A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY AMENDING SECTION 8-29-10, RELATING TO THE REQUIRED VERIFICATION OF WHETHER CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS ARE LAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES WHEN APPLYING FOR PUBLIC BENEFITS, SO AS TO REQUIRE STATE AGENCIES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS TO REFER AN APPLICANT'S INFORMATION TO UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
H. 5740 amends South Carolina’s public-benefits eligibility verification law, Section 8-29-10, to add a new immigration-enforcement step when an applicant is found not to be lawfully present in the United States. Under the bill, applicants who claim lawful presence would still be checked through the federal SAVE program, and that affidavit would continue to be treated as proof of lawful presence while verification is pending.
The bill’s new requirement applies after a determination that an applicant is not lawfully present: state agencies and political subdivisions would be required to refer the applicant’s information, including unsatisfactory immigration status, to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The bill takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
The bill would change how South Carolina agencies and local governments handle public-benefits applications involving immigration status by adding a mandatory referral to ICE in cases where an applicant is determined to be unlawfully present. It would amend Section 8-29-10 of the South Carolina Code, expanding the existing verification process beyond SAVE-based eligibility checks to include immigration-enforcement reporting. The practical effect would be on state agencies, political subdivisions, and applicants for public benefits who cannot establish lawful presence.
Based on the bill text and the limited legislative history provided, the measure appears to be framed as an immigration-enforcement and public-benefits integrity bill, with no recorded committee debate or votes in the materials provided. The absence of transcripts or vote data means there is no documented public sentiment in the record here, but the bill’s structure suggests support from lawmakers favoring stricter verification and referral procedures.
The main point of contention is likely the requirement that state agencies and political subdivisions refer information to ICE after a finding of unlawful presence. Supporters would likely view this as a necessary enforcement mechanism tied to public-benefits eligibility, while opponents may raise concerns about immigration enforcement, privacy, administrative burden, and the potential chilling effect on benefit applications. Because no committee discussion or votes are included, the specific arguments of individual legislators or stakeholders are not documented in the provided record.