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.
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 whats 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.
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.