Senate needs to see the light on immigration reform bill

The current standoff between the House-Senate conferees on the immigration reform bill still can be resolved if only the state Senate would see the light. To its credit, the House has. That's why its conferees are insisting that a major loophole in the legislation be removed.

All that's needed is for the Senate to concede that the House is right in its interpretation of the rules governing the conference committee. The House takes the position that its conferees are empowered to remove what's known as the I-9 form from the options private employers are allowed to use to verify an immigrant's legal status. The Senate has taken the position that for technical reasons the removal of that option would require the conferees to get "free conference" powers.

But "free conference" powers aren't easy to come by. They can only be granted by a two-thirds vote of each body. That's viewed as virtually impossible in the Senate in this instance because more than half of that body previously bought the arguments of lobbyists for business and farm interests who want the I-9 option. That option currently is part of federal immigration law and has proved to be virtually worthless since employers aren't allowed to scrutinize the underlying documentation. That's one of the reasons, for example, that illegal immigrants have been able to get away with fake out-of-state driver's licenses.

Not so with the new federal E-Verify, a computerized system that already has proven to be successful in a number of states, most notably Arizona. Actually, it was the Senate which initially strengthened the House bill by including private employers in the verification requirement. The House bill only dealt with private employers who contract with government agencies. But the Senate then proceeded to nullify its good work by including the failed I-9 form in the list of options. The other two options are a S.C. driver's license, which has had rigid requirements since 2002, and the E-Verify.

Two senators, President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell of Charleston and Berkeley-Charleston's Chip Campsen, a member of the conference committee, have been sharply critical of their colleagues' inclusion of the I-9 option, contending it makes the verification process a sham. Their complaints have gotten the attention of Gov. Mark Sanford, who has been generally complimentary about the progress of the immigration bill, but has expressed some real concerns about the I-9 loophole.

While private employer verification wasn't part of the House bill, its leadership also has clearly heard the concerns. The House Majority leader, Rep. Jim Merrill, tells us the conferees were instructed to advise their colleagues that the House "wants the I-9 out. We want the strongest bill possible," he said. In effect, he said, the I-9 is the House's "line in the sand." The leader of the Senate conferees, Jim Ritchie, told our reporter that he would take the House's position back to his colleagues before the conferees meet again next week.

There's simply no good defense for retaining a failed federal verification option in what's meant to be reform legislation. The only justification for the state's getting into immigration enforcement is the lack of teeth and action on the federal level. The inclusion of the I-9 form serves no purpose other than to render useless the private employer verification requirement.

It should be remembered that any legislation that includes the I-9 faces the prospect of a veto from the governor. Such a veto might well be sustained. If that happens, there's still a chance of passing new reform legislation without the I-9, since that could be accomplished by a majority vote, and not the super majority required for "free conference" on the pending bill.

But it shouldn't come to that kind of last-minute maneuvering. In the opening days of this session, House and Senate leaders put immigration reform at the top of their priority lists.

It's now up to the senators to prove that they meant it.