Issue Position: Immigration

Issue Position

The biggest political news for the past two weeks has been Arizona's passage of its bill to allow law enforcement to request documents for those they reasonably suspect to be illegal. Despite the uproar, Arizona's law mirrors federal law. Arizona has an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants within its borders. Arizona spends an estimated $2 billion on illegal immigrants and their children. Arizona is only filling the void where the federal government has failed.

The United States has an estimated 13 million illegal immigrants within its borders. I do not blame someone for wanting to have a better life. In fact, I respect someone willing to cross a desert, cross a river, tunnel underground, float by raft, or smuggle by vehicle. What I blame is our federal government failing at one of the actual few constitutional duties it has -- securing our borders.

When someone's first step in our country is an illegal step, that person should only be entitled to our criminal system, not public services or a pass to legal status.

I believe we need to (1) secure our borders, (2) enforce workplace and immigration laws, (3) deny welfare, education, and non-emergency public health care, (4) reject any form of amnesty, but (5) streamline legal immigration.

We need to secure our borders. Our borders are porous. The U.S. Border Patrol apprehends over 1 million illegal immigrants each year. Nearly all of these apprehensions are voluntary departures (escorted to Mexico and turned over to Mexican authorities). The U.S. Border Patrol has increased from 9,000 in 2001 to 20,000. We should further increase funding for personnel and technology at our borders to deter illegal entry.

We need to enforce workplace and immigration laws. Unfortunately for legal Hispanics, there is a stigma that all Hispanics are illegal. The reason for this stigma is, again, the federal government is not doing its job. By federal law, any illegal immigrant apprehended is deportable. Thus, if our state and federal agencies sought out illegal immigrants and deported those apprehended, our legal Hispanics would not suffer this prejudice. In addition, as of July 2010, South Carolina will be able audit all South Carolina businesses as to whether the business is verifying the immigration status of its employees. The punishment for businesses that employ illegal immigrants should be severe and should be enforced.

We need to deny welfare, education, and non-emergency public health care. Our modern welfare state offers perverse incentives for illegal immigrants. Upwards of $300 billion in costs has been estimated for the public services provided to illegal immigrants. Of course, illegal immigrants contribute to the economy through sales taxes and productivity, but not the amount they would if legal. The federal government provides funds to each state for incarcerating illegal immigrants and for treating illegal immigrants at the emergency room. South Carolina taxpayers pick up the tab on educating illegal immigrants and children of illegal immigrants. Especially when, next year, South Carolina faces a budget deficit over $1 billion and our federal government over $1 trillion, how can we justify these costs?

We need to oppose any form of amnesty. Amnesty is providing an avenue to legal status for illegal immigrants. Senators Lindsey Graham and Charles Schumer have proposed immigration reform that includes a form of amnesty. Their plan includes a pathway to citizenship for the 13 million illegal immigrants if they perform community service, pay fines and back taxes, pass a background check, and learn English. Any form of amnesty is wrong and misguided. This undermines legal immigration. This undermines the rule of law. At the S.C. Farm Bureau debate (an agricultural debate in front of primarily farmers), another candidate in this race, Jeff Duncan, proposed allowing legal status to illegal immigrants who are working in the agricultural sector. This is an odd stance considering Mr.Duncan's many prior statements opposing "Grahamnesty" (except that the proposal was in front of farmers). Mr. Duncan likely would support the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which gave amnesty to illegal immigrants who were in the country for four years and working in the agricultural sector. This provided amnesty to 2.8 million illegal immigrants. I disagree with any form of amnesty. We are a nation with a rule of law. Rather than bend the law around special interests, I would rather us enforce the law or improve our current laws (ie: improve H2A visa rather than provide amnesty.)

We need to streamline our legal immigration. The pathway to citizenship is not onerous by law. To become a citizen, one must reside in the United States for 5 years, have good moral character, be proficient in English, American history, the Constitution, and take an oath. However, it is onerous by practice. The waiting period of two or more years for INS to approve paperwork is unacceptable. To encourage legal immigration, this process needs to be streamlined. To alleviate the problems facing the agricultural sector, we should implement temporary worker programs that help employers get the employees they need to help grow the economy. One that is in fact temporary, market-oriented and feasible. Again, we should improve the H2A visa rather than provide amnesty.

In short, I admire the Hispanic community. Their sense of family, community, and hard work ethic must be admired. Legal Hispanics contribute much to our community and economy. I believe we should improve our legal immigration process and programs. However, we are a nation with a rule of law. With illegal immigration, we need to deter, apprehend, and remove.

Source