BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    SB 1289  


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  August 3, 2016


                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS


                               Lorena Gonzalez, Chair


          SB 1289  
          (Lara) - As Amended June 30, 2016


           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Policy       |Judiciary                      |Vote:|7 - 3        |
          |Committee:   |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


          Urgency:  No  State Mandated Local Program:  NoReimbursable:  No


          SUMMARY:  


          This bill prohibits local governments and law enforcement  
          agencies from contracting with for-profit entities to detain  
          immigrants on behalf of federal immigration authorities.  This  
          bill would require that immigrant detention facilities adhere to  
          national immigration standards for the detention of immigrants.   
          This bill further requires that immigrants in detention be  
          provided other legal rights, as specified.  


          This bill authorizes a private right of action against immigrant  
          detention facilities and their agents for violations of the  
          national detention standards or violations of the other rights  








                                                                    SB 1289  


                                                                    Page  2





          created by this bill, and authorizes the Attorney General,  
          district attorneys, and city attorneys to bring suits against  
          detention facilities for violations of the national detention  
          standards or violations of other legal rights created by this  
          bill.  


          FISCAL EFFECT:


          1)Attorney General (AG):  Potentially significant workload  
            increase (GF) should the AG choose to bring civil actions for  
            injunctive and other equitable relief, offset in part by civil  
            penalty revenues. Additional workload would include the cost  
            of additional staffing to complete the drafting of pleadings,  
            discovery, and extensive legal research required for these  
            cases.  To the extent the number and complexity of cases  
            brought forward is significant, costs could rise into the  
            hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.  


          2)Local prosecutors:  Potentially significant non-reimbursable  
            local costs (Local Funds) to bring civil actions for  
            injunctive and other equitable relief, offset in part by civil  
            penalty revenues.





          3)Local governments/agencies:  Potentially significant loss of  
            future revenue (Local Funds) due to the inability to contract  
            with for-profit entities for immigrant detention services. To  
            the extent a local law enforcement agency opts to detain  
            immigrants in its facilities through a direct contract with  
            the federal government, the agency could incur potentially  
            significant non-reimbursable costs (Local Funds) to ensure  
            immigrant detainee rights as prescribed are met.









                                                                    SB 1289  


                                                                    Page  3







          4)Private contractors/vendors:  Unknown, potentially major costs  
            (private funds) to adhere to the specified standards and  
            processes for detainee transfers and rights to counsel,  
            translators, interpreters, and medical care as outlined in the  
            bill.  



          


          COMMENTS:


          1)Purpose. According to the author, "U.S. Immigration & Customs  
            Enforcement (ICE) contracts with private companies to run  
            detention facilities to hold immigrants, including  
            undocumented people, asylum-seekers, long-time green card  
            holders, and others who are awaiting their immigration  
            hearings. There have been consistent reports of human rights  
            abuses in detention facilities, including physical and sexual  
            abuse, poor access to healthcare, little access to legal  
            counsel, and overuse of solitary confinement, and even death.   
               


            "This bill will prohibit local governments from  
            contracting with private companies to detain immigrants  
            for profit. This bill will also require detention  
            facilities to meet the basic standards laid out by ICE's  
            2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards and  
            authorize individuals to bring a civil action against a  
            facility in the event that their rights are violated. This  
            bill will ensure that immigrants' rights are protected and  
            there is an opportunity for them to seek redress when they  
            have not been upheld."









                                                                    SB 1289  


                                                                    Page  4






          2)Background. Local governments and local law enforcement  
            entities are not required to detain immigrants on behalf of  
            federal immigration authorities.  The ones in California that  
            decide to detain immigrants do so by choice.  Federal  
            immigration authorities, either ICE or the U.S. Marshals,  
            enter into Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGSAs) with  
            local governments or local law enforcement whereby the local  
            entity agrees to detain immigrants on behalf of the federal  
            government.  Local governments or local law enforcement can  
            then choose to detain the immigrants in their own facilities  
            or subcontract with for-profit detention facilities instead.  


            Local government and law enforcement entities that choose to  
            contract with immigration authorities to detain immigrants  
            must adhere to national immigration detention standards,  
            promulgated by ICE regardless of whether they detain the  
            immigrants in their local jails or contract their immigrant  
            detention duties out to private for-profit corporations. But  
            many detainees have reported experiencing deplorable  
            conditions at city and county immigrant detention facilities  
            in violation of the national standards. No meaningful  
            enforcement mechanism currently exists to hold immigration  
            detention facilities accountable, whether for-profit or run by  
            local governmental agency, when they violate immigrant  
            detainees' rights. 


            In California, and around the country, for-profit detention  
            facilities are increasingly relied upon to detain immigrants.  
            Data indicates that 62% of all ICE immigration detention beds  
            in the U.S. are operated by for-profit prison corporations, up  
            from 49% in 2009.  There are currently four for-profit  
            detention facilities in California:


             a)   ICE contracts with the City of Adelanto, who in turn  
               contracts with GEO Group to detain immigrants at the  








                                                                    SB 1289  


                                                                    Page  5





               Adelanto Detention Facility (Adelanto).



             b)   ICE contracts with the City of McFarland, who in turn  
               contracts with GEO Group to detain immigrants at the Mesa  
               Verde Detention Facility (Bakersfield).



             c)   ICE contract with the City of Holtville, who in turn  
               contracts with Management & Training Corp. (MTC) to detain  
               immigrants at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility.  
               (Calexico).
             d)   U.S. Marshals contract with Corrections Corporation of  
               America (CCA) to detain immigrants at the Otay Detention  
               Facility (San Diego).





            According to the author, these four privately run facilities  
            hold almost 85% of detainees statewide, approximately 3,700  
            people, with the rest held in county jail facilities that  
            contract with federal immigration authorities.  Specifically,  
            ICE and the U.S. Marshals have intergovernmental service  
            agreements with four counties, for the detention of immigrants  
            at the Yuba County Jail (Marysville), Rio Consumnes  
            Correctional Center (Elk Grove), the West County Detention  
            Facility (Richmond), James Musick Facility (Irvine), Theo Lacy  
            Facility (Orange).  Lastly, they contract with the City of  
            Santa Ana to detain immigrants at the Santa Ana City Jail.  





            Because for-profit detention facilities are private, they  








                                                                    SB 1289  


                                                                    Page  6





            routinely claim exemptions to the California's Public Records  
            Act and the federal Freedom of Information Act. Despite the  
            lack of access to records through these acts, there have been  
            reports of inadequate medical care, suicide attempts, sexual  
            assault, and even deaths at for-profit immigrant detention  
            facilities. Because immigration detention is technically a  
            civil form of confinement, immigrants in immigrant detention  
            facilities lack many of the safeguards of the criminal justice  
            system, including access to counsel.


          1)Arguments in Opposition. This bill is opposed by the  
            California State Association of Counties (CSAC), which states,  
            "CSAC opposes any legislation that would limit a county's  
            authority to contract with a facility that detains offenders  
            whether they are immigrants, felons, or misdemeanants. Almost  
            half of California's county jails have some sort of capacity  
            order limiting the number of offenders they can hold before  
            they must be released because of overcrowding."
            The bill is also opposed by the California State Sheriffs'  
          Association, which states:





               When local correctional facilities house detained  
               immigrants, they do so in coordination with the federal  
               government, according to the laws and standards created  
               by federal authorities.  Additionally, state  
               regulations provide minimum standards for all public  
               detention facilities.  We believe SB 1289  
               inappropriately inserts the state into matters that are  
               appropriately governed by federal authorities.  Given  
               the fact that the federal government has occupied the  
               field of immigration enforcement, it is certainly  
               possible that this measure would be preempted by  
               federal law. Additionally, by creating public and  
               private rights of action for alleged violations of the  








                                                                    SB 1289  


                                                                    Page  7





               federal guidelines and the bill's standards, SB 1289  
               exposes local governments to state civil liability  
               despite federal oversight and enforcement.





          2)Prior Legislation.



             a)   AB 900 (Levine, Chapter 694, Statutes of 2015) allows  
               youth aged 18-21 who have escaped violence and terror in  
               Central America to come under the protection of a  
               guardianship that can also help the youth obtain Special  
               Immigrant Juvenile Status immigration relief.



             b)   SB 674 (de León, Chapter 721, Statutes of 2015) allows  
               youth aged 18-21 who have escaped violence and terror in  
               Central America to come under the protection of a  
               guardianship that can also help the youth obtain Special  
               Immigrant Juvenile Status immigration relief.

             c)   AB 1343 (Thurmond, Chapter 705, Statutes of 2015)  
               requires defense counsel in criminal proceedings to provide  
               accurate and affirmative advice and defense to immigrants  
               to avoid unintended immigration consequences, like  
               detention, deportation, and loss of citizenship  
               eligibility. 

          


          Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)  
          319-2081









                                                                    SB 1289  


                                                                    Page  8