Interim Report for House Committee on Corrections ...



House Committee on Corrections

Interim Report to the 81st Texas Legislature

Charge #7: Study policies and procedures related to illegal immigration and border security of the TDCJ, county probation departments, and local and county jail facilities, and make recommendations to improve coordination with international, federal, state, and local authorities.

Prepared by Stuart Tendler

May 2008

Introduction

The mission of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) is to provide public safety, promote positive change in offender behavior, reintegrate offenders into society, and assist victims of crime. Illegal immigration across Texas’ southern border poses new challenges to TDCJ fulfilling its statutory duties. The failure of the federal government to adequately secure the national border compounds the state’s already over-burdened criminal justice system. Thrust upon TDCJ, county probation departments, and local and county jail facilities, illegal criminal aliens force expending resources on criminals with no legal right to be in the country. However, the criminal justice system must process these criminals the same as U.S. citizens who have violated state laws and threaten public safety. But proper policies toward illegal criminal aliens remain unresolved and the subject of often contentious debate. Two key issues include:

• The federal government’s failure to provide the state with the necessary resources and legal authority to deal with a problem the criminal justice system was not designed to solve.

• Fears that state and local involvement in executing federal immigration laws lead to unreported crimes, which may increase public safety threats and further endanger victims of crime.

This leaves the state in the unfortunate position of balancing the competing demands of limited resources, the integrity of federal law and ensuring public safety. Criminal illegal aliens also raise questions about the proper division of powers between local, state and federal authorities. Moreover, a basic challenge is how to best create a reliable system of data-sharing between all levels of government. Ideally, state policies toward criminal illegal aliens will complement existing efforts to create an optimally efficient and effective criminal justice system. Perhaps policies toward illegal criminal aliens can even ease the burden rather than increase the pressure on limited resources. But, crafting and implementing sufficient policies remains elusive and open to debate.

The Report is divided into five sections:

• I. The Federal-State Relationship

• II. Deportation

• III. Local Law Enforcement and Community Supervision and Corrections Departments

• IV. Should Non-Citizen Offenders be Treated Differently than Citizen Offenders?

• V. Could Criminal Illegal Aliens Displace Undocumented Workers in the Private Sector?

Conclusions and recommendations complete the report.

I. The Federal-State Relationship

As a border state, illegal immigration places excessive burdens on Texas. The federal government should bear the burden of enforcing its international borders, but to this point has failed to adequately do so. Beyond traditional border security, the federal government has not successfully dismantled the organized document fraud facilitating the persistence of a porous border. International terrorists, organized crime syndicates and alien smuggling rings all rely on counterfeit documents.[i] Providing for the security and defense of the country is the responsibility of the federal government. The federal government is obligated to protect the state and the country from cross-border population flows. Texas is especially burdened by criminal elements along the border, which has forced the state to act on its own, putting excessive pressure on state finances and raised questions about the proper division of labor between the federal and state government.

Consider the following statistics:

• TDCJ will receive $35,709,304 in federal funds over Fiscal Years 2008-09 as compensation for money spent on illegal immigrants.[ii]

• A prominent source of federal funding for county law enforcement is the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP).[iii]

• Estimated costs in 2005 to 15 county sheriff’s offices for undocumented offenders totaled $49,055,092.[iv]

• These 15 county sheriff’s offices were among those that bore the largest illegal immigrant financial burden. They also include the counties that provided the majority of TDCJ new receives in Fiscal Year 2006, with Harris County being the number one source.[v]

• Including SCAAP funds, the Harris County Sheriff’s Office spent $18,923,292, and spending for each sheriff’s department in Bexar, Collin, Dallas, El Paso, Hidalgo, Tarrant and Travis counties ranged from about $2 million to $5.3 million.

• These 15 counties received 88 percent of Texas’s 2005 SCAAP funding. However, SCAAP awards funded only $6,952,078, or 14 percent, of these costs, and the federal government’s future commitment to SCAAP is uncertain.[vi]

• The 80th Legislature allocated $64,444,865 to the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) for border security.[vii]

Because the federal government has not provided adequate financial assistance to Texas, state and local governments are limited in their options in allocating what funds are available. More federal funding could open multiple options for financing costs to the criminal justice system resulting from criminal aliens. For example, based on the figures above, if the money that the state has been forced to spend on border security could instead be allocated to Harris County, then the county could be fully compensated for the cost of incarcerating illegal criminal aliens.

II. Deportation

Deporting illegal criminal aliens is a major focus of state cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Deportation is a sensible policy, and particularly the deportation of criminals posing the greatest to public safety. The Texas State Enhanced IHP Program (TSEIHP) provides a formalized working relationship between TDCJ and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to deport criminal illegal immigrants. The process is relatively straightforward. TSEIHP is responsible for identifying criminal illegal immigrants incarcerated in TDCJ prisons, instituting deportation proceedings while criminal immigrants serve their jail time and deporting criminal aliens immediately following their release from prison. During intake, TDCJ identifies and reports verified or suspected criminal illegal immigrants to ICE. ICE may then issue a detainer, asking TDCJ to hold the offender upon release. ICE is notified when the offender’s release is pending and assumes custody of the prisoner until federal deportation procedures are completed. As of November 30, 2007, TDCJ reported 11,768 criminals claiming a foreign place of birth, 10,634 offenders claiming foreign citizenship, and final deportation orders existing for 2,816 male offenders.[viii]

There is some cause for concern with current deportation procedures. For example, there is reason to believe that U.S. deportation policy is strengthening the most dangerous criminal gang, MS-13, which has an estimated 60,000 members active in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico and more than 40 American states.[ix] MS-13 is strongest in El Salvador, but evidence suggests MS-13 is attempting to create a national command structure in the U.S. built on the El Salvador model.[x] Many potential problems may once again be due to lack of adequate federal funding, as DHS lacks the resources to deport illegal criminal aliens released from prison.[xi] Consider also the following findings of a 2006 DHS audit:[xii]

• In Fiscal Year 2007, an estimated 605,000 foreign-born individuals would be admitted into state correctional facilities and local jails for committing crimes in the U.S.

• 50 percent will be removable aliens, but most are being released into the U.S. after their sentences because ICE’s Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) does not have the resources to identify, detain, and remove them under its Criminal Alien Program (CAP).

• Most criminal aliens apprehended and released will never be removed.

• Between Fiscal Year 2001 and the first half of Fiscal Year 2005, 49 percent of aliens apprehended from Special Interest Countries (SIC) and State Sponsors of Terrorism (SST) countries were released.

• Reliable data do not exist on: the number of aliens categorized as mandatory, high, medium, or low priority; the number of aliens who failed to show for their immigration hearing; the source of the alien’s apprehension; the number of aliens released into the country because of a lack of resources; the results of risk assessments for illegal immigrants detained and released; the type and category of crimes committed by criminal aliens; why DRO released an alien from detention; and why DRO did not detain certain aliens.

Many Texas Community Supervision and Corrections Departments (CSCD) are benefiting from collaborating with ICE. The San Patricio CSCD operates as a facilitator for the ICE and the U.S. Border Patrol, as CSCD notification to the Border Patrol results in criminal illegal immigrants’ immediate deportation.[xiii] But some local facilities are having less success with ICE. One example is the Titus County Sheriff’s Office.[xiv] The Titus County Sheriff’s Office requires an Illegal Alien Query on any person not born in the U.S. and booked into their jail on criminal charges. The query is submitted to ICE, and ICE determines if they wish to investigate further. If so, an ICE official contacts the jail by telephone and interviews the arrested person via telephone. The telephone is then handed to a jail staff member, ICE tells the staff member whether or not to place a federal detainer, and, if so, the detainee completes a questionnaire that is faxed from the jail to ICE. Subsequently, ICE is notified by jail staff when the person is ready for release to federal authorities. However, when defendants post bail on local Titus County charges and are released to ICE, the criminals are often rearrested in a bordering county.[xv]

The state may want to investigate other potential issues. Sometimes ICE-DRO may not deport criminal illegal aliens, but incarcerated criminals who are U.S. citizens and claim to be illegal aliens in an effort to avoid further incarceration.[xvi] In either case, ICE deportees are known to regularly reenter the country. In 2005, 18,203 formal ICE removals, which are usually decided by an Immigration Judge for violations such as illegal entry, drug smuggling, felony crimes, controlled substance violations, and prostitution/solicitation, were of aliens previously removed.[xvii] This could be particularly troublesome for the state, because most foreign-born inmates in Texas with an ICE detention order are violent offenders.[xviii] Further, given the lack of reliable ICE data, the state cannot know with certainty where ICE detainees end up. Sixty-two percent of ICE detainees that are released eventually receive final deportation orders but abscond, which has created more than 600,000 alien fugitives in the U.S., and two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions mandated the release of criminal and other high-risk aliens 180 days after the issuance of a final removal order.[xix]

III. Local Law Enforcement and Community Supervision and Corrections Departments

Federal law allows the state to enter into agreement with the U.S. Attorney General to enforce federal immigration law, but also recognizes the state’s right to not participate in any such agreement.[xx] Any state or political subdivision of the state that enters into an agreement with the U.S. Attorney General does so at the expense of the state or the state political subdivision and an officer or employee of the state or political subdivision of the state is subject to the direction and supervision of the Attorney General. The statute explicitly says that nothing requires the state or political subdivision of the state to enter into such an agreement, and the statute does not require that the state or any of its political subdivisions enter into such an agreement to communicate or cooperate with the Attorney General.

Local police are the frontline in the fight against crime, and some local police chiefs voice strong opposition to enforcing federal immigration law.[xxi] Their argument is that enforcing federal immigration law threatens their ability to police their communities. Most pointedly, the local police chiefs believe that local police need the trust and cooperation of the immigrant community and that enforcing federal immigration law comes at the expense of this trust and cooperation. They also believe there are further consequences – losing contacts in immigrant communities important for gathering intelligence to strengthen homeland security. Some police chiefs also argue that local enforcement of federal immigration law translates directly into unreported crimes. They believe that immigrant crime victims do not report offenses out of fear of being subject to prosecution for immigration violations.

Many advocacy groups have a similar point of view.[xxii] Testimony in 2006 claimed undocumented immigrant victims of domestic violence report their abusers in only one-of-seven instances, a significantly lower ratio than exists among victims of domestic violence in the general population.[xxiii] Some probation authorities also oppose local enforcement of federal immigration law. These probation authorities oppose any legislative mandate that would require adult probation departments to carry out the functions that federal authorities do, including requirements that local probation departments verify citizenship.[xxiv]

The state is therefore left in the unfortunate position of striking a proper balance between coordinating county and local policies versus preserving local autonomy. However, the practical response may be deferring to the judgment of local law enforcement, and therefore retaining for local police authorities the autonomy to make their own policies. If the law enforcement officials with initial responsibility for preventing crime, punishing crime and ensuring public safety declare that local law enforcement and immigration enforcement are incompatible, the state may want to grant local authorities the freedom to implement locally decided policies.

There is some potential to find a middle ground between the two positions. One possibility could be giving criminals an opportunity to exercise or waive a right to prove U.S. citizenship. Such a policy might encourage illegal criminal aliens to identify themselves rather than forcing local law enforcement to inquire into criminals’ immigration status. The procedure might proceed as follows:

• If a criminal waives the right to prove U.S. citizenship, the criminal would be immediately identified as an illegal alien.

• A reliable database available to ICE could be maintained that documents all criminals who have waived their right to prove U.S. citizenship.

• Criminals who choose to exercise the right to prove U.S. citizenship could be given a limited amount of time to do so, and any criminal who exercises the right to prove U.S. citizenship, but does not, could face punitive measures, including financial liabilities.

No matter what policies local authorities pursue, the state should take note of the disparate policies of CSCD. A recent survey of CSCD testified to the variation in local policies:[xxv]

• 51 percent of respondents have an informal relationship with ICE.

• 18 percent of respondents have a formal relationship with ICE.

• 40 percent of respondents have formal procedures for verifying the immigration status of offenders.

• 12 percent of respondents have informal procedures for verifying the immigration status of offenders.

• 33 percent of respondents have policies to deal with issues relating to illegal immigration.

• Of this 33 percent, 15 CSCD have policies about reporting suspected illegal immigrants to ICE or Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

• Of this 33 percent, six CSCD have policies dealing with offenders who have been detained or deported by ICE – some require offenders to report by mail, submit their fees, and contact the office if they re-enter the country; others require criminal histories to determine if an offender has returned and committed any new crimes.

• Of this 33 percent, five CSCD cooperate fully with federal investigations but do not report offenders’ immigration status to federal authorities, do not place illegal aliens on probation, and include information about offenders’ immigration and residency status in their pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report.

• 6 percent of all offenders under felony and misdemeanor charges under direct supervision were not U.S. citizens (16,289 offenders), but it is not known how many of these are illegal immigrants.

• 8 percent of respondents placed offenders on a specialized caseload because of their immigration status.

• 93 percent of respondents reported supervising illegal immigrants, but many of these respondents were unable to report the number being supervised.

• 46 percent of respondents reported no illegal immigrants participating in substance abuse treatment.

• 44 percent of respondents reported an average of 10 illegal immigrants participating in substance abuse treatment.

• One CSCD reported 1,562 illegal immigrants participating in substance abuse treatment.

• 10 percent of respondents reported not knowing how many illegal immigrants are participating in substance abuse treatment.

The state may want to consider intensifying efforts to collect reliable data about CSCD policies, and also investigate CSCD record-keeping. In 2002, The Criminal Justice Policy Council conducted an audit of the Community Supervision Tracking System (CSTS), which is the centralized state repository of the records of all offenders under probation or community corrections supervision in Texas.[xxvi] CSTS provides local and state officials with a central repository of the records of probationers and can be used for administrative purposes such as tracking offenders, conducting fiscal analyses and program evaluations. DPS can use CSTS to identify offenders on probation in the Computerized Criminal History records. The audit found that almost half of the records for felons and misdemeanants placed on probation in Fiscal Year 2001 were missing and concluded that the system is ineffective.

General standards for CSCD already exist.[xxvii] Under Chapter 163 of TDCJ’s Community Justice Assistance Division (TDCJ-CJAD), CJAD objectives are to:

• Establish minimum uniform community supervision and corrections administration standards.

• Establish a statewide statistical information service.

• Establish an ongoing assessment and evaluation of community supervision and community-based correctional methods and systems.

CSCD directors are also responsible for providing TDCJ-CJAD, if requested, an administrative manual including policies and procedures for:

• PSI and reporting.

• Supervision of offenders and the continuum of sanctions.

• Violation of probation orders.

The state might consider options for increasing the monitoring and enforcing of these standards. For example, CSCD could be made responsible for reporting on their compliance with standards on a required, regular basis, as opposed to doing so at TDCJ-CJAD’s discretion. According to a 2004 audit of TDCJ-CJAD:[xxviii]

• CJAD must increase the accuracy and completeness of the information it uses to allocate funds for adult probation services.

• CJAD must improve its monitoring of its agreements with CSCD.

• CJAD maintains inaccurate and incomplete information.

• CJAD does not consistently verify CSCD self-reported data.

CJAD might intensify its oversight of CSCD by conducting on-site and in-depth interviews to find out in detail what CSCD are doing and to strengthen the collection of reliable data.

Not all illegal criminal aliens will remain incarcerated in TDCJ facilities, but rather will be placed on probation, which is technically referred to as community supervision and is administered by CSCD. The state may want to pursue options for ensuring that illegal criminal aliens are under the strictest supervision possible. Though limited resources may prevent it, one option might be to place illegal criminal aliens on the highest level of community supervision, the Super-Intensive Supervision Program (SISP). SISP involves:[xxix]

• Offenders are supervised on some form of electronic monitoring (EM).

• Offenders are required to comply with 24 hour per day schedules.

• Global Position Satellites (GPS) are used to perform EM of high-profile cases.

• In January 2004, 36 offenders were being supervised under some type of GPS unit.

• In Fiscal Year 2006, the monthly population on SISP fluctuated between a low of 1,578 offenders in September and a high of 1,768 offenders in March.[xxx]

Not including those supervised under SISP, about 870 offenders are supervised under some form of EM.[xxxi] The state could pursue further options for EM community supervision. EM holds potential for more effectively supervising illegal criminal aliens at lower cost to the state, but further research is still required. The state might begin by collecting the complete data available from TDCJ’s July 11, 2006 interview with the Center for Criminal Justice Technology (CCJT) as part of CCJT’s assessment of the current state of GPS EM.[xxxii]

IV. Should Non-Citizen Offenders be Treated Differently than Citizen Offenders?

To minimize state revenue expended on illegal criminal aliens, one option the state may want to pursue is imposing punitive measures on illegal criminal aliens. The state might consider denying illegal criminal aliens privileges currently available to all offenders. These include:

• The various programs administered by TDCJ’s Manufacturing and Logistics Division.[xxxiii] These include work and training programs that help offenders learn marketable job skills and grant access to similar rehabilitative services and efforts targeting reintegration. Programs include Work Against Recidivism (WAR), Prison Industry Enhancement (PIE), Texas Correctional Industries (TCI) and Project Reintegration of Offenders (RIO).

• Good conduct time – time credited to an offender for good behavior and for participating in work and self-improvement programs while incarcerated. For many offenders, “good time” credits may be added to calendar time served in calculating eligibility for parole or mandatory supervision.[xxxiv]

• Academic and vocational training.

• Recreation programs.

V. Could Criminal Illegal Aliens Displace Undocumented Workers in the Private Sector?

Because of the serious burdens illegal criminal aliens place on the criminal justice system, the state may want to pursue bolder policies not previously considered. For example, the potential exists for devising a system of prison labor that displaces illegal immigrant workers with illegal criminal aliens. The presence of large numbers of illegal immigrants working in Texas is an uncontested fact, and it is known that many illegal immigrants work in sectors such as agriculture and its related industries. With proper screening, the state might be able to displace non-criminal illegal workers with illegal criminal aliens. Currently, non-paid offender labor provides workers to community based, eligible non-profit or governmental agencies that serve the community interest or the broader public interest.[xxxv] Potential might exist for expanding the use of prison labor into the private sector and employing illegal criminal aliens where illegal immigrants are regularly employed. The policy could function by paying employee wages directly to TDCJ. An eight-hour workday at $6/hour would pay TDCJ a gross of $48/day per offender.

Conclusion and Recommendations

• The federal government should bear the burden of enforcing its international borders, but to this point has failed to adequately do so.

• Providing for the security and defense of the country is the responsibility of the federal government.

• The federal government is obligated to protect the state and the country from cross-border population flows.

• Texas is especially burdened by criminal elements along the border, which has forced the state to act on its own, putting excessive pressure on state finances and raising questions about the proper division of labor between the federal and state government.

• Because the federal government has not provided adequate financial assistance to Texas, state and local governments are limited in their options in allocating what funds are available.

• More federal funding could open multiple options for financing costs bore by the criminal justice system as a result of detaining illegal criminal aliens.

• Deporting illegal criminal aliens is a major focus of state cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Deportation is a sensible policy, and particularly the deportation of criminals posing the greatest to public safety.

• There is some cause for concern with current deportation procedures.

• Most criminal aliens apprehended and released by ICE will never be removed.

• Reliable data do not exist on a host of measures regarding the deportation of criminal illegal aliens.

• Many Texas CSCD are benefiting from collaborating with ICE

.

• Some localities are having less-than-optimal success with ICE.

• Sometimes ICE-DRO may not deport criminal illegal aliens, but incarcerated criminals who are U.S. citizens and claim to be illegal aliens in an effort to avoid further incarceration.

• ICE deportees are known to regularly reenter the country.

• Sixty-two percent of ICE detainees that are released eventually receive final deportation orders but abscond.

• Federal law allows the state to enter into agreement with the U.S. Attorney General to enforce federal immigration law, but also recognizes the state’s right to not participate in any such agreement.

• Some local enforcement officials believe that enforcing federal immigration law threatens their ability to police their communities.

• Some police chiefs and advocacy groups believe that local enforcement of federal immigration leads to immigrant crime victims not reporting offenses out of fear of being subject to prosecution for immigration violations.

• Some probation authorities oppose local enforcement of federal immigration law.

• Local law enforcement authorities should retain the autonomy to make their own policies.

• Localities might consider giving criminals an opportunity to exercise or waive a right to prove U.S. citizenship. Such a policy might encourage illegal criminal aliens to identify themselves rather than forcing local law enforcement to inquire into criminals’ immigration status.

• No matter what policies local authorities pursue, the state should take note of the disparate policies of CSCD.

• The state may want to consider intensifying efforts to collect reliable data about CSCD policies, and also investigate CSCD record-keeping.

• The state might consider options for increasing the monitoring and enforcing of existing CSCD standards and implementing new standards.

• CJAD might intensify its oversight of CSCD by conducting on-site and in-depth interviews to find out in detail what CSCD are doing and to strengthen the collection of reliable data.

• The state could pursue further options for EM community supervision. EM holds potential for more effectively supervising illegal criminal aliens at lower cost to the state, but further research is still required. The state might begin by collecting the complete data available from TDCJ’s July 11, 2006 interview with the Center for Criminal Justice Technology as part of CCJT’s assessment of the current state of GPS EM.

• To minimize state revenue expended on criminal illegal aliens, one option the state may want to pursue is imposing punitive measures on criminal illegal aliens. The state might consider denying illegal criminal aliens privileges currently available to all offenders.

• The state may want to pursue bolder policies not previously considered. For example, the potential exists for devising a system of prison labor that displaces undocumented workers with illegal criminal aliens.

• Potential might exist for expanding the use of prison labor into the private sector and employing illegal criminal aliens where illegal immigrants are regularly employed.

Endnotes

-----------------------

[i] CRS Presentation for the House Committee on the Judiciary. April 27, 2006. Immigration Enforcement in the United States.

[ii] Eightieth Legislature, State of Texas. 2007. Conference Committee Report, House Bill No. 1, Regular Session (General Appropriations Act).

[iii] Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee. Report to the 79th Legislature, Interim Charge No. 7.

[iv] Office of the Comptroller. December 2006. Special Report: Undocumented Immigrants in Texas: A Financial Analysis of the Impact to the State Budget and Economy.

[v] Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Fiscal Year 2006 Statistical Report.

[vi] Office of the Comptroller. December 2006. Special Report: Undocumented Immigrants in Texas: A Financial Analysis of the Impact to the State Budget and Economy.

[vii] Eightieth Legislature, State of Texas. 2007. Conference Committee Report, House Bill No. 1, Regular Session (General Appropriations Act).

[viii] Brad Livingston, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. TDCJ/ICE Institutional Hearing Program.

[ix] Piers Scholfield, BBC News, Washington. April 3, 2008. The most dangerous gang in America.

[x] International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). July 2007.A Police Chief’s Guide to Immigration Issues.

[xi] James Jay Carafano. March 2, 2006. Section 287(g) Is the Right Answer for State and Local Immigration Enforcement. The Heritage Foundation: Executive Memorandum #994.

[xii] Department of Homeland Security, Officer of Inspector General. April 2006. Detention and Removal of Illegal Aliens, U.S. ICE. Office of Audits: OIG-06-33.

[xiii] Dana J. Hendrick, Director of the 36th, 156th, and 343rd Judicial Districts Texas Community Supervision and Corrections Departments. January 18, 2008. Letter to the Honorable Jerry Madden, Chairman, House Committee on Corrections: Criminal Alien Procedures Employed by the San Patricio County Community Supervision and Corrections Department Consistent with the Statutes of the State of Texas and the United States Government.

[xiv] Arvel Shepard, Titus County Sheriff. January 31, 2008. Letter submitted to the Honorable Jerry Madden and members of the Committee Public Hearing Related to Illegal Immigration and Border Security, February 1, 2008.

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Statement of Gary E. Mead, Deputy Director, Office of Detention and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security. February 13, 2008. Hearing on “Problems with ICE Interrogation, Detention and Removal Procedures.” Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law.

[xvii] Dawn Konet and Jeanne Batalova, Migration Policy Institute. March 22, 2007. Spotlight on Immigration Enforcement in the United States.

[xviii] Dr. Tony Fabelo, Director of Research, Justice Center, The Council of State Governments. February 1, 2008. Immigration Reform and State Criminal Justice: An Overview of Emerging Issues. Report to the Texas House Corrections Committee, Representative Jerry Madden, Chair.

[xix] Dan Stein, President, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). February 13, 2008. Before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International law, Committee on the Judiciary. Hearing on Reported Problems with ICE Interrogation, Detention and Removal Procedures.

[xx] 8 USC Section 1357(g). Performance of immigration officer functions by State officers and employees.

[xxi] Major Cities Chiefs (MCC) Immigration Committee. June 2006. Recommendations for Enforcement of Immigration Laws by Local Police Agencies.

[xxii] Luis Figueroa, Legislative Staff Attorney. Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF). February 1, 2008. Testimony before the House Committee on Corrections.

[xxiii] Ana Yanez-Correa, Executive Director, Texas Criminal Justice Coalition. July 26, 2006. Testimony Submitted to Senate Committee on Transportation and Homeland Security.

[xxiv] Stephen L. Enders. February 1, 2008. Public Hearing to Review Immigration Enforcement Policies: A Probation Perspective.

[xxv] Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Community Justice Assistance Division. Survey of Community Supervision and Corrections Departments. “Illegal Immigration Policies and Procedures Utilized by Texas’ Probation Departments.”

[xxvi] Andrew Barbee and Gene Draper, Criminal Justice Policy Council. February 2002. Audit of the Texas Community Supervision Tracking System.

[xxvii] Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division. Effective April 18, 2005. Standards for CSCD.

[xxviii] State Auditor’s Office. September 2004. Audit Report on Contract Administration at the Department of Criminal Justice’s Community Justice Assistance Division. Report No. 05-002.

[xxix] Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Parole Division. September 2006. Parole in Texas: Answers to Common Questions.

[xxx] Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. January 2007. Annual Report Fiscal Year 2006.

[xxxi] Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Parole Division. September 2006. Parole in Texas: Answers to Common Questions.

[xxxii] Center for Criminal Justice Technology, Noblis Technical Report. June 2007. Global Positioning System (GPS) Technology for Community Supervision: Lessons Learned. NTR-2007-012.

[xxxiii] Texas Department of Criminal Justice. August 2007. Annual Review 2006.

[xxxiv] Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Parole Division. September 2006. Parole in Texas: Answers to Common Questions.

[xxxv] Texas Department of Criminal Justice. August 30, 2006. Administrative Directive: Use of Offender Labor for Community and Public Work Projects. AD-07.11 (rev.3).

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download