Academic

OK, first of all, I'm not a Meg Whitman fan.  If I were a resident of California, I would not vote for her for governor.  I also don't think I've voted Republican in 20 of my 23 voting years.  I also have had a full-time nanny, who was a naturalized citizen, for whom I filled out a lot of paper work and paid money to various state and federal agencies.

That being said, I feel for Meg Whitman.  Whitman is now having to answer for employing a housekeeper who was in the United States illegally for nine years.  According to Whitman, Nicandra Diaz Santillan, told her about her true immigration status in July 2009, six months after her campaign began, prompting her to fire Diaz Santillan.  However, Diaz Santillan (what's in it for her?) has produced a 2003 letter from the Social Security Administration to Whitman and her neurosurgeon husband, Griffith Harsh (would you go to a doctor named Dr. Harsh?), asking why Diaz Santillan's name did not match her SSN.  Dr. Harsh allegedly wrote at the bottom a note to Diaz Santillan, asking "Please check this."  Whitman's critics use the letter to show that Whitman knew of the housekeeper's illegal status no later than the date of receipt.  First, let's probe that a little.

There are at least three plausible scenarios.  One, that the Whitman-Harsh family always knew that "Nicky" was here illegally, but went along with the ruse with the SSA.  I can think of at least two problems with this scenario.  First, why would Whitman try to fool the SSA?  She's no dummy.  She can't have believed that this scheme would work.  Second, why wouldn't Whitman just help Nicky get her citizenship through proper channels?  She's the CEO of eBay, right?  Surely she could figure out a way to get Nicky an employment-based visa.  The only reasons Whitman would agree to this is to save money by hiring an illegal immigrant, which seems silly, or because Whitman is actually evil and wanted to use her illegal status as a way to blackmail her into indentured servitude, which seems even sillier.  (Of course, Gloria Allred is representing Nicky, so this may be the narrative that gets played.)

Second, Whitman may have been duped by a fake SSN into believing Nicky was a citizen (Here are the papers Nicky signed when applying for employment), but then realized Nicky was here illegally when the SSA sent the letter.  Then, Whitman could have felt really sorry for Nicky and realized that if she let the SSA catch her, she might be deported, along with her husband and possibly her two children.  So, Whitman may have begrudgingly agreed to go along out of the kindness of her heart.  This story resonates with me because it's pretty hard to look someone in the eye that you know and that is a hard worker with a family and send them back to the last place they want to go.  Some are arguing that the scheme is horrendous -- stealing someone's identity -- and inconceivable that a citizen would play along.  Well, the SSN may not have been stolen, it may have been shared with someone or belong to someone not working in her community.  We need more facts here.  Then, once the campaign started, they realized that Nicky's status could become a liability, so they let her go.

The Third thing that could have happened is that the Whitmans were duped by a fake SSN, and then Nicky allayed all of Whitman's fears when the SSA letter came.  In addition, whatever story was told to Whitman also satisfied the SSA.  The SSA should be able to produce whatever documentation they were sent that got them off the Diaz Santilla trail.  Then, in July 2009, they fired her once they learned the truth.  Due to the fact that Whitman and her husband are saying that they don't remember the letter or the incident at all, this third scenario, which is the best for Meg Whitman's candidacy, seems less probable at first.  You would probably remember the time when the SSA falsely accused your housekeeper of not having a valid SSN.  But perhaps the CEO of a big company and a neurosurgeon with high school boys were both really, really busy.  (A variant would be that Nicky's second story didn't fool Whitman, but she and her husband turned a blind eye.  But the SSA must either have been less savvy than Whitman or just as quick to look the other way.)  (Another variant would be that Nicky intercepted the letter, and her employers never saw it.  However, the husband says the handwriting may be his.)

Of course, the strange part of all of this is the housekeeper's motivations.  She was fired over a year ago.  Who came to her?  Did someone threaten her with deportation if she didn't speak out against Whitman?  Who is giving her advice?

For myself, I'm completely fine with Meg Whitman employing Diaz Santillan unless she was just trying to save money or she was an evil slaveholder.  However, if she employed the woman (or continued to employ the woman) to help her out, then I personally can't condemn her.  I understand that many other would-be politicians and political appointees have had career paths blocked because of the classification and taxation of domestic help.  And I'm a little less sanguine about attorneys who didn't realize their full-time domestic help were "employees" and thus required withholding, unemployment tax, etc.  This seems different to me.  (Accepting IPO shares with millions of underpriced profit from your underwriter in exchange for throwing business its way, bothers me.)

In past decades, political opponents have become mum about a number of behaviors that some might find troublesome but that are common enough to catch people on both sides:  draft-dodging and marijuana use come to mind.  I would think that in some parts of the country, the employment of workers with less than legal status might be added to that list.