A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING ARTICLE 6 TO CHAPTER 9, TITLE 16 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ANY PERSON ARRESTED FOR VIOLATING A CRIMINAL LAW OF THIS STATE WHO IS SUBSEQUENTLY DETERMINED TO BE UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS GUILTY OF A FELONY, TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS, TO ALLOW FOR DEPORTATION IN LIEU OF IMPRISONMENT, AND TO REQUIRE THE COLLECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OF PERSONS ARRESTED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE.
H4282 would add a new article to the South Carolina Code creating criminal penalties tied to immigration status for people arrested for violating state criminal law. Under the bill, a person who is arrested for a state crime and later determined to be unlawfully present in the United States would be guilty of a felony and subject to a minimum five-year prison sentence. The bill also creates a separate felony offense for certain previously removed or deported noncitizens who are later found in South Carolina without federal permission to reenter.
The bill gives courts limited authority to avoid imprisonment by dismissing the prosecution and ordering the person returned to their country of origin, but only if the person agrees, has no prior violent-crime conviction, and is not facing another felony charge. It also requires law enforcement to collect fingerprints, photographs, and other biometric data, cross-reference that information with criminal and national-security databases, and allows SLED to maintain the information. The bill includes affirmative defenses for people with lawful presence, asylum, or certain DACA approval, bars probation or delayed sentencing, and declares state preemption over local ordinances or policies on the subject.
If enacted, H4282 would significantly expand state criminal law by making unlawful immigration status itself a felony consequence in connection with an arrest for another state offense. It would also direct state and local law enforcement to gather and retain identifying information and coordinate with federal immigration authorities, while limiting local governments from adopting conflicting policies. The bill would affect undocumented immigrants, some previously removed noncitizens, law enforcement agencies, SLED, prosecutors, and courts, and it would create new statutory procedures involving custody transfer and repatriation.
The available context shows no committee transcripts or recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to reflect a strong enforcement-oriented approach to immigration and public safety, with an emphasis on state control and cooperation with federal authorities. The inclusion of affirmative defenses for lawful presence, asylum, and certain DACA recipients suggests an attempt to narrow the bill’s reach to people without recognized federal authorization.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s treatment of immigration status as a felony trigger, the minimum five-year sentence, and the requirement that courts and corrections officials facilitate return to a person’s country of origin. Critics may also object to the broad data-collection and database cross-checking requirements, the use of the term “alien,” and the preemption of local authority. Supporters would likely emphasize public safety, repeat-entry enforcement, and the bill’s express exceptions for lawful presence, asylum, and certain DACA recipients.