Illegal Immigrant Prison Funding Voted by House

Prodded by Southern California lawmakers, the House voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to require the federal government to either repay state and local governments for the cost of imprisoning criminals who are illegal immigrants or transfer them to federal custody.

The reimbursement provision, added to the House’s version of the crime bill by a vote of 402 to 22, would require the federal government to deliver on a promise that has remained unfulfilled for eight years. Before it can become law, however, the Senate would also have to give its approval.

Although the payments would not become mandatory until after 1998, the chief sponsors of the measure said the Clinton Administration is committed to spending sizable amounts of money before then to relieve financial burdens on California and other states with high numbers of illegal immigrants.

California has projected that 18,000 undocumented felons in its prisons will cost the state about $375 million this year.

“This is an historic step,” said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), a co-sponsor of the measure. “We never got one cent before (for imprisoning illegal immigrants), but now we’ll get a decent amount and we’ll build on it.”

In another action aimed at controlling illegal immigration from Mexico, the House authorized expansion of the Border Patrol by 6,000 agents over the next five years. The agency now has 4,100 agents.

That provision, sponsored by Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon), Randy (Duke) Cunningham (R-San Diego) and Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Glendale), would cost $921 million and would have to compete with other domestic priorities in the annual appropriations process.

While the House’s 417-12 vote of approval showed very strong support for expanding the Border Patrol, a Senate crime bill--which will have to be reconciled with the House version--contains no comparable provision.

Berman acknowledged that the Administration would oppose language in the prisoner-reimbursement amendment that would make the payments mandatory, contending the cost would be too high.

But Berman and Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills) said the Administration gave assurances that some reimbursement would be forthcoming, although they did not mention a specific amount.

If the provision becomes law, the federal government would have four years to pay the costs through the annual appropriations process. Starting Oct. 1, 1998, however, the provision would require full compensation to states and local governments for imprisoning criminals who are illegal immigrants.

Although the measure faces an uncertain fate when it reaches a Senate-House conference committee, it has the backing of Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Tex.), the powerful chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Los Angeles lawmakers hailed the reimbursement provision as a major advance in the long struggle to get the federal government to pay part of the financial costs of illegal immigration that fall disproportionately on California, New York, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois and a few other states.

“It’s extremely significant,” Beilenson said. “This is the first time that, in fact, we’ll be requiring, mandating, repayment by the federal government of these costs to states.”

The annual cost of keeping a prisoner in California is $18,000. The administration of Gov. Pete Wilson has projected the cost of housing more than 18,000 undocumented felons--or nearly 14% of the state’s total prison population--to be $375 million in this fiscal year. In Los Angeles County, the cost is estimated at $34 million per year.

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided that states are entitled to reimbursement for the costs of imprisoning illegal immigrants, but Congress has never appropriated the funds.

In another development, the House approved the controversial Racial Justice Act by the narrowest of margins when a proposed substitute failed on a 212-212 tie vote.

The measure, sponsored by Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose), would bar the execution of prisoners who demonstrate that the death penalty was imposed because of racial discrimination.

Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) argued that the provision would nullify the decisions of juries and impose racial quotas for the death penalty.

Advocates of the proposal denied that it would impose quotas, arguing that it would instead tend to eliminate sentencing decisions based on race. Speaker Thomas S. Foley, who rarely casts a vote, sided with Edwards and rounded up enough other supporters in a last-minute lobbying effort to save the provision.

Under the legislation, Death Row inmates could use statistics on racial disparity to appeal their sentences.

African Americans account for about 40% of the inmates executed since 1977, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund has found. Studies also have shown that criminals are far more likely be executed if their victims were white. Eighty-four percent of inmates put to death in the last 17 years had committed their crimes against whites.

Racial discrimination was a significant factor in the Supreme Court’s 1972 ruling that overturned capital punishment statutes. In the years since that ruling, however, most states have adopted new death penalty laws intended to eliminate disparities in sentencing.

The ultimate fate of the provision is uncertain because, again, the House bill must be reconciled with the Senate anti-crime legislation, which did not touch on the issue.

In other action on the crime bill, the House approved establishment of a police corps that would provide college scholarships in return for a four-year commitment to serve with a police force, comparable to the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps. The vote was 250-174.