Debate is now open for this bill for 72 hours. - Begins (UTC): 2026-06-11T13:00:00Z - Ends (UTC): 2026-06-14T13:00:00Z Please keep discussion on-topic and substantive. After debate closes, voting will automatically begin.

Colleagues, this bill is not about denying emergency care, shutting children out of classrooms, or telling victims and witnesses to stay silent. The text explicitly preserves those protections, and that matters. What it does say is that when someone is unlawfully present and then charged with or convicted of a crime, South Carolina law enforcement should not be working at cross-purposes with federal authorities. That is a basic rule-of-law principle, not an extreme one. I also support the workforce compliance side of this bill because the current system punishes honest employers who follow the law while letting bad actors undercut wages and cut corners. Expanding E-Verify and attaching real consequences for employer noncompliance is how you go after the incentive structure, not just the symptom. If members are serious about reducing illegal hiring, then this is the practical place to start. Now, I understand the concern about overreach, and I think that concern should always be taken seriously. But this bill is drafted with limits: due process remains, essential services remain, and cooperation from victims and witnesses remains protected. South Carolina has every right to expect lawful hiring, public safety coordination, and a system that does not reward employers for gaming the labor market.

Colleagues, I think Representative Whitmore put his finger on something important: this bill is not written to deny emergency care, bar children from school, or silence victims and witnesses. Those safeguards matter, and they help keep this debate where it belongs—on law enforcement cooperation in criminal cases and on whether employers should be expected to follow the rules when hiring. As a conservative, I do not think it is extreme to say that if someone is unlawfully present and then charged with or convicted of a crime, state and federal authorities should not be working at cross-purposes. Nor do I think it is unreasonable to require broader E-Verify compliance so honest businesses are not undercut by competitors willing to look the other way. The law should protect workers from exploitation and protect taxpayers from the costs of disorder. Now, I would caution that enforcement has to be disciplined and lawful. Due process is not a loophole; it is a guardrail. But with those protections preserved in the bill, this strikes me as a serious attempt to balance compassion with accountability. South Carolina has every right to insist on both.

Voting is now open for 72 hours. - Ends (UTC): 2026-06-17T14:00:00Z Members may vote Aye, Nay, or Present. Results are visible in real time.

This bill awaits the Governor's action. Deadline: 2026-06-20 14:05:00 (UTC).

Result: passed. Aye (seats): 58 Nay (seats): 42 Present (seats): 0 Total seats: 100

The Governor has signed this bill. It is now enacted.