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
I’ve been wondering about the enforcement issue of old laws as well, but apparently they don’t cover enough territory to do what needs to be done. I’m no expert, but I’ve seen enough to know that we can fix more w/ current technology capabilities then was possible 20 years ago. I’m sure they’re attempting to revise laws from 1986, and then through the 1990s.
We’ve had several ‘amnesty’ bills since 1986, so I can’t fathom the matter of precedents alone, much less the integration of the numerous government agencies involved. This is one place where the MSM should be using the term ‘quagmire’ and it is actually appropriate.
I certainly don’t think President Bush has a loser mentality, and while I do think that Senator Kennedy is a loser, I would rather see the whole lot of them working together to solve issues like this instead of fighting about BS such as the attorney general firings, the fake CIA Leak case, or the ‘beat Republicans’ talking points being sold around DC by Chuck Schumer.
A lot of these folks are slimy, self-serving politicians. I don’t consider President Bush to be a ‘politician’. He is not slimy, nor self-serving, he is a leader. I am praying to God that He continue to grant those with good intentions the wisdom to do what is best for our nation.
Hehe! That’s it? Thanks for that.
It seems that big money corporate donors are being protected by the maximums and the bill has no teeth if their aren't any minimums. It's funny how it always seems to work that way. I'm sure it's just a coincidence. /sarcasm
Look, there is no honest reason to couple border enforcement and immigration reform. Washington wants cheap labor and socialist voters, so they let illegal immigration become a crisis by non-enforcement. This way they can put their pet policies in with a bill that "promises" enforcement. This is right out of the Clinton play book.
You are only damaging the party more with this insulting "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" strategy. I know it sucks to have intelligent principled voters as your base instead of the emotional sheeple on the side of the aisle, but we aren't going to be misled on this issue. We're watching, informed, and disgusted.
Tony Snow was on Laura Ingraham this morning accusing opponents of this bill as being uninformed about the enforcement provisions. This bill could have draconian enforcement provisions but it makes no difference if there is no political will behind them. You have squandered the bases faith and support. I wish you luck in trying to gain it back, but based on Bush's obstinance in pushing this bill I'm afraid that's not much of a possibility.
Unless the Whitehouse gets a clue, 2008 is going to be a electoral bloodletting. The "Lesser Evil" campaign isn't going to save the GOP this time. Did you learn nothing from 2006?
FreeReign: I'm against the immigration bill. I think the President is wrong on it. The President didn't call me a racist or unAmerican. Perhaps you should carefully review the full context of what the President said.
He said we didn’t want what’s best for America and implies those arguing against are against it because of the color of their skin and the language they speak. Just because he hasn’t used the direct words like Graham or Chavez doesn’t mean the rest of us have to play the fool and ignore his obvious meaning.
All of us believe that what we want for America is best for America. It doesn't me we think that the person with an opposing point of view is unAmerican. And the President didn't call us racist for opposing the bill.
You play the fool.
They can spin all they want. The amnesty will never be accepted.
BTTT!
Can you explain for those of us who have never verified a SSN of a job applicant, what it takes to do so?
The rule of law is gone... If the Mexicans can do what they want, why the hell can’t Americans ???
It is the Constitutional duty of the United States to protect us from invasion.
Get back to work!
We are very fortunate to have Sen Inhofe. I used to get irritated in San Antonio when we lived in TX and clerks would talk in Spanish and laugh when we were in line. I found it rude and wanted to put up a sign English Only back then.
I've been looking for polling data that shows what naturalized citizens think of this bill. Anybody have any links?
If I am not mistaken I think I heard Tony Snow say the existing laws are not enforceable. Well, the same idiot congresscritters that put those laws in that they say are not enforceable are the same ones who are trying to make new laws that they will eventually say are not enforceable.
Is that it? After everything posted to you here that's the best you can do? I only care if you are affiliated with the White House.
You made a mistake when you posted here. You, like "W" on this ILLEGAL'S subject, are not at all impressive.
A lot of folks here bled for your boss. Who do you think it was in Florida defending Bush? Who made sure that the Swift Boat gang got traction? Who was yelling at Al Gore? Who helped unmask Dan Rather's lies. The list goes on.
Free Republic is full of some of the finest minds in the country. If you are typical of the type of people the White House employs we are in big trouble. C'mon, impress us. See if you can respond intelligently to even a few posts.
S'cuse me for not being all warm and fuzzy with you. We don't turn the other cheek here....
This is what Babelfish
http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr
translates your post into:
They can I say (and the carillon companion of FReepers inside to satisfy - as if no, LOL) 1) THEY CLOSE CONSTRUCT 2) TO DEPORT ALL ILLEGALS 3) FINO/PROCESAR To PATTERNS THAT INFRINGE The LAW 4) TO INCREASE To BORDER PATROL 5) TO CONTINUE LEGAL IMMIGRATION This one is the work that we hoped that you do. Thanks.
Looks like old Nick has just about caught up in the thread. lol!
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.