Tuesday, April 08, 2008

No laws were broken

Republican congressional candidate Chris Hackett did not break the law by failing to notify federal authorities that his housekeeper was in the country illegally, according to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency spokesman.
I think all this chest thumping over immigration is counterproductive. The easy thing to do is to parrot the build a fence and "illegal is illegal" talking points but none of the candidates have offered a real solution. None of them will say it but the implication is that they want to kick millions of people out of the country which will have a devastating effect on our economy. Maybe an issue like this can't be discussed in a rational way during a political campaign and I think that all the candidates in the 10th and 11th Congressional Districts, both Democrats and Republicans, have demagogued this issue-some more than others.


kar said...

I can't wait to see/hear the next Hackett ad; " I am not a criminal, and I have a note from the feds to verify it".

I wonder who could give him a note saying he is not a hypocrite or serial prevaricator?


Anonymous said...

What is up with Hackett? Why does he keep attacking Meuser on issues that he too has problems? Does anyone else see a judgement issue here? This guy is just plain stupid. Whats next? Is he going to accuse Meuser's firm of using temps?

Zen said...

The reality is that Hackett saw the poll numbers and knows how badly he is trailing. This is why he went negative, he had no choice. The real problem is that he doesn't see how badly he is hurting what he claims is his party and our chances of retaking the seat from Pelosi's pet. It seems that every bit of mud his hatchet men sling bounces back ten fold and splatters his face.

mayor jim said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Hey Gort,
What happened with the "no wives and children" on the blogs? Let's stick to the issues folks, not try and fail on senseless humor on topics that have no relevance.

Anonymous said...

anon 7:41

It's relevant when the main person who does the cooking and cleaning for a candidate's wife and children at Morgan Ridge Circle on a more-than-sporadic basis is an undocumented worker.

Why not talk about the spouse of a candidate? Posters regularly took their shots at Gary Baker in 2006. Gort even did a feature on Dr. Dave's darling Mrs.

Anonymous said...

If he didn't committ a crime then he can release her name and address. Word is the address for the past 10 years bears a striking resemblance to hackett's.

NEPAExpat said...

This can all be easily explained away. All Chris Hackett has to do is release the tax forms for his employee.

Under Publication 15-A of the IRS, it looks like the housekeeper was common-law employee. If his housekeeper made over $x (I want to say $1,000, but the accountants on the board will have more expertise) Chris Hackett is required to pay FICA taxes.

(page 4)

Releasing the tax documents for this employee if she made over the required amount should clear up any wrongdoing.

Gort said...

"Gort even did a feature on Dr. Dave's darling Mrs."

When did I do that? Please point it out.

A reminder. Wives and kids are out of bounds. So are accusations of criminal activity.

Paul Swiderski said...


I'm not sure that you can release the employee tax forms as public information, as Forms W-2 are considered to be confidential and privy information. Releasing such information would require permission that may not be able to be obtained.

Also, for clarification, guidance for household workers can be found in Publication 926. The laws providing guidelines for common-law employment are very similar to those governing household workers: You have a household employee if you hired someone to do household work and that worker is your employee. The worker is your employee if you can control not only what work is done, but how it is done.

Personally, I don't need to see anyone's W-2 or 1099. The issue is that if Hackett knew this person was an illegal alien and was in fact an employee - not a contractor - he should have taken appropriate steps to verify that she was legally able to work in the United States. If she was indeed a lawful employee - not a subcontractor - he would have had to verify her eligibility to work by completing a Form I-9.

"When you hire a household employee to work for you on a regular basis, you and the employee must complete the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. No later than the first day of work, the employee must complete the employee section of the form by providing certain required information and attesting to his or her current work eligibility status in the United States. You must complete the employer section by examining documents presented by the employee as evidence of his or her identity and employment eligibility."

The question then is: was she an employee, or was she a contractor?

If he had control over what done and how it was done, then she was an employee (subject to employment taxes yadda yadda yadda). Therefore, Hackett should have realized on day 1 that she wasn't eligible to work legally in the US and should have not hired her in the first place.

If he did not have control over either over what done or how it was done then she was a contractor and Hackett had no responsibility to determine her eligibility to work legally in the US.

Regardless, not reporting her to ICE shows he's not as tough on illegal immigration as he tries to make himself out to be.

Anonymous said...

Gort - spring '06 was the Q&A with Mrs. M. We read all about how she was a public school teacher and thankful to get out of there so she could homeschool the kids. DO the archives go back that far? Probably a week or two before the Queen Elisabeth post.

anon 12:40 - you're right about the address. there's a lovely nanny's quarters - just ask any of the young Sem students that have visited their friends there.

Anonymous said...

Hackett may not have been required to determine her status; but if she was a contractor, not an employee, he still needed a social security number and address to file the 1099.

Anonymous said...

Well, it seems some anon parent from Sem has issues with the Hacketts. Could this possible
"nanny" quarters simple be a spare bedroom? Houses do have those you know.
And while Gort may have spoken about some Mrs. ages ago, I'm sure it was done with taste, unlike some of the comments made by folks on this blog.
The wives and kids aren't running, so they should be kept out of the blogs it's as simple as that, and if you have evidence that the "nanny" lived in the house then prove it, until then keep your speculation where it belongs on the Sci Fi blogs.

~ Sassy Fox

kar said...


Hello, long time no see, how are you?

The issue with Hackett is that he demands a "full accounting" from Dan on items that have been explained on these boards and elsewhere since last summer, yet he is less than forthright about his own situations.

The whole "Susie, no last name given" debacle could be cleared up very quickly, but it appears that Chris may have painted himself into a corner.

There are a lot of questions concerning Chris; Vincente Fox's visit, C3i, Skrep & contracts, and the aforementioned "Susie-Gate", come clean Chris you'll feel better.

Come back more often Sassy.

Ciao y'all.

Anonymous said...

Hello my dear KAR,

I've been keeping off the blogs for the most part, this whole political season has my fur in a knot. I don't like trash talking and all that jazz, I'm a simple girl who just wants the best for the Valley she loves. I'm so turned around that trying to piece together this race is like putting together a puzzle with too many missing pieces.
(And don't pick on Vincente we have the same last name! : )

~ Sassy Fox