South Carolina sticks it

[okie52]

to employers that hire illegals.


South Carolina lawmakers pass anti-illegal immigrant bill

Published June 22, 2011

Charlotte – South Carolina's Republican-controlled legislature has approved a bill that would require police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for another reason and force companies to ensure their employees are authorized to work in the United States.

SB 20, inspired by Arizona's controversial SB 1070 law, will now go to the desk of GOP Gov. Nikki Haley, who has said she plans to sign it.


The state's House of Representatives on Tuesday approved changes made last week by the Senate, which extended debate on the bill after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that states have the right to compel employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine whether jobseekers can legally work in the country.

Firms that defy the law could have their business license temporarily suspended or even revoked.

"Today, South Carolina joined a growing number of states who are taking proactive steps to address the problems created by immigrants who not only come into our country illegally, but also violate our laws while here," House Speaker Bobby Harrell said after the vote.

But Ivan Segura, vice president of the Council for Mexicans in the Carolinas, told Efe that passage of the legislation marks "a sad day for South Carolina."

"This is a struggle for equality in our communities, and not only for immigrants. This is going back to the time when people were convicted for being different."

A coalition of 21 organizations on Tuesday urged Haley, whose family emigrated from India, to veto the bill on the grounds it will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and "encourage racial profiling."

SB 20 requires police to review the immigration status of any person arrested or stopped for another reason and makes it a felony to make and sell fake photo IDs for undocumented immigrants.


The bill also makes it a misdemeanor for any adult - whether a foreigner or U.S. citizen - not to carry a form of official identification such as a driver's license or immigration document while traveling within the state.

Opponents say South Carolina will have to invest close to $84 million to implement the measure, which also would create a new unit to enforce immigration laws.

Tammy Besherse, an attorney with the South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center, told Efe Tuesday that several state immigrant-advocacy groups are considering taking legal action to halt SB 20.

A wide swath of South Carolina's economy, including the agriculture, construction, hotel, services and food sectors, depends in large part on immigrant labor, and farmers already have complained that - even with the bill still pending the governor's signature - they are having trouble finding workers.

"There's concern among growers about possible ramifications if Haley signs the bill because it would send the message that South Carolina is not a very immigrant-friendly place," Russell Ott, an expert on legislative issues at the South Carolina Farm Bureau, told Efe.

Data from the 2010 Census show that South Carolina's Hispanic community increased by 147.7 percent over the past decade to 235,893, representing 5.1 percent of the state's total population.

Yet, a study by the Pew Hispanic Center revealed that the number of undocumented immigrants in South Carolina fell 21.4 percent, from 70,000 to 55,000, since 2008.


Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/06/22/south-carolina-lawmakers-pass-anti-illegal-immigrant-bill/#ixzz1RodWNpH3

.

[tcrb]

Bravo. But I'm sure that Eric Holder is preparing to file his lawsuit as I post.

[pphilfran]

Good for them...it is a shame that a state must pass it's own legislation because the fed is so incompetent on the matter...

[KantoSooner]

This is an excellent start. If we as a nation are serious about controlling illegal immigration, then the logical place to stem the flow is in getting employment.
I am not so worried about illegal tourists.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

No idea where the money is coming from for these measures, we are certainly broke everywhere else. Also I haven't seen the exact wording of the bill, but "SB 20 requires police to review the immigration status of any person arrested or stopped for another reason". That is dangerous and should receive a challenge in court.

[Flagstaffsooner]

No idea where the money is coming from for these measures, we are certainly broke everywhere else. Also I haven't seen the exact wording of the bill, but "SB 20 requires police to review the immigration status of any person arrested or stopped for another reason". That is dangerous and should receive a challenge in court.

What's dangerous about protecting this Nation from illegals?

rdF2S_au1hM

[DIB]

What's dangerous about protecting this Nation from illegals?

rdF2S_au1hM

Because it can lead to a violation of individual rights based on profiling. If someone is arrested or pulled over for a traffic stop, then I'm all for it. But I think it goes against what this country stands for, if police start checking the immigration status of every brown person that they see.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Because it can lead to a violation of individual rights based on profiling. If someone is arrested or pulled over for a traffic stop, then I'm all for it. But I think it goes against what this country stands for, if police start checking the immigration status of every brown person that they see.So, they should start checking every little white kid and white grandma...gotcha...

[KantoSooner]

Which is exactly what the language of the law says, "...arrested or stopped for another reason..."
Very low risk of abuse, and, in the event, what would the abuse be like? You'd have to show ID. Big whoop. Unless of course you don't have valid ID. In that case, however, my sympathy for you just decreased by almost 100%.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Good for them...it is a shame that a state must pass it's own legislation because the dem's are scared of ****'n up there voter base...fixed

[pphilfran]

fixed

:D

[Flagstaffsooner]

Because it can lead to a violation of individual rights based on profiling. If someone is arrested or pulled over for a traffic stop, then I'm all for it. But I think it goes against what this country stands for, if police start checking the immigration status of every brown person that they see.You come live in a boarder state with the murders and drugs.

[DIB]

So, they should start checking every little white kid and white grandma...gotcha...

You obviously reading comprehension issues so I will try to make it clear for you. The police should have a valid reason for the stop beyond checking immigration status.


Which is exactly what the language of the law says, "...arrested or stopped for another reason..."
Very low risk of abuse, and, in the event, what would the abuse be like? You'd have to show ID. Big whoop. Unless of course you don't have valid ID. In that case, however, my sympathy for you just decreased by almost 100%.

Then why did this need to be included in the law? An ID is always required for an arrest or traffic stop.

I guess that nobody else is worried about the government finding a way to abuse the vague language "stopped for another reason." I would prefer that the language be tightened up.

[Position Limit]

You come live in a boarder state with the murders and drugs.

boarder states are the only places with murder and drugs?

[DIB]

You come live in a boarder state with the murders and drugs.

So you think that it is cool to take away the rights of an entire group of people (Hispanic Americans), because they look the same as illegal aliens?

[Flagstaffsooner]

You just dont get it do you Dib?

[okie52]

Bravo. But I'm sure that Eric Holder is preparing to file his lawsuit as I post.

Obama and Holder already lost that suit in the SC vs Arizona a month ago.

I was happy to see the everify being mandated and making it a felony to produce fake IDs.

[DIB]

You just dont get it do you Dib?

What don't I get?

[Turd_Ferguson]

What don't I get?Poontang...

[DIB]

Poontang...

Zzzzzzzing!

[tator]

What are these states boarding? Windows? Students?

[Turd_Ferguson]

What are these states boarding? Windows? Students?messicans...

[DIB]

I assume that South Carolina is trying to keep out Georgians?

[virginiasooner]

Dear South Carolina (and Georgia),

have fun harvesting crops this coming fall! You'll never get it done paying minimum wage with no health insurance.

[okie52]

Dear South Carolina (and Georgia),

have fun harvesting crops this coming fall! You'll never get it done paying minimum wage with no health insurance.

So I guess they'll have to pay more or not get it harvested. Seems like the states are willing to take that risk to get rid of illegals.

[IndySooner]

So I guess they'll have to pay more or not get it harvested. Seems like the states are willing to take that risk to get rid of illegals.

And we ALL pay for it! (quite literally)

[okie52]

And we ALL pay for it! (quite literally)

Minimally. Labor is only 17% of agri costs so even a 20% increase in labor costs would nomimally affect prices. And wage hikes would make that sector of business more appealing to the average american.


These changes wouldn’t lead to as dramatic of an increase in crop prices as many may think; labor only accounts for 17 percent of total variable farm costs.

Most farms’ overhead is vastly made of up fixed costs, i.e. taxes, land, and equipment. But, for argument’s sake, let’s say that costs are 50 percent fixed, 50 percent variable, so doubling workers’ wages would result in a 8.5 percent increase in price, or (gasp) a 27-cent peach versus a 25-cent peach. And this is extra, extra, super conservative, because labor would account for even less of a percentage of the market price. It goes without saying this would easily offset the energy costs of transporting “cheaper” goods from out-of-state.


And you pay for illegals with your tax dollars.

But, obviously, you are an open border guy so states taking action to end illegal immigration wouldn't interest you.

[DIB]

If we can reduce the amount of government spending on illegals (education, welfare, enforcement, etc.), it would more than make up for any increase in food cost.

[okie52]

Absolutely!!!!

[virginiasooner]

If we can reduce the amount of government spending on illegals (education, welfare, enforcement, etc.), it would more than make up for any increase in food cost.

Or we could implement some sort of seasonal worker permit, which would allow farm laborers to easily move about from job to job, and go home to wherever at the end of the growing season. The only problem with that sort of program is trying to prevent the workers from being exploited by growers.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Which is exactly what the language of the law says, "...arrested or stopped for another reason..."
Very low risk of abuse, and, in the event, what would the abuse be like? You'd have to show ID. Big whoop. Unless of course you don't have valid ID. In that case, however, my sympathy for you just decreased by almost 100%.
Low risk of abuse, you're kidding right? "Stopped for another reason" opens up a lot of possibilities for abuse. This is America for god's sake, people shouldn't have to be carrying papers to prove citizenship everywhere they go.

[okie52]

Or we could implement some sort of seasonal worker permit, which would allow farm laborers to easily move about from job to job, and go home to wherever at the end of the growing season. The only problem with that sort of program is trying to prevent the workers from being exploited by growers.

Or having the seasonal workers exploit states infrastructures.

[okie52]

Low risk of abuse, you're kidding right? "Stopped for another reason" opens up a lot of possibilities for abuse. This is America for god's sake, people shouldn't have to be carrying papers to prove citizenship everywhere they go.

You're required to carry a DL and proof of insurance whenever you drive. Now Obama may want to give out DLs to illegals but, of course, he is part of the problem. He11, he fought to protect employers that hired them.

[KantoSooner]

Low risk of abuse, you're kidding right? "Stopped for another reason" opens up a lot of possibilities for abuse. This is America for god's sake, people shouldn't have to be carrying papers to prove citizenship everywhere they go.

No actually, I'm not kidding. Cops have jobs to do. You think they'll spend their lives stopping every brown person they see just to check ID?

And, even if they did, would it really kill you to carry your drivers' licensse with you when you went out? You have to if you're driving anyway. And something approaching 99% of all adults just carry the damn thing in their wallets....which they carry whenever they go out.

So, the additive hassle I see is, a) the need to carry ID with you the 0.0000000000000001% of the time you don't already and, b) the risk of getting caught if you're an illegal alien. And, since I dont really care about the hassles faced by illegals, well, I don't see the big deal.

I lived in several foreign countries, one that was insanely xenophobic (and I was not of 'the people') and another that had 'issues' with Americans. In both cases, it was my obligation to carry ID anytime I was more than 100 meters from my home. Sum total of 'stop and checks' during 23 years? 3 times. Not too heavy a 'burden' since we're likely to suffer fewer than that here where we kind of blend in/have the 'right' accent, etc.

[jkjsooner]

The bill also makes it a misdemeanor for any adult - whether a foreigner or U.S. citizen - not to carry a form of official identification such as a driver's license or immigration document while traveling within the state.

I have a huge problem with this part. This reminds me of a scene from Firefox where the KGB agents are running around asking citizens for their papers.

What does "traveling within the state" mean? If I'm walking my dog without papers would that now be a misdemeanor?


You're required to carry a DL and proof of insurance whenever you drive

Driving is a privilege that one must earn and show proof that they have obtained the necessary skills. Riding in the bus/car or walking down the street is not a privilege but a basic human right (IMO).

[StoopTroup]

Poontang...

LOL :pop:

[jkjsooner]

And, even if they did, would it really kill you to carry your drivers' licensse with you when you went out?

I'm not willing to give up my freedoms just because it "wouldn't kill me" to do so.

One thing that really annoys me about being overseas is the requirement to constantly carry an ID. I can live with it, of course, but I've always been glad my country is different.

And, by the way, there are plenty of scenarios where it is a major inconvenience to carry an ID. When I'm on a run I generally don't carry anything because it's just a hassle. Most of my athletic shorts don't have pockets and I wouldn't trust the pockets of the others. It's annoying enough when I have to carry keys in my hand - even more if I had to carry a license in the other hand. Doing so also involves a real risk of the license being lost. Say you're running on one of those circuit training areas where you can stop and do pull ups in the middle of a run. What do you do with your license? Lay it down? Now you're really risking losing it.

95% of the time, yes, I carry a wallet/keys/license. That 5% of the time is when being forced to carry it would be a major hassle.

Simply put, it no damn cop's business who I am if I am obeying all laws. If I happen to break a law then they can look me up on their system or take me to my house and force me to produce an ID. Otherwise, FU.

[StoopTroup]

I'm not willing to give up my freedoms just because it "wouldn't kill me" to do so.

One thing that really annoys me about being overseas is the requirement to constantly carry an ID. I can live with it, of course, but I've always been glad my country is different.

And, by the way, there are plenty of scenarios where it is a major inconvenience to carry an ID. When I'm on a run I generally don't carry anything because it's just a hassle. Most of my shorts don't have pockets and it's annoying having to carry a license. Doing so also involves a real risk of the license being lost.

95% of the time, yes, I carry a wallet/keys/license. That 5% of the time is when being forced to carry it would be a major hassle.

You can always get one of those implanted ID chips or a Bar Code.

http://www.truthdigger.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/rfid-chip-implant-01-564x272.jpg
http://www.no2id.net/resources/images/BlairBarcode.jpg

[Serenity Now]

It's a flaw to require me to have ID on me if I'm walking the dog. But, overall, I'm a liberal who has no problem with this law. Illegal immigration is a huge problem. I think the states are going to take the bull by the horn. Generally, I don't agree with them. On this one I do.

[KantoSooner]

Simply put, it no damn cop's business who I am if I am obeying all laws. If I happen to break a law then they can look me up on their system or take me to my house and force me to produce an ID. Otherwise, FU.

Now go back and look at what sakerlina is making a law. The policia can check your id if they stop you for breaking, or appearing to break a law.

Your jogging and dog walking freedoms are safe. Rejoice.

I'm a purist on many political points. This seems like a pretty small compromise. On the other hand, if it really torques people out, we could just go with the status quo and forget about trying to id and deal with illegals.

[pphilfran]

There are already a hundred ways an officer can stop you and ask for id...this law adds nothing in that regard...

If a cop wants to stop ya and question ya he will find a reason...

[jkjsooner]

Now go back and look at what sakerlina is making a law. The policia can check your id if they stop you for breaking, or appearing to break a law.



That only defines when they can stop and question you. Let's say I'm walking my dog and forget to pick up the poop or I'm stopped for jaywalking. The officer stops me to give me a fine. We're good. Then, rather than having me go to my house to get documentation on who I am, the officer slaps me with a criminal offense for not having documentation on me. That's not good.

[pphilfran]

That only defines when they can stop and question you. Let's say I'm walking my dog and forget to pick up the poop or I'm stopped for jaywalking. The officer stops me to give me a fine. We're good. Then, rather than having me go to my house to get documentation on who I am, the officer slaps me with a criminal offense for not having documentation on me. That's not good.

How is he going to give you a fine if you have no ID on your person?

[jkjsooner]

I'll also remind you all of the argument that was often used here when we had discussions about the government forcing us to buy health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

This brought a ton of moral outrage because "it is not the role of the government to force citizens into taking some action."

Given the prevalence of this argument on this board, I'm surprised that so many would accept the government forcing us to carry identification (not while driving) or else face a criminal offense.

[okie52]

I'll also remind you all of the argument that was often used here when we had discussions about the government forcing us to buy health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

This brought a ton of moral outrage because "it is not the role of the government to force citizens into taking some action."

Given the prevalence of this argument on this board, I'm surprised that so many would accept the government forcing us to carry identification (not while driving) or else face a criminal offense.

If it would get rid of 12-30,000,000 illegals I would wear a sign.

[jkjsooner]

How is he going to give you a fine if you have no ID on your person?

I addressed this in my post.


Then, rather than having me go to my house to get documentation

He could also look me up in his system.

Instead, he's slapping me with a criminal offense. I'm not saying this is how it would normally work but I'm not for giving the authorities this option.

[pphilfran]

I'll also remind you all of the argument that was often used here when we had discussions about the government forcing us to buy health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

This brought a ton of moral outrage because "it is not the role of the government to force citizens into taking some action."

Given the prevalence of this argument on this board, I'm surprised that so many would accept the government forcing us to carry identification (not while driving) or else face a criminal offense.

Get the fed to do their job and we won't have to worry about the states doing something that we don't like...

[pphilfran]

I think I addressed this in my post. He is either going to look me up in his system or give me the opportunity to go home and produce identification.

Instead, he's slapping me with a criminal offense. I'm not saying this is how it would normally work but I'm not for giving the authorities this option.

It isn't going to change chit...

A crappy cop doesn't need a new reason to stop and harass anybody they want...

A good cop will let you go home to get your documentation...

[DIB]

If it would get rid of 12-30,000,000 illegals I would wear a sign.

You are willing to sacrifice your liberty to end illegal immigration. Some of us are not willing to sacrifice liberty for any reason.

[okie52]

You are willing to sacrifice your liberty to end illegal immigration. Some of us are not willing to sacrifice liberty for any reason.

I have no problem carring a DL with me...I do it every day without it being required.

[KantoSooner]

We have somewhere between 12 and 30 million illegals in the country today. I think we're all in agreement that that is not a good thing.

So, we should probably do something about it, right?

I am of the opinion that requiring employers to verify that the person they are hiring have a name and SSN that match is not a big burden (E-verify). I am also of the opinion that being required to carry id is not a big deal, either.

Those two steps alone would go a long way to eliminating the possibilities of existing illegally in this country. And would do so at a fraction of the cost of turning our Southern border into the Korean DMZ...even a DMZ-lite.

You are entitled to differing opinions.

Mazeltov.

[okie52]

We have somewhere between 12 and 30 million illegals in the country today. I think we're all in agreement that that is not a good thing.

So, we should probably do something about it, right?

I am of the opinion that requiring employers to verify that the person they are hiring have a name and SSN that match is not a big burden (E-verify). I am also of the opinion that being required to carry id is not a big deal, either.

Those two steps alone would go a long way to eliminating the possibilities of existing illegally in this country. And would do so at a fraction of the cost of turning our Southern border into the Korean DMZ...even a DMZ-lite.

You are entitled to differing opinions.

Mazeltov.

True, but we still have to secure the border. Land mines would be very cost effective.

[DIB]

I have no problem carring a DL with me...I do it every day without it being required.

At some point you have to make a stand against the governments desire to take away our rights. Every person has a different line. For you, it may be when they require a passport for interstate travel or a microchip in your arm. The government will continue to expand what is required for identification, because it makes people easier to control. Just look at what has happened to DLs over the last several years: adding finger prints, etc. This is the next step, but it won't end here.

[DIB]

We have somewhere between 12 and 30 million illegals in the country today. I think we're all in agreement that that is not a good thing.

So, we should probably do something about it, right?

I am of the opinion that requiring employers to verify that the person they are hiring have a name and SSN that match is not a big burden (E-verify). I am also of the opinion that being required to carry id is not a big deal, either.

Those two steps alone would go a long way to eliminating the possibilities of existing illegally in this country. And would do so at a fraction of the cost of turning our Southern border into the Korean DMZ...even a DMZ-lite.

You are entitled to differing opinions.

Mazeltov.


I agree with the E-verify and I agree with checking citizen status during arrests/traffic stops. I do not think it is a good idea for the government to force its citizens to carrying ID when not using it (i.e. driving a car).

[KantoSooner]

True, but we still have to secure the border. Land mines would be very cost effective.

Yes and no. We don't have landmines on the Canadian border and it's worked out pretty well.
We also don't mine our beaches and yet any nautically inclined foreigner from anywhere with it's own seacoast is only a quick sail away.

You can't seal a border hermetically with any degree of efficiency. And you wouldn't even want to, considering trade and social traffic. It's a question of what's reasonable.

[pphilfran]

We have somewhere between 12 and 30 million illegals in the country today. I think we're all in agreement that that is not a good thing.

So, we should probably do something about it, right?

I am of the opinion that requiring employers to verify that the person they are hiring have a name and SSN that match is not a big burden (E-verify). I am also of the opinion that being required to carry id is not a big deal, either.

Those two steps alone would go a long way to eliminating the possibilities of existing illegally in this country. And would do so at a fraction of the cost of turning our Southern border into the Korean DMZ...even a DMZ-lite.

You are entitled to differing opinions.

Mazeltov.

With the technology we have we could set up a world class system...put everybody's picture and info in one data base...cop pulls you over and you give him your ss #...he keys it up into his puter and up comes your picture and all needed info...

[KantoSooner]

I agree with the E-verify and I agree with checking citizen status during arrests/traffic stops. I do not think it is a good idea for the government to force its citizens to carrying ID when not using it (i.e. driving a car).

Fair enough position. We gave up perfect liberty when we started living in groups. Everything after that was a compromise. I'm willing to draw the line a bit further this way than you are. Maybe we let sakerlina draw the line where they think it shoudl go and see how it works for them.

[47straight]

If we don't ask for proof of citizenship, how can we know whether to inform them that they can call their embassy as some have claimed we have to do under the Geneva Convention?

Sounds like some circles of people want a catch-22 where we're just not allowed to arrest anyone, anytime, anywhere. Else we might violate the Geneva Convention and/or be xenophobic. Better to just let everything slide I guess.

[okie52]

At some point you have to make a stand against the governments desire to take away our rights. Every person has a different line. For you, it may be when they require a passport for interstate travel or a microchip in your arm. The government will continue to expand what is required for identification, because it makes people easier to control. Just look at what has happened to DLs over the last several years: adding finger prints, etc. This is the next step, but it won't end here.

I guess it all comes down to what a person might think is invasive. My life won't change by carrying a DL with me so I will not feel a loss of liberty.

I understand it can be a slippery slope and that caution should be used in its application.

[okie52]

Yes and no. We don't have landmines on the Canadian border and it's worked out pretty well.
We also don't mine our beaches and yet any nautically inclined foreigner from anywhere with it's own seacoast is only a quick sail away.

You can't seal a border hermetically with any degree of efficiency. And you wouldn't even want to, considering trade and social traffic. It's a question of what's reasonable.

If we ever have 12,000,000 plus Canadians residing illegally in the US then I would be for mining that border, too. I think we recognize that opportunity in the US for people south of the border is a much bigger deal than for those from the north.

I don't see the multitudes of illegals invading the US by sea. Sure, it can be done on a limited basis but nothing like we have experienced by land.

But I also know that you have to employ every means available to discourage illegal immigration...i e... punishing sanctuary cities, employers, and using everify, etc...

[sappstuf]

I agree with the E-verify and I agree with checking citizen status during arrests/traffic stops. I do not think it is a good idea for the government to force its citizens to carrying ID when not using it (i.e. driving a car).

Very reasonable. It is sad that the states are having to push this issue. It would still work though, unless Obama refuses to process and have them deported..

Uh oh..


A proposed directive from Morton posted on ICE’s website for public comment last month would generally prohibit police from using misdemeanor traffic stops to send people to ICE. Traffic stops have led to increased deportations in recent years

Last year union reps for ICE took a vote of no-confidence in Morton. Results? 259-0.

Their statement in part:


While ICE reports internally that more than 90 percent of ICE detainees are first encountered in jails after they are arrested by local police for criminal charges, ICE senior leadership misrepresents this information publicly in order to portray ICE detainees as being non-criminal in nature to support the Administration's position on amnesty and relaxed security at ICE detention facilities.

The majority of ICE ERO Officers are prohibited from making street arrests or enforcing United States immigration laws outside of the institutional (jail) setting. This has effectively created "amnesty through policy" for anyone illegally in the United States who has not been arrested by another agency for a criminal violation.”