Here's a whole bunch of 'em.
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.
Comments or corrections requested.
Mushroom governance. Keep the sheeple in the dark and feed ‘em $#!t.
Anyone, anyone?
Anything other than deporting those here illegally is called AMNESTY, no matter how much you have your spin machine cycle it.
Just more boob bait for Bubba.
right now even a 10 year excludability can be reduced upon application and showing cause.
(it keeps immigration lawyers busy)
For example an person excluded for 10 years may be able to get a waiver for the excludability because they petition for an investor visa.
IOW you are going to generate about 300k worth of business in the USA.
(IOW the immigration lawyer helps set up a sham corporation which does some amount of business and on paper is real but in reality is just a flea market tshirt shop which has no net profit but exists until the green card arrives.)
The Bill was written by enemies of the American citizens so why would we expect there to be enforcable penalties for their “troops”?
Two questions:
What percentage of these “troops” do you think will go through the trouble of learning English and paying a $5000 fine to become an American citizen?
What advantage is there for them to be an American citizen?
What does it matter? What makes anyone think that these laws would be enforced with any more diligence than any of the current immigration-related laws?
You are correct about them being “troops”.
They are the troops, the roving enforcers, for all the wonderful changes that GWB, McCain, Kennedy, and Dodd have in store for us...
and worse in that picture is BOTH of mine are on the far right. And the answers to my calls and emails are farcical.
What advantage is there for them to be an American citizen?
Since they get almost everything that citizens get now, and sometimes even more, there is none. Better to stay below the radar and weather out this latest squall.
Trent Lott is quoted DIRECTLY in another thread stating the enforce first amendmetns would be made meaningless in the conference committee.
IOW if these amendments are passed, the fix is in to scrub them.
Excellent post, and a critical piece of information which needs to be brought to the attention of the American people at every opportunity.
What does it matter?
Evidently the programs and packages in the bill are where the real desire is. If it all passes without too much scrutiny then we're stuck with them. So much has been pushed through riding under good intentions it isn't funny.
It's like the minimum wage increase. That wasn't a stand alone bill, it got pushed in with a war appropriations bill. Who is going to vote against a war appropriations bill no matter what else is in there? They would be labeled as "not supporting the troops".
Sometimes, in fact many times, our Congressmen/women don't even know what they're passing because they aren't even reading the bills before them!
And the answers to my calls and emails are farcical.
Ah, the old canned responses. Been there...
I'll just link that in case anyone is interested...
Bush lobbies Senate on immigration (Lott's Outrageous Comment)
So for a $2,000 campaign contribution you can get $100,000 in fines waived.... Not a bad investment.
Crooks.
Hairbacks?
That is exactly the way I see it.
When I look around, we have traitors in Washington and unfortunately noone is going to put them on trial. Us voters seem to think that elections are enough of a trial and we can’t be bothered with going thru the time and expense of rounding up the signatures for a recall.
We have the ignorant voter who knows diddly squat about this imigration bill and could care less because they only vote in presidential elections if at all.
Then there is the American who doesn’t care who’s in office as long as him and the wife have decent paying jobs and the kids aren’t mugged on their way to public school.
We elect politicians who seem to consistently be about 180 days behind what’s posted on FR. In some cases 640 days but they’ll sign any bill placed in front of them as long as their favorite lobbyist doesn’t object.
These are the ignorant buggers who are schocked right out of their underwear when the people start calling his office and demanding that he withdraw his support for a bill. Then he has to back out of the deals he’s already made with the lobbyists for contributions.
This idea of ‘elected for life’ needs to be vigorously opposed by the voters if we are going to have any chance at all of saving America.
DRIP = “Don’t Return Incumbent Politicians,” – two terms, and they’re out.
The first term they make friends and learn how to get a bill passed. The second term they can actually write some bills that will help us and then get out of DC.
Prior version of Title III, which was supposed to impose a fine of $25K per illegal up to $75K per and an additional $1K plus the risk of criminal charges.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/7c7decff-7cb5-42ab-925b-0a2b3df05ff4
This may be moot as I’d read that R’s who are not Trent Lott are demanding more enforcement in any subsequent bill.
Bears repeating over and over.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
We elect politicians who seem to consistently be about 180 days behind what’s posted on FR.
That has got to infuriate them.
This idea of ‘elected for life’ needs to be vigorously opposed by the voters if we are going to have any chance at all of saving America.
LOL...Does the name Jack Brooks ring a bell?
Right, but the bill is gone. It’s up to Ted Kennedy to figure out how much he wants a deal, Lott or not Lott.
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?
/sarc
It’s in the proposed bill so they can appear tough when they aren’t actually going to enforce anything.
No sale.
Ditto
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 bill’s 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 president’s and senate’s disingenuousness (yes, I’m being kind) plays out as they hope is yet to be seen.
But, if you’re taking bets on whether some form of this amnesty/end-of-the-republic-as-we-knew-it bill eventually becomes law, I’m 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.
~ joanie
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.
~ joanie
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.