Candidates must speak up on immigration reform
Published Sunday, September 21, 2008

The presidential candidates' near silence on the subject of immigration doesn't mean the American people don't want action. Quite the opposite.

That is amply demonstrated by what's happening at the state and local levels to fill the vacuum created by Washington.

We've seen immigration enforcement laws aimed at employers passed by state and local governments.

Beaufort County is enforcing its "Lawful Employment Ordinance." Auditors are poring through paperwork at our neighbors' businesses.

The Sheriff's Office is helping Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials identify illegal immigrants in the county jail, which has been bursting at the seams since "Operation Surge" got under way in July.

With another month to go in the immigration crackdown, officials reported in early September that more than 170jail inmates had been identified as suspected illegal immigrants.

Now, the Sheriff's Office is preparing to investigate local companies suspected of hiring illegal immigrants. They'll look at information gathered by the auditors hired to verify that the employees of companies holding county business licenses are in the country legally.

And the county has started to include the issue of workers' immigration status in development agreements. "Verification of status may be demanded on the site at any time" by the developers of the property, as well as the county, the agreements state. Contractors and subcontractors are to sign sworn affidavits that the status of all their workers has been verified.

Is it enforceable? Is it legal? We don't know.

The truth is local officials have gracious plenty to do without getting into the immigration enforcement business. But that's where federal officials have left us -- holding the bag.

A year ago, immigration reform was the hottest issue in Washington as the Senate debated a comprehensive reform bill. Unfortunately, that effort went nowhere. And that "unfortunately" is true whether or not you agreed with particulars of that bill.

We need substantive immigration reform that addresses border security, workforce demand and what to do with the millions of people already here illegally.

Sen. John McCain, a key supporter of last year's bill on the Republican side, says now he wouldn't vote for it. But we'd like to hear what he would support today, what would get past his veto pen if he were president.

The same goes for Obama, who also supported the reform bill last year.

This campaign season, immigration has been relegated largely to broad position statements under the "issues" label on the two candidates' Web sites.

Both Web sites emphasize border security, fixing the federal bureaucracy that slows or prevents people who want to come here to work from entering the country legally and going after the employers who hire illegal workers.

But given the rancor last year's bill stirred up and the divisiveness it engendered among the American people, we need to hear directly from the presidential candidates how they want to see this issue dealt with. Every congressional candidate should be able to tell us what they want to do.

The first of the presidential debates is Friday. The subject is foreign policy and national security. We might see some aspects of the immigration issue dealt with there. If not, we should hear it at the Oct. 15 debate on domestic policy.

We don't need slogans or vague talking points; we need real answers.
http://www.islandpacket.com/opinion/story/615894.html