OCONEE COUNTY NEWS DESK · SOUTH CAROLINA
H.4764 and Oconee County’s ICE program: what would change?
A state immigration proposal, a federal policy and a local jail agreement are three different records. Here is how they connect in Oconee County, South Carolina.
H.4764 remains a proposal in the official history reviewed October 16.
Oconee already announced a jail-based ICE program
Oconee County, South Carolina would not be starting from zero under H.4764. The Sheriff’s Office announced its Warrant Service Officer program on August 29, 2025, following a March agreement with ICE. Its announcement placed the work inside the detention center and identified five trained detention deputies at that time.
A proposal to require agreements and reporting is different from evidence that deputies have gained new authority or that enforcement has increased. The full agreement and outcome record remain in our Oconee ICE / 287(g) investigation; the standing ICE guide explains the program.
What the H.4764 record establishes
The official H.4764 history and April 1 amended text list both Duncan and Whitmire as sponsors. The House passed third reading 84–26 on April 2, 2026. The latest listed action is referral to Senate Judiciary on April 7; no ratification or act number appears in the reviewed history.
The proposal would require correctional-facility agencies to enter qualifying federal agreements, document the program model and financial obligations, and file proof. It provides annual-request and documented fiscal or operational impracticability alternatives. It would exclude school resource officers from immigration work under those agreements and require quarterly Attorney General reporting on costs, legal-status outcomes, wrongful detentions, race and ethnicity.
These are proposed provisions. The history does not establish an enacted statewide requirement or an Oconee compliance finding. Sponsorship is a documented political action; it does not establish how either representative voted on every amendment.
Where Trump’s immigration policy fits
Section 11 of President Trump’s January 20, 2025 executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security to pursue state and local immigration-enforcement agreements, within legal limits and with appropriate local consent. That is the federal policy context for expanded 287(g) participation.
The order does not itself document Oconee’s staffing, spending, custody transfers or court outcomes. Those require operational records. Likewise, the state bill does not prove the effect of the executive order in this county. National policy, state legislation and a sheriff’s agreement should be evaluated separately before drawing a causal connection.
Where to find Oconee enforcement results
Our existing investigation’s review of the reported figure of 26 examines the February 2026 committee record and its limitations. It is not a verified federal deportation count or a complete October total.
Analysis: H.4764’s reporting provisions raise a distinct accountability question. If enacted and implemented, specified reports could help readers compare stated authority with actual operations. They would still need clear definitions, time periods and county identification. A statewide number cannot substitute for an Oconee result, and an arrest cannot substitute for a conviction.
For school responsibilities, consult the Oconee school board and parental-rights guide. The proposed school-resource-officer restriction does not establish a new SDOC policy.
Sources and next verification
Reviewed October 16, 2026: H.4764’s official history and amended text, the sheriff’s August 2025 implementation statement, and the White House order, section 11. Next useful evidence would be a later bill action, an executed agreement change or a dated agency activity report. This article does not announce any of those events.