In a sign that perhaps Pete Wilson is still pulling the strings in her campaign, the following words came out of Meg Whitman’s own mouth: “I wouldn’t support a path to legalization”. Watch the video from the debate for yourself here.
The question that asked the candidates to state their positions on immigration was “do you see any positive impacts of immigration to California and would do you support a path to legalization?”
Interestingly, both candidates skipped the first part of the question: “do you see any positive impacts of immigration to California?” Instead, they both chose to focus on the usual “secure our borders, go after employers” mantras. It’s not surprising, being that politicians hardly ever stand up to talk about the actual positivies that immigration has in our economy like how undocumented immigrants basically subsidze our way of life because undocumented immigrants pay taxes, they do some of the hardest-labor jobs, save our Social Security from going into the hole, etc. etc.
Moreover, it was particulary interesting to see Meg Whitman say she opposes a path to legalization, which by definition would be included in any comprehensive immigration reform. This was of particular interest being that her position would be at odds with most Californians. Via this Public Policy Institute poll back in March 2010 which showed that:
Seventy percent of Californians believe undocumented immigrants who have been living and working in the United States for at least two years should be allowed to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status.
On the other hand, Jerry Brown bragged about how he signed on California to the so-called ”Secure Communities Program”. Too bad that the program actually makes our communities unsafe because it punishes the good guys and lets the bad ones go. Nevertheless, kudos to Jerry Brown for the reference he made to Eastern European authoritarian regimes of the past, reiterating that authoritarian laws that only focus on inhumanely rounding people up are just plain wrong. Also, kudos for not letting Meg Whitman off the hook for her inconsistencies on her stand on immigrant economic refugees. Jerry Brown’s Facebook page highlighted the following after the debate:
JUST THE FACTS #5: MEG WHITMAN FLIP-FLOPS ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
Meg Whitman’s position on how California should handle its undocumented immigrants is riddled with inconsistencies. She initially embraced the strict, anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric of her campaign chairman, former Gov. Pete Wilson, during the Republican primaries. However, in a transparent attempt to pander to moderate voters, she has muddled many of her positions saying that her past statements should be viewed in light of her unfamiliarity with the issue.Whitman Names Prop. 187 Champion Pete Wilson Campaign Chair, Nowhere To Be Found After Primary
• “In the GOP primary…Whitman brought out her campaign manager, former Gov. Pete Wilson, a man celebrated by many conservatives and reviled by many Latinos because of his highly visible support of Proposition 187. Wilson appeared in a radio ad called ‘Tough as Nails,’ in which Whitman said, ‘Illegal immigrants should not expect benefits from the state of California.’” [Los Angeles Times, 7/14/10]
• “During the Republican gubernatorial primary, Meg Whitman responded to her rival, Steve Poizner, by enforcing her opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants. She even went so far as to enlist former Gov. Pete Wilson, who declared Whitman “tough as nails” on the issue. But that was then. Now, Whitman is on the air with two new Spanish-language ads, and Wilson is nowhere to be found. Instead, the ads discuss Whitman’s opposition to Arizona’s immigration law and to Proposition 187, the 1994 measure backed by, you guessed it, Pete Wilson.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/17/10]
Whitman Says She Would Let The Arizona Law Stand For Arizona
• “I would, you know I think, I understand that immigration is a federal issue, but I would say, you know, the states have got to be able to decide what is right for their state, so I would let the Arizona law stand for Arizona.” [Meg Whitman on Talk Radio Network's "America's Morning News," 7/28/10]
• “If the Arizona law is correct, are you [Meg Whitman] going to be an advocate to get a similar law passed in California? Oh, wait a second. California has different geography? Oh, I understand now. ” ["The John and Ken Show", KFI 640 AM, 8/2/10]
Whitman Supports Forced Reporting Of Undocumented Immigrants-Which Was Part Of Proposition 187
• “Whitman said…that schools, hospitals and law enforcement agencies should be required to report undocumented immigrants to federal authorities. She later backtracked on schools, saying, ‘I want to think about that a little bit.’” [Los Angeles Times, 2/11/09]
Whitman Wants To Ban Children Of Undocumented Immigrants From Public Universities
• “As governor, Meg will support policies that will not allow undocumented immigrants admission to state-funded institutions of higher education, such as UC, CSU and community colleges. [Meg Whitman, Meg 2010: Building A New California]
Whitman Says She Is Unfamiliar With Illegal Immigration Terminology
• “[Whitman] has struggled to explain her past and current positions on the issue. She said…her lack of familiarity with the issue and her newness to politics had caused the misunderstanding. ‘When you’re new to politics, sometimes you use words that have like a meaning to people who have been in politics for 20 years,’ she explained.” [The Washington Post, 5/31/10]
For other video clips from the debate, visit KABC’s site here.



44 Comments

Pity Brown didn’t address Sanctuary Cities. I’ll have to check and see what he’s said on that elsewhere.
Both candidates did better than I had expected during the debate. I have to say I like Jerry Brown better as a person (which of course has nothing to do with the issues) and if I had to pick a “winner” of the debate it would be him, though not by much.
Overall, the short version is I don’t think Jerry Brown’s agenda goes far enough, and Meg Whitman’s goes too far. In the on-going disaster that is CA, not going far enough won’t cut it.
I can’t wait to see her polls after this news comes out if Hispanics can’t win it for Dems in California against a clear oppenent of immigration backed by Pete Wilson of all people well then we are going to lose all our rights.
http://urban.org/publications/900898.html
You want the benefits of immigrants you got it:)
If that’s correct then we can take a big step towards solving our economic problems by completely ending all border enforcement, thereby increasing the number of illegals who will contribute more than they receive, right?
They use false social security numbers to work legal better paying jobs and thus never collect social security. So yes the tax numbers are real.
But that would drag wages down so why not make everyone legal and every job legal this way employers would not hire low cost immigrants over American workers.
http://www.urban.org/publications/900898.html
Get Rid of Immigrants and Obama’s Catfood Commission Social Security cuts get $6 or $7 billion bigger.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/23/news/companies/walmart_worker_arrests/
http://www.hispanictips.com/2008/07/17/mcdonalds-franchisee-fined-1-million-for-hiring-illegal-immigrants-nevada/ Any bets the CEO’s are laughing at those fines? Put the CEO’s in Jail!”
If you are serious about stopping immigration arrest the people who hire them. Why waste millions to arrest millions when we can just spend thousands arresting the people who hire illegals.
Put the CEO of Wallmart in Jail that would send a message nobody would hire illegals if someone powerful was made an example of.
: http://mediamatters.org/research/201004290029”
Why the GOP has to lie about us committing crimes? Why won’t the Media call them out? Why won’t the Dems defend us?
Is Steven Colbert are only friend?
” Facts are:”Illegal Immigrants Cause 6% of Crime Immigrants account for 12.1 percent of the total population, http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1405.html
Didn’t Germany accuse the Jews of all sorts of made up crimes and make them carry ID papers is AZ the new Reich?
http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2009/02/18/don
Anyone serious about getting rid of illegals might want to check about what kind of food they eat.
Puppeteer Pete got tired of Beefcake Arnold, eh?
haha, my dh doesn’t like either candidate…so he would just rather keep Ahnold – more entertaining.
The candidates can debate all they want, as though it mattered. The fact is, they still won’t be able to pass a budget. If Meg thinks she can come in and ORDER people to pass a budget, she’s more delusional than I thought. Brown at least knows going in he’ll have to negotiate.
And in five years when there are another few million illegals, what then?
Invalid comparison: you want to contrast the 6% figure with the percentage of illegals in the total population.
Did you notice this part?
“The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 29 percent, compared to 18 percent for native households.”
she does not support illegal immigration -I will vote for her against sanctuary city brown any day
they could disappear tommorrow they would be replaced by americans at a higher wage and you would spend $.10 more for milk–send em home we keep saying send them home
And we know going in just how successful that’s been in the past. I like Brown (especially when he got a little angry), but that’s not the point: the point is that he’s more of the “same old, same old” and if he wins what we’ll get is more of the “same old, same old.”
I just had an amusing thought: you know the song, “Meet the new Boss… Same as the old Boss…”? How about, “Meet the new Boss… He IS the old Boss…”
How many households are not headed by immigrants though lots of farmers treat immigrants as a dating and eventual marriage service.
Well why wait cancel NAFTA like Obama said unless labor and pollution laws are enforced do the same for every country and put a 100% tariff on all their goods until they do.
You’re thinking that would create more jobs at home, less need to immigrate to the US (legally or not)?
E-Meg hates illegals so much that she hires them to work for her, and then when she get’s found out, she fires them. Hypocrit, much, Queen Meg?
I heard part of the debate last night but missed most due to working.
I’m not particularly inspired by either candidate, but CA is such a mess that I doubt that anyone can do much.
Whitman kept claiming that bc of her ill-gotten GoldmanSacks insider trading billion$$ that she was “independent” and not “beholden” to any special interests (as contrasted to Brown, who Whitman claims is “ruled” by the Unions). Well, Ahhhhnold said the same thing in his day, and the second he set foot in the CA State Capital, he caved into Bush’s demand to forgive the Enron massive rip-off of CA energy that citizens were forced to pay corporate welfare for. So much for being “independent.” Whitman won’t be any different from Ahhhnold; she’s beholden to Wall St and her richy-rich buddies in CA, who are begging her to cut taxes and deregulate.
Whitman also talked “big” about how Brown was more of the “same old,” but she, Whitman, was a “change.” Uh, not really: that’s ALSO what Ahhnold was: a change; an alleged “successful business person,” who was going to “run CA” like a business. And hey: to be fair, Arnie is/was a successful businessman who pulled himself up by his Austrian boot straps.
But let’s look at how “successful” Ahhnold’s been? Not that much. And how is Whitman such a “big change” from Ahhhnold? She’s not.
Neither candidate is inspiring, but I’ll cast my vote for Brown bc I think he’s more realistic about what can be done and how to do it. Whitman’s just yet another entitled corporate welfare queen, who wants to buy a political office so that she can bestow her largesses on herself and her filthy rich buddies.
I doubt the debate did much to convince anyone of anything, but they should do a couple more anyway.
BTW I’m laughing cuz e-Meg’s been busted having employed an undocumented worker in her home for, like, 8 years. But of course, that’ll be swept under the carpet as IOKIYAR.
Geez, someone has to mop her floors and she pays probably $4 an hour. What more can you possibly want? s/
How can ANYONE in the US not support a path to citizenship for those who come to the United States every year to pick beans, oranges, grapes and other backbreaking work.
Our network of farmers REQUIRE 2.2 million people to pick their fruit every year. The United States only gives out 5,000 Immigration Visa’s a year to people who do not have a college education. Seems to me those 2 figures just do not compute in my brain. I suspect they do to the Tea Party, but then you also need a brain for it to compute. Hard to do in a shell!
I admit I wouldn’t be greatly surprised if turned out Whitman did know, but there’s no proof of that (yet).
Diaz presented a fake Social Security card, immigration eligibility verification form, and drivers license when she was hired: her credibility is a bit dubious. Whitman’s credibility is also dubious, not because she’s admitted to using phony documents, but just because she’s running for office (I’m automatically suspicious of any candidate).
Bottom line: at the moment it’s just a case of Diaz’s word vs. Whitman’s word.
Oh, and Diaz was paid $23/hour.
Pay no attention to the multiple letters Whitman received from Social Security pointing out the disconnect in the SS numbers provided.
Whitman knew
That would be evidence, but where are they? Such letters aren’t even sent unless you employ more than ten people (which Whitman may very do, but I don’t know. Do you?). Assuming Whitman did receive them, why wouldn’t she fire Diaz immediately?
Note that I’m not defending Whitman — I’ve said I don’t like her, I’ve said I wouldn’t be surprised if this turns out to be true. What I am doing is wanting some actual evidence before I reach a conclusion. It’s not as much fun as jumping blindly onto the bandwagon, but I’ve found it to be a sound policy in the past.
And I’d be saying the exact same thing if it was Jerry Brown instead of Meg Whitman.
LA Times on the subject
So yes, this seems to be enough evidence for most folks not looking for reasons to not believe it, protestations notwithstanding
Sorry I wasn’t aware of something released less than an hour before my post.
As for “protestations notwithstanding,” you were convinced prior to the evidence, so please don’t question my objectivity.
Well, the LA Times piece was just the easiest for me to find.
I first heard that there were letters from the Social Security when this story broke yesterday and went with the easiest to find.
As far as me believing, I had the information you were saying you wanted. But you do a real good job of often asking for evidence then concern trolling it so pardon me if I’m skeptical of your denials.
I also “heard” that yesterday but couldn’t find any, so I reserved judgment. There are a lot of red-faced liberals who wish they’d done the same on the issues of the Duke Rape Scandal, the Bush National Guard scandal, etc.
Thank you: it’s necessary because there is often false or misleading info posted here. I’ve several times seen the mods pointing out that people making claims are expected to provide supporting evidence for them, btw.
What did you know and when did you know it? ;^)
Well for the record the Duke rape scandal seems to not be a “liberal” issue so to call it that tells me a bit about how you look at the issues in general
As far as the Bush NG story, Bush has still never addressed what he did for his last year and a half of his commitment. So the Dan Rather portion of the story notwithstanding, the actual issues raised are still outstanding. In fact there has been speculation that i recall reading at some point that had Rather being set up.
You miss the point, which is that in the absence of evidence accepting as true something that fits your preconceptions is fallacious reasoning.
On second thought, Bush is a bad example. Although the papers turned out to be forgeries there was at the time good reason to believe the story.
Duke, on the other hand, is a perfect example, not because rape is “a ‘liberal’ issue” but because the Left wasn’t interested in waiting for evidence before jumping all over the “privileged white boys” just as in this case many Liberals were convinced of Whitman’s guilt prior to seeing any evidence.
It isn’t a Left/Right issue for me: it’s an issue of good research vs. sloppy or no research, an issue of whether something has been proven or merely alleged. You do agree that one should be certain of the facts before making public accusations, don’t you?
Oh, I guess it’s my bad for assuming that a lawyer standing up at a press conference making a claim that the Republican candidate for governor had received multiple letters from the Social Security Administration over the years pointing out that domestic help she had hired was providing social security numbers that did not match would actually have the appropriate evidence to back up such a claim.
And again, you are using the Duke rape case as some kind of liberal issue and claiming that it was the “Left” that jumped that the rape charge was true. I seem to have a memory of people across the board making that leap, not just on what you suppose is the “Left.”
And since you have no knowledge of my perspective on that particular issue, I find it buries my “irony meter” to ten that you would presume to lecture me on it as if we had known each other at the time. FWIW, as a former Sociology major with a Criminology emphasis, I’m more than aware of far too many cases where people have been accused of crimes that not only did they not do, there was no crime committed at all.
So check your own “irony meter” before making claims of what I or any other folks on the “Left” might believe as that’s a mighty broad brush you are painting with at the moment.
You mean like Michael Nifong?
Which is why I didn’t say a word about you, personally. I’m painting with a “mighty broad brush,” remember? Try to be consistent, please.
This was my starting position on the issue:
Can you honestly say that sounds biased, judgmental, or partisan?
So as the self appointed judge, nothing ever happens until you see or hear the “proof,” huh?
How ever do you find the time to have a life if you must be the judge and jury on whether something is real or not?
Edit: And again, I have learned enough to know that accusations by DAs must often be taken with a few thousand grains of salt.
However a lawyer such as Allred is smart enough to not inject herself in an ongoing political fight without having some fairly strong evidence.
You and I are not going to agree on this so this is my last word – but you might get your “irony meter” re-calibrated as it is way out of wack at the moment
This is my last word on the subject, too. You accepted a lawyer’s statement prior to the evidence being shown and decided Whitman was guilty: seems to me you’re “the self appointed judge”.
I’ll break my word to state we all accept things and statements of others without proof and we do it all the time.
Surprisingly, that would include you
Sigh. All right: if you insist.
Cite one example, please. Ideally (for you) it would be my making public accusations based on nothing more than what a lawyer said at a press conference, but I’ll accept any example of my making a claim for which good and compelling evidence did not exist at the time.
So you never ever are a human and accept statements made by others at any time without demanding proof?
I was not saying that you had done this at FDL. I was saying that as a human, you have done this at some point in your life.
For if you have not done this, then you must be very lonely as even family and friends would tend to find it would get very old very quickly to also have to prove any statement they make at any time to your exacting standards.
There are some rather significant differences between accepting my wife’s statement that “I heard on the news that it will rain tomorrow” and accepting public accusations of illegal behavior made against a candidate in a close election, don’t you think? If you tell me you have red hair I’ll take your word, partly because I know of no reason for you to lie about it, but mostly because even if you are lieing no innocent party is harmed and you’re not making accusations that can harm someone’s career. I’m sure you see the difference.
dakine01, I give you my word I would have taken the exact same position if it had been Brown instead of Whitman, and for the exact same reason: when electing someone to a position of considerable power it is important to make your decision based on facts, not assumptions.
I hate to bring up Duke again, but the parallel between your position and Sharpton’s is just too striking to ignore. Even after the DNA evidence was in he was still presuming their guilt because the prosecutor said so.
SHARPTON: “But I think that all of the facts that you have laid out the DA had — and I know this DA is probably not one that is crazy. He would not have proceeded if he did not feel that he could convict. So it tells me that all of what you said is either not true or he has convincing evidence that would certainly knock that out”
dakine01: “assuming that a lawyer standing up at a press conference making a claim would actually have the appropriate evidence to back up such a claim.”
You both accepted without question unsupported statements (made at a press conference, no less) from representatives of a profession not really renowned for being honest and forthright. But of course I’m the bad guy for not taking Nifong and Allred at their word and annoyingly insisting that criminal accusations be backed up by evidence sufficient for a court of law.
If you tell me you heard from someone in her entourage that Paris Hilton has bad breath, I won’t demand an air quality analysis as proof. If you tell me that a candidate for the Governor’s office has committed an illegal act then naturally I’ll want some proof.
And I give up.
I guess any rape accusation made at any time by any one, when there’s a lawyer involved, is a conspiracy and a lie by the “Left.”
Bottomline: The truth came out in the end on the Duke case. For you to continue to imply that I was an unquestioning believer of the accuser and Nifong truly does show your own bias. And again, it was people all across the political spectrum who thought there was some validity to the accusations, not just people on the “Left” so nice revisionist history you have going there.
But as someone who has seen privileged frat boy behavior when I was in college and at other points over the years, I can assure you that even though the participants from the Lacrosse team while maybe not guilty of criminal acts they damn sure exhibited extremely poor judgment and inappropriate behavior and I can damn sure condemn them for that even if they weren’t actually rapists.
So pardon me if I consider you a classic concern troll working the “Yeah but…” angle.
So pardon me if I consider you a user of the classic loser technique of sneering at things never said when you have no response to what actually was said.
I repeatedly said I wait for evidence rather than judging based on accusations: that’s how this all started, remember? And it is the opposite of “any rape accusation made at any time by any one, when there’s a lawyer involved, is a conspiracy and a lie by the “Left.””
I also never mentioned conspiracies: you just threw that in out of the blue to add to the snark. You’re really good at snark, dakine01. [Edited by Mod: Let's keep the personal insults out of adult arguments. Thank you.]Keep playing to your strengths.
Yet you have continued to say multiple times that it was “
Yet, you have provided no evidence of this large, amorphous Left that you managed to smear as all believing and responding to the your perceptions.
Now why is that do you suppose?