Posted on 06/14/2007 11:16:52 AM PDT by kristinn
A spokeman for the Bush administration sent an e-mail to Jim Robinson and myself confirming the authenticity of a post on Free Republic this afternoon regarding the immigration bill currently before the Senate as having been posted on behalf of the White House.
The spokesman, Nicholas Thompson, works for the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives. The Politico reported yesterday that Thompson and Kerrie Rushton, associate directors in the Office of Strategic Initiatives who work under Karl Rove, would be engaging the blogosphere on the immigration bill.
Thompson's post is on the thread titled Penalty Mitigation in the Immigration Reform Bill, a vanity posted by philman_36. Thompson posted at comment #53.
Thompson's e-mail to Free Republic included a brief introduction and the text of his posted comment:
Hi,
I just wanted to let you know that I just posted a response to the post "Penalty Mitigation in the Immigration Reform Bill."
The White House appreciates the opportunity to respond on Free Republic.
Response:
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.
Nicholas Thompson
White House Office of Strategic Initiatives
True. And you've got to like the fact the post didn't begin with "Hi, Bigots".
Nonetheless, I've no interest in discussing any "regularization of illegals" until after the federal government has conclusively demonstrated that they can -- and will -- secure the border and enforce employment laws. As well as monitor and control aliens with expired visas.
Give me three years of performance...and we can take a look at the next step.
Amen!
** snork **
I am betting the White House is not going to like this thread....
What a bunch of BS.....the government has not protected the borders for years.....they have allowed illegal alien lawbreakers to have the run of the country.....they have provided these lawbreakers with education, healthcare etc. Anyone who thinks the government is now going to enforce the law should come see me as I’m selling a bridge in Brooklyn.
I'd like to know by what measure does ICE judge the effectiveness of their 'new approach', given that the numbers of illegal crossings and their subsequent employment are at unprecedented levels.
IMO the only thing they seek to deter is criticism of their lack of effectiveness.
How serious can we take them when they let innocent CITIZENS go to jail for doing their job and let gang members and drug smugglers pour over the border.
PLEEEEZZEE !
Go read the link I posted on 465.
Ace of Spades couldn’t put it more clearly.
I’m amused that the WH thinks they still have any credibility left on this issue. Who are they trying to fool?
Why did Pres. Bush force the Senate to remove the back taxes requirement for illegals when it was clear that even the Democrats were supporting this requirement?
Dixie, I agree with your post. My husband’s company employs over 100 people. It doesn’t take a whole lot of effort to verify a job applicant’s legal status and background.
If any employer hires illegal immigrants it is because he/she is either lazy or CHOOSES to hire illegals. (probably the latter, because it is less costly)
We have no Hispanics (legal or otherwise) working at our plant. Not because we don’t want them, but here in the Black Hills, there are so few of them. Perhaps the snow and cold has influenced that. If this shameful bill passes, that will, I fear, probably change.
Even though we live in a small pocket of America that is relatively free of the problems associated with illegal immigrants, I am certainly aware of the situation. We travel alot throughout the country and we have most of our family in Texas. Everytime we go there to visit, we feel we are in a different country. Two of my cousins in Texas recently took early retirement because they refused to teach in Spanish. We just returned last night from a 10-day trip to California and Nevada. I felt like we were coming back to America when we landed in South Dakota. Sad, isn’t it?
The message appears to be obtuse or abstruse or something along those lines. It needs bullet points, no more than seven, and each point should have no more than five phrases. The way it is seems obfuscatory, and deliberately so. This should be simple or it should be sent to the landfill. Perhaps the White House has the germ of a good idea or perhaps not, but we need the patience of a reader of Proust to begin to make sense of this.
I agree that the INS was a joke...it was poorly organized... but ICE has dramatically increased enforcement, that is a fact. I am not being an apologist or parroting their lines, I am presenting facts. I will give credit where credit is due, unlike most on here that keep screaming about how there is no enforcement, when it has not only increased substantially, but they are starting to arrest employers and seize their assets rather than fining them, which did no good at all.
Welcome to FR. Please pass this message on to President Bush: Mr. President, I believe that you are a decent, compassionate man. That is partly why I voted for you for President. I also voted for you because I believe that you truly love this country and would work for the benefit of all of it’s citizens. Mr. President, you have let your compassion get in the way of what you have elected to do. It’s fine that you want people of other nations to have the same opportunities that the citizens of the United States have, but your loyalty must be to U.S. citizens. It is not your right or duty to assist non-citizens at the expense of citizens. Once you are out of office you will be free to do as you please to further your agenda. But for the next 18 months you have a duty to act in the best interest of the citizens of this country. Thank you for serving our country and may God Bless you and your family.
I'm going to bet that your comment will be the absolutely most sensible comment to appear on this thread, so I feel pretty comfortable getting back to my housework.
Kudos!
You’re a businessman, in 1986 a business proposal is put to you, while far from perfect, it will fix a problem for you, so you agree and the deal is signed.
You immediately fulfill every one of your required items in the contract, but in the intervening twenty years your partner never fulfills his required actions in the contract, in fact, he makes only the most minimal and token efforts to appear to care about his contractual obligations.
Now, twenty years later, your partner again comes to you with the same plan, gussied up a bit, but on the whole, the same plan he proposed but failed to live up to back in 1986.
Are you going to gladly sign the new contract, or are you going to be very apprehensive and if not rejecting it outright, demand that he prove he will carry out his contractual obligations?
That is exactly where we are today and why we have been telling Bush for six years: “Secure the borders first” to prove his and Congress’ true intentions before we agree to any further phony “immigration reforms”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.