BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  SB 901
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   August 28, 2012

                           ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
                                Bob Wieckowski, Chair
                  SB 901 (Steinberg) - As Amended:  August 22, 2012

                              As Proposed to Be Amended
           
          SUBJECT  :  TAXATION: UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS: CALIFORNIA 
          OPPORTUNITY AND PROSPERITY ACT

           KEY ISSUE  :  SHOULD CALIFORNIA ESTABLISH A VOLUNTARY PILOT 
          PROGRAM THAT MAY ENCOURAGE CERTAIN IMMIGRANTS TO PAY STATE 
          INCOME TAXES AND THAT POTENTIALLY ALLOWS QUALIFYING PARTICIPANTS 
          TO WORK AND REMAIN IN CALIFORNIA AT THE DISCRETION OF FEDERAL 
          AUTHORITIES RESPONSIBLE FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT? 

                                      SYNOPSIS
          
          This laudable, author-sponsored bill seeks to enact the 
          California Opportunity and Prosperity Act (COPA), legislation 
          that would authorize until 2018 a pilot program intended to 
          encourage certain immigrants in California to file state income 
          tax returns, which could potentially generate a substantial 
          amount of new tax revenue for the state.  In order to 
          incentivize participation in the program, this bill would have 
          the Governor request the federal government not to expend 
          resources on enforcement of immigration laws against qualifying 
          program participants and their employers, potentially allowing 
          participants to work and remain in California at the discretion 
          of federal authorities.

          According to the author, the bill is intended to influence the 
          federal government's exercise of prosecutorial discretion in 
          immigration enforcement, and that the primary benefit 
          participants may receive is the expectation that federal 
          immigration authorities will classify them, if the need ever 
          should arise, in the so-called "lowest priority tier" in the 
          federal government's recently implemented tiered system of 
          enforcement.  The author states that the bill "seeks to mirror 
          the Obama administration's latest statements on immigration 
          policy," citing recent United States Immigration and Customs 
          Enforcement (ICE) and Homeland Security memoranda that set forth 
          how, in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, each agency 
          should refocus its enforcement resources and priorities.








                                                                  SB 901
                                                                  Page  2


          Proponents of the bill, including many immigrant advocates, 
          community organizations and elected officials, contend that the 
          possibility for program participants to remain and work in 
          California, despite being undocumented, is an attractive 
          incentive that will encourage participation and increase state 
          tax receipts, perhaps generating as many as one million new 
          taxpayers who would contribute an estimated $325 million 
          annually in new revenue.  This analysis concludes, however, that 
          because the federal government is exclusively authorized to 
          regulate immigration and immigrants, this bill cannot 
          unfortunately guarantee program participants protection from 
          immigration enforcement.  

          Although the bill has no registered opposition, some immigrant 
          advocates have expressed concern that the bill potentially 
          creates an illusory promise of safe harbor to immigrants 
          considering applying to the program.  In addition, there are 
          remaining questions about the bill's safeguards against possible 
          disclosure or unauthorized use of information identifying 
          undocumented participants.  This bill was previously approved by 
          the Revenue and Taxation Committee by a 5-1 vote.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  Unknown.  According to the Franchise Tax Board 
          (FTB), this measure would not impact state revenues, and would 
          likely result in minor fiscal costs.  According to the 
          Legislative Analyst's Office analysis of a similar ballot 
          initiative, the measure would result in an unknown net change in 
          annual state tax revenues through fiscal year 2017-18, but 
          probably without a significant impact on overall General Fund 
          revenues, and annual state administrative costs through FY 
          2017-18 in the hundreds of thousands or low millions of dollars, 
          supported by required participant fees.

           SUMMARY  :  Establishes a voluntary program to encourage certain 
          immigrants to pay state income taxes, and requests the federal 
          government not to expend resources on enforcement of immigration 
          laws against program participants.  Specifically,  this bill  :   

          1)Defines "qualified person" as a natural person who meets all 
            of the following criteria:

             a)   Is not eligible to receive a social security number 
               (SSN).
             b)   Filed a state income tax return with a valid individual 








                                                                  SB 901
                                                                  Page  3

               taxpayer identification number (ITIN) for the most recent 
               taxable year that a return was required to be made, as 
               specified.
             c)   Is not employed by a public entity, including, but not 
               limited to, the federal government, the State of 
               California, or any political subdivision of the state.
             d)   Declares that he or she is able to speak and understand 
               English or is enrolled in, or has applied to enroll in, an 
               English-as-a-second-language class, except as provided.
             e)   Has not been convicted of a felony under California law.
             f)   Is not a public charge, within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 
               section 1182(a)(4).
             g)   Declares that he or she has been a resident of 
               California continuously since at least January 1, 2008.
             h)   Consents to a fingerprint background check, the 
               disclosure of any information necessary to confirm program 
               eligibility, and the disclosure of his or her name and 
               federal ITIN to the FTB.

          2)Requires the California Department of Justice (DOJ), until 
            January 1, 2018, to administer the program established by this 
            bill, including, among other things:

             a)   Prescribe an application for program admission.
             b)   Upon receipt of an application, investigate and 
               determine whether the applicant meets the definition of a 
               qualified person.
             c)   Provide confirmation of admission and collect fees, as 
               specified.

          3)Requires the FTB to prepare and submit an annual report to the 
            Legislature that details the tax receipts collected from 
            program participants, without disclosing identifying 
            information of any specific participant.

          4)Provides that all identifying information of applicants or 
            qualified persons in the program must be kept confidential and 
            exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records 
            Act, and must not be disclosed for any purpose.

          5)Requires all records relating to the program that contain any 
            individual identifying information be destroyed on January 1, 
            2019, or as soon as practicable thereafter, except as 
            provided.









                                                                  SB 901
                                                                  Page  4

          6)Authorizes and directs the Governor on or after July 1, 2013, 
            to request that the President direct the Department of 
            Homeland Security, the ICE, and other relevant federal 
            agencies not to expend resources during the term of the 
            program on either of the following:  

             a)   The apprehension, detention, or removal of a program 
               participant or the participant's spouse or eligible 
               dependent, unless the participant, spouse, or eligible 
               dependent meets one of the priority enforcement criteria 
               set forth in the then-existing ICE policy on civil 
               immigration enforcement.
             b)   The prosecution of a person for employing a qualified 
               person pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1324a. 

          7)Authorizes and directs the Governor on or after July 1, 2013, 
            to request that the President provide any available waivers, 
            exemptions, or authorizations necessary to provide a safe 
            harbor for individuals and businesses from federal civil and 
            criminal liability arising out of a qualified person's 
            participation in the program or the employment of a qualified 
            person during the term of the program.

          8)Declares that these provisions shall remain in effect only 
            until January 1, 2020, and are repealed as of that date.
           
          EXISTING LAW  :  

          1)Provides for the regulation of immigration exclusively by the 
            federal government.  (E.g., LULAC v. Wilson, 908 F. Supp. 755, 
            786-87 (C.D. Cal. 1995).)

          2)Authorizes the removal of aliens from the United States who 
            were inadmissible at the time of their entry, have been 
            convicted of certain crimes, have engaged in unauthorized 
            work, or meet other criteria set by federal law.  (8 U.S.C. 
            section 1227.)

          3)Provides that an agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce 
            is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute 
            discretion (Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 835 (1985), and 
            that such prosecutorial discretion also applies to immigration 
            enforcement activities.  (Reno v. American-Arab 
            Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 478-79 (1999).)
           








                                                                 SB 901
                                                                  Page  5

           4)Prohibits an employer from employing any person whose 
            immigration status makes them ineligible for work and imposes 
            fines ranging from $250 to $10,000 for each undocumented 
            worker, and criminal penalties for habitual violators ranging 
            from a $3,000 fine to six months in prison.  (8 U.S.C. section 
            274A.)
          
          5)Pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 
            (IRCA), imposes sanctions on employers who knowingly hire or 
            continue to employ undocumented workers, and requires every 
            employer to verify the employment authorization status of 
            prospective employees.  (8 U.S.C. section 1324a, subd. (a).)
          
          6)Provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of federal, 
            state, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit or 
            restrict a federal, state, or local government entity from 
            doing any of the following with respect to information 
            regarding the immigration status of any individual:
          
             a)   Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving 
               such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization 
               Service.
             b)   Maintaining such information. 
             c)   Exchanging such information with any other federal, 
               state, or local government entity.  (8 U.S.C. section 1373, 
               subd. (b).)

           COMMENTS  :  This author-sponsored bill seeks to enact the 
          California Opportunity and Prosperity Act, legislation that 
          would authorize a pilot program intended to encourage certain 
          immigrants in California to file state income tax returns and 
          potentially generate a substantial amount of new tax revenue for 
          the state.  In order to incentivize participation in the 
          program, this bill would have the Governor request that the 
          federal government not expend resources enforcing immigration 
          laws against qualifying program participants and their 
          employers, potentially allowing participants to work and remain 
          in California at the discretion of federal authorities.  Those 
          wishing to participate in the program would submit an 
          application to the DOJ, who determines admission of qualified 
          applicants by applying eligibility criteria specified by this 
          bill.  As proposed to be amended, the pilot program could admit 
          its first applicants in 2014 and stop accepting applicants at 
          the end of 2018, before authority for the program expires in 
          2020.  








                                                                  SB 901
                                                                  Page  6


           Stated need for the bill  :  On their website 
          (  www.calopportunity.org  ), proponents of COPA state that this 
          bill "would establish a framework for long-term law-abiding 
          residents that will bring them out of the shadows and free them 
          to be part of the California dream.  COPA is based upon 
          successful elements of the bipartisan Immigration and Control 
          Act of 1986 (IRCA) championed by President Ronald Reagan."  
          According to the author, this bill "gives qualified unauthorized 
          residents who pay state income taxes the option to enter a 
          program whose participants may gain relief from federal 
          enforcement and whose labor may be decriminalized.  Ultimately, 
          this measure paves the way for California to formalize the 
          federal government's stance on immigration reform."

           Brief summary of the proposed pilot program  :  The COPA program 
          has two essential components, a tax component and an immigration 
          relief component.  The tax component is relatively simple, and 
          described in more detail in the analysis of the Revenue and 
          Taxation Committee, who previously heard and approved this bill. 
           This analysis instead focuses on the legal issues associated 
          with the main thrust of the bill-namely, the potential provision 
          of "safe harbor" or other relief from federal immigration 
          enforcement to individuals, most of whom are expected to be 
          undocumented aliens, who voluntarily apply for participation and 
          agree, among other things, to file state income tax returns 
          (pursuant to existing tax law that allows this). 

          Proponents of the bill contend that the possibility for program 
          participants to enhance their ability to remain and work in 
          California, despite being undocumented, is an attractive 
          incentive that will make it worth their while to enroll in the 
          program and start paying state taxes.  According to the author, 
          COPA "could generate as many as one million new taxpayers who 
          would contribute an estimated $325 million annually to fund 
          needed education, police, fire, and health services in 
          California."

          Although the bill has no formal opposition, there remain many 
          open questions about the bill, including: (1) whether the bill 
          may be preempted by federal law because of its focus on 
          immigration; (2) whether the bill confers any meaningful 
          immigration-related benefits to program participants; and (3) 
          unexplored questions regarding the possible disclosure or 
          unauthorized use of identifying information of participants.








                                                                  SB 901
                                                                  Page  7

           
           Federal Preemption  :  Federal preemption carries particular force 
          in the context of immigration because the federal government has 
          broad, undoubted power over immigration and the status of 
          aliens.  (See, e.g., Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1, 10 (1982).  
          Because this bill delves so closely into the subject of 
          immigration, it is important to consider whether this bill may 
          be preempted by federal law should it ultimately become law in 
          California.

          Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution 
          (Article VI, Clause 2), federal law may either expressly or 
          implicitly preempt state or local law.  (Hillsborough County v. 
          Automated Med. Labs., 471 U.S. 707, 713 (1985).)  In cases of 
          express preemption, Congress "maŬkes] its intent known through 
          explicit statutory language."  (English v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 
          U.S. 72, 78-79 (1990).)  Implied preemption, on the other hand, 
          arises in one of two circumstances-field preemption and conflict 
          preemption.  Field preemption occurs when a state or 
          municipality purports to "regulate conduct in a field that 
          Congress intended the Federal Government to occupy exclusively." 
           (Id.)  The intent to displace state law altogether can be 
          inferred from a framework of regulation "so pervasive . . . that 
          Congress left no room for the States to supplement it" or where 
          there is a "federal interest . . . so dominant that the federal 
          system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on 
          the same subject." (Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 
          218, 230 (1947).)  Under conflict preemption, a state law is 
          preempted when it conflicts with federal law, including cases 
          where "compliance with both federal and state regulations is a 
          physical impossibility," (Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. 
          v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 142-143 (1963)), or, alternatively, 
          where the state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment 
          and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." 
          (Rice, 331 U.S. at 230.)

          Enforcement of immigration laws relating to detention and 
          removal.  Under this bill, the Governor is required to request 
          that the President direct federal immigration authorities "not 
          to expend resources . . . on the apprehension, detention, or 
          removal of a qualified person in the program (or his spouse or 
          dependent), unless the qualified person meets one of the 
          priority enforcement criteria set forth in the-then existing ICE 
          policy on civil immigration enforcement."  In addition, the 
          President is requested to "provide any available waivers, 








                                                                  SB 901
                                                                  Page  8

          exemptions, or authorizations necessary to provide a safe harbor 
          for individuals . . . from federal civil and criminal liability 
          arising out of a qualified person's participation in the 
          program."

          An argument can be made that these provisions are preempted by 
          implied preemption because one objective of the bill appears to 
          be to help shield program participants from federal enforcement 
          of immigration laws that provide for the detention and removal 
          of undocumented immigrants.  The regulation of immigration and 
          immigrants, legal and illegal, is "unquestionably exclusively a 
          federal power."  (De Cana v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354 (1976).)  
          Moreover, Congress has occupied the field in this area and 
          specified which aliens may be removed from the country and the 
          procedures for doing so.  (See 8 U.S.C. section 1227.)  Were the 
          bill to actually regulate or attempt to regulate in this area, 
          such effort would almost certainly be foreclosed under field 
          preemption.  

          However, the bill seemingly does not enter that field of 
          regulation because it does not provide a program participant 
          with any assurance of relief from federal enforcement of 
          immigration laws, nor does the bill interfere with the ability 
          of federal officials to exercise their authority.  Instead the 
          bill simply conveys our state's request to the President and 
          federal immigration authorities to exercise their prosecutorial 
          discretion in a particular way, but without regulating or 
          usurping undisputed federal authority to enforce the laws at 
          their discretion.  

          Enforcement of law prohibiting employment of undocumented 
          persons.  Under this bill, the Governor's request to the 
          President to direct federal officials not to expend resources 
          also extends to the prosecution of an employer for employing a 
          qualified program participant.  In addition, the President is 
          requested to "provide any available waivers, exemptions, or 
          authorizations necessary to provide a safe harbor for 
          individuals and businesses from federal civil and criminal 
          liability arising out of . . . the employment of a qualified 
          person."  Like the previous example, the bill requests but does 
          not require federal authorities to exercise enforcement 
          discretion under IRCA in a certain manner.

          Congress enacted IRCA as a comprehensive framework for 
          "combating the employment of illegal aliens."  (Hoffman Plastic 








                                                                  SB 901
                                                                  Page  9

          Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U. S. 137, 147 (2002).) Among other 
          things, IRCA imposes sanctions on employers who knowingly hire 
          or continue to employ undocumented workers, and requires every 
          employer to verify the employment authorization status of 
          prospective employees.  (See 8 U.S.C. section 1324a(a)(1).)  
          With respect to the bill's provisions encouraging exercise of 
          discretion to not prosecute employers for employing program 
          participants, potentially in violation of IRCA, a court could 
          find implied preemption if it concludes that the bill intrudes 
          into the comprehensive framework for regulating employers 
          occupied by IRCA.  In addition, conflict preemption may be an 
          issue if a court finds that potentially relieving an employer of 
          liability for employing an unauthorized worker "stands as an 
          obstacle" to the purposes and objectives of Congress in enacting 
          IRCA to combat the employment of aliens.  However, as discussed 
          above, this bill imposes no new regulatory requirements upon 
          employers, and does not create any conflict for employers to 
          comply with both IRCA and this bill, should this bill become 
          state law.  It simply requests that federal authorities exercise 
          their discretion in a particular way.

           Benefits for Program Participants  :  The discussion above 
          highlights the fact that immigration policy and the authority to 
          enforce immigration laws lie squarely in the domain of the 
          federal government.  This bill, however, incentivizes 
          undocumented persons to enroll in a state program with the 
          proverbial carrots of potential "relief from immigration 
          enforcement" and "decriminalization of labor," to closely 
          paraphrase the author's words.  Because the state cannot 
          legislate or directly affect enforcement of immigration laws, it 
          is reasonable to ask what benefits individuals can expect to 
          realize if they choose to enroll in this program.

          In response to inquiries by the Committee, the author asserts 
          that the primary benefit that participants may receive is the 
          expectation that federal immigration authorities will classify 
          them, if the need ever should arise, in the so-called "lowest 
          priority tier" in the federal government's recently implemented 
          tiered system of enforcement.  According to the author, the bill 
          is intended to influence the federal government's exercise of 
          prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement and "seeks 
          to mirror the Obama administration's latest statements on 
          immigration policy," citing recent memoranda by the Director of 
          ICE (June 17, 2011) and the Secretary of Homeland Security (June 
          15, 2012) that set forth how, in the exercise of prosecutorial 








                                                                  SB 901
                                                                  Page  10

          discretion, each agency should refocus its enforcement resources 
          and priorities.  The author also notes that nothing in the bill 
          seeks to change federal immigration law per se, nor seeks to 
          provide a pathway to citizenship.  
    
          Because the state cannot command or require particular 
          enforcement discretion in the solely federal arena of 
          immigration, in order to achieve the objective of "lowest 
          priority tier" treatment, this bill takes the unusual step of 
          having the Governor request the President to direct federal 
          immigration officials  not  to expend resources on various 
          immigration enforcement activities, for the duration of the 
          program.  It is prudent to consider whether this bill might have 
          the Governor request the President to do something that the 
          President may not have the legal authority to do.  If the 
          President lacks such authority, then that calls into question 
          whether this bill is capable of conferring the type of favorable 
          treatment and benefits that the author quite admirably aspires 
          to provide.

          Prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement.  As the 
          U.S. Supreme Court recently explained in Arizona v. U.S., a 
          principal feature of the immigration system is the broad 
          discretion exercised by immigration officials.  (132 U.S. 2492, 
          2499 (2012).)  The Court "has recognized on several occasion 
          over many years that an agency's decision not to prosecute or 
          enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a 
          decision generally committed to an agency's absolute 
          discretion."  (Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 835 (1985).)  
          Therefore, it is readily apparent that this bill requests the 
          President to do something within his authority, namely to direct 
          agencies under his executive control to allocate use of their 
          resources to reflect certain priorities in the federal 
          government's strategic approach towards immigration enforcement.

          Employment prohibitions.  With respect to employment of 
          unauthorized aliens, IRCA imposes sanctions on employers who 
          knowingly hire or continue to employ undocumented workers, and 
          other federal law prohibits any employer from employing a person 
          whose immigration status makes them ineligible for work.  The 
          bill appears to be predicated on the President having the 
          authority to isolate one group of persons-here, employers of 
          program participants-and provide so-called "safe harbor" from 
          liability under IRCA.  The Committee's research did not reveal 
          any such authority under IRCA.  Thus, it is possible that this 








                                                                  SB 901
                                                                  Page  11

          bill requests the President to exceed his authority by taking 
          steps to exempt a certain class of persons from liability under 
          a federal law that does not apparently provide for any such 
          exemptions.

          Concluding comments.  This bill offers the possibility of safe 
          harbor and relief from enforcement to the extent that the 
          federal government chooses to exercise its discretion to do so.  
          However, because the federal government is exclusively 
          authorized to regulate immigration and immigrants, this bill 
          necessarily cannot guarantee program participants or their 
          employers protections from immigration enforcement.  The 
          President, who may not be the same individual currently in 
          office, could refuse the Governor's request.  Even if the 
          President makes the requested directive to immigration 
          authorities, those officials still retain the right to enforce 
          the immigration laws at their discretion, including the possible 
          removal of program participants.   
           
           At least one immigrant advocate group has expressed its concern 
          that the bill potentially creates an illusory promise of safe 
          harbor to immigrants considering applying to the program.  In 
          its letter to the committee, Chinese for Affirmative Action 
          (CAA) does not formally oppose the bill, but nevertheless states 
          the following concern:

              Safe harbor -- the primary desired benefit to be 
              afforded to participants -- is premised on a successful 
              request from the Governor to the U.S. Department of 
              Homeland Security to not pursue enforcement and 
              deportation actions against participants.  Because the 
              State of California has no formal or binding power to 
              prevent the federal government from pursuing deportation 
              actions, the promise of safe harbor as a result of AB901 
              is most likely to be illusory.  Though there nonetheless 
              may be other value in such a request being made by the 
              Governor, they would be accompanied by significant 
              risks. . . . includ(ing) imparting a false sense of 
              protection and security for California immigrants, and 
              facilitating the exploitation of immigrants by 
              unscrupulous individuals who offer access to this 
              program for personal financial gain.

           What unforeseen problems could arise from the possible 
          disclosure or unauthorized use of information identifying 








                                                                 SB 901
                                                                  Page  12

          undocumented persons?   Under this bill, individuals wishing to 
          participate in the program must submit an application to the 
          DOJ, which determines admissibility to the program based on 
          specific criteria.  In order to administer the program, DOJ 
          presumably must maintain a database of individuals who have been 
          admitted and who remain eligible for participation.  
          Furthermore, in order for this program to achieve its stated 
          objective of providing immigration-related benefits to 
          participants, the identifying participant information 
          necessarily must be shared with federal immigration officials.  
          Without such information, it would be impossible for those 
          authorities to know what tier of enforcement to apply, for 
          example, in a removal proceeding against a person enrolled in 
          the state program.  The benefits of the program are possible 
          only when those who may benefit are known to the federal 
          authorities able to exercise discretion in enforcement 
          proceedings.

          With respect to safeguarding confidential information, the bill 
          provides that all identifying information of program applicants 
          and participants must be held confidential and exempt from 
          disclosure under the California Public Records Act.  In 
          addition, the bill prohibits such information from being 
          "disclosed for any purpose, except as provided . . . or as 
          otherwise required by state or federal law."  The author also 
          notes that there are existing federal laws that prevent any 
          sharing of tax information with any other government agency, 
          particularly with ICE, and that the bill's Public Record Act 
          exemption language was carefully crafted in consultation with 
          both FTB and DOJ attorneys to survive challenge.

          Despite the very laudable goals of, and protections provided for 
          in, the bill, some immigrant advocates have expressed concern 
          about unforeseen problems that could arise from the possible 
          disclosure or unauthorized use of this information, whether the 
          disclosure is compelled by court order, inadvertently leaked, or 
          stolen by hackers.  For example, the Asian Law Caucus, who does 
          not formally oppose the bill, wrote a letter to the Committee 
          expressing the following concern:

               SB 901 will collect and store information on 
               California's undocumented population without 
               sufficient safeguards for confidentiality and privacy. 
                This has the potential to become extremely hazardous 
               for those individuals who choose to participate.  The 








                                                                  SB 901
                                                                  Page  13

               confidentiality and privacy of undocumented 
               individuals must be taken very seriously. For example, 
               given programs like U.S. ICE's controversial Secure 
               Communities fingerprint program and the Next 
               Generation Identification Program, there is a 
               likelihood that U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
               in the immediate or long-term future may seek access 
               to this database of undocumented immigrants for 
               purposes that may be punitive in nature for 
               participants.

          CAA also states, "Unfortunately, there are federal statutes 
          - 8 USC sections 1373 and 1644 - that limit state and local 
          governments from interfering with the voluntary flow of 
          immigration information.  These may encourage state 
          employees to share information with respect to undocumented 
          individuals without appropriate negative consequence."

          Finally, there are several additional privacy-related questions 
          that deserve more thoughtful consideration than is possible in 
          this analysis:

          1)Sec. 19540(b) of the bill prohibits disclosure for any 
            purpose, but allows a broad exception to nondisclosure "as 
            otherwise required by state or federal law."  What are the 
            other as-yet unidentified state or federal laws that may 
            require disclosure of a person's identifying information in 
            this context, and for what purpose?

          2)If a program participant's identifying information is 
            disclosed or released beyond what is authorized by this bill, 
            does that person have any recourse against the person/entity 
            that disclosed it?  What about against a 3rd party that 
            subsequently uses the information for a different unauthorized 
            purpose? 

          3)Could DOJ be liable for any problem arising from unauthorized 
            disclosure of confidential information?  

          4)Would a program participant have any recourse against the 
            federal government for use of the information not authorized 
            by this bill (for example, use of the information for the 
            purpose of immigration enforcement)?

           Author's Amendments  :  In order to address certain operational 








                                                                  SB 901
                                                                  Page  14

          concerns raised by DOJ, the author has proposed amendments to be 
          taken in this Committee to:  (1) postpone the start date of the 
          program until January 1, 2014; (2) remove the requirement that a 
          photograph accompany each application; and (3) revise the 
          required background check to reflect only state-level criminal 
          offender record information.  These amendments appear below:

             On page 3, line 26-27, delete "the United States,"

             On page 3, line 27, delete ", or any other state"

             On page 3, delete lines 28 through 31 inclusive.

             On page 3, delete "(7)" and insert "(6)"

             On page 3, delete "(8)" and insert "(7)"

             On page 3, delete "(9)" and insert "(8)"

             On page 3, delete "(10)" and insert "(9)"

             On page 4, line 18, delete "A" and insert "On or after 
             January 1, 2014, a"

             On page 4, line 20, delete "The application shall require 
             that an" and delete lines 21-22.

             On page 5, line 3, delete "2013" and insert "2014"

             On page 5, line 12, delete "2014" and insert "2015"

           Pending Related Legislation:   AB 1081 (Ammiano) seeks to 
          prohibit local police from detaining anyone on an immigration 
          hold if the person is not charged with or has not been convicted 
          of a serious or violent crime.  This bill has passed both houses 
          and is pending the Governor's signature.  AB 1092 (Fuentes) is 
          nearly identical in content to this bill, and is currently in 
          the Senate Rules Committee.
           
          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support 
           
          ANAHUAK Youth Sports Association
          Central American Resource Center 








                                                                  SB 901
                                                                  Page  15

          Comite de Festejos Centroamericanos 
          Latino and Latina Roundtable of San Gabriel and Pomona Valley
          Pomona Speaks/ Habla Community Coalition
          Pueblo y Salud, Inc. 
          Puerto el Triunfo, Inc.
          Southwest Voter Registration Education Project 
          William C. Velasquez Institute 
          Over 50 elected officials and representatives of community 
          organizations
           
          Opposition 
           
          None on file
           

          Analysis Prepared by  :    Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334