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.

[streetpreacher]

“In the nation of Mexico, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind--too little food. Even today, Mexico still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.

 

And now the Mexicans themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Mexico about a new policy of reform and openness on the borders. We hear much from this administration about a new policy of border enforcement and employer sanctions. Fines will be raised. Some economic enterprises that have been permitted to operate with impunity will now face criminal sanctions.

 

Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Administration? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the base, or to strengthen the Open Border system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that sovereignty and security go together, that the advance of American sovereignty can only strengthen the cause of American security. There is one sign the President can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of sovereignty and security.

 

President Bush, if you seek enforcement of our laws, if you seek prosperity for the American people and wish to gain the trust of the Republican base, if you seek a viable Republican Party: Come here to this gate! Mr. President, close this gate! MR. PRESIDENT, BUILD THIS WALL!'"

[YHAOS]

What was it that President Bush said? Let's see; it went something like "You are either with us or you are against us."

Yeah. Well . . . what he said.

[CyberAnt]

I was watching UNITED 93 last night, and I have not stopped crying and yelling in rage at my TV.

How dare these congress people allow our immigration to run amok .. how dare they scoff at us and tell us to shut up .. when they have already forgotten the people WHO DIED TO SAVE YOUR SORRY REAR ENDS.

They don’t deserve OUR VOTES or OUR MONEY .. and until they put America first and not the Mexican govt (and the democrats) .. they will get neither from me. And .. I’m not alone in this sentiment.

[eeevil conservative]

(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.

(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 how much cash they donate to political campaings and/or to the Secretary.

there...fixed it.....

[Quix]

Thanks thanks.

Haven’t had TV last 6 months or so. Miss SG1 even though there are . . . globalist propaganda elements in it.

[philman_36]

Not all employers choose to use Basic Pilot. The new bill would require employers to use the EEVS system, which will lower the chances of an illegal being hired and give the federal government the proof they need to impose civil and criminal fines.
This new bill does more than that. This mandatory requirement would also check all workers, not just "new hires" as your use of the present participle "being" implies.
TITLE III--WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT (starting at [Page: S6641] http://thomas.loc.gov/)
[Page: S6643](D) No later than three years after the date of enactment of this section, all employers shall participate in the EEVS with respect to new employees, all employees whose identity and employment authorization have not been previously verified through EEVS, and all employees in Z status who have not previously presented a secure document evidencing their Z status. The Secretary may specify earlier dates for participation in the EEVS in his discretion for some or all classes of employer or employee.
And yet I'm unsure...also on [Page: S6643]
(3) PARTICIPATION IN EEVS.--The Secretary has the following discretionary authority to require or to permit participation in the EEVS-- ``(A) To permit any employer that is not required to participate in the EEVS to do so on a voluntary basis;
Just where in the bill can I find out just which employers it is who are not required to participate in the EEVS? It seems that the Secretary has the authority to do more than just mitigate penalties. Is that a right also?

This will be a new authority not currently in law.
Anyone reading the bill would know that! It's even laid out at [Page: S6641]...
SEC. 301. PURPOSES.
(c) To authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to access records of other Federal agencies for the purposes of confirming identity, authenticating lawful presence and preventing identity theft and fraud related to unlawful employment.
(d) To ensure that the Commissioner of Social Security has the necessary authority to provide information to the Secretary of Homeland Security that would assist in the enforcement of the immigration laws.
And it's clarified at [Page: S6645]

(v) to confirm identity and work authorization through verification of records maintained by the Secretary, other federal departments, states, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or an outlying possession of the United States, as determined necessary by the Secretary, including:
(I) records maintained by the Social Security Administration as specified in (D);
(II) birth and death records maintained by vital statistics agencies of any state or other United States jurisdiction;
(III) passport and visa records (including photographs) maintained by the United States Department of State; and
(IV) State driver's license or identity card information (including photographs) maintained by State department of motor vehicles; and
I wish you would stop telling me what I already know. Most of what you're doing is just that. I've READ the thing and I'm quite adept at finding what I need in it.
So what exactly are you trying to accomplish with your replies here? Are you trying to convince me that the things being recommended in this bill are good? I'm not convinced yet. As it stands all it sounds like you're doing is lecturing me and I don't need that.
I need you to persuade me that these things won't infringe upon my rights. I want you to ensure me that these things will eliminate any more foreign nationals illegally entering my nation. I need you to tell me that you KNOW that all of the people here illegally will come "out of the shadows" and comply with this if it is implemented into law.
If you can't do those things then I don't even understand why you or the POTUS are even trying to engage anyone on the Net.
BTW, if I'm reading from the wrong source would you let me know?

Something else...You know that I-9 form that everyone fills out and is found mentioned at 8 CFR PART 274a -- CONTROL OF EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS? Why is it, what with the law being in 8 CFR PART 274a.2 Verification of employment eligibility under the auspices of CONTROL OF EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS, that Citizens are filling out I-9 forms? Are we just stupid and don't know any better, believing our government wouldn't mislead us down the primrose path of life or is there some other statute that requires Citizens to fill out an I-9? Or is the REAL ID and the EEVS supposed to legally fill in that loophole?
I also found that "Good faith defense." I mentioned in the other reply at 8 CFR PART 274a.4 as well as "The term knowing..." at Sec. 274a.1 under "Definitions".
It leaves a lot to be desired as far as finality and "proof" is concerned.

[philman_36]

And do check out page 13's Figure 1: SSA’s Disclosure Policy for Law Enforcement at Disclosure Policy for Law Enforcement Allows Information Sharing, but SSA Needs to Ensure Consistent Application

It states quite clearly what and why the SSA will share with ICE DHS.

Nonviolent crimes or criminal activity in other similar government benefit programs (cont.)

Requester/reason for request – To identify and locate aliens (Immigration must certify that persons of inquiries are aliens and not U.S. Citizens.c) – To identify and locate of alleged Nazi war criminals. – To identify aliens with earnings posted to nonwork SSNs.

Personal information SSA discloses SSN and nontax return information. SSN and nontax information. Name, SSN, and address of the alien and name and address of alien’s employer.

[philman_36]

And from the same .pdf file...
Except to identify and locate illegal aliens, SSA generally will not provide any information if law enforcement only provides an SSN and wants to know to whom it is assigned.
There's the mechanism that I knew had to be in place.

And if the average Citizen finds things hard to figure out...
Several possible reasons exist for the inconsistent application of SSA’s disclosure policy. Although our survey showed that most SSA field offices receive requests for information from law enforcement, SSA field officials we spoke with said that they do not receive requests frequently. For example, several officials told us that they received fewer than 10 requests in 2002. Because requests are infrequent, staff must often consult the policy to help them to respond properly. However, many staff members consider the policy confusing. For example, one field office manager said that, “We have doubts as to what information should be provided to U.S. Border Patrol.” Similarly, a manager in another field office said, “SSA[‘s] disclosure policy should be written in “Plain English” to make it easy to understand by all readers.” A different field office manager commented, “[SSA’s] Disclosure policy is still frequently confusing for much of our staff.” This lack of clarity leads to confusion about what should be disclosed. For example, one manager said, “[SSA’s policy] is quite confusing. It’s hard to know what you can disclose.” Another manager commented, “I think the policy should be clearer than it is. There’s too much…’if this, then that, but not this and so on.’”

It isn't amazing any more.

[philman_36]

In light of my last two replies what say you now on your...
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.

...especially your last sentence. Looks to me like the authority already exists.

[philman_36]

Kind of like I figured, you’re a no show. Can’t handle one simple Citizen’s questions?

[philman_36]

Thompson never intended to answer anything in any depth.

4 measly replies is all he's got to show for himself!

[rxgalfl]

As of late, all of the WH lacks conservatism...

[Eric Blair 2084]

Dear Mr. Thompson,

In an interview with Sean Hannity last week, Rep. Duncan Hunter said that when he told President Bush during a meeting that only 11 miles of the double fence has been built, President Bush didn’t even know this.

Do you have any response to Rep. Hunter?

Do you intend to give any meaningful response to anything else that your constituents, donors and die hard supporters here have asked or commented on directly?

Or is this just a hit and run in which you post one comment and assume that everything is all straightened out now?

Please advise.

Thank You,

The People

[Eric Blair 2084]

My apologies. It seems that you did actually respond to two questions/complaints/concerns of fellow FReepers.

How about the rest of the responses? You can take mine last.

For crying out loud liberals engage the left wing blogosphere in direct interviews. You can answer more than two questions.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Two responses. 245 complaints and questions.

You are batting .008. Try to get your batting average above 220 and then maybe people will think that the administration is actually listening. We’ll be here whenever you are done with the other websites.

Thank you.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Is there a snowballs chance in Hell that he will answer anyone’s questions here?

Or are the ignorant unwashed masses unworthy of a reply from even the mouthpiece of our elected representatives?

Government by the people and for the people my ass.

[YHAOS]

"As of late, all of the WH lacks conservatism..."

None that I can descern.

[philman_36]

Is there a snowballs chance in Hell that he will answer anyone’s questions here?
It would appear not.
Or are the ignorant unwashed masses unworthy of a reply from even the mouthpiece of our elected representatives?
It would appear that we're not worthy.

Government by the people and for the people my ass.
Petulant people seem to be in charge.

[ARA]

Lindsey needs to come out of the closet already.

[Osage Orange]

2nd this....................................!!!!