BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2580
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2010
Counsel: Nicole J. Hanson
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 2580 (Logue) - As Introduced: February 19, 2010
SUMMARY : Requires notification to the appropriate federal
agency having charge of deportation matters upon the felony
arrest of any person who may not be a citizen of the United
States.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that every law enforcement agency in California shall
fully cooperate with the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), as specified. (Penal Code Section 834b.)
2)Provides that in accordance with federal law, as specified,
every peace officer, upon arrest and booking or detention for
more than two hours of a known or suspected foreign national,
shall advise the foreign national that he or she has a right
to communicate with an official from the consulate of his or
her country, except as provided. If the foreign national
chooses to exercise that right, the peace officer shall notify
the pertinent official in his or her agency or department of
the arrest or detention and that the foreign national wants
his or her consulate notified. (Penal Code Section 834c.)
3)Provides that local law enforcement officers are not
prohibited from cooperating with federal agents in the
discharge of their duties. However, the mandatory provisions
of Penal Code Section 834b relative to cooperation,
verification and notification to INS with respect to persons
arrested who are suspected of being in the United States
illegally are not subject to enforcement by local law
enforcement officers. [84 Op. Att'y Gen. Cal. 189 (2001).]
4)The California Attorney General's Office, under Daniel
Lungren, held in an official opinion that California law
enforcement officials may not arrest immigrants for alleged or
suspected violations of federal civil immigration laws. The
AB 2580
Page 2
opinion stated that local agency arrests for civil violations
of Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) are deemed to intrude
impermissibly on the federal preserve. [75 Op. Att'y Gen.
Cal. 270 n. 3. (1992). ]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "AB 2580 expands
an already existing mandate to report those in this country
illegally upon arrest of a felony charge. It is a
common-sense public safety measure."
2)Background : According to information provided by the author,
"Existing law provides that when there is a reason to believe
that any person arrested for the possession, possession for
sale, purchase for sale, transportation, sale, or giving away
of specified controlled substances may not be a citizen of the
United States, the arresting agency is required to notify the
appropriate federal agency having charge of deportation
matters.
"This bill would impose a state-mandated local program by
providing that this notification requirement is also
applicable when there is a reason to believe that any person
arrested for any felony offense may not be a citizen of the
United States. The bill is focused on those arrested on
suspicion of committing a felony. This does not pursue those
who abide by the law."
3)Federal Preemption : Case law has recognized the preeminent
role of the Federal Government with respect to the regulation
of aliens within our borders. [See, e.g., Mathews v. Diaz
(1976) 426 U.S. 67; Graham v. Richardson (1971) 403 U.S. 365,
377-380; Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n (1948) 334 U.S. 410,
418-420 (1948); Hines v. Davidowitz (1948) 312 U.S. 52, 62-68;
Truax v. Raich (1915) 239 U.S. 33, 42.] Federal authority to
regulate the status of aliens derives from various sources,
including the Federal Government's power "[to] establish [a]
uniform Rule of Naturalization" (U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl.
4), its power "[to] regulate Commerce with foreign Nations"
(Id., cl. 3), and its broad authority over foreign affairs.
[See United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936) 299
U.S. 304, 318; Mathews v. Diaz, supra, at 81, n. 17;
AB 2580
Page 3
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952) 342 U.S. 580, 588-589.]
"The Federal Government has broad constitutional powers in
determining what aliens shall be admitted to the United
States, the period they may remain, regulation of their
conduct before naturalization, and the terms and conditions of
their naturalization. Under the Constitution the states are
granted no such powers; they can neither add to nor take from
the conditions lawfully imposed by Congress upon admission,
naturalization and residence of aliens in the United States or
the several states. State laws which impose discriminatory
burdens upon the entrance or residence of aliens lawfully
within the United States conflict with this constitutionally
derived federal power to regulate immigration, and have
accordingly been held invalid." [Takahashi v. Fish & Game
Comm'n, supra, 334 U.S. at 419.]
Despite the fact that the power to regulate immigration is
exclusively federal, the fact that a state statute simply
pertains to aliens does not render it, per se, preempted by
federal immigration law. [De Canas v. Bica (1976) 424 U.S.
351, 354-356.] In De Canas, the United States Supreme Court
held that a state statute related to immigration is preempted
by federal law if it is a regulation of immigration, which is
essentially a "determination of who should or should not be
admitted into the country . . . " or if it attempts to
regulate a subject matter with respect to which Congress has
intended to completely oust state power. (Id. at 355-357.)
This bill does not encroach upon the exclusivity of federal
immigration law. As case law indicates, the exclusive
province of the Federal Government to regulate and enforce
federal immigration laws lies within the determination of who
should or should not be admitted into the United States. This
bill does not regulate admission or deportation persons into
the United States; this bill simply prohibits county probation
officers from placing an individual under his or her
supervision who is believed to be undocumented in a
residential facility in another county.
Although, this bill does not encroach upon the federal
exclusivity of immigration law in regards to admission or
deportation, states are not encouraged to supply the INS with
information regarding undocumented persons unless specifically
asked to do so. This issue is further discussed below.
AB 2580
Page 4
4)Arresting Agencies Functioning as "Immigration Watchdogs" :
Immigration laws are extremely complex and the unavoidable
mistakes made by ill-prepared law enforcement officials in
determining an individual's immigration status can be costly,
resulting in lawsuits and protracted litigation, especially if
an individual is wrongly detained because of assumptions about
his or her immigration status. [See, e.g., Soto-Torres v.
Johnson (E.D. Cal filed August 30, 1999) CIV S-99-1695 WBS/DAD
(County and federal officials paid $100,000 to settle the case
after the county probation officer made an erroneous
determination regarding plaintiff's deportability which
resulted in wrongful arrest and detention of plaintiff by
immigration authorities.).] Litigation is also ongoing in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in
Guzman v. Chertoff (C.D. Cal., filed Feb. 27, 2008) No.
2:08-cv-01327-GHK-SS, a case brought against Los Angeles
County Sheriff's employees and federal immigration agents by a
U.S. citizen, Pedro Guzman, who was deported upon the advice
of a county employee. Mr. Guzman, who is developmentally
disabled, was lost in Mexico for three months following the
improper deportation and is suing local and federal
authorities for damages. Thus, this bill subjects counties to
costly lawsuits by forcing probation officers to make judgment
outside their expertise, which inevitably leads to erroneous
referrals to federal immigration authorities.
Lastly, the general INS policy with regard to states supplying
information about suspected undocumented aliens seems to
discourage the states from asking for that information when
the INS does not specifically request such information. In
Doe v. Miller (N.D. Ill. 1983) 573 F. Supp. 461, the court
invalidated a state policy of demanding information about
residency status from undocumented aliens. INS asked for the
information only when an applicant could not document his or
her residency status for a federal food-stamp program. (Id.
at 463.) The legislative history of the statute which
required the names of suspected undocumented aliens explicitly
stated that INS did not want the state workers acting as
"outreach officers of INS." (Id. at 466.) State case workers
were informed that:
[T]he Committee expects the Secretary and the State
agencies to exercise special care to prevent potential
human abuse flowing from this reporting requirement.
AB 2580
Page 5
Effective and efficient administration of this reporting
requirement demands the utmost in caution and concern for
human rights as well as sensitivity to the serious harm
caused by subconscious as well as conscious prejudice and
discrimination. (Ibid.)
Hence, the instruction given by Congress stands as a clear
statement that the INS does not want the state acting as an
"immigration watchdog" for INS. Congress recognized that if
the states had free license to report suspected undocumented
aliens, any person could fall under a state worker's
unwarranted scrutiny.
In addition thereto, this bill requires the arresting agency
to report arrestees to the appropriate agency of the United
States having charge of deportation matters. These persons
have not been found or pled guilty to any crime; they have
merely been arrested. Charges may never be filed. Thus, this
bill requires the reporting of persons whom they believe may
not be a citizen and whom they believe may have committed a
felony. Both are unnecessary. First, the person arrested may
be a citizen, and second, even if the person is not a citizen
he or she may not be guilty of a deportable criminal offense.
Thus, it is a waste of state time and resources to require
reporting of suspected undocumented arrestees.
5)Reason to Believe a Person is Undocumented : The Constitution
requires that "[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law." [U.S.
Const. 5th Amend. (emphasis added).] The Constitution also
provides, "nor shall any State. . . Deny to any Person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [Id. 14th
Amend., Section 1 (emphasis added).] It seems significant
that "person" rather than "citizen" is the beneficiary of
these protections, adding weight to the contention that a
non-citizen is entitled to equal protection. "[T]he Due
Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United
States, including non-citizens, whether their presence here is
lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." [Zadvydas v.
Davis (2001) 533 U.S. 678, 693; see also Landon v. Plasencia
(1982) 459 U.S. 21, 32-33 (noting that permanent resident
aliens are entitled to a high degree of due process,
approaching that accorded to citizens); cf. Rest.3d, Foreign
Relations Law, Section 701 (1986) ("A state is obligated to
respect the human rights of persons subject to its
AB 2580
Page 6
jurisdiction"); Id. Section 722 ("An alien in the United
States is entitled to the guarantees of the United States
Constitution other than those expressly reserved for
citizens.").]
A statutory classification that does not burden a suspect class
or infringe upon the exercise of a fundamental right must be
upheld against equal protection challenge "if there is any
reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a
rational basis for the classification." [Federal
Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc. (1993)
508 U.S. 307.] Strict scrutiny applies where the
classification burdens a suspect class or fundamental right.
[Ibid.; City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center Inc.
(1985) 473 U.S. 432).]
Undocumented or "illegal" aliens are not a suspect class in an
equal protection analysis. [Plyler v. Doe (1982) 457 U.S.
202, 219 n.19.] The Supreme Court has observed that "entry
into this class, by virtue of entry into this country, is the
product of voluntary action. Indeed, entry into the class is
itself a crime." (Ibid.) The Court also expressed the view
that "those who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in
violation of our law should be prepared to bear the
consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation."
(Id. at 220.) Thus, the government's different treatment of
aliens will "be upheld against equal protection challenge if
there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could
provide a rational basis for the classification." [FCC v.
Beach Communications, Inc. (1993) 508 U.S. 307, 313.]
In Lizarrago-Lopez v. U.S. (D. Cal.2000) 89 F.Supp. 2d 1166,
1170, non-citizen inmates were not permitted to take part in
home or community confinement programs. The court concluded
that, under an equal protection analysis, legitimate policy
interests provided adequate grounds to uphold differential
treatment. That court reasoned, "The United States has no
policy interest whatsoever in facilitating the re-introduction
of non-citizen convicts into foreign communities." [Id. at
1170 (emphasis added).] Lizarraga-Lopez's status is not
"likely to cause a fortuitous increase in the severity of his
sentence." (Ibid.) Other courts have held generally that the
denial of placement in a halfway house or home detention does
not significantly enhance the severity of a defendant's
sentence. [Palafox-Barajas (S.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 1999) 1999 WL
AB 2580
Page 7
1338451, at *2.]
This bill is dissimilar from Lizarrago in that this bill would
require the arresting agency to make assumptions regarding an
arrestee's United States citizenship. Thus, no actual, legal
determination of a person's status is made.
Instead, this bill invites mass racial profiling as arresting
agencies are not trained or legally competent to determine an
individual's federal immigration status. Instead, agencies
would be forced to rely on whether a person looks or sounds
"foreign." This bill is silent as to how a determination will
be made into whether or not an arrestee is within the United
States illegally. State officials will be compelled to rely
on discriminatory characteristics suggesting that an
individual is foreign, i.e., name, accent, language ability,
or physical attributes.
Population projections also show a growing Hispanic population
in this country. The Bureau of the Census estimates that by
2050 Hispanics will constitute nearly 25% of the U.S.
population. [See U.S. Dep't of Commerce, Current Population
Reports: Population Projections of the United States by Age,
Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2050 (1996) at 13
tbl.J.] Each year, hundreds of thousands of persons of Latin
American ancestry are lawfully admitted to this country. In
fiscal year 1997 alone, the United States admitted over
146,000 lawful permanent residents from Mexico. (See 1997 INS
Statistical Yearbook, supra note 169, at 21 tbl.C.) Over
640,000 Mexican immigrants in 1971-80, about 1.7 million in
1981-90, and over 1.8 million in 1991-97 lawfully immigrated
to the United States. (See Id. at 26 tbl.2.) In fiscal years
1988-97, nearly 600,000 Mexican immigrants naturalized and
became U.S. citizens. (See Id. at 148 tbl.47.)
In California, the southern border is one of the focal points of
U.S. immigration enforcement Hispanics comprised over
one-quarter of the state's population in 1990. [See Stiles et
al., California Latino Demographic Databook (1998) 2-5
tbl.2.1.] Hispanics constitute a large percentage, sometimes
even a majority, of the population in many localities on or
near California's Mexican border. (See Id. at 2-32, 2-34.)
For example, in Imperial County, Hispanics constitute over 70%
of the population. [See U.S. Dep't of Commerce, Population
Estimates for Counties by Race and Hispanic Origin: July 1,
AB 2580
Page 8
1999 (1999).]
Given the millions of Latinos residing lawfully in the United
States, "Hispanic appearance" holds little probative value in
determining whether a person lacks proper immigration
documentation. In Equal Protection terms, the classification
is over-inclusive with respect to the ostensible goal of
identifying undocumented persons. Like the proverbial
"dragnet," this bill punishes "the innocent bystander, the
hapless victim of circumstance or association . . . . Such
classifications fly squarely in the face of our traditional
antipathy to assertions of mass guilt and guilt by
association." [Thompson, Stopping the Usual Suspects: Race
and the Fourth Amendment (1999) 74 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 956, 957.]
This bill encourages arbitrary and unreasonable classifications
of arrestees. Under the Equal Protection doctrine, the
Supreme Court has held that racial classifications are
constitutionally suspect and subject to strict scrutiny.
[City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989) 488 U.S. 469.]
This bill treads in murky constitutional water.
6)Common Misconception: Immigrants Commit More Crime : In
February 2008, the Public Policy Institute of California
(PPIC) released a study, "Crime, Corrections, and California:
What Does Immigration Have to Do with It?" PPIC is a private,
non-profit organization dedicated to informing and improving
public policy in California through independent, objective,
non-partisan research.
The study was statistically based and examined the present
institutional population in California. The study found that
immigrants are far less likely than the average United States
native to commit crime in California. For example, among men
ages 18 to 40 (the age group most likely to commit crime),
United States-born inmates are 10 times more likely than the
foreign-born inmates to be in jail or prison. Even among
non-citizen men from Mexico ages 18 to 40 (a group
disproportionately likely to have entered the United States
illegally), the authors find very low rates of
institutionalization. Such findings suggest that longstanding
fears of immigration as a threat to public safety are
unjustified. The entire study can be found at
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_208KBCC.pdf.
AB 2580
Page 9
7)Argument in Support : According to the Peace Officers Research
Association of California (PORAC) , "California peace officers
need the authority to notify federal agencies when an
undocumented person is in custody for committing a felony."
8)Argument in Opposition : According to the Asian American for
Civil Rights and Equality , "AB 2580 is problematic because it
requires law enforcement officers to make judgments regarding
an individual's immigration status when officers are
ill-equipped to do so. The International Association of
Chiefs of Police (IACP), the leading law enforcement
association in the United States, notes that '[i]mmigration
law is very detailed and complex
. . . with one's immigration status not always being easily
ascertained' and therefore, '[s]pecialized training is
required to equip state and local officers with the basic
ability to determine whether persons they have encountered are
legal or illegal immigrants.' [Firman, ICAP, Police Chiefs
Guide to Immigration Issues (Aug. 3, 2007) p. 43-44
(as if Apr. 14, 2010).] Accurately determining
an individual's immigration status is a difficult task
requiring training and expertise in immigration law.
"We strongly oppose AB 2580 because it will encourage law
enforcement to engage in racial profiling and pretextual
stops, exposing counties to liability for racial profiling and
erroneous referrals of persons who are actually documented to
ICE. The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race,
Ethnicity & Diversity, at the University of California,
Berkeley School of Law, found in their study entitled, 'The
[Criminal Alien Program] [(C.A.P.)] Effect: Racial Profiling
in the ICE C.A.P.,' that law enforcement assistance in federal
immigration enforcement efforts in Irving, Texas led to a
marked rise in arrests of Latinos and referrals of people who
were likely to be lawful residents. The study showed that
immigration enforcement cooperative agreements, 'tacitly
encourage . . . local police to arrest Hispanics
. . . ' [Gardner & Kohli, The C.A.P. Effect: Racial Profiling
in the ICE C.A.P. (Sept. 2009) p. 4
(as of Apr. 14, 2010).] This
inevitably leads to erroneous referrals. As the IACP notes,
'[d]etermining the difference between legal and illegal status
AB 2580
Page 10
is complex and carries with it significant responsibilities.
Effective training will likely be lengthy, requiring an
extraordinary commitment of agency resources. Failure to
train effectively carries significant ramifications, risks,
and liability.' (Firman, supra. at 14.) In a state like
California, where foreign-born individuals make up 27.3% of
the total population of California, it is even harder to
decipher who is and is not documented. [Pew Hispanic Center,
Statistical Portrait of the Foreign-Born Population in the
United States, 2007 (Mar. 5, 2009)
(as of Apr. 14, 2010).] In Soto-Torres v. Johnson, CIV
S-99-1596 WBS/DAD (E.D. Cal. filed Aug. 30, 1999), local and
federal government officials had to pay $100,000 to settle a
lawsuit after a San Joaquin County probation officer made an
erroneous determination regarding the plaintiff's
deportability, which resulted in his wrongful arrest and
detention by immigration agents. Litigation is also ongoing
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in Guzman v. Chertoff, Case No. CV-08-01327, a case
brought against Los Angeles County Sheriff's employees and
federal immigration agents by a U.S. citizen who was deported
upon the advice of a County Employee. Mr.Guzman, who is
developmentally disabled, was lost in Mexico for three months
following the improper deportation and is suing local and
federal authorities for damages. AB 2580 subjects state and
local agencies to costly lawsuits by forcing police officers
to make judgments outside their expertise which inevitably
leads to erroneous referrals.
"AB 2580 endangers public safety and community policing
strategies. As police chiefs across the political spectrum
have emphasized, commitments to focusing on local law
enforcement rather than federal immigration enforcement are an
invaluable tool for law enforcement to ensure that they build
and maintain trust with all local residents. If residents
fear that law enforcement has become an arm of federal
immigration enforcement, they will be afraid to report crimes
if they are the victims or witnesses to crimes, and this puts
all residents at risk. This is especially damaging to the
most vulnerable members of the immigrant community, including
victims of domestic violence who already are fearful of coming
forward. As the IACP recognizes, "[e]thnic minorities are
often afraid of the perceived potential for racial profiling
and prejudice towards them by the police . . . [which] results
AB 2580
Page 11
in fear and distrust in the immigrant community and a general
lack of cooperation with law enforcement." (Firman, supra, at
21.) AB 2580 intensifies this fear, ensuring that immigrants
refrain from reporting crimes to avoid being referred to
federal immigration authorities for deportation. As noted by
IACP, '[w]ithout assurances that they will not be subject to
an immigration investigation and possible deportation, many
immigrants with critical information would not come forward,
even when heinous crimes are committed against them or their
families.' [Voegtlin, IACP, Enforcing Immigration Law: the
Role of State, Trial and Local Law Enforcement (Nov. 30, 2004)
p. 5
(as of Apr. 14, 2010).] AB 2580 will inevitably have an
impact on local policing priorities by diverting local law
enforcement from investigating and solving crime to
investigating the immigration status of individuals in the
community.
"Finally, this bill is costly to the State of California because
at a time when the State is already experience an
unprecedented budget crisis, this bill diverts funds away form
local law enforcement and towards immigration enforcement.
The federal budget has already allocated almost $6 billion to
ICE for immigration enforcement. There is no need to have the
State further shoulder the cost of having local law
enforcement assist in the federal government's immigration
duties. In addition, California does not have to expend our
limited resources in this manner because it is will
established that immigration enforcement is within the
responsibility and expertise of the federal government and not
local governments. [See League of United Latin American
Citizens v. Wilson (C.D. Cal. 1995) 908 F.Supp.755, 771
(invalidating California statute requiring law enforcement
agencies to inquire about an arrestee's immigration status if
officers suspected that the arrestee was not a citizen of the
United States and to notify the federal agency believes is not
a citizen of the United States); Gates v. Superior Court of
Los Angeles County (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 205, 218 ('[b]y
allowing LAPD officers to arrest for civil violations of the
[Immigration and Nationality Act], the[former LAPD] policy
impermissibly intruded upon the federal preserve.').] AB 2540
drains already limited resources away form the State and is
unnecessary as ICE is already well-funded to conduct
immigration and enforcement efforts."
AB 2580
Page 12
9)Related Legislation : AB 2333 (Emmerson) would have prohibited
county probation officers from placing an individual under his
or her supervision, who is believed to be undocumented, in a
residential facility in another county. AB 2333 failed
passage in this Committee.
10)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 1081 (Garrick), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have required the Secretary of CDCR to enter into an
agreement with the United States Department of Homeland
Security for ICE to train and authorize certain CDCR
personnel to perform functions relating to the
investigation and processing of inmates who are illegally
within the United States. AB 1081 failed passage in this
Committee.
b) AB 1882 (Garrick), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have required an arresting agency to report to ICE if
the arresting agency has reason to believe a person
arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or
drugs is an illegal alien. AB 1882 failed passage in this
Committee.
c) AB 2141 (Tran), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have required CDCR to verify the immigration status
of any new prisoner under CDCR's custody. AB 2141 also
demanded that correctional officers to cooperate with ICE
in the verification and any deportation process for these
prisoners, and would provide that correctional officers
shall be trained in cooperation with ICE to conform with
laws and regulations pertaining to immigration and customs.
AB 2141 failed passage in this Committee.
d) AB 2418 (Huff), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have prohibited persons charged with specified
violent or gang-related felonies to be eligible for bail or
released on his or her own recognizance pending trial, if
at the time of the alleged offense, he or she was illegally
within the United States. AB 2418 failed passage in this
Committee.
e) AB 2420 (Huff), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have prohibited law enforcement or any local
AB 2580
Page 13
governing body from adopting an ordinance or rule, or
otherwise implement a policy, that prohibits law
enforcement officers from initiating action to discover a
person's alien status or that prohibits a law enforcement
officer from arresting or booking a person for entering the
United States illegally. AB 2420 failed passage in this
Committee.
f) AB 2422 (Huff), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
required CDCR to implement and maintain procedures to
identify inmates serving terms in state prison or wards of
the Division of Juvenile Facilities who are undocumented
aliens subject to deportation. The CDCR shall refer to ICE
the name and location of any inmate or ward who has
committed a violent felony or a gang-related felony, who
may be an undocumented alien, and who may be subject to
deportation. AB 2422 failed passage in this Committee.
g) AB 332 (Bogh), of the 2005-06 Legislative Session, would
have provided that it would be the policy of California
that no law enforcement entity or any local governing body
may adopt any ordinance, rule, regulation or order, or
otherwise implement a policy that prohibits law enforcement
officers from initiating action to discover a person's
immigration status, or that prohibits a law enforcement
officer from arresting or booking a person for entering the
United States illegally. AB 332 failed passage in this
Committee.
h) SB 1314 (Johannessen), Chapter 567, Statutes of 1994,
required state correctional agencies, within 48 hours of
establishing identifying information, to transfer
undocumented felons to the custody of the Attorney General
of the United States and required that evaluation and
classification procedures cease once identity as
undocumented felons has been established. This law was
contingent upon enactment of federal legislation requiring
the United States government to imprison any undocumented
alien convicted of a felony in California in the federal
prison system.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AB 2580
Page 14
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union
Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Immigrant Policy Center
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Analysis Prepared by : Nicole J. Hanson / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744