Needed: An S.C. immigration bill that actually works

Friends: Here's an advance look at the newspaper's editorial for Friday. I'd be interested in reading your thoughts, if you have any. Thanks, dc.

A slim majority of S.C. senators are taking a drubbing this week because -- horrors! -- they wish to pass an immigration-reform law that regulators and prosecutors can actually enforce. The S.C. House and Gov. Mark Sanford seem more interested in passing a bill that "gets tough'' on employers who use foreign labor, with insufficient regard for whether the measure stands up in court.

The pressure on senators to "do something, fast," is intense. Some residents apparently want the heads of employers who hire illegals to be mounted on spikes along public roads. Sanford and the House leadership, meanwhile, are conducting an intense public-relations campaign that ridicules the Senate for refusing to pass an employer-crackdown bill that the House adopted last week.

More senators than not, fortunately, have spurned this invitation to political cynicism. Senate President Glenn McConnell this week is bravely leading an effort to create a bill that slashes the number of illegal workers who find jobs in South Carolina _ and holds up in court. Supporting McConnell's principled stand for a real law, as opposed to an election-year dog-and-pony show for the voters, are local Sens. Luke Rankin, R-Myrtle Beach; Dick Elliott, D-North Myrtle Beach; and Yancey McGill, D-Kingstree. Thus far, only Sen. Ray Cleary, R-Murrells Inlet, has knuckled under to the pressure from the public, the governor and the House leadership.

To be fair, Sanford and House leaders do have a rationale for their preferred method for motivating employers to verify whether foreign job applicants are in the country legally. They would require immigration-status checks either through an electronic system or a valid S.C. drivers license. Employers who don't take these steps could be fined and lose their business licenses -- the economic death penalty. The governor thinks this just might pass judicial muster.

The Senate has the upper hand, however, because S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster believes the House's employer-punishment provisions to be unenforceable. The punishments are probably unconstitutional, says McMaster. A court, he added, would surely overturn them. It's McMaster's job to make such judgments.

McConnell and other senators understandably were irritated that McMaster did not weigh on the subject until early this week -- just as the Senate began consideration of the House employer-crackdown bill. The AG's timing made for some rough politics: The end of the 2008 session is but a few weeks away; tempers are short; suspicion and mistrust are in the air; residents who care about this issue grow increasingly angry that nothing has passed.

All concerned should heed McConnell's wise words: "Nobody loses a thing by us
taking a few days to fix it. The [House] bill is riddled with errors.''

The gentleman is right. Good laws -- laws that work -- must be made slowly and carefully, even when public emotions run high. The worst possible outcome of this year's immigration debate would be a tough law that never takes effect.

We, for one, are willing to be patient a few more days to see what McConnell and company come up with. The legislative process is never pretty, but in the end it usually works on the issues that really matter. We have no doubt that that will be the case with immigration reform.

Comments?

Comments

[Jimmy]

as I wrote all the senators, house members and the Governor this morning, all they would have to do is follow the AZ law, it seems to be doing what it was intended to do and it has also withstood two court battles so far, any businesses hiring illegals needs to put out of business

[PREFAB SPROUT]

Jimmy has gotten some bad information (or is just outright telling lies)

The Arizona law he refers to HAS NOT been determined to be legal. The only ruling made so far is that the 9th District Federal court would not issue an injunction against the law until it had heard the case (which should happen in a few months)

ONLY AFTER THE COURT HEARS THE CASE AND ISSUES A DECISION WILL THE LAW BE UPHELD OR DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Denney Clements]

Sprout has it right. Those who want an effective law would be wise to hope that our legislature passes a bill capable of surviving a challenge in court.

dc

[Richard L. Wolfe]

Why? The courts can't read and comprehend the law any better than the politicians. I think it is time to start electing judges in S.C. Because they seem to serve special intrests when they are appointed.

[Dr. James E. Dunn]

Denney:

If it is made a NATIONAL law, the answer would be easy: $1000 a day fine for every business which KNOWINGLY employs an alien.

That is for each and every alien employed by the businedss in question.

For enforcement: bring the troops home from Iraq and have them do something useful for the citizens of this nation!

DrJED

[Denney Clements]

Well yeah, a national fix is the ultimate answer, Jim. But what's happening now is a state fix driven by impatience with federal footdragging.

Richard: You may be right about the competence of the courts (though I don't agree), but here's the reality: Our S.C. constitution gives them the power to decide the constitutionality of laws. That's reality. Court rulings are binding on all parties. That's reality. So in this case, they have the ultimate power to decide the validity of an S.C. immigration law, should anyone bring a lawsuit to challenge that law. Again, that's reality.

dc

[Mad Max]

Ya'll remember this.
We don't live in the 9th Liberal Circus. The home of the illegal sanctuary. Just because the 9th circus declares something unconstitutional doesn't make it so. It has to be heard by the United States Supreme Court for that to happen. Quite frankly, I think SC needs an ironclad, anti illegal alien bill. If you're a business owner and you knowingly hire illegal aliens, you should be put out of business, your assets frozen or confiscated, and jailed. But hey, that's just me.

[prefab sprout]

There is no doubt that whatever side loses in the 9th District will appeal to the Supremes. HOWEVER, only a very small fraction of those cases appealed ever get heard. There is NO GUARANTEE that the Supremes will accept any challenge to this decision-whatever the outcome turns out to be.

[beachguy(original)]

They better pass it....else find a new job.

[Denney Clements]

Prefab is right. The vast majority on federal courts of appeals rulings stand up because the U.S. Supreme Court hears only a handful of cases that get appealed further.

dc

[Dr. James E. Dunn]

I agree with you, Mad Max! Put them out of business.

Dr. James E. Dunn

[Bob Williams]

Our AG and other law enforcement officials should enforce the laws we already have on the books now. As citizens we do not pick and obey the laws we deem enforceable. We should not expect any less from our AG.

Ah, yea. His motives are very suspect. After all this time this bill has developed we had not heard a peep out of McMaster. I wonder who's greasing his wheel.

And BGO is right, a lot of citizens are keeping score on this one. Their jobs are at stake!