Meg Whitman vs. Jerry Brown on Immigration in Tonight’s Debate

September 28th, 2010 · 21 Comments

I was only able to catch about half of this much anticipated debate for the candidates running for California’s governor. I think that Jerry Brown definitely came across as being more genuine and less scripted. Yet, I do think that Meg Whitman performed better than expected. If the Democrats show up to vote in California, Jerry Brown will win.

Brown’s answer about immigration was the standard Democratic line about supporting a path to legalization, securing the borders, electronic verification, and working toward comprehensive immigration reform (which will likely not happen in this climate and the governor will not have much of an impact on this federal issue). And Whitman came right out and acknowledged that she would not support a path to legalization, but she did indicate that she opposed Proposition 187 and Arizona’s SB 1070.

Note: I cannot embed this video, but please check out this link.

After Meg Whitman and her former GOP rival Steve Poizner battled over immigration in the primary, I think that her effort to moderate her stance has been decent. The question that I would have liked to have her answer is her thought about what to do with the millions of people who are already here undocumented if she doesn’t support a pathway to legalization. I think that many are curious as to how she envisions paying for the mass deportations. This question is only fair since much was made out of immigration in the primary. Along with the deportation issue, in the next debate, it would be great if someone asks Whitman why she seemingly did support a path to legalization at one point. For all of you needing a refresher, see the footage below, which sounds much like the line that Brown provided:

Tags: Immigration

21 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Anna // Sep 29, 2010 at 10:27 am

    Re: “After Meg Whitman and her former GOP rival Steve Poizner battled over immigration in the primary, I think that her effort to moderate her stance has been decent.”

    What’s decent about lying? She changes her position depending on the audience she’s addressing. Last night she said that she favored a guest worker program, but not a path to citizenship. So basically, she has no trouble with immigrants working here, she just doesn’t want them to become Americans with the same rights as everybody else. She thinks they should be disposable.

    She’s in over her head. She had no idea what she was talking about and just repeated the script from her commercials. What worries me the most is her plan to give her fellow billionaires a tax cut that will cost this state 5 billion dollars. That money will come out of the education budget. Sorry, our educatuion budget has been cut too much already, and billionaires do not deserve any tax cuts. Meg is running for office to lower her own taxes! Thats how she’ll get back her 100 million.

    She also said that CA was a bad place to do business compared to our neighboring states, yet I didn’t see her move Ebay to Texas or Nevada.

    Brown has a breadth of knowledge and a command of the issues that we need right now. We also need his insight and his experience. I really hope he wins, or this state is screwed big time.

  • 2 jon // Sep 29, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    I think you have the tax cuts all wrong. Right now business have little incentive to incorporate in California. This cost Cal Jobs, innovation and a technological advantage.

    Illegals should not be here, LA times stated that the majority of people in our prisons are illegals. That should not be the case. If you commit a crime you go to jail or get deported .

    Brown is tied to the unions and the pensions are killing our state. We need to restructure and build a better California.

  • 3 webmaster // Sep 29, 2010 at 4:13 pm


    I should clarify… I meant that Meg Whitman has done a decent job of moderating her immigration stance by politically tap dancing around the issue, while effectively reaching out to the Latino community via ads. She has managed to keep Pete Wilson hidden away, while stating her opposition to AZ law and Prop 187. However, if the latest about her allegedly hiring an undocumented maid turns out to be true, then she will have lost what little credibility she had on the issue. The fact of the matter is that Whitman has flip flopped on immigration, and right now, she’s trying to distance herself from the rhetoric she was engaged in when she was battling Poizner in the primary.

    Today’s news may be more problematic for her campaign:

  • 4 Anna // Sep 29, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    Re: “the unions and the pensions are killing our state.”

    That’s BS.

    Wall St. wants to stick everyone with a 401 K that can be stolen. That’s why they want to liquidate the pensions.

    Whitman wants to give her fellow billionaires a tax cut that will cost our state 5 billion dollars. That money will come from the schools. Sorry, but billionaire Meg doesn’t need a tax cut.

    And if CA is such a bad place to do business then why didn’t she move Ebay to Texas, or that craphole Arizona? Hmm? She’s full of it. The whole point of her campaign is to lower her own taxes.

  • 5 SB // Sep 30, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    @Anna – I agree with your comments and insight.

    But I don’t thing Meg’s story is right for the state base on what I saw of the “entire” debate.

    1. 401Ks. Go talk to a financial planner and have that person tell you how much money you need to have saved in your 401K for you to make 50% of what you currently make, upon retirement. Now, figure out how you are going to grow your 401K. You can use the past 10 years of stock market performance as a benchmark. Assume that your company does not offer a 401k matching program. Once you get your answer and you realize that you can’t save enough; you’ll understand that 401Ks not the answer. I’m not saying that the state pension system is perfect. But I am saying that this is not an easy problem to solve – certainly not as easy as Meg makes it sound.

    2. Immigration. So, she wants to hand a “keep out” sign on California – UNLESS it is for a job we really don’t want to do anyway; then we’ll let you in as a special guest. So she wants to let in “guest workers” for low paying jobs that are beneath us, while at the same time she has a track record (from eBay) of sending higher paying jobs overseas to India. So, I’m trying to see where she has built jobs in California. Remember, she didn’t “build” eBay. She came in after the fact – after someone else already built it; something she’d prefer you forget.

    3. Changing Tunes. She can change her tune because she doesn’t have a track record. She didn’t even bother voting on important state issues for very, very long time. It’s easy for her to pretend to be whatever she needs to be in order to get into office. Jerry Brown, whether your love him or hate him, has a record you can review.

    4. Using Technology to Rebuild California. OK, let’s get a law enacted that says that any “corporation” that donated to her campaign (or where the owner of the company) donated more than $1000 is banned from being awarded any state contracts. For some reason, I don’t see her enacting that law. She says Jerry has his friends in his back pocket. She’s no different. Let’s face it, they both have their supporters. That’s how the game is played. But in Meg’s plan, when these technology contracts are awarded, we can say 1) hello to increasing shareholder value – if you happen to be a shareholder of that company and 2) hello to more jobs in India! (I personally don’t have a problem with jobs in India, but I do have a problem when a candidate is running on a platform of keeping jobs in California but has a track record of sending job overseas).

  • 6 WhatThe.. // Sep 30, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    They are unfortunately both pathetic, God save California..

  • 7 BettyM // Sep 30, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    Good thing Gloria Allred is assisting Whitman’s former employee. Whitman’s housekeeper worked for her for 9 years and Whitman said she was unaware of her status…..hmmmm, how can that be?

  • 8 Anna // Sep 30, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    Re: ” Let’s face it, they both have their supporters. That’s how the game is played.”

    Exactly, and I’ll take Brown’s supporters over Whitman’s anyday. Republicans have been very good at promulgating the lie that pensions are the sole cause of the state’s fiscal problems, while ignoring the fact that Wall St had to be bailed out by the taxpayers to the tune of a trillion+ dollars. Yes, we probably do need to reduce pensions now but Wall St’s meltdown is the reason we can no longer afford them as they are.

    These unemployed CEOs are running for public office now because they see assets that the local and state government have, and they want to convert them to income streams for themselves and their rich friends.

  • 9 Anna // Sep 30, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    Meg Whitman might have employed more than ten undocumented workers. In 2003 the Social Security office sent her a no match letter but the agency says that their policy in 2003 was to send no match letters only to employers who had more than ten employees whose SS numbers did not match their names.

    Agency spokesman Mark Lassiter said that from 2003-2006 an employer had to have more than 10 employees whose Social Security numbers and names did not match to receive a warning letter. It was not immediately clear how many domestic employees Whitman had during that time.

  • 10 Chicano future tense // Sep 30, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    Yesterday morning -sitting at Starbucks having my morning daily coffee-veinte w milk and sugar..a dash of cinnamon..
    About 10 feet from my table I spotted a news rack machine..the headlines screaming out in in big bold type..”Whitman and Brown go for the knockout” reference of course to the “Big” debate they had the previous evening.
    Reading that headline..I have to tell you,I almost spit out a big gulp..a mouthful of coffee and in the process nearly snorted half my latte instead of drinking it..
    I was laughing ..giggling nearly hysterically.I must have looked like a real nut to those droopy-eyed caffeine deprived curious passerbys entering Strabucks for their morning” ritual”.
    I thought to myself..Brown vs Whitman”??..”knockout”??.. OMG!!
    Having a great imagination refined and perfected after decades of watching cartoons and the three stogges I saw in my minds eye so to a boxing ring..two big puffy marshmallows duking it out bashing eachothers brains out with marshmallow gloves throwing marshmallow jabs and punches,marshmallow uppercuts in a desperate attempt to knockout the opponent..
    In the boxing arena I saw throngs of marshmallow fanatics each cheering .. Brown marshmallow vs Whitmen marshmallow..boos..hissses and cat calls were echoed everywhere..
    Some fans screamed at the top of their lungs..” we want Brwon because he wants Cali to have 32 oz bags of mini multi-colored marshmallows!!
    On the other side of the arena shouts and screams were heard from the Whitman fans who shouted back..” We want Whitman because she wants Cali to have 32 oz bags of big fluffy marshmallows”!
    The two exhausted marshmallows having punched themelves out went to the center of the ring to hear the referees decision..
    “Unanimous decision!… the voters are the real losers!”
    The big debate -a real snoozer..
    it turned out to be a referendum on whom we dislike the least..the old fart versus the shit faced iron lady..

    I think poster “WhatThe” had the best take on the debate.
    I think “WhatThe” was right saying..
    “They are unfortunately both pathetic, God save California..”

  • 11 James Anguiano // Oct 1, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    I am glad to see that Meg is defending herself. I personally want your opinion on the the Diaz situation. She completed the form under purjary and I hope she gets prosecuted. How dare you talk about Meg the way you did. This is irrisponsible for a person in your possition. I hope to hear from you. Gente like you has converted me to a conservative REPUBLICAN.

  • 12 Anna // Oct 3, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Who are you klidding? You were already a conservative Republican. Real conservatives don’t even like Whitman because they think she’s too liberal, and they don’t like that she hires illegal immigrants. She’s also a liar who says one thing in English and another in Spanish. Basically she has run three diferent campaigns. The primary campaign where she pretended to be a a conservative, the Spanish language campaign, where she pretends to love Latinos, and the general election campaign, where she pretends to be a moderate and lies about Jerry Brown’s record. She’s a woman of three faces, not two.

    If you vote for her James, you will be voting for the futher destruction of California’s infrastructure.

    I don’t understand how anybody could even contemplate putting in office an inexperienced person who has never even voted. It’s unconscionable.

    One of her Spanish language commercials has a guy saying that Meg helped him. How? He sold some junk on Ebay. Hmm…

  • 13 Tim // Oct 4, 2010 at 6:09 am

    Why aren’t you telling the people the whole story about Nicky Diaz getting paid $50k and getting a great job in Puerto Vallarta as a housekeeper in a live-in guest cottage of a millionaire’s villa?

  • 14 Cris // Oct 4, 2010 at 7:39 am

    I think as Latinos, being me one, we should be united for what is best for our community. The debate by Univision between Meg and Brown was a debate to see the overview of what these candidates will do for us, the minority which in reality now is a majority. Well, I do totally agree with Anna. We do not need tax breaks for the owner of manufacturing companies; this will only increase the wealthy people and not the overall. I do support education at all times and think we should be focused in education and a path to legalization. A candidate that ignores legalization should lose because a candidate should be aware that many are undocumented here in California and that needs to be addressed. I don’t like Meg for several reasons, but most important, for not being compassionate about the poor or the middle class who are the ones who need enormous help. Come on guys, there are people out there that are not eating, that do not have education and Meg has already spent 119 million in her campaign becoming the politician who most spent money in a political campaign in the whole U.S. history. That tells you a lot. That tells you that she is willing to win at all cost spending money, money that is scarce for many of us. But remember, when you spent, you want it back and one way or another she will get all her money back. Please do not allow Meg to win because she doesn’t support the Latino community too much, and I care for my people, I care for the future California in which for every 2 people one is Latino, think about this. We want a better future for everybody but for minorities as well.

  • 15 nana // Oct 5, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Why cant anyone seem to believe this woman SHE DID NOT KNOW. i have seen those social security letter and they say nothing on wether the person is illegal or not. they hired her through a company so they though everything was good. They trusted this woman payed her a good salary. where else is an illegal going to get 23 per hour. But no Liberal latinos would rather vote for the scum brown who has all his life here in california politics and has done nothing but formed a network of rats. sothe question is simple if you trudly want califiornia to keep sinking just bacasue you feel an immigration reform is more important vote for brown. I would rather seee all the people that broke the law be put back in the line and wait like the many that have applied and have been waiting like my uncle who is a son of a natural born american and has been waiting for almos 14 years, or my compadre who’s father applied for him like 10 years ago! why should the ones that cheat and lie be first! and then you dare come after whitman! look in the mirror people!

  • 16 WhatThe.. // Oct 10, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    Remember, the real money behind Gloria, are the California Union Cartel who own everybody…

  • 17 StevenH // Oct 14, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    Both Brown and Whitman (RINO like the Terminator) are absolutely the poorest of choices. We all know that Jerry Brown changes skins anytime he needs to. He protested and held out on PROP 13 until the people very nearly rebelled against him, then when the PEOPLE got it passed he all but took credit for it and does to this day. The only thing Whitman brings to the table is the slightest possibility of change from the status quo. At least with tax breaks to the rich, maybe they’ll come back into the state and start creating jobs again. Better than Jerry who is in the pocket of the Unions and the Unions are what are breaking California.

    Argue if you must, the facts are the facts, they both suck and are token candidates offered up by the people who really control CA and US politics for that matter… World Bankers.

  • 18 StevenH // Oct 14, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    PS… don’t be surprised, if when Jerry takes office, the first thing to go will be Prop 13 and the limits set on property taxes. He’ll be the first to get in the “tax-them into oblivion” line. He has a history of doing exactly that. Guaranteed

  • 19 Anna // Oct 15, 2010 at 10:39 am

    Re: “At least with tax breaks to the rich, maybe they’ll come back into the state and start creating jobs again.”

    They haven’t left the state. Giving gthem even more tax breaks than they already get will just ensure that they either save their money or invest it overseas. In case you haven’t noticed they don’t even do their charity work in America anymore.

    Taxing them like we used to will ensure that their money stays in this country. After all, this is where they made their money.

    We need another FDR. The rich need to pay their fair share of taxes just like everybody else.

  • 20 Anna // Oct 15, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Re: “don’t be surprised, if when Jerry takes office, the first thing to go will be Prop 13 and the limits set on property taxes. ”

    I doubt that will happen, but it would be a good thing if it did. Prop 13 has been a disaster.

  • 21 Susana Garcia // May 25, 2012 at 9:33 am


    “Illegals should not be here…”
    The illegals who are in jail for commiting a crime of course do not deserve to be here. However, you can not generalize your perspective of a certain race according to the amount of criminals in the country because not all illegal people have a bad moral character. I was once an illegal person myself, I was raised here in United States and I am thankful to be here. I am a student at Cal State San Bernardino and dream to become an immigration lawyer. I am here for a purpose and so are many others and I have faith that our justice system will someday conclude a law that makes equalization true.

Leave a Comment