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.

[YHAOS]

For some reason, somewhere along the last five years the WH and the RNC has gotten the idea that conservatives can be treated the same as Democrats treat their Blacks. You can’t. Get over it. If you want the support of your base, start supporting your base. It’s as simple as that. Learn it; believe it; live it.

[justanotherfreeper]

Oh, puhleeze. The entire problem has been employers are presented with documentation they know is fraudulent, but wink wink nudge nudge they take it at face value -- you CANNOT prove they "knowingly" hired an illegal! (and in the employers defense if they challenge it the EEOC kicks them for being racist.) The stupid employment verification system in the bill says you CANNOT fire the illegal until ALL his appeals are exhausted -- kinda like being on death row.

But you aren't fooling anyone, you know all that and you've read Senator Session's take down of your bill. Here's what I want to know: Why are you fools supporting a bill that will make us a permanent minority party?

I come from California. I was a pollwatcher as a kid in the Carter - Ford race, was involved with a lot of assembly and state senate races. Typical volunteer. I watched illegal immigration change California from a swing state to a blue state, both due to stuffing illegals into Dem districts in reapportionment to increase Dem strength and because naturalized hispanics voted Democrat about 2 - 1. (We won't go into the illegal aliens who openly voted and bragged about it on TV, in the mid 90s, after the reporter demonstrated how easy voter fraud was the LA County Registrar tried to prosecute the reporter -- hilarity ensued.)

This margin was due both to overwhelming anti-American propaganda in the Spanish press and because they were poor and wanted taxpayers services. As one told me when I knocked on his door during a precinct walk in 1988 for a Riverside assembly candidate: "No Republicans, Democrats give you more stuff." Lots of middle class flight out of the state further drove our numbers down as folks got fed up and left the state (and, in fairness, suburban white women got very turned off by the GOP for reasons not relevant to this discussion which hurt us further.) And before you bring it up, anybody who tells you 187 is what turned the poor hispanics "against" us is crazy, they never were for us. The court overturning 187 did accelerate the middle class flight that began with the riots in 92.

I left California for Virginia, and I see here in Virginia the same situation developing. The democrats have ALWAYS been the party of the very poor and the very rich, and the GOP has ALWAYS represented the middle class. What, in God's name, makes you think if we import millions of poor people they will vote Republican????? It's a two fold political hit: If you think the Spanish language press or the MSM will give the GOP **ANY** credit for passing this "pander-sty" you are crazy -- AND why would these people vote against their financial interests?

This bill is wrong on policy and wrong politically. Please understand: if this bill passes I personally will never vote or volunteer again. It will be pointless, we will be a tiny minority and we won't matter. I have better things to do with my time then help a party bent on suicide.

[nicmarlo]

please explain to us why we should accord any level of credibility to anything coming out of the mouths of federal government representatives on illegal alien issues? After that, feel free to attempt to persuade us that it really is beneficial to reward 20 - 30 million illegal alien lawbreakers with amnesty and citizenship as well as permit--if not encourage--another 50 - 75 million or so citizens of Mexico to flood into the United States to dilute our culture, ignore our language, and to further clog our infrastructure, increase our taxes, clutter up our streets and freeways, and our medical and school facilities.

Come right ahead, Mr. Thompson. We'll be waiting to hear what you have to say. Please try to remember, though, that you're no longer talking to the uninformed. We understand the issues. All of them.

Excellent, as always, Czar!

[philetus]

FYI

The Office of Strategic Initiatives, part of the Executive Office of the White House, is “responsible for coordinating the planning and development of a long-range strategy for achieving Presidential priorities.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Office_of_Strategic_Initiatives

[Right Wing Assault]

Well, if you are still listening, I would like to know why children born in the USA automatically become citizens. We do not need this and it should be removed from out immigration policy.

Make it part of the bill and you will win a few more friends.

[LilAngel]

What is the point in having penalties for knowingly hiring people who do not exist? You’re going to make the illegal aliens legal, so how will it be possible to find anyone illegal to hire?

[WOSG]

Mr Thompson,

Welcome to FR, newbie! I appreciate the effort of the White House to communicate with the blogger base on this issue.

I hope this is not just an attempt to snow us; if so, it won’t work. If you hope to have a dialog though, you might learn something from the base about why the White House is off-course on this issue ... We are aware of what promises (many) were made then broken (all of them). We know numbers like arrests and fines pale in comparison to #s of actual crossings, numbers of currently employed illegals. Consider:

“An additional 630,000 are at large, ignoring deportation orders, and 300,000 more who entered state and local prisons for committing crimes are to be deported but will probably slip through the cracks after completing their sentences.”
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/cat_immigration_law_enforcement.html

This is a travesty. We know about it. A few factoids about the number of fish we are catching won’t distract us from the knowledge of the large numbers of criminal aliens we are letting get away from deportation.

Also - WE ARE READING ACTUAL LEGISLATIVE TEXT.We are tracking exact votes on amendments. We are aware of the holes in the bill, such as the 20 loopholes Sen Sessions identified. We know of the $2.5 trillion cost estimate from Heritage. We know further that 600,000 illegal aliens with court ordered deportations are eligible for amnesty. We apparently are more informed than the President himself, who peddles non-credible pap about it.

I would like to direct you to this blog:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/
And its numerous posts on immigration. In particular:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2007/05/this-immigration-bill-is-built-to-fail.html

There is no way the ‘comprehensive’ approach is the right way to go. It is doomed, destined, and designed to fail to do the things law-and-order anti-illegal-immigration people want it to do: Can we as Americans determine who comes here and who does not?

In addition, see also:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2007/06/12-million-z-visas-5-million-more.html
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2007/06/illegal-aliens-cast-ballots-in-bexar.html
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2007/06/mr-president-build-up-that-wall.html
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2007/06/austin-sanctuary-city.html
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2007/06/gop-base-revolts-on-immigration.html
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2007/06/hutchison-and-cornyn-on-record-on.html

As for your claims on enforcement: Bush touts the ‘enforcement first’ approach that real conservatives advocate. There is no reason for the President to insist on amnesty/legalization as a predicate for secure borders and immigration law enforcement. The President should publicly, and soon, throw in the towel on the ‘comprehensive’ approach and instead come out with this plan. A plan in 12 months to:
1. Build the wall, all 800 miles - now - and secure the border.
2. Enforce the immigration law we have vigorously.
Deport the hundreds of thousands of criminal aliens and aliens with deportation orders. *Really* end catch and release, *really* end the many hidden amnesties, *really* end the illegal sanctuary behavior of some state and local authorities, and get the immigraton status of all criminals in custody. And deport them.
3. Delay any change to immigration law until #1 and #2 are done.

This approach is supported by the majority of voters in a recent Rasmussen poll. 51% say to do a step at a time, as above, while only 16% support renewing effort to pass ‘comprehensive’ bill now.

The Bush administration has had 6 years to secure the border and enforce immigration law. It hasn’t done so. The Bush administration has been peddling the sham-nesty proposal since at least January 2004, calling it by another name but always willing to give amnesty (ie legalization and citizenship for a small fine, just as in 1986 bill) to illegal immigrants.

“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.”

What were the fines in the 1986 bill? I bet they were pretty stiff too ... theoretically.

BUT WHAT ARE WE TO THINK OF THIS? ...
“Proving Gingrich’s point, Michael Chertoff, secretary of Homeland Insecurity and Amnesty (OK, that’s not what it says on his business card, but it should), announced, per The Washington Post, that enforcement is a “hostage” of those who oppose the Bush amnesty bill. That is, either opponents give in, or Chertoff won’t enforce the existing law. Correction: Chertoff won’t pretend to enforce the law.”
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppin145254586jun14,0,6136199.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

APPARENTLY, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS SO FORGOTTEN IT’S CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES IT IS DECIDING TO ONLY ENFORCE THE LAW IF IT CAN GET A PROGRAM IT LIKES ADOPTED!

We do not believe President Bush should advocate a bill that was written by Senator Kennedy to have holes that undercut the very principles we believe and that the President claims are in this bill. We cannot trust a President who advocates a repeat of the mistakes of 1986, yet fails to even acknowledge these legitimate concerns of the bill. He fails even to stand up and demand the reasonable improvements (like Cornyn’s, Coleman’s and Coburn’s) be done in the bill. Apparently he is President Doormat for any liberal bill that Congress sends his way.

We cannot trust a President who uses the National Guard as a PR prop to get a bill passed, then forgets about them once the bill push has ended. If the President can assign 6,000 to the border, why not 12,000, and why not do it now irrespective of status of any bill?

If you want to shaft us, continue to ignore us and advocate sham-nesty. If you want to build the trust back up, stopping pushing for this awful Senate bill and start doing the things administratively that we all know can be done.

Mr President, Build That Wall!

[BeckB]

It makes no difference how stiff the penalties are if the laws aren’t being enforced anyway.

[BeckB]

It makes no difference how stiff the penalties are if the laws aren’t being enforced anyway.

[DesScorp]

Just another loophole. Why should we be surprised? On the GOP side, it’s the businesses that profit from illegal labor that are pushing this bill. Why should we be shocked that they’re going to get an out on penalties?

[Right Wing Assault]

Sorry, Philman, the following was supposed to be directed toward Nicholas:

Well, if you are still listening, I would like to know why children born in the USA automatically become citizens. We do not need this and it should be removed from out immigration policy.

Make it part of the bill and you will win a few more friends.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

President Bush's perception of illegal immigration:

America's illegal immigration reality:

[SIDENET]

Enforce the existing laws.

Build the mandated fence.

The White House has zero credibility on the immigration issue. I'm disgusted with this administration. Thanks for destroying the GOP! I'm a diehard Conservative and you've completely lost my support.

Oh, yeah. The "New Tone" SUCKS! You should have played hardball with the Democrats from day one.

[pgkdan]

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.

Sorry but I'm not buying it. This administartions record on enforcement has been absolutely awful...right up until the time that it started working to shove this damned monstrosity down our throats. Sort of like the Fence bill that got passed last year just before election day...the fence that seven months later is still practically unstarted.

Tell President Bush that his base...the folks who have been loyal supporters of his and those of us who have voted for him and have defended him for the last 6 years..isn't buying this plan and his continued exhortations only serve to further alienate him from the people who have put him in office. He is destroying the GOP. If this bill passes and he signs it, I'll be through with the party forever, and I won't be alone.

[bmw_n_me]

Dear Mr. Thompson:

Please let everybody in the White House and Senate know that there is absolutely no need to import a slave underclass and cover $20,000 in expenses per person annually (according to Heritage Foundation). And no, they WILL NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN, in case there is some idiot in the White House that thinks otherwise. Increasing minimum wage for “those jobs Americans won’t do” will solve “the labor shortage” issue. Importing uneducated workers is a drain on the US economy and public institutions. Mr. President, who went to Yale and Harvard should know better.

The job of this government is to support American citizens, not Mexican poor and criminals.

SO PLEASE VOTE RESPONSIBLY!

P.S. I don’t care if you call me a bigot or a racist, but RNC will not get a dime till the border is secured and 12-20-35-40 million of illegals are deported.

[WOSG]

It’s the comprehensive Destroy-the-Republican-party bill.

Texas’ Republican majority, a fairly new majority btw, is rotting from the inside. A fellow Texas freeper and I agreed that sham-nesty will make Texas a liberal Democrat majority state within a decade ... or maybe immediately given how angry so many people are about our own party over this. In Bexar county they found illegal aliens registered to vote, and some of them voted:

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2007/06/illegal-aliens-cast-ballots-in-bexar.html

As you mention, the census reaportionment *alone* GIVES ILLEGAL ALIENS AN INDIRECT SAY IN OUR GOVERNMENT, by creatin g ‘rotten boroughs’ with many ilegals, few citizens and fewer voters, but consistent liberal Democrats.

Taxpaying citizens get their representation diluted by this action.

[WOSG]

A zot for WH PR?
So if President Bush himself showed up and gave a post about immigration, he’d get zotted? Wow, sign o’ the times indeed.

[bmw_n_me]

http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/welfarerelease.html

Enough said.

[philetus]

Here’s a 2006 White House Office Staff List from July 2006.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/graphics/2006stafflistsalary.html

I don’t see a Thompson.

Here’s who I think he is.

Nicholas Thompson is an editor of The Washington Monthly. You can email him by clicking here or read his other articles by clicking here. When he was a student, Thompson worked on a campaign opposing the rankings.
nthompson@washingtonmonthly.com

Which probably means he doesn’t have Bush’s ear.

[SnarlinCubBear]

Fool us once, shame on you.
Fool us twice, shame on us.
Protect our borders.
Then, we can talk.