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
No, it would take many years, but ICE putting on a public relations raid every 4 or 5 months and arresting a couple hundred illegals is a bad joke.
A little history from 1954: Operation Wetback
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
Result: Operation Wetback deported approximately 80,000 Mexican nationals in the space of almost a year, although local INS officials claimed that an additional 500,000-700,000 had fled to Mexico before the campaign began.
The INS estimates rested on the claim that most undocumented people, fearing apprehension by the government, had voluntarily repatriated themselves before and during the operation.
If so, they can write me and I’ll proudly provide my real name, address and phone number with a request that someone actually call me.
Excellent ..
I think it's high time the President hears and reads the vox populi, pungent or not.
.....and here it is.....the Americans posting here on Free Republic are a cross-section of this nation unequalled in any media anywhere.
We're letting it all hang out, brother.
Leni
Bravo and AMEN !!
You got that right - I was doing my best to keep them from ruining a chance to get our views heard.
I am really worried about all of this. Who would have thought we would have to fight to have the President of the United States protect our borders? Who would have thought the democrat party would move heaven and earth to have the country overrun with illegals so that they could set up their socialized state without having to get votes to do it?
Scary stuff.
And, this is the first time I have turned on President Bush. I don’t understand that he is too blind to see the dangers we face. I am questioning his true motivations when he would side with the democrats to turn this country into a socialistic state.
And this is pretty serious when you have to worry if your own president has suddenly chosen to allow the democrats to rule the country without gaining the votes to do it.
What is going on? He knows better than we do that the government cannot be trusted with the democrats in charge. Laws will change if they want them changed. So why are we fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan and then doing nothing about the battle to protect America here from the dangers of the media and the democrats?
I agree completely. Further to your point, ignorance of the law isn’t an exculpable consideration.
If an employer, “in good faith”, accidentally hires an illegal, it should only be due to the fact that he’s hired an identity thief, and not because they didn’t know to run the check.
LOL!! Great pic....
bookmark
As have I.
I will not have my money going to those who choose to side with the democrats when the chips are down.
My money will go to those proceeding conservative goals.
Thanks for the ping to this F15Eagle, I appreciate it. At least this one is being forthright about posting... I still have questions about some of the ‘trolls’ we’ve seen here though. The ones who perpetrate those ‘hit & run’ posts using one sentence ‘talking points’ and refusing to debate rationally...
As another poster said, and I wholeheartedly agree, I think they should be READING what we’re writing instead of posting the same BS we hear everyday coming from Bush & the Senators who are supporting this amnesty deal. It’s time for them to tell the truth and stop trying to spin this in order to pull the wool over people’s eyes.
And, thank you Jim, for working so hard to keep FreeRepublic going. It means a lot to all of us who post here — but more importantly it means a lot to our country...
To N. Thompson:
“Your 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.”
Sir the tone of this explanation clearly demonstrates that the AG’s office is more inclined to let offenders slide than prosecute.
There in lies our distrust of this bill, and those who wish to promote it.
Such wishey washey language makes it clear to employers that they need not earnestly seek the truth, but simply fulfill the letter of the law, not its intent.
We’re not buying it, sir. not at all.
Enforce the border.
Arrest the employers of illegals and prosecute.
Deport offenders of the border.
And day by day, it shall be accomplished.
It is indeed that simple.
.
The WH shill was a drive-by pimp
Close the border and deport them one at a time.
To hear 'them' say that "no-one is thinking of deporting 12 million people", makes me furious. Why Not? Take'em out by the truck load the same way they got here.
He only replied one time. I did see a link where he had responded on another forum. Believe it’s on the other thread.
Hopefully he was surprised at the reaction he got here and most replies were good ones.
Like Most on this board, I voted for GWB both times and I have supported in most of what he has done.
I don't support this and I think he should unleash the dogs of war.
But not this, I cannot/will not support this in any form.
The current administration is not concerned with the RNC or the people. Our president is on a schedule - a global schedule. One that needs to have this done now.
If he wins this, the RNC will fail. Win or lose, he cannot be reelected and the American people will lose, more than likely, either way.
The NAF nickthompson is the author and ex-Washington Monthly (and other publications) journalist.
I’m still not sure about the WH Nick.
All I am saying is that you do not get listened to when you sound irrational, you sound out of control, you sound like a good ole boy boasting of how much he hates the president.
You get listened to when you state your views concisely, clearly so that they come across as well thought out opinions from a thoughtful American.
No politician will waste time giving a person a forum to throw around big ole macho rantings. That is just blowing off steam and solves nothing.
Look back at the posts that make you respect the poster. Generally they are the ones full of facts to support their opinions, explained carefully. These are the ones that are noted - the others are just fodder.
Same with ones comments in a work environment. How do you talk to your supervisor? You state your views professionally if you want to be deemed credible. They will be thrown in the trash once the rhetoric turns to insults, rantings, trash language. Facts are facts.
I saw this for a fact years, years ago with the writings of a person upset over an appraisal - all rantings, rage filled messages were immediately discarded and ignored as a person out of control.
We could always subcontract out to Fed Ex.
They could do it overnight............
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.