Connect with us:   Subscribe to the paper  |   View the mobile edition  |   Get daily e-mail news  |   Get mobile alerts  |   Share your photos  |   Report news  |   Place an ad  |   Contact us


Update: Senate refuses to agree with the House on immigration reform

The Post and Courier
Originally published 12:29 p.m., May 14, 2008
Updated 04:30 p.m., May 14, 2008


COLUMBIA — After about two hours of debate, the Senate in a vote of 20-26 refused to agree with the House’s version of immigration reform.

If the Senate had agreed the vote would have sent the bill directly to the governor’s desk for his signature. The debate grew heated at times but ultimately, the Senate agreed to go along with Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, who said the House’s bill was unconstitutional and “riddled with errors.”

Many senators, mostly from the Upstate, argued that it was time to bring the matter to a vote, and deal with problems with the bill later before certain portions of the law are phased in.

The latest version passed by the House, which was on the table for a vote today, would have required employers to use South Carolina driver’s licenses or the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s online database E-Verify to check the legal status of new workers. In all, the legislation contains a long list of provisions that attempt to carve out enforcement powers for the state.

Today’s vote could send House and Senate negotiators back to conference committee, or the Senate could opt to send the House another revised immigration plan. A revised version would be similar to the House’s plan in regard to worker verification standards, the biggest difference would be the way penalties would be administered for hiring illegal immigrants.

The Senate is still in session and could force another vote on the issue if they don’t adjourn first.

Read Thursday’s editions of The Post and Courier for more on the story and a breakdown of how local senators voted.




Article tools




Latest local stories





Sponsored Links


Notice about comments:
Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.

Comments

This article has  0 comment(s)


(Requires free registration.)

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

Search Charleston.Net Archives for Latest News


Charleston.Net Customer Care | Subscribe to Paper, Register for email news updates, manage your online account, place a classified ad, or contact us




Charleston.net logo

Copyright © 1997 - 2008 the Evening Post Publishing Co.

Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of service, Privacy policy and our Parental consent form. (Updated 2/9/2007)