Meg Whitman Reaps What Pete Wilson Sowed

Meg Whitman Reaps What Pete Wilson Sowed

Story tools

Comments

A A AResize

Print

Share and Email

 
The controversy surrounding California Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman’s employment of Nicky Diaz Santillan, an unauthorized immigrant housekeeper, is the latest in what has become a staple of U.S. politics. Since the early 1990s, hardly a political season has gone by without the “outing” of a high-level candidate or nominee for privately employing the very “illegals” they publicly decry. And if one individual deserves credit for creating the climate that makes such exposés common and effective, it is Whitman’s own campaign manager, former California governor Pete Wilson.

Wilson has long been involved in the ugly politics surrounding immigration policing and the U.S.-Mexico border. In 1977, for example, while mayor of San Diego, he publicly appealed to the Carter administration for federal help with the alleged economic and crime problems associated with the presence of undocumented migrants in the border city. Yet while he was mayor, he and his wife employed an unauthorized immigrant as their maid. And in the mid-1980s, then-U.S. Senator Wilson joined with other California politicians to call for the deployment of troops along the boundary to stymie drug smuggling, unauthorized entries, and potential terrorist attacks.

During this same period, however, Wilson was playing a different role. In 1983, the senator from California co-authored legislation that prohibited immigration authorities from raiding farm fields without a judge's warrant. This became part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and effectively put a halt to farm checks. On numerous occasions, Wilson also pressured U.S. officials to stop workplace raids on California companies.

Despite such duplicity, Wilson played the anti-immigrant card in the early 1990s, and successfully energized his run for re-election as governor in the process. Wilson’s efforts soon infected the national body politic as politicians from both major parties began to champion border enforcement to an increasingly anxious electorate receptive to scapegoating the poor, non-white, and “illegal” during a time of economic recession. It was in this context that scrutiny of high-level candidates’ and nominees’ hiring practices emerged, leading to the fall of Bill Clinton’s first two nominees for attorney general.

It is both ironic and poetically just that Meg Whitman has fallen victim to the very seeds her campaign manager helped to sow—and that she has actively fertilized as a gubernatorial candidate. Like Wilson in the early 1990s, the billionaire businesswoman has made cracking down on undocumented immigrants, and making their lives in the Golden State ever more arduous, a centerpiece of her campaign.

But the outcome is also tragic in that it only serves to highlight the fundamentally dehumanizing nature of the immigration enforcement regime and the political opportunism that underlies it. Despite having characterized Nicky Diaz Santillan as part of her “extended family,” Whitman has refused to say whether federal authorities should deport her, opining that it is a matter for them to decide.

In doing so, Whitman helps to legitimize a hardening apparatus of exclusion that saw almost 400,000 deportations—a record number—this past fiscal year. It is one that has divided hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizen children from one or more of their parents since the mid-1990s.

More broadly, Whitman’s posturing—like that of Wilson almost 20 years ago—effectively denies the very humanity of her former housekeeper by embracing a politics that disallows “illegals” a right to work and live across national boundaries. They are rights that are even more necessary in a world of pervasive poverty, inequality and instability. In a world of myriad connections that transcend national boundaries, and make migration inevitable, the drawing of stark lines between “us” and “them” is an impossible undertaking.

After all, as even champions of policies and practices that vilify and hurt migrants such as Meg Whitman and Pete Wilson have shown in their best moments, so-called illegals are our neighbors, co-workers, friends, and family members. And they should be treated accordingly.

Joseph Nevins is an associate professor of geography at Vassar College. Among his books are Dying to Live: A Story of U.S. Immigration in an Age of Global Apartheid, and Operation Gatekeeper and Beyond: The War on "Illegals" and the Remaking of the U.S. Mexico Boundary.
 

Comments

 
Anonymous

Posted Oct 10 2010

"Global Apartheid'? This makes no sense at all.

The United States of America is an independant country. We are a nation of laws, amongst them are immigration laws. We expect all to follow them. Our government has the duty to ensure orderly entry and exity from our country to ensure health and safety as well as preventing explotation of those in the underground economy.

The method used by our government is to require documents from all entering and exiting the country. This use of documents is the global standard for transnational movement.

If you don't agree with the laws; change them. Use the power of the vote to affect the change you want, the change you believe in.

Meg Whitman hired her maid in 2000 using an employment agency. Her maid provided documentation: CA driver license, Social Security Card and verification of legal right to work in the USA.

3 YEARS later the Social Security agency sent a letter requesting Nicky Diaz verify the number given them was correct. It also states Nicky was NOT Required to show Ms. Whitman the social security card AND they were not legally authorized to take action based on the letter.

Due Diligence was done.

Ms. Nicky Diaz Santillian provided fraudulent documents to her employer and lied on her application. This did not come out until YEARS after she was hired. FYI -- lying on an employment application is grounds for termination for anyone. Providing falsified federal documents (i.e. social security card) is a FEDERAL OFFENSE.

Tune in to Joseph Nevins -- The Loon at Noon!

Anonymous

Posted Oct 10 2010

"Global Apartheid'? This makes no sense at all.

The United States of America is an independant country. We are a nation of laws, amongst them are immigration laws. We expect all to follow them. Our government has the duty to ensure orderly entry and exity from our country to ensure health and safety as well as preventing explotation of those in the underground economy.

The method used by our government is to require documents from all entering and exiting the country. This use of documents is the global standard for transnational movement.

If you don't agree with the laws; change them. Use the power of the vote to affect the change you want, the change you believe in.

Meg Whitman hired her maid in 2000 using an employment agency. Her maid provided documentation: CA driver license, Social Security Card and verification of legal right to work in the USA.

3 YEARS later the Social Security agency sent a letter requesting Nicky Diaz verify the number given them was correct. It also states Nicky was NOT Required to show Ms. Whitman the social security card AND they were not legally authorized to take action based on the letter.

Due Diligence was done.

Ms. Nicky Diaz Santillian provided fraudulent documents to her employer and lied on her application. This did not come out until YEARS after she was hired. FYI -- lying on an employment application is grounds for termination for anyone. Providing falsified federal documents (i.e. social security card) is a FEDERAL OFFENSE.

Tune in to Joseph Nevins -- The Loon at Noon!

Anonymous

Posted Oct 11 2010

We certainly didn't immigrate to the US legally. You know.. enforcing European laws and merchants of death on Native American tribes.

Love the hypocrisy by WASPs against immigration when virtually none of their laws would be legal if we applied the same standards to the Native American terrirtories of the 17th century.

But they would make you think that is an ancient period... you know a couple hundred years in a world where cultures predate Christ by several thousand years.

Anonymous

Posted Oct 16 2010

Two comments, First I often read comments that say how we the white race entered this country illegally. Well gee guess what the American Indian did not have laws on immigration. My 2nd comment is they the American Indian s allowed us in and how did that work out for them! And why should we think it would work out any better for us. Just some food for thought as there is so little of it.

Disclaimer: Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of New America Media. NAM reserves the right to edit or delete comments. Once published, comments are visible to search engines and will remain in their archives. If you do not want your identity connected to comments on this site, please refrain from commenting or use a handle or alias instead of your real name.