Skip to comments.Penalty Mitigation in the Immigration Reform Bill [White House Spokesman Responds: Post #53]
Posted on 06/13/2007 6:57:12 AM PDT by philman_36
This morning on Fox and Friends there was made mention that much stricter fines are in the immigration reform bill. While this is true many folks may not know about a few words that follow the language about the tougher fines. Those words make a travesty of any "fines" as they can be waved and the employer could walk away owing nothing in penalties.
Here are the words I've got a problem with...
So while we're being told that "the penalties are tougher" we aren't being told that under some circumstances employers can face reduced or even no fine whatsoever.
At this point of time in our history America can't afford our officials not being completely truthful to us and not stating that the possibility exists for employers to potentially be let off the hook completely is simply unacceptable.
Well, for one thing if they return to Mexico permanently at some later date (say for retirement), they get to pay U.S. federal taxes on all global income for the next 10 years. Even if not one penny of that income is from the U.S.
That's an advantage, yes?
It’s in the proposed bill so they can appear tough when they aren’t actually going to enforce anything.
And not deporting them is not upholding the "rule of law." It seems that's become an empty phrase. Furthermore, not upholding the rule of law and not deporting them is condoning, and encouraging, further illegal aliens to break our laws.
With all the friggin' lawyers in this country, I can't believe there's no class action suit against the Federal government. Some lawyer could make a ton of money.
The American people have raised a deafening cry of foul play! regarding this bill. So the bills supporters, our formerly esteemed president chief among them, are resorting to doing what they do best. They are using a carefully-crafted combination of semantics and outright lies in an effort to quell the revolt.
The problem for them this time (hopefully) may be that those who are up in arms about this travesty tend to be those who do not receive their information from the mainstream media (fair and balanced FoxNews included FoxNews may well be fair and balanced in the coverage within a particularly story, but they are nearly as guilty as the rest of the propaganda disseminators of neglecting to cover in-depth stories that cry out for attention, while focusing on Paris-Hilton-like bread and circuses. A pox on them all.)
So, whether the presidents and senates disingenuousness (yes, Im being kind) plays out as they hope is yet to be seen.
But, if youre taking bets on whether some form of this amnesty/end-of-the-republic-as-we-knew-it bill eventually becomes law, Im betting 1/2 that it eventually passes the senate, and 3/1 that it eventually passes the house.
At which point we may as well lay out the welcome mat for the eventual end of republican government, and the eventual entrenchment of complete socialist/elitist rule, with the average white, middle-class, hard-working American assuming minority status (God help us then), and the end of the American experiment in the supremacy of individual freedom.
I know you recall that wonderful Claire Wolf quote. Do you think it's still "too early to shoot the bastards"? No response expected (I can guess)...
Young lady, now is not the time to be kind!
...those who do not receive their information from the mainstream media...
I listen to catch them in their "obfuscation" and there's plenty of it these days.
Thanks for the reply.
A whole 492 views...Oh, I really got the word out. Paul Revere would be highly disappointed.
On the contrary. John Hancock and Samuel Adams heard Revere's call. The rest are pretty much incidental.
It's not the quantity that matters. It's the quality of the message, and what those who hear it do with its contents. Believe me, the ripple effect is alive and well. Revere would be proud.
Just say NO to Amnesty!! Keep calling!! Its NOT OVER!!
U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121
U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121
White House comments: (202) 456-1111
Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep
Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
I would like to point out that the Secretary is authorized to reduce or mitigate penalities against employers who in good faith are trying to comply with the law. Certainly, we understand that not all employers knowingly hire illegal immigrants; this will remain the case, especially before the bill’s new secure documentation requirements are fully phased in. We do not seek to wrongly penalize honest employers who unknowingly hire illegal immigrants, therefore we reserve the right to reduce or mitigate their penalties if the employer can show good faith compliance in following the law.
For those employers who do knowingly hire illegal immigrants, please know that we intend to penalize these employers strongly, and the Administration has already stepped up these penalties in the last couple of years. For example, a 2005 program, “Operation Rollback,” assessed $15,000,000 in civil fines to employers, an amount greater than the sum of administrative fines collected in the previous eight years and was the largest worksite enforcement penalty in US history. In the first quarter of FY07, criminal and civil forfeitures have totaled $26,700,000 for employers.
As a reminder of what’s in the bill, fines for hiring an illegal worker are $5,000 maximum per illegal worker for the first offense, $10,000 maximum per illegal worker for the second, $25,000 maximum per illegal worker for the third , and $75,000 maximum per illegal worker for the fourth. In addition, the bill increases the maximum criminal penalty for a pattern or practice of unlawful hiring twenty-five-fold, from $3,000 to $75,000, and would impose a prison term of up to six months. This represents a significant increase in fines for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
White House Office of Strategic Initiatives
And if it manages to pass, I'll cease supporting the Republican Party entirely.
We are your base. Listen.
I agree with Lurker. Furthermore, the GOP is killing their own party by ignoring what the American People have been saying via fax, phone calls and letters.
Apathy in the core of the RNC should scare the heck out of the WH and any GOP contender for 08.
A little history lesson about apothetic voters in the GOP only has to go back to Perot. Unless that is the whole idea?