SC Legislature returns, hopes to tackle immigration, spending

South Carolina legislators welcomed each other back today with smiles and back slaps on the first day of the 2008 General Assembly session.

The House and Senate started shortly after noon.

Lawmakers said priorities in the January-to-June session include curtailing immigration, capping state spending and adding transparency to the budget by requiring names be attached to requests for money.

The public feud between the Republican-controlled Legislature and Republican Governor Mark Sanford is likely to continue this year. Both House and Senate seats are up for re-election.

U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins received a standing ovation at the House Republican Caucus meeting before the session started. The former S.C. House speaker left to become ambassador in the summer of 2005.

In attendance on the Senate side was former senator, now congressman, Joe Wilson, R-S.C. Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer gaveled the Senate to order at 12:08 p.m. and had to bring the noisy body to order several more times.

Senators selected their seats and committee assignments and recognized three new members:

• Paul Campbell, R-Berkeley, who holds the seat left vacant after the April death of longtime Sen. Bill Mescher.
• Shane Massey, R-Aiken, who won the seat vacated last year by Democrat and former gubernatorial candidate Tommy Moore.
• Catherine Ceips, R-Beaufort, who replaced Republican Scott Richardson, now the state’s insurance commissioner.

House members worked briefly on local bills after welcoming two new members:

• Heyward Hutson, R-Dorchester, who is returning after an absence.
• Shannon Erickson, R-Beaufort.

There is one vacancy in the 124-member House — a Lowcountry area seat — that will be filled in a mid-spring election.

“The first couple of weeks of the session are always slow,” said Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston. “Everybody is excited to see each other.”

— From staff and wire reports

Comments

[Concerned Citizen]

Let's hope they don't stand around smiling and back slapping too long. It would be nice if they could actually accomplish something this session... would be a nice change. One day for formalities is fine, but tomorrow they need to hit the pavement running.

[zzzzz]

State and local efforts to restrict and/or drive away so-called illegal immigrants are unconstitutional and preempted by Federal law. See Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 496 F.Supp.2d 477 (M.D. Pa. 2007).

[carlos mackey]

Not so fast zzzzz;that was only a district court,the lowest of the low in the federal court system. The US supreme court ruled decades ago that the states could punish employers of illegal aliens one case in California was I believe was Cano or Delcano. I will have to look that up. Also there is nothing in the constitution that even mentions immigration. That is just one of those urban myths.

[zzzzz]

Third Circuit reversal rates are pretty low, and the Constitution clearly provides for federal preemption. I would not bet on reversal if I were you.

[carlos mackey]

zzzzz;may I repeat myself there is nothing in the constitution that mentions immigration. If you know any thing in there that does,name the article or amendment. California has had such a law since 1971,and it was upheld by the US supreme court.

[zzzzz]

States are expressly preempted from creating laws that penalize employers who hire illegal aliens. Section 1324a(h)(2) [§ 274A(h)(2)] specifically states (IRCA 1986):

“The provisions of this section preempt any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment of unauthorized aliens.”

Regulation of immigration was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be an exclusively federal power in DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976). The limited provisions in DeCanas allowing some state regulation of immigrants, however, are no longer good law to the extent that they conflict with subsequent amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act which evinced a clear intent by Congress to preempt all state regulation in the area of immigration and employer sanctions.

Again, don't hold your breath waiting for the Third Circuit to reverse.

[zzzzz]

You are obviously not a lawyer....

[carlos mackey]

zzzzz;you are right I am not a lawyer but I am very familiar with the above statutes. The state laws are all focusing on licensing such as Arizona, state benefits and federal benefits that the states have discretionary powers over. So far all the Arizona laws have stood the test. Also local police can arrest someone for violation federal immigration law. Google Vasquez Alvarez 10th circuit. Even though there was INS envolvment it was local police who did th arrest. I am not an attorney but have done attorney services and have never been beaten by a state attorney in administrative law court on employment matters I also worked as a process server and served 5 eviction notices on actor Wesley Snipes.

[zzzzz]

Whatever. If experience as a process server and some pro se employee grievance matters or some similar proceedings are your sum total of qualifications to interpret the law, I should just leave you alone. You know the old maxim, "Never get in a battle of wits with an unarmed man."

[SBenn]

We need a president to back SC & other states and give them power to effectively be able to stop the things that draw the illegals to SC as to the surrounding states. Fred Thompson has an excellent plan to make the illegals go home. McCain and everyone else want to secure the borders but not really deal with the 12 or more millions already here. McCain says we cannot round them all help. Punish them with a fine, and let them stay! Huckaby offered illegals rights to go to Arkansas' universities! But Fred says we will punish states that offer sanctiuary cities as Rudy did. We will punish employers that hire them. We will not allow them to get social security and government assistance. When all the things dry up that brought them here, there will be no reason for them to stay. Right now we are like a magnet drawing them in but we will de-magnetize SC under Fred Thompson's plan. Please go to www.fred08.com and click on issues and you can read his detailed plan. States need help and Fred has just the plan to do that!

[winwin123]

To the independent, republican, democratic voters in South Carolina. I'am a independent voter who has voted for both republicans and democratic presidential candidates since 1992. If Barack Obama fails in South Carolina due to bigger war chests from Hillary, then I will vote for John Mccain in the general election, as he is the only viable choice closest to the rest of the countries' independent voters. This country needs a leader who is strong on national defense, in these trying times. John Mccain will be in the general election matchups, no doubt. Fool me once shame on you Hilliary, fool me twice shame on me. Re- whitewater, travelgate, filegate, vince foster, ron brown, monica, right wing conspiracy, Iran vote, exagerated claims of gravitas. If being first lady qualifies as foreign policy experience then the whitehouse chef should be just as qualified.

[Spenser]

winwin, go ahead and vote for McCain. He'll need the help to make it less of an embarrassment and bloodbath. It doesn't matter who the GOP runs against the Democratic candidate as they will get crushed in the general election.