News Analysis: Geithner’s Problems Refocus Attention on Undocumented Gardeners and Housekeepers

Aswini Anburajan, FI2W contributor

Aswini Anburajan, FI2W contributor

Democrats and Republicans alike appear to have little stomach to derail the nomination of Tim Geithner, President-elect Obama’s pick for Secretary of Treasury, despite his failure to pay $43,000 in taxes on time, and his hiring of a housekeeper who briefly lacked proper work papers.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dismissed Geithner’s troubles this week as “a few little hiccups” in the nomination process.

Does political dismissal of Geithner’s troubles reflect a change in attitudes toward issues like the hiring of undocumented workers?

Little attention has been given to Geithner’s hiring of the worker, whose legal papers expired while she was employed him. Instead pundits and papers have focused on the irony that the man who will lead the Internal Revenue Service can’t figure out how much he owes in taxes.

Getty Images/Wall Street Journal)

Geithner (Getty Images/Wall Street Journal)

Geithner’s hiring of a housekeeper whose work papers expired should be noted, not as a criticism, but as a reality that the 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country are interwoven in the American workforce.

Geithner isn’t the first public official in this situation. In the presidential primaries, as Republican Mitt Romney campaigned around the country promising to crackdown on undocumented immigrants, the Boston Globe revealed that undocumented workers had been part of the landscaping firm hired by the Romneys.

Two of President Bill Clinton’s nominees for attorney general, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were both disqualified for hiring nannies that were undocumented and for not paying social security taxes on their wages.

Linda Chavez, who was President Bush’s first nominee for labor secretary, withdrew her name from consideration after it was revealed that she had taken in an undocumented Guatemalan woman and given her money.

Chavez’s withdrawal came after Republican prodding, but she fired back publicly saying that the criticism was part of “search and destroy” politics in Washington.

Conservative or liberal, it seems that when it comes to immigration, there’s an equal degree of political culpability. Undocumented workers are part of the American economy: they are hired sometimes knowingly, sometimes not, by individuals at the highest levels of government. The question now is what are the steps that can be taken to remedy the situation?

Scuttling political nominations isn’t the answer. Nor is rounding up millions of undocumented workers and sending them home.

Or to quote Romney at a CNN/YouTube debate on the issue of immigration, “I think it’s really kind of offensive, actually, to suggest… if you hear someone with a funny accent, you as a homeowner are supposed to go out there and say, I want to see your papers?… I don’t think that’s America, number one.”

Geithner is getting a pass on the issue because of the state of the economy, but it certainly doesn’t mean that the issue of undocumented workers in our economy isn’t a priority and worthy of discussion.

Few of us, it appears, are untouched by the issue.

8 comments

  1. HernandezUSA

    Our is Economy down and Millions of American Citizens are out of work an Unemployment is at its highest level and our highest leaders considering amnesty?????

    We need the SAVE ACT and E-verify used for every business and NOT Amnesty for criminals.

    E-verify does not discriminate against RACE, Religion, SEX or physically capability only your Citizenship and your LEGAL right to be and work in United States.

    If we can stop Predatory business owners from hiring then the Illegal Aliens will not Stay and return to their native Countries.

    This ISSUE is not about RACE, but Governments Federal/State/LOCAL not doing their jobs, because big and small business owners want cheap workers and no labor laws to bother with……Its called GREED!

    Both Liberals and Conservatives need to take some pride in our Country and protect it from all invading nations citizens and corporate greed.

    Please support, NO IMMIGRANT BASHING or HATE Crimes.
    HATE only feeds the single RACE agenda groups for Open Borders and the Media.

    http://www.numbersusa.com
    http://dontspeakforme.org/

  2. Barno

    RE: “However, Chavez had fiercely criticized Zoe Baird at the time of her nomination, saying that she found Baird’s hiring of an undocumented worker more troubling than her tax issues.”

    This is a flat out lie and a retraction needs to be printed. Chavez never “fiercely criticized Zoe Baird at the time of her nomination.”

    Chavez never criticized Baird at all: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby012901.asp

  3. Barno

    The Washington Post has reported a lot of false information regarding Linda Chavez, some of which they have retracted. However, the “Chavez criticized Baird” canard is the most blatantly false accusation of them all. As I posted before, please read Jeff Jacoby’s piece on this issue: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby012901.asp

    Jeff Jacoby

    Chavez’s ‘hypocrisy’: Take a closer look

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com — PROVOKED by my recent column in defense of Linda Chavez — her only offense, I wrote, was to show compassion and generosity to an abused and homeless woman — Joseph N. of Boston undertook to set me straight.

    “Chavez engaged in the politics of destruction … against Zoe Baird,” he e-mailed. “Her hypocrisy was on record for all to see when she attacked Baird for employing an illegal alien.”

    Don T. of San Francisco had the same reaction. “You should go through your archives and retrieve Chavez’s comments on the Zoe Baird illegal immigrant story. Chavez is what most conservative right wingers are and that is a moral hypocrite.”

    In fact, Chavez didn’t attack Baird. But Joseph N. and Don T. and all the others I heard from can hardly be blamed for thinking she did. During the controversy over her nomination as labor secretary, the media repeated that canard endlessly and appeared to back it up with Chavez’s own words. The result was to add insult to injury: Not only was her nomination torpedoed, but she was defamed as a hypocrite to boot.

    By now, everyone involved in this episode has moved on. But the Chavez “hypocrisy” story is worth a second look. It is a reminder of the ease with which the press can vandalize reputations, and of a point too often forgotten: A thing isn’t true just because it has been reported.

    The news about Marta Mercado, the formerly illegal immigrant who lived with Chavez and her family in 1992-93, broke on Sunday, January 7. The next morning, The Washington Post headlined its Page 1 story “Chavez Is Under Fire Over Illegal Immigrant; Guatemalan Lived In Designee’s House.” After laying out the facts, reporters Thomas Edsall and Manuel Roig-Franzia mentioned the 1993 ruckus over Zoe Baird, Bill Clinton’s first nominee for attorney general. Then came this:

    “Chavez was sharply critical of Baird. On Dec. 21, 1993, she appeared on PBS’s ‘MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour’ and said: ‘I think most of the American people were upset during the Zoe Baird nomination that she had hired an illegal alien. That was what upset them more than the fact that she did not pay Social Security taxes.'”

    This, it seems, was the source of the “hypocrisy” charge. The fallout spread swiftly. On “Good Morning America,” George Stephanopoulos, paraphrasing Chavez, made the accusation explicit: “Back in 1993, when Zoe Baird … was being hit for hiring an illegal immigrant, Linda Chavez, a commentator at the time — and these words often come back to haunt you — said, ‘Listen, I think most of the American people were upset … over the fact that she hired an illegal alien.’ Now the allegation is being made that Linda Chavez may have hired an illegal alien. Getting caught in that kind of hypocrisy makes her an easy target.”

    On NBC, Tim Russert made the same point: “When Zoe Baird was put forward by Bill Clinton back in 1993, Linda Chavez was extremely critical of Zoe Baird for hiring an illegal nanny and not paying a Social Security tax,” he told Matt Lauer on the “Today” show.

    Updating the story throughout the day, the Association Press kept repeating the charge: “Chavez was critical of Baird, saying in 1993 on PBS: ‘I think most of the American people were upset …” The evening newscasts aired the old video of Chavez speaking those words. Bill Press played the clip on CNN’s “Crossfire,” noting that Chavez had helped create the standard that sank Baird. And the next morning, the quote was in The New York Times, with the by-now familiar observation, “At the time, Ms. Chavez was critical of the Baird nomination.”

    Only she wasn’t.

    Chavez’s comments on “MacNeil/Lehrer” were not condemnation, they were explanation: She was pointing out that what fueled the uproar over Zoe Baird’s housekeeper was not the nonpayment of Social Security taxes but the fact that the woman wasn’t a legal immigrant. Reread her words: “I think most of the American people were upset … that she had hired an illegal alien. That was what upset them more than the fact that she did not pay Social Security taxes.” Chavez wasn’t judging Baird, let alone denouncing her. She was simply clarifying why the case had caused a commotion.

    And why, you might wonder, did a panelist on “MacNeil/Lehrer” — whose audience tends to be very well-informed — need to spell out the reason for the controversy over Baird’s nomination?

    Because at the time Chavez was speaking, the Baird controversy had been over for nearly a year.

    Baird’s nomination collapsed on January 21, 1993. Chavez appeared on “MacNeil/Lehrer” on December 21 — 11 months later. The topic that day wasn’t Baird, it was Bobby Ray Inman — Clinton’s first choice for defense secretary after Les Aspin resigned. Inman, it turned out, had also failed to pay Social Security taxes for a housekeeper, but the revelation set off no sparks. Jim Lehrer pointed this out, then asked Chavez why Inman wasn’t being treated the way Baird had been.

    “There are some real important differences here,” she replied. “I think most of the American people were upset during the Zoe Baird nomination that she had hired an illegal alien. That was what upset them more than the fact that she did not pay Social Security taxes. And I think that that was a reaction to that. And this” — Inman’s housekeeper — “is an American woman whose Social Security taxes have not been paid.”

    What a difference a little context makes. Chavez didn’t attack Baird — not then, not ever. On the contrary, she has long called for repealing the sanctions US law imposes on employers who give jobs to illegal aliens; it was one of the first recommendations of her think tank, the Center for Equal Opportunity. She would have had no reason to oppose Baird’s nomination — and there is no evidence anywhere that she ever said a word against her.

    Journalists are entitled to scrutinize a nominee’s record, but they are also obliged to be careful. Inaccuracy can stain a reputation — sometimes indelibly. Chavez has her faults, but hypocrisy isn’t among them. That was a smear she didn’t deserve.

    Where does she go to collect her apology?

  4. Misty Blue

    ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE NOT CITZENS, THOSE THAT DESERVE CITIZENSHIP ARE THOSE THAT GO THE LEGAL ROUTE,,, THEY ARE ILLEGAL!! THEREFORE DO NOT DESERVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS A CITZEN AND SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO BECOME A CITZEN UNLESS THEY RETURN HOME AND TAKE THE LEGAL ROUTE INTO THIS COUNTRY>>>>> AND LEARN ENGLISH AND LEARN THE CONSITITUION AND UPHOLD OUR LAWS>>>

  5. With the unemployment rate at its highest in a long while, it is hard to believe that some of our highest officials have piece to blame. They are out there hiring undocumented illegals while millions of Americans are out of work. Obtain citizenship legally and this would never be an issue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *