Penalty Mitigation in the Immigration Reform Bill [White House Spokesman Responds: Post #53]

Free Republic ^ | 6-13-2007 | philman_36

[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...

(D) The Secretary is authorized to reduce or mitigate penalties imposed upon employers, based upon factors including, but not limited to, the employer's hiring volume, compliance history, good-faith implementation of a compliance program, participation in temporary worker program, and voluntary disclosure of violations of this subsection to the Secretary.

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.

[ForGod'sSake]

I humbly submit that the thread/thread topic itself was what hit the nerve.

True enough, and were it not for Kristinn's THREAD announcing the arrival of the Whitehouse dude, it may have been languishing in obscurity still. A sad testament to FR IMHO.

What really gives me the reda$$ is the troll-like, post and run tactic of the Whitehouse dude. Classy guy. If Thompson was/is a believer in the cause, he surely would have stuck around to defend his/their position. The fact he didn't, probably makes him a liar and cannon fodder for Rove and Co.

FGS

[GatorGirl]

Welcome back.

If you truly want to “engage the blogosphere” on this, could you stop concentrating on enforcement, which, if this bill passes will immediately become obsolete because there will no longer be “illegal” aliens having all been legalized by the “temporary Z Visa”.

Could you instead address the costs, fairness, and lack of enforcement of all the previous legislation that adequately covers this situation?

Thanks in advance!! GG

p.s. Count me in as one who has been sending back my postage page envelopes to the RNC telling them they will never get a dime from me unless and until this bill is dead and buried and the fence is built!

[GatorGirl]

Thanks B4.

Mr. Thompson, could you possibly take the time to refute these 20 points? That would go a long way toward creating a dialog about this very important issue. All we’ve heard so far is that we are bigots and racists.

Thanks in advance! GG

[nthompsonwhitehouse]

All illegal aliens will not immediately gain legal status if this bill passes, and no one is immediately given Z status. The only people granted Z status are those who come out of the shadows and apply, which involves a probationary period that is gained through a preliminary background check.

They will stay in probationary status while a Z visa application is pending, and it may be revoked at any time if the applicant is found ineligible for the Z visa, fails to maintain a clean record, or fails the background check required for obtaining a Z visa.

If the applicant is found eligible for the Z status, then the worker must pay a $1,000 fine for head of household and $500 per dependent; up to $1,500 in processing fees per applicant, including heads of household and dependents; and a $500 state impact assistance fee.

[Gelato]

... the Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS), which the government would have a record of. Under current law, employers can voluntarily participate in Basic Pilot, which will tell an employer whether or not an employee (using name and SSN) is eligible to work.... The new bill would require employers to use the EEVS system...

You appear to be saying that the government plans to maintain a database on all American workers, require employers to only hire persons in that database, and give the government regulatory oversight into an individual's "eligibility" for employment.

Is this correct?

3) Persons will have to present a secure ID (whether REAL ID or another form)

In addition, you appear to be saying that every American worker now will be required to have a new, barcoded identification card, such as the controversial REAL ID, possibly equipped with an RFID-chip, in order to be employed.

Is this correct?

Please advise.

[CutePuppy]

First, you are saying that you are successfully enforcing the laws aimed to reduce influx of illegals into this country. Next, you are saying that the laws as they exist now are unenforcible and we need new laws which must include legalization of those “first” (or is it “second” after Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986) illegals and that all those things we could not do before we will do with “new” illegals.

Then you help impugn your base’s motives as racist and their ideas as dumb and unrepresentative of nation at large, which is 180 degrees opposite of truth. Yet you could not convince Ed Meese who said in his WSJ commentary “This isn’t the 1986 amnesty deal all over again. It’s worse.” and who should know having been there :
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1846283/posts
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB118117067166127039.html

We know who are behind this bill on Democrats’ side and why. We also read WSJ and FT and Economist and IBD and BusinessJornals and we know who are behind this bill and who are paying for it in contributions on GOP side and who are looking to carve it up like a turkey:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1842962/posts
“Business’ Tepid Take On Immigration Bill Grows Cooler Still As Senators Tinker”

This is the issue which drives your poll numbers down, far more than Iraq, a tremendous military success story which you bungled politically and PR-wise.

Please, don’t insult our intelligence and motives when we (a sizable majority of the people in this case) disagree with you on this issue, after we (your base) have gone to great length to defend your intelligence and motives on countless issues against attacks from your “disloyal opposition” - liberals and even “moderates” on both sides of the isle.

[Nickname]

We know how this works.

A company gets busted and they cry to their senator that lack of cheap labor is a hardship to their bottom dollar. Said senator waltzes over to the Justice Dept. and asks them to knock off enforcement. Justice Dept. apologizes for the inconvenience and the company goes on as usual with their hiring practices.

That sums up what Senator Hagel and others did with Operation Vanguard, which was having success.

Welcome to the information age.

Lastly, is President Bush with Americans or against them? Just as we did not want new taxes, we do not want new amnesty.

[Hi Heels]

Frankly, I couldn't care less what blah blah blah is in the works to smack slave laborer employers down for using illegals. They are here illegally. We don't (and I speak for 80%+ Americans)want them here. We are sick and tired of paying for their medical care. We are sick and tired of giving them welfare. We are sick and tired of funding endless programs for a people who broke the law, climbed over the fence, went ahead of honest people, and commit crimes. I'm sick and tired of posting endless MediCal claims of which a GIGANTIC majority of them are hispanic surnames and I'll just betcha some dough most are illegals. The American people have spoken. Take that to the front office and tell them all. Hear us. Before things get unfriendly and some Washington employees get canned. I'm a big supporter of the president. But on this issue, we have a big disagreement (there. I said it. And I didn't even have to be disrespectful). As for the comments at hand....

"Certainly, we understand that not all employers knowingly hire illegal immigrants".

Bullpucky. If they follow the law as written and demand the documentation as required, the possibility of "accidently" hiring an illegal is diminished significantly. Further, I don't think the numbers would be in the MILLIONS!!!! if employers had even given it a thought. They didn't and won't. The law is unenforcable.

Smoke and mirrors. Whoever votes for Amnesty will likely not be reelected. Mr. President, PUT UP THAT WALL.

[kalee]

There is absolutely NO way I will support this bill. I will also NOT support any Republican who signs on to it.

I am NOT a racist, I am not a bigot and I am mad as well you get the picture.
NO to Amnesty.
Close the borders.
Fine employers and send the ILLEGALS home.

[acoulterfan]

2) The Social Security Administration and DHS will scan EEVS’s submitted information to see if SSNs are being used repeatedly (i.e. identity thefts leading to forged documents usually use the same SSN over and over). If SSN X is used in six different states by 20 different people, we will know that 19 people have forged documents and we can pick them up. This will be a new authority not currently in law. 3) Persons will have to present a secure ID (whether REAL ID or another form) that will be used to match the SSN submitted to the person taking the job. By comparing the two, employers can determine if they match. 4) Additionally, EEVS has a feature that allows employers to view photos associated with the SSN, either through a passport application, a visa application or eventually a REAL ID. This will allow the employer another opportunity to make sure documents are not forged.

Was it Sessions said that after reviewing this it would take 32 YEARS to implement these safeguards as well as get the fingerprints and background checks completed for all of the people already here?!?!?!

[BillT]

Same Sh*t Different Day (SSDD)

[muawiyah]

You really need to know that the penalties exacted of mailers who prepare postage mailing statements in error are $10,000 PLUS up to 20 years in prison.

I have to laugh at your idea of what a penalty is ~

[flaglady47]

“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.”

My question is, why is it that none of this was done in the previous eight years you speak of. Most of which was under Bush’s term as President. And we are to believe that Bush, his administration, and Congress will actually pursue employers? What a laugh. It hasn’t been done for years, and I trust your belief that employers will actually be penalized in any large numbers or dollar amounts about as far as I can throw you. What we have here is yet another loophole in the bill that will allow a cop-out for employers who hire illegals by their saying mea culpa, I didn’t know they were illegal, really....

Pardon my extreme scepticism, based on the past track record of our federal gov’t in enforcing ANY of our current illegal immigration laws. Enforce the current laws first, and then we’ll see about anything else. And BUILD THAT 854 MILE FENCE Congress voted for last year which is now, after 6 months plus, a grand total of 13 miles long. Want an example of how nothing will be done by our gov’t and/or President if and when this new immigration bill is passd (over my dead and cold body)? This is it in spades.

[armymarinemom]

Just my 2 cents.

I worked very hard during the 2004 election and I feel as if I have been duped. There are very bad people shooting at my son in a far off land while our President seems intent on leaving the back door open right here in our own country.

Protect our borders and enforce the law! Or you can just stay....It's our security stupid.

[Czar]

"And what responses have our deep concerns received from Mr. Thompson?
(*crickets*)

Worse than crickets, joanie. See #399. Gives new meaning to the term "tepid".

As for trusting anyone who is a spokesman for the White House, Congress or the federal government -- I rest my case.

[philman_36]

Rest assured my next reply will not be as flippant as the last one was. I work a twelve hour shift on the weekends and I don't have sufficient time to properly formulate or post a fitting reply for the seriousness of the issue. I hope that you'll be patient and wait for a more proper reply.

In all honesty, despite your assurance to Mr. Robinson that you were who you say you are, I still wasn't sure of your identity. Furthermore, it seemed rather strange to me that you didn't reply to any of the other posters or their issues. Now that you've responded to my reply I'm more assured and will be much more serious in discussing this matter. Until sometime early Monday morning then...

[philman_36]

What really gives me the reda$$ is the troll-like, post and run tactic of the Whitehouse dude.
From the few responses it would seem that he is being statement specific. See #402 - #404.

[philman_36]

An assertion is made...could you stop concentrating on enforcement, which, if this bill passes will immediately become obsolete because there will no longer be “illegal” aliens having all been legalized by the “temporary Z Visa”...
And an answer was given...All illegal aliens will not immediately gain legal status if this bill passes, and no one is immediately given Z status.

We're not playing with standard rules here folks. Realize to whom it is you're talking with!

[philman_36]

Look at his posting history.
Reply #875 indicates that he is following the threads.
He'll probably be following them all weekend.

See my 417/418 reply joanie.

[philman_36]

I've got to go! Work calls.