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 bills 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 whats 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
Wasn't that priceless? And those will be the same people overseeing the new probationary visas with the 24 hour background checks.
Doesn't that make you feel safer...?
Sounds great! Take care.
The same feds who can't turn out a passport in THREE MONTHS....
But who sent automatic visa extensions to the 9-11 hijackers, six months after 9-11, when they were the most infamous dead terrorists in history.
LOL... Well said.
Haiku is only 17 syllables.
(just teasing)
So, this is the part where everyone gangs up on the ONE person who dares to disagree, even a little bit. See, these are the precise tactics of a Stalinist regime.
In fact, that you are all gathering, prepared to project your hate and ignorance onto ‘strangers’ and ‘newbies’ and issues on which you are only partially informed are all indications of an illness in our society.
It is an illness, by the way, that Osama bin Laden intends to exploit because it erodes our trust of one another.
Just one more example of how & why your general assault on President Bush is pathetic. And treasonous.
I don't know if he was lying, but he and Congress are not funding! The problem is W and others are not fighting to get the funds. Congress won't fund it for some commie reason. We don't need a new law. We don't need an amendment to a new bill.
Show me the money.
Spokesman Nicholas says what the supposed INTENT is, but with this administration’s incapable track record today on enforcement of law, WHY should it be believed?
Lets face it. The President has been absolutely hollow when it comes to the subject of illegals. And his empty ovations do nothing to convince us otherwise.
His and Ted Kennedy’s push for Amnesty is treasonous.
I pose a question;
Which is more OFFENSIVE to our Military being sent into harm’s way to protect the citizens of our Country?
(A.) The Democrats trying to undermine the Military at every turn?
or...
(B.) A Commander in Chief hellbent to cheapen the meaning of Citizenship?
I’d argue that (B.) is the most repulsive. (You expect the Democrats to be anti- American deconstructionist socialist meddlesome malcontents anyway.)
...whereas:
B. is the worst kind of betrayal; ...you SHOULDN’T expect the President of The United States to sell out the Country at home, while at the very same moment he calls upon our best in the Armed Forces to fight for us overseas... What an outrage!
George Bush should be impeached or imprisoned for ignoring the rule of law, the most important lynchpin for Civilization, and the one thing that has set this Nation as the example for the rest of the World to follow.
.
God help us.
I think an even dozen is about right, with maybe 3 screen names per each.”
One of them is probably Nicholas Thompson
White House Office of Strategic Initiatives
This is all like a broken record that plays the same song- but since President Bush and others have not listened in the past maybe it is a good idea to rehash the issues.
Please Mr. President,enforce immigration laws already on the books and close the border, then we will listen to ideas about what to do about the illegals already here.
Uh, yeah, what is that supposed to symbolize, exactly? More pictures necessary to make a point? Not good with words?
“I consider people who verbally assault our President without just cause to be TREASONOUS.
WE ARE AT WAR.”
If Hillary is elected, and we are still in Iraq, will you accuse people critical of her of treason? No, I didn’t think so. That argument has grown increasingly transparent and weak in recent days. Feel free to persuade me that you would defend Hillary and accuse her attackers of treason - but don’t expect me to believe you. At all.
P.S... A great many of us think the President’s refusal to defend America’s sovereignty and obey his oath of office is what’s treasonous here. However, unlike some, my opinion of the president’s duties doesn’t change just depending on what letter comes after their name.
Bravo; the ‘lost’ comment was more of a ‘soul’ thing.
Sorry, we don't prosecute (or even frown on) that anymore.
Gadahn slipped thru the cracks somehow, some overzealous bureocrat somewhere.
Well if I was a soldier in the middle east getting shot at and having my buddies die for a country that was selling them out behind their backs I would be tempted to seek a firm redress of my grievances. And if I was a Senator doing the selling out I would be scared sh^tless when I finally realized what I had done.
Hey, you’re kinda fun for a troll.
I think that what's assing you up is that you have over-played your hand and folks here are on to you.
White House shills shovel
Laying it on wide and deep
Pure fertilizer
Makes me feel like we’re totally screwed, thanks to the OBL Quisling traitors.
I double checked my post. I didn’t find the word “easy” anywhere in my text. We do it because it is the law, but it does take some effort. It takes some effort to drug screen every applicant. It takes some effort to comply with Texas worker’s comp, OSHA, CLIA, and HIPPA; but it’s the law. I sleep well at night because we don’t bend the laws to make a few extra bucks.
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.