Federal immigration suit an affront to South Carolina

When it comes to illegal immigration, Washington suddenly has stepped up to the plate. Problem is, the feds are on the wrong team.

Last week, South Carolina became the latest of several states to be sued by the Justice Department. The transgression? Passing state laws to take on illegal immigration.

This week the plot grew thicker, as 16 Latin American nations asked to join the lawsuit. When I wrote the bill I could have never imagined a scenario where other nations would be joining our federal government in a fight against our state.

Because our goal is simply to ensure that people who are in our state are here legally, I can only conclude that these countries want the influx of illegals to continue. As offensive as being sued by our own government is, I'm dumbfounded that most of Central America, much of South America, and some Caribbean countries have piled on.

The lawsuit suffers under the delusion that Washington is serious about illegal immigration. South Carolina's move damages D.C.'s ability to "fairly and consistently enforce" immigration laws, it reads. Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano claims in a press release that the agency "continues to enforce federal immigration laws in South Carolina in smart, effective ways."

Fair and consistent? Smart and effective? By Homeland Security's own estimates there are nearly 11 million illegal aliens in the U.S. Forty percent came here within the last 10 years. Despite these staggering numbers, despite Americans' enduring outrage, Washington politicians sit idly by.

The danger with illegal immigration is not only its inherent fraud, but the culture of corruption it can cause. Unscrupulous businesses exploit cheap, illegal labor, undercutting businesses that play by the book. Honest businesses soon face the stark decision to break the law or go bust. More illegals are hired, the underground economy grows, more lives are risked crossing the border. The vicious cycle continues. Instead of exporting freedom, Washington imports corruption.

America is enriched by those whose eagerness to be here is attended by a healthy respect for the rule of law. Legal immigrants, those for whom our melting pot once seemed a noble concept, must question why they bothered playing by the rules. But Washington's negligence, and now its attempt to stop state enforcement, suggests acquiescence, if not an outright sanction, of lawlessness.

Because state action was the one option left, we introduced Senate Bill 20, now Act 69. I'm thankful to Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell for shepherding the legislation and to Governor Haley for signing it in June.

Unfortunately, some news reports about the law erroneously claim that every officer will be required to check the immigration status of anyone they detain for any reason. Here's what Act 69 says: "Nothing in this section must be construed to require a law enforcement officer to stop, detain, investigate, arrest, or confine a person based solely on the person's lawful presence in the United States."

Only when a person is stopped for some other crime, and only then if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally, may an officer make a reasonable effort to determine the person's status. If status cannot be determined, a person cannot be further detained unless there's some other, unrelated charge.

Finally, the law "must be implemented in a manner that is consistent with federal laws regarding immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons, and respecting the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens."

The feds say these common-sense steps would upset "the balance of complex and often competing objectives that animate" federal statutes. Lawyers write that "in the exercise of discretion" federal agencies may decide not to remove a known alien "if deferred enforcement will serve some other goal."

Pardon me for not buying the notion that enforcing immigration law is a matter of discretion and tact and proper timing. In my book, either you're here legally or you aren't.

Secure borders are a prerequisite to government's fundamental duty -- protecting citizens. This litigation exposes federal immigration policy for the farce that it is. If Washington spent as much time enforcing the law as it does filing lawsuits, we wouldn't be in this mess.

The feds note that South Carolina's statutes could lead to "contradictory priorities" with Washington's idea of immigration policy. Contradictory, indeed. Our priority is to actually address the problem.

Larry Grooms, R-Bonneau, represents District 37, which includes parts of Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton and Dorchester counties, in the S.C. Senate.