Thread: S.C.: Immigration crackdown debated

Immigration crackdown debated

Lawmakers consider more stringent laws to tackle issue
By Yvonne Wenger

Friday, November 26, 2010


COLUMBIA -- South Carolina lawmakers are approaching the matter of a further crackdown on illegal immigration from several perspectives.

Take the state budget.

Lawmakers face a $1 billion budget shortfall when they return to session in January, but the state continues to pay unknown amounts to house illegal immigrants in prisons and jails, process them through the judicial system and provide social services and schooling to their children.

"It's costing us as a society a significant amount of money for them to be here in an undocumented state," Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, said.

For Sen. Robert Ford, D-Charleston, illegal immigration is a matter of human welfare. With violence in Mexico and some Latin American countries spiking, Ford said illegal immigrants in South Carolina should be given a safe harbor, at least temporarily.

"This country is an immigrant country," Ford said. "That's how just about everyone came here. For us not to welcome the Latino community is a sin within itself. States should not have stuck their nose in the immigration mess, but we did."

A panel of lawmakers, including Martin and Ford, will weigh the various points of view when they meet next month to draft legislation to build on a 2008 law that is aimed at stopping employers from using illegal labor.

The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration will consider testimony gathered from the public over recent months in Charleston, Spartanburg, Columbia and Myrtle Beach.

Many in the state want to follow up on a proposal by Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Bonneau, to pass an Arizona-style law in South Carolina that would allow the state to enforce federal immigration laws.

But the senators also heard from people who told them to stop grandstanding and leave the matter in the hands of the federal government, because enforcing the federal laws would lead to racial profiling and require an outlay of cash for law enforcement training, new detention centers and legal fees to defend a new state law, among other concerns. Portions of Arizona's law are on hold after a judge found elements of it to be unconstitutional.

Still, Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, said it is a top priority to pass a law like Arizona's that will allow officers to check the immigration status of people during routine policing if the officer suspects the person is in the country illegally.

The Judiciary subcommittee will meet Dec. 8 in Columbia. McConnell said he has directed the panel to have a draft bill ready for January when the Legislature reconvenes.

"The question is rather than backing up, how much further are we going," McConnell said.

South Carolina's 2008 law is considered the toughest in the nation. An investigative report last month by News21, a Carnegie-Knight Initiative, found that Arizona's crackdown on employers that hire illegal immigrants gets a lot of hype but is not producing the results that South Carolina's law is.

Only three businesses in Arizona have been prosecuted in the nearly three years that Arizona's law has been in effect, compared with the more than 200 businesses that have been cited in South Carolina since the 2008 law went on the books, according to the report. Officials in South Carolina believe that the law has forced illegal immigrants to leave the state in search of work elsewhere.

South Carolina's 2008 law has many provisions beyond the employment standards, but not all of the law is being enforced. The State Law Enforcement Division was instructed to sign an agreement with the federal government for the enforcement of federal immigration laws by South Carolina officers, but that agreement was never reached.

Sen. Chip Campsen, an Isle of Palms Republican and a member of the judiciary subcommittee, said as part of a new immigration law, the state should shift the power to negotiate with the federal government to the state attorney general.

Campsen acknowledged the state needs to be creative and studious when writing a new immigration law so the law can be enforced and kept out of a court battle.

"We need to make sure it's as defensible as it can be, in light of the legal challenges with Arizona," he said.

www.postandcourier.com

But the senators also heard from people who told them to stop grandstanding and leave the matter in the hands of the federal government, because enforcing the federal laws would lead to racial profiling and require an outlay of cash for law enforcement training, new detention centers and legal fees to defend a new state law, among other concerns.

We need to counter these statements about racial profiling. Local police perform "criminal profiling", not racial profiling. Their enforcement is not based on "looks", but conduct.

If you conduct fails to have a driver's license or legal U.S. identification, you should be detained briefly and identified. This should include fingerprints sent to the FBI and ICE. Then the federal govt. can make it's rightful decision regarding one's immigration status.

Any local police office can check a resident's immigration status, special laws aren't really necessary.