Report: Former Trump Models Claim They Worked in the United States Illegally


Mother Jones’s detailed account centers on the testimonies of three former Trump models who claimed that, as non–United States citizens, they took gigs in America using tourist visas, which is definitely not legal. The models say the agency’s representatives encouraged them to lie, if necessary, to authorities.The ex-models also detail some exploitative practices, including charging exorbitant rents for crammed rooms that models shared.


Possibly it’s even true.

But even if true, that doesn’t mean Trump knew about it.

But as between this and Hillary Clinton endorsing the sale of the U.S. uranium supply to Russia (therefore Iran), I would say this is pretty small stuff.


It is truly amazing to me that the MSM and the people who are going to vote for Clinton just simply ignore how much she lies and how hypocritical she is. When some irrelevant issue supposidly tied to Trump fall all over their selves to try and trash him.


He is a businessman running on his business acumen. The woman are describing modern day slavery. He makes 2 million dollars a year from this enterprise. Plus, his central issue is immigrants taking American jobs. He couldn’t find a beautiful American girl to photograph? This make the charge that his wife was working here illegally credible. I’d say it goes directly to how this man does business.


On which front many complaints and court cases have been raised. I would not trust either of your front runners for their respective parties, I view them as both untrustworthy and see them as differing merely in the approaches and styles they use. Trumps ‘I am not part of the establishment’ mantra was amusing in a blackly comical way at first but has become tiresome and Hillary Clinton does not even have the saving grace of been amusing at any point in the struggle for your presidency thus far.


Assertions from people who don’t identify themselves are questionable at best. And what do we know about the ID these women presented to the agency? If it looks regular on its face, the employer can’t, by law, question it, no matter what the employer thinks about it.

There are undoubtedly thousands of attractive women who would model for free if it gave them a shot a “portfolio” and the “big time”. No need to seek more of them abroad.

None of this really rings right.


Well said:thumbsup:


He used to run Casino’s, not often thought of as the most virtuous of enterprises. But everyone knows that already.


He used to run Casino’s, not often thought of as the most virtuous of enterprises. But everyone knows that already.

To your point:

Lost contracts, bankruptcies, defaults, deceptions and indifference to investors—Trump’s business career is a long, long list of such troubles, according to regulatory, corporate and court records, as well as sworn testimony and government investigative reports. Call it the art of the bad deal, one created by the arrogance and recklessness of a businessman whose main talent is self-promotion.


Further to your point is the issue of Trump’s hiring of 200 undocumented Polish workers for demolition at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, FL, which was raised by Marco Rubio during the GOP primaries. A link to an article on this topic in the National Review:


Here is my question regarding BOTH the Polish thing and these models.

Who hired them? Trump’s company directly or an intermediate party?

In construction/development, you typically higher contractors to do the work. The contracting companies employee the workers and are responsive for their tax information.

When you hire a contracting company, a staffing agency, or modeling agency; you assume they are hiring quality & legal workers.

In both of these claims, I have not seen evidence that Trump or his company hired any of them. But rather the modeling agency and contractor hired by Trump’s company did.

When my company uses a staffing agency, we don’t see tax information from the contractors nor do we see their social security numbers. If we need citizens to work on something vs. legal residents, all we have is verification from teh staffing agency regarding who are citizens vs. who are not. The ones who are not citizens, we assume they are here legally.


If you look at the piece from National Review, Trump was well aware that the Polish workers were undocumented.


I really, really abhor politics. :eek:


How could Trump not know about it? He’s the owner, he’s the boss man. We say in sports, if the coach has players do bad stuff, and didn’t do anything about it, either he let it go, or wasn’t paying attention. Same here, you cannot give Trump a pass.


And Trump shouted down Rubio during the debates when the latter brought up the undocumented Polish workers. Trump’s ethics in business are questionable at the very least. I would say he gives Hillary a good run in that department.

Pence vs. Kaine would be a much better presidential race.


Is he? There are number of “Trump” business that are not actually owned by Donald. He leases his name to several companies. They pay him a “brand fee” but the companies are actually owned by others. The companies get in return, not just his brand name, but he will also personally market them.

But he doesn’t’ own the many of those sidebar companies. I wonder if the modeling agency is the same or not.


Then he should be more careful who he lets use his name.


When a foreigner takes your job or limits you in any way you have to blame something. I’ve witnessed much of this in IT.


Maybe in the end it will come down to that. Both Trump and Clinton have been known to quit or employ their own exit strategies.


Some of them were entirely legal, as the article points out.

As the article points out, if some Polish workers were illegal (which I doubt the writer knows) they were the employees of someone else, not Trump. Had Trump hired them himself, he could not, by law, question their ID if it was regular on its face. He certainly can’t question their legality if they’re not even his employees. What was Trump supposed to do, say “oh, that fellow over there has a heavy eastern European accent, fire him” or “oh, that fellow can’t speak English, fire him”. Doing that is as illegal as saying “that fellow there looks Mexican, fire him”, and it’s just as illegal to question the subcontractor’s employees for the same reason.

I don’t much doubt they all had regular-looking ID. All the illegals around here do. Everybody knows who’s illegal and who isn’t, but employers can’t fire them or fail to hire them on suspicion of illegality, and if they’re a subcontractor’s employees (which seems to have been the case with Trump in this article) the employer certainly can’t, because it would be prohibited discrimination in hiring.

This article reminds me of a time, years ago, when I worked on getting H1A and H1B visas for healthcare workers. Some were from Canada, South Africa, or Europe, but the largest single group was from the Philippines. I thought Eastern Europe might be a good bet because it wasn’t long after the iron curtain dissolved, but I didn’t know how to contact them.

So, on a whim, I called the Archdiocesan office in Chicago, being aware there are a lot of Eastern Europeans there. It was extremely funny, because that office directed me both to “managers” who arranged jobs for legal Poles and some who had access to illegals. It was plain to me the Archdiocese knew which were which, because I was told not to say that office referred me. It turned out that I couldn’t get Poles of either kind to qualify because their educations in health sciences had been so bad under the communist system they couldn’t establish educational equivalency. (which most Filipinos, all Canadians, South Africans and western Europeans could)

I don’t know whether H2 visas are difficult to get, then or now because I didn’t work with those.

This whole business of expecting employers to vet workers for immigration status is a crock, because they can’t question anything that looks genuine on its face, and false ID is a very big industry.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit