Tuesday, March 20, 2012

South Carolina immigration hypocrisy

Lots of news stories about South Carolina's recent immigration law (some of which is currently blocked), which has a loophole.


A loophole in the S.C. immigration law exempts farmworkers and private maids and nannies from a mandatory immigration status check. 
The law, which went into effect Jan. 1, requires all private employers in South Carolina to use the federal E-Verify database to check newly hired employees’ immigration status. However, a little-known loophole provides exceptions for four categories of workers — agriculture laborers, domestic workers in a private residence, ministers and fishermen working on crews of 10 or fewer people. 
The agriculture industry and the legislators who supported the exemption said it was necessary because migrant farmworkers would be difficult to check, and no one wanted South Carolina to encounter a shortage of workers to pick peaches, strawberries and watermelons, as Georgia and Alabama recently did.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2012/03/18/2197352/sc-law-lets-farmworkers-nannies.html#storylink=cpy



Critics are up in arms, saying it was done "secretly." I was about to make fun of any advocate who didn't read the entire bill and understand it before it was signed into law, but then took a look at what I think is the text of the correct law. I can't find the provisions. They have to be tucked in there somewhere (there are a ton of links in the document).

Regardless, this is the worst kind of hypocrisy. Maids and nannies? That simply means the wealthy people of South Carolina want continued access to illegal labor to which they can pay low wages with cash.

Supporters of the law and other similar examples across the country claim it will make undocumented immigrants leave the state, thus opening up jobs for U.S. citizens. This loophole, however, demonstrates that they don't believe that to be true. If U.S. citizens will fill these jobs, then why do you need the provision?

This is even worse than Arizona's SB 1070, which at least has a logical consistency. Instead, this law says that South Carolina recognizes how much immigrants contribute to the state's economy, but it wants to make their lives more difficult anyway.

1 comments:

Vicente Duque 1:13 PM  

The Four Horsemen of the U. S. Supreme Court against the New Deal in 1935-1937 - Conservative Judicial Activism that Franklin Delano Roosevelt condemned as "Social Darwinism" - How FDR changed the court after June 1937


The success of the Horsemen in striking down New Deal legislation :

Some academics argued that the Court's aversion to 'regulated capitalism' confronted the country with "the question not how governmental functions shall be shared, but whether in substance we shall govern at all".

The Supreme Court in year 2012 has several hot potatos in their hands like Obamacare, that is Healthcare Overhaul and the Individual Mandate, Arizona's "SB 1070", Texas Redistricting and others.

The Court can use these ticking bombs against Obama, but the result may be disastrous and prompt a bigger number of votes to reelect President Obama.


Source of Information :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_%28Supreme_Court%29


Some excerpts :


The "Four Horsemen" was the nickname given by the press to four conservative members of the United States Supreme Court during the 1932–1937 terms, who opposed the New Deal agenda of President Franklin Roosevelt. They were Justices Pierce Butler, James Clark McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter. They were opposed by the liberal "Three Musketeers"—Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo, and Harlan Stone. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Justice Owen J. Roberts controlled the balance. Hughes was more inclined to join the liberals, but Roberts was often swayed to the side of the conservatives.

........

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP