based on an individual's citizenship or immigration status. For example, the law prohibits employers from hiring only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents unless required to do so by law, regulation or government contract; it also prohibits employers from preferring to hire temporary visa holders or undocumented workers over qualified U.S. citizens or other protected individuals, such as refugees or individuals granted asylum.
IRCA requires employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of all employees hired after November 6, 1986, by completing the Employment Eligibility Verification (I-9) Form, and reviewing documents showing the employee's identity and employment authorization. The law prohibits employers from rejecting valid documents or insisting on additional documents beyond what is legally required for employment eligibility verification (or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Form I-9), based on an employee's citizenship status or national origin. For example, e.g., an employer cannot require only individuals the employer perceives as "foreign" to verify their employment eligibility or produce specific documents, such as Permanent Resident ("green") cards or Employment Authorization Documents. It is the employee's choice which of the permitted documents to show for employment eligibility verification. As long as the document appears reasonably genuine on its face, and relates to the employee, it should be accepted.
Because of potential claims of illegal discrimination, employment eligibility verification should be conducted after an offer to hire has been made. Applicants may be informed of these requirements in the pre-employment setting by adding the following statement on the employment application:
"In compliance with federal law, all persons hired will be required to verify identity and eligibility to work in the United States and to complete the required employment eligibility verification document form upon hire."
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) also prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin by smaller employers (with 4 to 14 employees). IRCA prohibits retaliation against individuals for asserting their rights under the Act, or for filing a charge or assisting in an investigation or proceeding under IRCA. Discrimination charges under IRCA are processed by the Department of Justice, Office of Special Counsel (OSC) for Immigration- Related Unfair Employment Practices."
From here:
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_citizenship.cfm
And the Federal Gov announced Sept 4th a lawsuit against the Maricopa County Community Colleges for asking for green cards of non-citizens. I don't think it's the kind of thing they generally seek a conviction on, more of a massive fine to settle then they sue.
Can she be disbarred for "outing" her client, especially for political purposes?
I don't understand the question… why WOULD the Left be upset with Allred?
I can see if they were actually concerned with people's rights and the possibility of profiling, but is there anything in recent years to suggest that that is actually the case?
Their primary concern, as far as I can tell, is to put Democrats into political power in order to reward their special interest groups. By attacking Whitman, Allred is furthering that cause.
Ya, I'm no lawyer but can't she be disbarred for abusing her client towards political ends?
IRCA is very interesting, specifically prohibiting employers from actively hiring only US Citizens. Before we repeal these absurd laws, we should use them to hang this bunch.
"I do expect people to not hire illegal immigrants if they want to run for public office."
And I expect those that are actually elected to public office to fulfill their constitutional duty to enforce immigration laws. Looks like you and I are both going to be disappointed.
I think Allred has violated the Privacy Act as well. That letter was addressed to someone other than Allred and even though she was in possession of it, she was not authorized by anyone, or compelled by any administrative procedure, to disclose its contents.
I assume SS was withheld. What happens to those funds?
There are numerous criminal acts that commenters in various forums have discussed. There's immigration violations; there's Social Security Benefits Act (P.L. 97-123)violations where forgery of an SS card is a crime; there are violations of the laws governing communication between the IRS and others which Pete mentions. If it turns out that Ms. Whitman never saw the letter, that it was intercepted by Nicky, then there are violations of the varoius postal laws.
When are they going to frog-march Nicky Sanchez to the cooler?
Professor
I have a post with alot of information on this stuff here: http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/09/when-political-correctness-distorts.html
i also show where the political correct assertion that we call them "undocumented" actually causes people to be misled in reading this article.
You know Allread won't get disbarred, nor will Nikki get deported over this.
But…
…maybe if we are lucky…
Another lawyer will take Ms. Diaz's case for legal malpractice against Allread.
/fresh popcorn check
/comfy seat check
OK, proceed
The left is evil.
Nuff said.
Jennifer, thank you. I'll look into the MCCC case. But "I don't think it's the kind of thing they generally seek a conviction on, more of a massive fine to settle then they sue." needs evidence.
I'm still interested if anyone has ever been convicted or paid a massive fine for violating this law.
also not mentioned in the MSM stories is that several years ago an "October surprise" was attempted on Arnold Schwarzenegger when running for Governor, an accusation of sexual harrassment. The attorney for the accuser was Gloria Allred.
Allred (what a perfect name for a red diaper baby such as her) has become a parody of herself. She is scarcely a lawyer anymore. Her function is really far closer to PR Agent than anything else.
She is also a classic example of a feminist scold who relied on her looks to get on TV. She was quite the looker in her youth and this made it far easier to get on TV than some horror like Andrea Dworkin or Bella Abzug. But that won't work anymore for the aging Allred, so her case have gotten increasingly sensational and often outright silly.
Does encouraging a client to make damning admissions of multiple felonies and then exploiting those admissions in service to the attorney's personal political agenda not constitute a breach of duty to protect the client's interests in California?
If you can stomach it, Nice Deb has the radio segment between Mark Levin and Gloria Allred. Be warned. Very difficult to listen to GA "try" to answer ML's simple questions. Just a liberal talking points memo from GA that spews "Meg Whitman lied" over and over and over.
So Allred and the left are saying that Whitman should have done what they have been excoriating Arizona about: being suspicious and verifying someone's citizenship status for the purposes of legal employment. In particular, a "hispanic's" immigration status.
Fascinating….
The Levin-Allred interview is gong to get some air on Kelly's Fox show today. She just mentioned it, so sometime in the next two hours.
>>"there does appear to be both immigration and possibly criminal violations by Allred's client, who filed false documents with the government."
No "possibly" about it. Giving a false SSN is a federal felony, punishable by u to five years in jail and a quarter million dollar fine.
Of course hell will freeze over before the feds actually prosecute illegals for this crime.
Even with the purported "hand written note" on the back, It still doesn't jibe that the Whitmans ever received the letter. Most people, when they receive any type of communication from the government, either take care of it themselves or pass it on to the professionals that work for them. The idea that they would just hand it to the maid and say "take care of this", is just stupid. I'm willing to bet good money, the letter was intercepted by the maid, and the note on the back isn't Whitman's husband's. It was simply placed their to give the maid some reason to have the Whitman's mail in her possession.
I live in the S.F. Bay Area and have to force myself to watch news coverage of this "SCANDAL!" because I instantly knew how they were going to spin it; Whitman's a hypocrite because she said in a debate the previous night that employers should be dealt with if they hire illegals, and she should have been willing to go beyond due diligence and demand enough evidence to prove that her housekeeper's papers were bogus.
That, despite the fact that just a few months ago, the MSM worked from the angle that SB 1070 empowered Arizona law enforcement per se to do what they all agreed it deep-down really wanted to do: Scrounge for any excuse to round up brown-skinned people for the purpose of deportation. People who didn't have the right look about them, we were led to believe, would be detained for either frivolous or non-existent reasons (while taking their kids out for ice cream) so that their documents could be viewed, deemed suspicious, and ICE could be summoned to dump them back over the border (even if they in reality were American citizens).
Allred herself — as I wrote in a recent blog post "Memo to Inglorious Barrister Gloria Allred: Enough Already!" — is following her normal pattern:
*****************************
[F]or the purpose of feathering her beachfront nest, Allred often portrays ought-to-be mature adult women [as] innocent, trusting, foolish little girls. She does what poverty pimps like Sharpton and Jackson also do: They call the media hordes on their speed dial, trot out before cameras people that too often bear much (if not most) of the responsibility for the predicaments they find themselves in, and demand the government and/or the general public treat them with $ympathy. It matters not if they are worldly, corrupt, liars, or hypocrites, the people standing in the background with that familiar starving waif expression are demanding justice that jingles in their pockets, with a healthy percentage to be taken by the likes of Allred of Arc.
*****************************
That August 2010 piece was in the wake of a weak interview of Allred by ABC News' David Wright. Allred was lavishing in her estimated $10 million out-of-court settlement with Tiger Woods in exchange for the sealing of the loose lips of skank-to-the-stars Rachel Uchitel, and Allred still seems focused on duplicating that feat with washed-up porn actress Joslyn James. James, Allred wants us to believe, was a "victim." Victim of what? She "fell in love" with an international superstar who treated her the way she used to be treated (and she treated others) for a living? Similarly, Diaz is a "victim," says Gloria. Why? Because rather than being turned over to INS and deported to Mexico, she held a normally minimum-wage job for nearly a decade at the rate of $23/hr?
In the imbedded ABC News video at the link above, you can see how — true to her sadly successful playbook — Allred was grasping the hand of the bawling "victim" James as she read a prepared statement, just like she did this week with "victim" Diaz. Allred knows the power (and the value) of a woman's tears, and has made a mint wielding their ability to cloud people's intelligence and judgment. (For more, see Delilah: Judges 16:4-20.) Allred didn't get to where she is because she's a dummy, but she clearly believes the rest of us are. It's a shame so many prove her right.
Finding a way to concisely explain to headline-scanning know-nothings why they should chew and slowly digesting Allred's nonsense instead of swallowing and regurgitating it is frustrating and tiring. But I take it upon myself because the alternative is allowing it to spread. Thanks for your help, Professor.
Is anyone seriously shocked that Gloria Allred is an opportunistic cancer to America?
Allred got dismantled by Greta tonight. Perhaps not as well as Sarah Palin dresses a moose, but close.
The reason the left is not screaming is because they know that Obama, Napolitano and John Morton will not arrest this illegal alien. She also has a top communist lawyer Mark Van Der Hout as her immigration attorney. She will be fighting deportation with a free lawyer for many years.
Still no examples of convictions over this law. How about adverse judgments or even settlements?
MCCC case details from WaPo:
"After filling out a federal form attesting to his immigration status and producing a driver's license and Social Security card, he was told to complete another form with more immigration-related information, the lawsuit said.
That form required other documents and his green card. When he couldn't present his green card [immediately], the suit said, the college would not process his paperwork and would not let him work.
The government is asking a judge within the Justice Department unit to order the Maricopa colleges to pay a civil penalty of $1,100 for each of the 247 non-U.S.-citizen job applicants it says were required to produce the additional documents. It says the colleges ended the practice in January."
Something called Puma News has more.