A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ENACTING THE "ELIMINATE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WHISTLEBLOWER ACT" BY ADDING SECTION 41-8-75 SO AS TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS INCLUDING CIVIL PENALTIES SUPPLEMENTAL TO EXISTING PENALTIES, TO PROVIDE A CIVIL ENFORCEMENT PROCESS WITH WHISTLEBLOWER PROCEDURES, AND TO CLARIFY CUMULATIVE REMEDIES AND CONCURRENT ENFORCEMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION.
H5313 would add a new section to South Carolina’s employment law to create a civil enforcement scheme targeting employers who knowingly hire or continue to employ unauthorized aliens, as defined under federal law. The bill establishes substantial civil monetary penalties, including higher penalties for repeat violations, and adds a separate remedy requiring employers to pay three times the economic benefit gained from the unlawful employment. Each unauthorized worker employed in violation would count as a separate violation, and a court could also bar a liable employer from receiving state contracts, grants, loans, tax credits, or other state-funded incentives for up to five years.
The bill also creates a whistleblower-style private enforcement process. A private relator could file a sealed civil action on behalf of the State, provide evidence to the Attorney General, and allow the State to intervene within a set period. The Attorney General would gain authority to issue civil investigative demands to gather documents, written answers, and testimony during the investigation and seal period. The measure states that these remedies are civil only, are cumulative to existing sanctions under Section 41-8-50, and must be applied consistently with federal employment authorization law.
If enacted, H5313 would expand South Carolina’s current employer-sanctions framework by adding a new civil cause of action and new penalty structure in Chapter 8, Title 41 of the South Carolina Code. It would not replace existing administrative enforcement under Section 41-8-50, but would supplement it with private relator actions, Attorney General investigative tools, and additional financial and contracting consequences for employers found to have knowingly employed unauthorized workers. The bill also expressly limits recovery to avoid duplicative penalties for the same violation and ties liability to federal employment authorization determinations.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or roll-call support in the available materials. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as an immigration-enforcement and employer-accountability bill, with a strong punitive and deterrent orientation. The absence of recorded legislative discussion makes it difficult to assess broader caucus or stakeholder sentiment beyond the bill’s stated policy goals.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s use of private whistleblower-style enforcement, the size of the civil penalties, and the potential for employers to be excluded from state economic benefits. Employers and business groups may object to the risk of litigation, the burden of investigations, and the possibility of multiple penalties per worker, while supporters are likely to emphasize deterrence and enforcement against unlawful employment. Another likely issue is the bill’s interaction with federal immigration and employment-verification law, though the bill attempts to address this by requiring consistency with federal standards and by limiting liability to federally determined unauthorized employment.