Actually I don't give a flying fig about her and her immigrant nanny but I have been drinking some fine Canadian lager for the last couple of hours so am feeling a little bit Canuck. Sorry.
Lavender Room
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Heather Nauert - come on down! [axlsix3]
[ In reply to ]
So she is just the latest of how many potential appointees scuppered by employing unauthorised or illegal immigrants? Going back to Clinton at least.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/..._common_problem.html
It seems to point to three things
a) a structural problem in getting reliable, affordable, legal childcare (even on the part of high educated high earners)
b) an inability to issue-spot this before making announcements, by those in the position to hire
c) an inability to fess up that you don't have a clean hiring history, on the part of potential appointees
it does make you wonder how many people in the current administration have used less-than-strictly-legal help in house and garden and hotel and golf club and simply haven't been exposed (yet).
Re: Heather Nauert - come on down! [kiki]
[ In reply to ]
kiki wrote:
So she is just the latest of how many potential appointees scuppered by employing unauthorised or illegal immigrants? Going back to Clinton at least.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/..._common_problem.html
It seems to point to three things
a) a structural problem in getting reliable, affordable, legal childcare (even on the part of high educated high earners)
b) an inability to issue-spot this before making announcements, by those in the position to hire
c) an inability to fess up that you don't have a clean hiring history, on the part of potential appointees
it does make you wonder how many people in the current administration have used less-than-strictly-legal help in house and garden and hotel and golf club and simply haven't been exposed (yet).
I would add a couple more.
Why do people in the public eye think they can get away with this? There have been so many very public take downs.
Do they feel entitled to break the law? I am guessing this is large part of it. Surely people rich enough to hire a nanny know that you can't hire people without work permits.
patf wrote:
kiki wrote:
So she is just the latest of how many potential appointees scuppered by employing unauthorised or illegal immigrants? Going back to Clinton at least.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/..._common_problem.html
It seems to point to three things
a) a structural problem in getting reliable, affordable, legal childcare (even on the part of high educated high earners)
b) an inability to issue-spot this before making announcements, by those in the position to hire
c) an inability to fess up that you don't have a clean hiring history, on the part of potential appointees
it does make you wonder how many people in the current administration have used less-than-strictly-legal help in house and garden and hotel and golf club and simply haven't been exposed (yet).
I would add a couple more.
Why do people in the public eye think they can get away with this? There have been so many very public take downs.
Do they feel entitled to break the law? I am guessing this is large part of it. Surely people rich enough to hire a nanny know that you can't hire people without work permits.
There are segments of the population that are very good at finding loopholes. Some don’t have to find them because they created them. Some don’t have worry about abusing those loopholes. Some don’t even have to bother with them. The world isn’t a fair place. Unfortunatley there is also a larger segment of the population that doesn’t see anything wrong with this.