Chavez's Crime? Helping the Needy.

(Wall St. Journal, 1/9/01)

Linda Chavez's mistake was she took a less fortunate person into her home.

Monday, January 8, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST

Bork became a verb in 1987, when liberal interest groups defeated Judge Robert Bork's nomination for the Supreme Court. Sen. Ted Kennedy pulled out all the stops by saying that in "Robert Bork's America . . . blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters; rogue police would break down citizens' doors in midnight raids." Sen. Howell Heflin of Alabama vaguely told constituents that Judge Bork had a "strange lifestyle."

Ever since then, to bork has come to mean "to pull out all the stops in opposition to a presidential nominee." In 1991, black feminist Florence Kennedy told a National Organization for Women conference that Clarence Thomas had to be defeated: "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?" Unlike some others, Judge Thomas survived his Senate confirmation for a Supreme Court seat, albeit by a vote of only 52-48.

It's been a few years since a full-fledged borking, but this month we may see three. Yesterday the New York Times even ran a chart of "likely borkees and their probable score on the bork-o-meter." It read like an account of an ACLU/Sierra Club sporting event. John Ashcroft rated nine borks in his battle to become attorney general, Gale Norton got six borks as interior secretary-designate, and Linda Chavez merited five borks in her effort to become Labor Secretary.

The first round in Linda Chavez's borking also began yesterday with a script borrowed from the travails of Zoë Baird, President Clinton's first ill-fated choice to be his attorney general in 1993. Many senators in both parties felt she had disqualified herself by hiring an illegal alien to take care of her child and failing to pay the employer's share of Social Security taxes. The Wall Street Journal disagreed, saying that her child-care problem was a useful pretext for her opponents. Those included trial lawyers who disliked her support of tort reform and left-wingers who were suspicious of her background as counsel for the Aetna insurance company. In the end, Ms. Baird's nomination was withdrawn, and Janet Reno eventually became attorney general.

Now Linda Chavez has been accused of providing housing a decade ago to Marta Mercado, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, when she lived in Bethesda, Md. Abigail Thernstrom, a member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and a friend of Ms. Chavez, says that Ms. Mercado had been "badly abused" by a boyfriend and was taken in by Ms. Chavez in late 1991 for several months. Ms. Chavez helped Ms. Mercado learn the transit system so she could commute to her regular employment. "She had a job already, and did not work for Linda," Ms. Thernstrom told me. Tucker Eskew, a Bush transition team spokesman, said Ms. Mercado "did chores around the house" on an irregular basis. Once in a while, Ms. Chavez would give her some money for food or other essentials if she was running low.

Yesterday the Washington Post interviewed Ms. Mercado, who is now a U.S. citizen living in the Washington area. She confirmed Ms. Chavez's account that she stayed at her house and did some chores as a sign of appreciation. "In reality, I was not an employee," she told the Post. Federal law requires employers to check the legal immigration status of workers they hire. However, clear exemptions are built into the law for housekeepers who provide "sporadic, irregular, and intermittent service."

"This is not a nanny problem," claims Mr. Eskew, who noted that Ms. Chavez also employed housekeepers at the time, for which she paid taxes. In 1991, her three children ranged in age from 13 to 22.

We don't know all the facts yet, and ABC News reports the FBI may have found discrepancies between Ms. Chavez's account of the episode and what others say. But not having all the facts hasn't prevented Ms. Chavez's opponents from speaking out. Sen. Kennedy, temporary chairman of the Senate Labor Committee until Inauguration Day, called it "a very troubling new allegation." Jesse Jackson, showing his trademark subtlety, called Ms. Mercado's situation "indentured servitude."

Ms. Chavez is known as a genuine "compassionate conservative," who doesn't wait for government to help individuals she meets who are in need. She has acted on that impulse since her college days tutoring disadvantaged children in the Denver barrio and later during her time as an aide to the head of the American Federation of Teachers, a national teachers union. In the late 1970s, when she lived in Shepherd Park, a predominately black section of Washington, she supported two Vietnamese brothers as guests in her home for several weeks. Since the early 1990s, she has taken in first one, and then two, children of a Puerto Rican woman as part of a program to give underprivileged kids a summer break from the inner city. In 1997 she began paying their tuition to Catholic school so they would get a better education.

If Ms. Chavez's account checks out, her involvement with the Guatemalan woman looks far more like a personal act of charity than an exploitative employment situation like the one Mr. Jackson describes. "It's more along the lines of having an exchange student baby-sit for spending money rather than hiring a full-time employee and paying them under the table," says one employment lawyer.

That said, Ms. Chavez has certainly opened herself up for some searching questions at her confirmation hearing. But before Democratic senators pounce on Ms. Chavez, they would do well to go back and read their floor statements and speeches on war-torn Guatemala from a decade ago and ask themselves if they would have preferred Ms. Chavez's guest be returned there at the time. The Central American nation of nine million people had experienced a 30-year-long civil war and was a cause célèbre for liberals in 1991, the year Ms. Chavez took in her houseguest. Bob Carty, a Canadian journalist, conducted a fact-finding mission that March for the International Federation of Journalists and reported that "in Guatemala, more people have disappeared than during the generals' rule in Argentina, and more than 100,000 have died in political violence. More nuns and priests have been raped or murdered than in any other country."

Not every story of right-wing "death squads" in Guatemala can be taken at face value. You may recall that the history of persecution that Rigobertu Menchu, the Nobel Prize-winning Guatemalan activist, turned out to be either exaggerated or fabricated. But even so, Jorge Serrano, Guatemala's president in 1991, admitted to the Los Angeles Times that his country had "a culture of death. . . . Everybody believes they can work outside the law." The Guatemalan government's own statistics noted that in the first eight months of 1991, 548 people were killed in political violence and 114 others kidnapped. In the U.S. that would be the equivalent of 15,000 people being murdered and 3,000 kidnapped. "Day after day, year after year, Guatemala is awash in murder, torture, kidnapping and fear," the Los Angeles Times concluded in 1991.

In the following years, conditions improved to the point that it's understandable Ms. Chavez's houseguest would have wanted to return to her native land. The civil war has ended and last month Guatemala's Congress voted to allow U.S. dollars to become interchangeable with the local currency. Even so, last year the Clinton administration proposed a bill that would have allowed 450,000 refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Haiti who arrived before 1997 to be eligible for green cards and legal residency in the U.S. "This is about fairness and redress and closing the chapter on Central American wars," Maria Echaveste, the deputy White House chief of staff, told reporters last Oct. 31. Among the bill's staunchest supporters were Sen. Kennedy, along with other liberals who may soon be hurling stones at Ms. Chavez.

In the end, congressional opposition--largely but not entirely from conservatives--eventually forced the White House to agree to a compromise that benefited immigrants from India and Mexico far more than it did Central Americans. But the bill's sponsors in both parties vow to try again, noting that President-elect Bush has declared that "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande."

Linda Chavez apparently didn't think so either. Her personal history is filled with examples of her showing personal compassion for people in difficulty. As head of a think tank for the past several years she has promoted equal opportunity while opposing quotas, opposed destructive bilingual education programs, and called for Congress to loosen restrictions on skilled immigrants. There is no hypocrisy there.

Ms. Chavez's critics are another matter. "Throughout the 1990s, liberals praised the sanctuary movement run by U.S. churches which would take in central American refugees and protect them," says Ms. Thernstorm. "It's strange they would now criticize Linda for taking in a battered woman."

There is no evidence that Ms. Chavez broke the law in providing housing for a refugee from war-torn Guatemala. She has been consistent in both her personal actions and her public positions on issues. Somehow I doubt that all of her liberal critics on the Senate floor would be able to demonstrate that same consistency if called on to do so. Would they have suggested back in 1991 that Ms. Chavez's houseguest should have been deported to Guatemala? That wasn't their position then, and in the borking of Ms. Chavez that's about to begin they shouldn't be allowed to forget that.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

Answers

Since when is returning a favor or reciprocating kindness "indentured servitude." I never really saw the liberals as hypocrites but I'm beginning to see more and more of this behavior coming from the left. I guess it started with the feminists silent approval of Clinton and very loud bashing of Harris.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

As I recall, Linda Chavez was absolutely scathing on Zoe Bairds illegal alien nanny. You would think such a "compassionate" person would have cut her a little slack.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

Tarzan, I understand your point, but from the information I have read thus far, there was difference- aiding is not the same as employing an illegal alian. One is clearly illegal, the other is not (the latest media reports I have seen indicate that what Chavez did is not illegal). I have also read some of Chavez's comments in the Baird hearing, and but I would not characterize those as scathing, though in retrospect perhaps a bit hypocritical. I am curious as to the story behind the story concerning Chavez's withdrawal and the apparant lack of strong support from the Bush team. From todays news reports I would have thought her appointment was still salvagable.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

LOLOLOL..........the irony is magnificent..............

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001

While there's room for debate on whether or not Chavez employed this woman, the fact is that harboring an illegal alien is a crime, punishable by fines and up to five years in jail (though most first time offenders don't get jail time). So whether it was an act of charity or venality, Chavez broke the law.

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001

Tarzan,

Legal or not, what do YOU think? Was it an act of charity or not? If not, what kind of act do you feel it was, and why?

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001

It was a charitable act with a venal motive. I think that Chavez wanted a cheap housekeeper and grabbed the first one she could. In doing this, she did help this woman get established in the US and gain legal residency, which will help her to not continue to be exploited by employers.

My grandmother had a saying: rewards kill kindness. The minute you seek reward for your acts, whether monetary or in recognition, they stop being charity and start being self-motivated. I think that in the Mercato case, Chavez may have stepped over the line by getting cheap labor for two years. However, when she paraded all the people she's helped over the years, she was doing it for no other reason than to toot her own horn.

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001

Legality aside for the moment -- to me, if the arrangement was voluntary, regardless of the specifics, it looks like a win-win situation. To the extent the "law" made it problematic for them, though -- that's very sad.

Oh yes...and any purely charitable aspect -- to the extent it just made Chavez feel good -- well, I think that's a pretty valid reward, too.

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001

Ms. Marcato, like other illegal aliens, didn't have much choice in the matter. That's the whole problem with employing illegals, you can take wretched advantage of them (not that Chavez did) and they pretty much have to accept it, if they want to stay here.

Chavez got a lot more out of the situation with Ms. Marcato than a warm, fuzzy feeling. She got a housekeeper, babysitter, cook, and dog walker virtually free for two years.

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001

Tar, "virtually free"? I don't think so. Again, obviously, you have never offered your home to someone in need. But free doesn't tell the home owner side of the story. Think about it for a while, then tell me that the home owner doesn't indeed incur some costs as a result of an additional person with unique needs living in your home.

Just some hints: This person doesn't drive. You need to take the person from place to place, language classes for one.

What about the extra food?

What about the extra housekeeping, laundry, increased utilities?

What about the decrease in your own space? The inconvience of not be able to use that sewing room or craft room or whatever room this extra person occupies? Or what if this person shares a room with a family member?

All this for dog walking and babysitting (the kids were teenagers and didn't need one)? Give me a break!

Virtually free, I don't think so.

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001

Maria-

Do you have any idea what a maid costs per hour? Mine costs us $45. I have no idea what a cook costs, but we also employed a dog walker when I was still on chemotherapy. That was $20 an hour, one visit a day.

Chavez had a twenty-four hour housekeeper, cook, au pair, dog walker, and who knows what else constantly on call. All she had to pay for this was the cost of room and board. To pretend that this was anything like a sacrifice for Chavez is disingenious in the least.

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001

She's toast Tarzan.

Blink, blink.

New target acquisition mode necessary.

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001

Carlos-

Please. The issues raised by the Chavez affair are issues we have been dealing with, and will continue to deal with, for some time. Illegal immigration, cheap labor, politicans who break the law, charitable acts that have a basis in self-interest. These issues are larger than Chavez and are larger than political parties.

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001

Legality aside for the moment

The point is, we have laws. If we can just disreguard laws when it pleases us we will end up a country of lawlessness and loose the protection that laws afford us.

We cannot pick and choose which laws we consider appropriate, and the laws should not apply to some of us and not to others.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

Tar, I hope you never have an additional person living in your house. You obviously will get very frustrated by it.

I had a few people living in my house, one spent nearly a year. This person absolutely did chores, cleaned the dog run and kitty litter, walked the dog, relandscaped my front yard, provided babysitting, and lots of other tasks from time to time. When he left, I noticed that my monthly bills dropped by about $3,000 per month! You have no clue what the hell you're talking about.

I understand you and Jane live together but there are no kids. You will be shocked at the increased costs when an additional person comes into your home. So what, in return this extra person did a few chores, big f'in deal! Don't tell me about the costs of maid service, I know what those costs are. Do the math, son. $45 per week is $180 per month. Compare that with $3,000 per month out of the home owner's pocket. Who's ahead? Dog walking $3 an hour? Babysitting $3 an hour (remember the kids were beyond babysitting age, so this accusation is totally unfounded)? Even if the babysitting was for 5 hours each day, it still only totals $450 per month. Have we reached the $3,000 yet?

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

Maria-

Why would you try to cost this as though these were occasional services? This woman lived with Chavez 24-7. I made a couple of calls to the agency I have my maid servie through to see what a live- in maid on call 24 hours would cost me. They said it would be $40,000 a year through them, employed directly probably $30,000 or $2500 a month. I asked them how much a cook would cost. They could provide one at $40 an hour. Assuming two hours a day for seven days a week, that's $560 a week or $2240 a year. Assuming a dog walker costs $10 an hour (which I know isn't the case, but I'm willing to give you a break) for seven days a week, that's $70 bucks a week or $280 a month. This comes to a total of $60,040 a year, or a savings of $5020 a month. Of course, these are Atlanta prices, which are considerably less expensive than the rest of the country.

Now maybe you wouldn't pay for these services normally, so you don't see the difference between saving money on these services and paying money for room and board. However, people at Chavez' level, and Chavez herself, do pay for these services. Their lifestyles pretty much demand it, with the intense traveling and entertaining they must do. I don't begrudge Chavez a maid, but I do begrudge her getting a maid virtually free for two years because that woman was illegal. What Chavez did was get two years indentured servitude out of a woman who had no other options. Is Ms. Marcato grateful? Of course she is, why shouldn't she be? Most illegals get jobs that are dirty and dangerous and get extremely underpaid to boot. Compared to picking lettuce in Salinas or plucking chickens in Arkansas, washing out Chavez' dirty underwear must have been a breeze. However, that doesn't make what Chavez did an act of charity anymore than allowing someone to pick lettuce for ten hours straight and sleep in a shack on your property for $10 a day.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

Sorry, that's $2240 a month for the cook. According to the agency I spoke with, most maids will do windows but won't cook or even eat meals with the family, they view it as an infringement on what little personal time they have. A maid that cooks, assuming one could be found, would be closer to 40K a year directly employed, or $3333.33 a month.

If, like Chavez, your monthly budget involves upwards of $5000 spent on housekeeping services and you suddenly reduced that to the $3000 Maria says she may have spent on her houseguest (extrapolating the number from how much she says her bills decreased by when s/he left), a savings of $2000 would be a boon indeed. If you could get that by breaking a couple of federal laws (immigration and labor) and calling it an act of charity, who wouldn't go for it?

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

Cherri,

In my "legality aside for the moment" post above to Tarzan, all I wanted was to get from him what his views were on the underlying issues, regardless of the legal context.

I agree with you that we shouldn't disregard our laws. Just because a law exists, though, doesn't make it morally right. And that's the more fundamental point I was trying to reach.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

Eve, I understand :o)

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

Dang, I'm in the wrong business! A live in maid gets $40K with room and board? My SO isn't paying me nearly enough! And I provide many more services than just maid service!

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

Maria-

That's an Atlanta salary, it's probably more outside of the south.

I think there's a lot of "hassle factor" in the maid salary. Think about it, you have to live with your boss. Who in their right mind would do that for less than 40K?

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

Tarzan,

So why are you opposed to abortion? Think about how cheap it would be to get your house cleaned if there were that many more hungry Americans around.

Frank

-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001