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 bill’s 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 what’s 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
Thank you!
No doubt,a vision of things to come.
Quite Welcome,,,”Those People” will never stop their
attack on “Our Race”,,,The American Race,,,We The People...
The only places I’ve ever seen that quote are sources who may not be completely reliable- it’s an interesting quote if he really said it.
To put it so you can understand it (if that is possible), if ICE picks up and deports 10,000 illegals and 1,000 of them come back across the border, that does not mean that the full 10,000 were not deported by ICE. Instead of taking into consideration the fact that 10,000 were deported, I get this "so what, 1,000 came back across the border" attitude. I give credit where credit is due, sorry if you don't, but I deal with facts not rhetoric.
Again, for the record, I am for:
The border fenceA time limit for application for a temporary worker program. If they don't apply by the deadline they are SOL.
Criminal background checks with all convicted criminals immediately deported
Fines for those that broke the immigration laws
Databases set up to track those who are approved
Making sure that those that do stay are gainfully employed and sponsored by their employer who would have to certify that they have made a good faith effort to find Americans to fill those jobs.
The employer would be required to conform to all labor standards, including minimum wage requirements and equal pay standards
A limit on the Visa (maybe 3 years?), so they have to go back and reapply from outside after that, getting in line behind those that already applied.
Immediate family only entry
No anchor babies
I put them in a list format so you can hopefully process the information without going into overload. Now you try something new, like not twisting my words and distorting my views.
Oh, and just for grins, here's another clue for you...see post #27 and #38 as well as other posts on that thread. I was supporting Tancredo's co-sponsored bill back in 2005 and didn't think it was nearly enough. I have one more comment in mind, but I might get banned for it...but suffice it to say you have a certain hand gesture pointed in your direction.
Poor misunderstood and picked-on you. Nobody understands your superior genius, because you’re the only one who can read. Everybody who reads your posts claiming that enforcement is increased thinks you’re telling that lie for a reason. All because we have no reading comprehension.
Actually, I think we've moved in to act of war territory with this one. Bush hates that you believe what you do. Bush is openly hostile to Americans. To his way of seeing things, we are the Weapons of Mass Destruction he must destroy. If you want a border, Bush wants you dead, politically, for sure. Back to slaps and hostility and that meme: We are in a war. The political/globalist classes against the American classes. I'm glad we have guns. I am ready to stand guard at the border. I don't know why we don't form a human wall as act of protest and public service. Boss, I need off next month. My wall duty's coming up. Anyway, I'm rambling: Take away point: Bush hates you. A lot.
I have provided credible sources for my information and you have provided nothing but rhetoric. The facts at the ICE enforcement links speak for themselves, and as for your accusation that I have an agenda, I provided you links from years ago that show I supported Tancredo’s bill, so those assertions also have no basis in fact. BTW, you might want to adjust your ego a little, because you don’t speak for everyone else. Anyone that knows my research skills...and I have been a member here over 6 years...knows that I never would provide false information.
You are the one who spoke for all of us when you called us “ya’ll” then went on to speak for us. I commented on your pretense that we’re all picking on you because we have no reading comprehension. I only speak for myself. I can’t make the others respond to you, or stop them from responding. If you want them to speak for themselves, you might start by pinging them, instead of just referring to them in a post to me, and then interpreting my response as theirs.
“I don’t know why we don’t form a human wall as act of protest and public service”
Name the date and time and I’m there. Why hasn’t someone thought of this before?? ;0)
Btw, who are these other people you’re talking about?
Everybody who reads your posts claiming that enforcement is increased thinks you’re telling that lie for a reason. All because we have no reading comprehension.
That should answer your question. When I explained to the others that posted back to me that I was just responding to correct a post about no enforcement by providing links to facts that show enforcement has increased, they understood, you didn't. Those people are the "y'all" that I was referring to in the context that each one brought up another aspect on this issue that I was not addressing such as aliens coming back across the border, as one example. They responded in a civil manner once they realized that I was just trying to correct the poster with facts pertaining to his comments. You however, decided to continue to attack me, question my motives and call me a liar even though I provided you with clear evidence to the contrary.
Thank you for explaining your lack of reading comprehension. Now see if you can find the post I was responding to when I paraphrased your whining.
Face it. You lied about the level of overall enforcement, misrepresenting a piece of data to suggest it means something it really doesn’t mean. And apparently I wasn’t the only one who noticed. Enforcement of our immigration laws is down, not up. Why would you tell a lie that negates what you claim to believe, unless you don’t really believe what you claim?
I merely corrected someone with facts when they said there was no enforcement, then ya'll went off on a rant about other issues that I never even brought into the equation and I told you that I wasn't going to deal with those issues because they had no bearing on the facts I presented.
Put it in context, dear, I was talking about people ranting about other issues besides the facts I posted. I never stated "y'all had no reading comprehension", just that YOU didn't.
Don't bother to post to me again, I won't respond because apparently you will never get it through that thick skull.
Pinging Rolling Thunder and I’m only on post #64!!!
Protect our Borders FIRST!!!!! DEPORT CRIMINALS!!!!!!
.
As a former recruiter the 1986 law was a total joke with regard to completing the government's form requirements. No one from the government ever showed up to review these forms.
I did believe them in 1986, but I do not believe them now. This is amnesty and no secure borders.
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.