Eller College of Management
School of Public Administration and Policy
Undocumented
Immigrants in
U.S. - Mexico
Border Counties
The costs of
law enforcement
and criminal
justice servicesThe costs of law enforcement and criminal justice services | i
UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS IN U.S. - MEXICO BORDER COUNTIES
THE COSTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICESii | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition
This research report was supported by Grant Number 206DDBX0004 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the principal investigator and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
School of Public Administration and Policy
www.publicadmin.eller.arizona.edu
©2008 Arizona Board of Regents. All rights reserved.
The University of Arizona (UA) is an equal opportunity, affirmative action institution. The UA prohibits discrimination in its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, or sexual
orientation and is committed to maintaining an environment free from sexual harassment and retaliation. The costs of law enforcement and criminal justice services | iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many thanks and appreciation go first to the United States/Mexico Border Counties Coalition for providing us with the opportunity to learn about border county issues and experience first-hand the impact of undocumented immigration
on border counties. Second, I wish to acknowledge the hard work of Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, the seven other senators from the border states, and additional members of Congress who recognize the severity on county budgets and the hardships on county citizens that ineffective border enforcement imposes.
I am honored to have met and talked with numerous county officials, both elected and appointed, who govern the counties stretching from San Diego to Brownsville. They carved time out of their schedules to meet with me, sometimes
on several occasions, to educate me about their functions and roles, and to explore with us how the incidence of criminal activity on the part of undocumented immigrants undermines their capacity to meet the basic needs of their own citizens.
I would like to thank our respective institutions for providing crucial support and encouragement: The University of Arizona’s School of Public Administration and Policy, especially Gloria Manzanedo and Cara Wallace, and Steve Tkachyk, Biomedical Communications, Arizona Health Science Center; and San Diego State University, Department of Geography and the International Population Center.
My deepest appreciation is reserved for David Austin, Dian Copelin Watkins, and Isaac Reyes of Austin, Copelin & Reyes LLC, the management team for the US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition. They devoted weeks of careful and patient review of the manuscript, making it a far better and more useful document.
Tanis J. Salant, D.P.A.
School of Public Administration and Policy
The University of Arizona
September 2007
THE RESEARCH TEAM
Tanis J. Salant, D.P.A.
The University of Arizona
Principal Investigator
John R. Weeks, Ph.D.
San Diego State University
Contributor
Efrat Feferman, M.P.A.
Jenna Berman, M.P.A.
David Eisenberg, Ph.D.
Research Assistants
September 2007iv | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements...............................................................................................................iii
List of Tables..........................................................................................................................v
Introduction: The Burden Falls on Border Counties..............................................................1
California Border Counties..................................................................................................13
San Diego County......................................................................................................................17
Imperial County.........................................................................................................................21
Arizona Border Counties......................................................................................................25
Yuma County............................................................................................................................28
Pima County.............................................................................................................................33
Santa Cruz County.....................................................................................................................39
Cochise County.........................................................................................................................44
New Mexico Border Counties..............................................................................................51
Hidalgo County.........................................................................................................................55
Luna County.............................................................................................................................58
Doña Ana County.......................................................................................................................61
Texas Border Counties.........................................................................................................65
El Paso County..........................................................................................................................70
Hudspeth County.......................................................................................................................76
Culberson County......................................................................................................................80
Jeff Davis County........................................................................................................................83
Presidio County.........................................................................................................................86
Brewster County.........................................................................................................................90
Terrell County...........................................................................................................................93
Val Verde County........................................................................................................................95
Maverick County......................................................................................................................100
Kinney County.........................................................................................................................104
Webb County..........................................................................................................................107
Zapata County.........................................................................................................................112
Starr County............................................................................................................................117
Hidalgo County........................................................................................................................121
Cameron County......................................................................................................................126
Summary, Conclusions and Policy Recommendations:
The Burden Falls on Border Counties...................................................................................131The costs of law enforcement and criminal justice services | v
LIST OF TABLES
Introduction: The Burden Falls on Border Counties
1 U.S.-Mexico Border Sectors by State...................................................................................3
2 Southern Border Statistics by State.....................................................................................3
3 Border County Demographics............................................................................................4
4 Border Municipio Population...............................................................................................4
5 Size of Arizona Border Counties Law-Justice System..........................................................6
California Border Counties
C1 California Border County Statistics...................................................................................13 C2 Costs of Undocumented Immigration by County.............................................................15
C3 Costs to Border Counties by County and Department......................................................15
C4 San Diego County Border Statistics...................................................................................18
C5 San Diego County Costs by Department...........................................................................18
C6 San Diego County Sheriff and Detention Impact..............................................................18
C7 San Diego County District Attorney Impact......................................................................19
C8 San Diego County Indigent Defense Impact.....................................................................19
C9 San Diego County Adult Probation Impact.......................................................................19
C10 San Diego County Juvenile Services Impact......................................................................20
C11 Imperial County Border Statistics.....................................................................................21
C12 Imperial County Costs by Department.............................................................................22
C13 Imperial County Sheriff Impact........................................................................................22
C14 Imperial County Detention Impact...................................................................................22
C15 Imperial County District Attorney Impact........................................................................23
C16 Imperial County Indigent Defense Impact........................................................................23
C17 Imperial County Adult Probation Impact.........................................................................23
C18 Imperial County Juvenile Hall Impact..............................................................................24
Arizona Border Counties
A1 Arizona Border County Statistics......................................................................................25
A2 Costs of Undocumented Immigration by County.............................................................26
A3 Costs to Border Counties by County and Department......................................................27
A4 Yuma County Border Statistics..........................................................................................28
A5 Yuma County Costs by Department..................................................................................29
A6 Yuma County Sheriff Impact.............................................................................................29
A7 Yuma County Detention Impact.......................................................................................29
A8 Yuma County Attorney Impact.........................................................................................30
A9 Yuma County Clerk of Superior Court Impact..................................................................30
A10 Yuma County Superior Court Impact...............................................................................30
A11 Yuma County Indigent Defense Impact............................................................................31
A12 Yuma County Justice Court and Constable Impact...........................................................31
A13 Yuma County Adult Probation Impact..............................................................................31
A14 Yuma County Juvenile Justice Center Impact....................................................................31
A15 Pima County Border Statistics..........................................................................................33vi | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition
A16 Pima County Costs by Department...................................................................................34
A17 Pima County Sheriff Impact.............................................................................................35
A18 Pima County Detention Impact........................................................................................35
A19 Pima County Attorney Impact..........................................................................................35
A20 Pima County Indigent Defense Impact.............................................................................36
A21 Pima County Justice Court Impact...................................................................................36
A22 Pima County Clerk of Superior Court Impact...................................................................36
A23 Pima County Superior Court Impact................................................................................37
A24 Pima County Adult Probation Impact...............................................................................37
A25 Pima County Juvenile Court Center Impact......................................................................38
A26 Santa Cruz County Border Statistics.................................................................................40
A27 Santa Cruz County Costs by Department.........................................................................40
A28 Santa Cruz County Sheriff Impact....................................................................................40
A29 Santa Cruz County Detention Impact...............................................................................41
A30 Santa Cruz County Attorney Impact.................................................................................41
A31 Santa Cruz County Indigent Defense Impact....................................................................41
A32 Santa Cruz County Justice Court Impact..........................................................................42
A33 Santa Cruz County Clerk of Superior Court Impact.........................................................42
A34 Santa Cruz County Superior Court Impact.......................................................................42
A35 Santa Cruz County Adult Probation Impact......................................................................43
A36 Santa Cruz County Juvenile Court Center Impact............................................................43
A37 Cochise County Border Statistics......................................................................................44
A38 Cochise County Costs by Department..............................................................................45
A39 Cochise County Sheriff Impact.........................................................................................45
A40 Cochise County Detention Impact....................................................................................46
A41 Cochise County Attorney Impact.....................................................................................46
A42 Cochise County Indigent Defense Impact.........................................................................47
A43A Cochise County Justice Court Impact...............................................................................47
A43B Cochise County Impact by Justice Court..........................................................................47
A44 Cochise County Clerk of Superior Court Impact..............................................................47
A45 Cochise County Superior Court Impact............................................................................48
A46 Cochise County Adult Probation Impact..........................................................................48
A47 Cochise County Juvenile Court Center Impact.................................................................48
New Mexico Border Counties
NM1 New Mexico Border County Statistics...............................................................................51 NM2 Costs of Undocumented Immigration by County.............................................................53
NM3 Costs to Border Counties by County and Department......................................................54
NM4 Hidalgo County Border Statistics......................................................................................55
NM5 Hidalgo County Costs by Department..............................................................................56
NM6 Hidalgo County Sheriff Impact.........................................................................................56
NM7 Hidalgo County Detention Impact....................................................................................56
NM8 Luna County Border Statistics..........................................................................................58
NM9 Luna County Costs by Department..................................................................................59
NM10 Luna County Sheriff Impact.............................................................................................59
NM11 Luna County Detention Impact........................................................................................59
NM12 Luna County Judicial Services Impact..............................................................................60The costs of law enforcement and criminal justice services | vii
NM13 Doña Ana County Border Statistics...................................................................................61
NM14 Doña Ana County Costs by Department...........................................................................62
NM15 Doña Ana County Sheriff Impact......................................................................................62
NM16 Doña Ana County Adult Detention Impact.......................................................................62
NM17 Doña Ana County Juvenile Detention Impact...................................................................63
NM18 Doña Ana County Judicial Services Impact.......................................................................63
Texas Border Counties
T1 Texas Border County Statistics..........................................................................................65
T2 Costs to Texas Border Counties........................................................................................67
T3A Costs to Five Border Counties by Department..................................................................68
T3B Costs to Five Border Counties by Department..................................................................68
T3C Costs to Five Border Counties by Department..................................................................69
T4 El Paso County Border Statistics.......................................................................................70
T5 El Paso County Costs by Department...............................................................................71
T6 El Paso County Sheriff Impact..........................................................................................71
T7 El Paso County Detention Impact.....................................................................................72
T8 El Paso County District Clerk Impact...............................................................................72
T9 El Paso County District Attorney Impact..........................................................................72
T10 El Paso County District Court Impact...............................................................................72
T11 El Paso County Court at Law Impact................................................................................73
T12 El Paso County Attorney Impact......................................................................................73
T13 El Paso County Clerk Impact...........................................................................................73
T14 El Paso County Criminal Law Magistrate Impact..............................................................74
T15 El Paso County Indigent Defense Impact..........................................................................74
T16 El Paso County Adult Probation Impact...........................................................................74
T17 El Paso County Juvenile Probation Impact.......................................................................75
T18 El Paso County Justice of the Peace Impact......................................................................75
T19 Hudspeth County Border Statistics...................................................................................76
T20 Hudspeth County Costs by Department...........................................................................77
T21 Hudspeth County Sheriff Impact......................................................................................77
T22 Hudspeth County Detention Impact.................................................................................77
T23 Hudspeth County District and County Clerk Impact........................................................77
T24 Hudspeth County District Court Impact..........................................................................78
T25 Hudspeth County Attorney Impact..................................................................................78
T26 Hudspeth County Justice of the Peace and Constable Impact...........................................78
T27 Hudspeth County Indigent Defense Impact......................................................................78
T28 Hudspeth County Adult Probation Impact.......................................................................79
T29 Culberson County Border Statistics..................................................................................80
T30 Culberson County Costs by Department..........................................................................80
T31 Culberson County Sheriff Impact.....................................................................................81
T32 Culberson County Detention Impact................................................................................81
T33 Culberson County District and County Clerk Impact.......................................................81
T34 Culberson County District Court Impact..........................................................................82
T35 Culberson County Attorney Impact..................................................................................82
T36 Culberson County Justice of the Peace and Constable Impact..........................................82
T37 Culberson County Adult Probation Impact......................................................................82viii | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition
T38 Jeff Davis County Border Statistics....................................................................................83
T39 Jeff Davis County Costs by Department............................................................................83
T40 Jeff Davis County Sheriff Impact.......................................................................................84
T41 Jeff Davis County District and County Clerk Impact........................................................84
T42 Jeff Davis County Attorney Impact...................................................................................85
T43 Presidio County Border Statistics......................................................................................86
T44 Presidio County Costs by Department..............................................................................87
T45 Presidio County Sheriff Impact.........................................................................................87
T46 Presidio County Detention Impact...................................................................................87
T47 Presidio County District Clerk Impact..............................................................................88
T48 Presidio County District Attorney Impact.........................................................................88
T49 Presidio County District Court Impact.............................................................................88
T50 Presidio County Clerk Impact..........................................................................................88
T51 Presidio County Attorney Impact.....................................................................................88
T52 Presidio County Indigent Defense Impact.........................................................................89
T53 Presidio County Justice of the Peace Impact.....................................................................89
T54 Presidio County Adult Probation Impact..........................................................................89
T55 Brewster County Border Statistics.....................................................................................90
T56 Brewster County Costs by Department.............................................................................91
T57 Brewster County Sheriff Impact........................................................................................91
T58 Brewster County District Clerk Impact.............................................................................91
T59 Brewster County District Attorney Impact........................................................................91
T60 Brewster County District Court Impact............................................................................92
T61 Brewster County Indigent Defense Impact........................................................................92
T62 Terrell County Border Statistics........................................................................................93
T63 Terrell County Costs by Department................................................................................93
T64 Terrell County Sheriff Impact...........................................................................................94
T65 Terrell County Detention Impact......................................................................................94
T66 Val Verde County Border Statistics....................................................................................96
T67 Val Verde County Costs by Department............................................................................96
T68 Val Verde County Sheriff Impact.......................................................................................96
T69 Val Verde County Detention Impact.................................................................................97
T70 Val Verde County District and County Clerk Impact.........................................................97
T71 Val Verde County District Attorney Impact.......................................................................97
T72 Val Verde County District Court Impact...........................................................................97
T73 Val Verde County Attorney Impact...................................................................................98
T74 Val Verde County Court at Law Impact.............................................................................98
T75 Val Verde County Justice of the Peace and Constable Impact............................................98
T76 Val Verde County Adult Probation Impact........................................................................99
T77 Val Verde County Juvenile Center Impact.........................................................................99
T78 Maverick County Border Statistics..................................................................................100
T79 Maverick County Costs by Department..........................................................................101
T80 Maverick County Sheriff Impact.....................................................................................101
T81 Maverick County Detention Impact................................................................................101
T82 Maverick County District Clerk Impact..........................................................................102
T83 Maverick County District Attorney Impact.....................................................................102
T84 Maverick County District Court Impact..........................................................................102The costs of law enforcement and criminal justice services | ix
T85 Maverick County Clerk and Attorney Impact.................................................................102
T86 Maverick County Justice of the Peace and Constable Impact..........................................103
T87 Maverick County Juvenile Probation Impact..................................................................103
T88 Kinney County Border Statistics.....................................................................................104
T89 Kinney County Costs by Department.............................................................................104
T90 Kinney County Sheriff Impact........................................................................................105
T91 Kinney County Detention Impact...................................................................................105
T92 Kinney County District and County Clerk Impact..........................................................105
T93 Kinney County District Attorney Impact........................................................................105
T94 Kinney County District Court Impact.............................................................................106
T95 Kinney County Indigent Defense Impact........................................................................106
T96 Kinney County Justice of the Peace and Constable Impact.............................................106
T97 Webb County Border Statistics.......................................................................................107
T98 Webb County Costs by Department...............................................................................108
T99 Webb County Sheriff Impact..........................................................................................108
T100 Webb County Detention Impact.....................................................................................108
T101 Webb County District Clerk Impact...............................................................................108
T102 Webb County District Attorney Impact..........................................................................109
T103 Webb County District Court Impact...............................................................................109
T104 Webb County Clerk Impact............................................................................................109
T105 Webb County Attorney Impact.......................................................................................109
T106 Webb County Court at Law Impact................................................................................110
T107 Webb County Justice of the Peace Impact.......................................................................110
T108 Webb County Indigent Defense Impact..........................................................................110
T109 Webb County Adult Probation Impact...........................................................................111
T110 Webb County Juvenile Court Center Impact..................................................................111
T111 Zapata County Border Statistics......................................................................................112
T112 Zapata County Costs by Department..............................................................................112
T113 Zapata County Sheriff Impact.........................................................................................113
T114 Zapata County Detention Impact....................................................................................113
T115 Zapata County District Clerk Impact..............................................................................113
T116 Zapata County District Court Impact.............................................................................114
T117 Zapata County Clerk Impact..........................................................................................114
T118 Zapata County Attorney Impact.....................................................................................114
T119 Zapata County Court at Law Impact...............................................................................114
T120 Zapata County Indigent Defense Impact.........................................................................115
T121 Zapata County Justice of the Peace and Constable Impact..............................................115
T122 Zapata County Juvenile Services Impact.........................................................................115
T123 Starr County Border Statistics.........................................................................................117
T124 Starr County Costs by Department.................................................................................117
T125 Starr County Sheriff Impact............................................................................................118
T126 Starr County District Clerk Impact.................................................................................118
T127 Starr County District Attorney Impact............................................................................118
T128 Starr County District Court Impact................................................................................118
T129 Starr County Clerk Impact.............................................................................................119
T130 Starr County Attorney Impact........................................................................................119
T131 Starr County Court at Law Impact..................................................................................119x | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition
T132 Starr County Justice of the Peace and Constable Impact.................................................120
T133 Starr County Juvenile Services Impact............................................................................120 T134 Hidalgo County Border Statistics....................................................................................121
T135 Hidalgo County Costs by Department............................................................................122
T136 Hidalgo County Sheriff Impact.......................................................................................122
T137 Hidalgo County Detention Impact..................................................................................122
T138 Hidalgo County District Clerk Impact............................................................................123
T139 Hidalgo County District Attorney Impact.......................................................................123
T140 Hidalgo County District Court Impact............................................................................123
T141 Hidalgo County Indigent Defense Impact.......................................................................123
T142 Hidalgo County Clerk Impact........................................................................................124
T143 Hidalgo County Court at Law Impact.............................................................................124
T144 Hidalgo County Justice of the Peace and Constable Impact............................................124
T145 Hidalgo County Adult Probation Impact........................................................................125
T146 Cameron County Border Statistics..................................................................................126
T147 Cameron County Costs by Department..........................................................................127
T148 Cameron County Sheriff Impact.....................................................................................127
T149 Cameron County Detention Impact................................................................................127
T150 Cameron County District Clerk Impact..........................................................................127
T151 Cameron County District Attorney Impact.....................................................................128
T152 Cameron County District Court Impact..........................................................................128
T153 Cameron County Indigent Defense Impact.....................................................................128
T154 Cameron County Justice of the Peace and Constable Impact..........................................128
T155 Cameron County Court at Law Impact...........................................................................129
T156 Cameron County Clerk Impact......................................................................................129
T157 Cameron County Attorney Impact.................................................................................129
T158 Cameron County Juvenile Court Services Impact...........................................................129
Summary, Conclusions and Policy Recommendations: The Burden Falls on Border Counties
S1 Border County Costs by State.........................................................................................132
S2 Total Costs by County Function.....................................................................................132
S3 Population, Total Cost, Per Capita Cost, Per Capita Income, and Percent ......................133
Population Living Below Poverty Level
S4 Aggregate Costs by County-Fiscal Years 1999-2006.......................................................135Introduction:
The Burden Falls
on Border CountiesThe costs of law enforcement and criminal justice services | 1
INTRODUCTION:
THE BURDEN FALLS ON BORDER COUNTIES
From 1999 through 2006, the 24 counties along the U.S.-Mexico border spent a cumulative $1.23 billion on services to process criminal undocumented immigrants through the law enforcement and criminal justice system. In fiscal year 2006 alone, the cost was $192 million. These are staggering costs considering the rural nature and poverty level of most of these border counties. The enormous fiscal impact of undocumented immigration on border counties is not a recent phenomenon. As governor of Texas, George W. Bush harshly criticized the federal government for failing to reimburse states and localities for costs of imprisoning undocumented immigrants. As governor, he supported a lawsuit that sought restitution for money that Texas had spent educating, incarcerating and providing medical care to undocumented immigrants. Governor Bush stated in 1995, “If the federal government cannot do its job of enforcing the borders, then it owes the states monies to pay for its failure.”1 When President Bush visited Yuma, Arizona in April 2007, he acknowledged undocumented immigration as a “serious problem”—for public schools and hospitals, and for “the state and local budgets.” He commented on how undocumented immigration brings crime to communities, and is “a problem [that] we need to address …aggressively.”2 Yet in each of his first six years as president, President Bush has proposed to eliminate the program established to reimburse states and localities. On June 28, the last chance to adopt an immigration reform bill faded when the reform proposal failed to pass a critical procedural hurdle in the U.S. Senate.
The Congress, in fact, may not address immigration policy until after the 2008 general election. There is one way, however, that President Bush and the Congress can address the problem of undocumented immigration aggressively and with little controversy: reimburse border counties for the monetary consequences of the failed federal immigration
and border security policies. This report provides the federal government with an accounting of those costs.
The U.S.-Mexicoco Bordeder Environmentonmentonmentonmentonmentonment in 2006-2007
A Border Patrol agent was attempting to rescue an undocumented immigrant from drowning in a canal near El Paso in June 2007 when a suspected human smuggler hit the agent in the head with a rock. In response, the agent fired shots at the smuggler and another would-be entrant, who then fled back into Mexico. The Border Patrol agent sustained a three-inch gash in his head and the entrant he was trying to save drowned.3 This incident symbolizes a border that has become more violent as tougher enforcement makes smugglers more desperate. As security tightens, smugglers dig tunnels under fences, disguise themselves as Mexican military, throw rocks and Molotov cocktails, fire paintball guns, and shoot real guns at agents. “It’s a battle at the border,” says one agent in the Yuma sector. “It’s not like five years ago. When we showed up, they would run. Now they fight back.” Indeed, in the first nine months of fiscal year 2006, 697 agents had been assaulted.4
More than 600,000 apprehensions of entrants without documents were made in fiscal year 2006 by the U.S. Border Patrol. A small portion of those undocumented immigrants, as well as the undocumented immigrants who have been residing illegally in the 24 border counties, gets caught committing a state felony or two or more misdemeanors. When they are apprehended on a state offense, they are not deported. Rather, they enter the county law enforcement and criminal justice system and undergo the adjudication process just as any citizen, or legal resident or visitor would. The U.S. government has acknowledged the fiscal burden placed on county governments by its failure to enforce immigration
law and border security by adopting three policies to reimburse counties for some of these costs (the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program [SCAAP], the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative, and the Federal Reimbursement
of Emergency Health Services Furnished to Undocumented Aliens for medical care). Members of Congress from the four states along the border with Mexico—California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas—have been working for many years to create a program that would reimburse counties for the entire costs of detaining and adjudicating undocumented immigrants. This study presents Congress with the fiscal data on costs that it has requested.
Traditionally, the federal government exercises exclusive control over immigration policy. A fundamental principle of immigration law since 1790 is that the federal government has primary power and responsibility. These are related to several Constitutional provisions, including the power of Congress to “provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; to regulate commerce with foreign Nations; and to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.”
States and counties have no control over the flow of immigrants across their borders. While Washington has 2 | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition
kept tight reins on these policies, the federal government ignores the costs that burden those governments that lack control over immigration policy. Moreover, Washington has increasingly been proposing that states and local governments
assume much of their law enforcement function. Some states have refused, some have provided their National Guards, and some county governments have expressed varying opinions on the prudence of and their capacity for subsuming federal responsibility in this arena. State legislators considered 1,104 immigration measures in spring 2007 addressing undocumented immigration. Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana and Nevada all adopted new laws or strengthened old ones to bar undocumented immigrants from obtaining drivers’ licenses.5 Arizona Senator Jon Kyl has championed the cause of border counties, urging the federal government to cover all costs associated with failed federal law enforcement programs. Most recently, hospitals and other health care providers received some compensation
for emergency medical services. Further, few state resources are made available to help counties with this burden, so costs fall heavily on local taxpayers in these 24 counties along the border. As the report will demonstrate, these counties are already in fiscal distress.
A Countountountounty Governmentnmentnmentnmentnment Fiscalscalscalscal Problemoblemoblemoblemoblem
Of any level of government in the United States, counties operate under the most restricted authority to raise and spend revenue. County governments must also balance their budgets every year and operate under strict limitations
on raising and spending money and incurring debt. Unanticipated expenditures during the fiscal year, such as a single murder or large highway crash, can force counties to reduce staff or programs in order to rebalance their budgets. Moreover, considering household income, per capita income, tax base and general fund, few counties in the United States are as poor as the majority of counties along the border. County governments are largely dependent on the property tax as their main source of revenue. Property tax levies are determined by the assessed value of a property and the property tax rate, which is set by the county governing body each year. Counties are also dependent on the policies of their state legislatures regarding sharing portions of state taxes (e.g., income, sales, gasoline taxes, lottery proceeds) to help pay for state programs that are delivered by county governments. Not all states share these taxes, however, and only a few counties have the authority to impose a tax other than the property tax. Exacerbating the county fiscal problem further, western counties are comparatively large in area and small in population, with the federal government and Indian tribes as the major land holders. Thus, western counties have very limited tax bases for the tax on which they are most dependent, the property tax. Senator Jon Kyl expressed it this way: “These are very small, tax-based counties. When you put this kind of expense on them, it is overwhelming.”6
The Unitedtedted Statestatestatestatestates/Mexicoco Bordeder Countountountountieses Coaloaloalitionon
In the mid-1990s border counties began taking steps to protect their very limited resources for their citizens. As criminal undocumented immigrants began to overwhelm their jails and courts, border counties created an organization
to address the unique challenges that they alone faced at the time, the U.S./Mexico Border Counties Coalition. The Coalition is a nonpartisan and consensus-based policy and technical forum with goals that include: (1) advocate legislation and other policies to provide to border counties the fiscal resources to meet the costs associated with being located on the border; (2) initiate advocacy efforts with the U.S. Congress to include establishing a U.S./Mexico Border
Congressional Group; (3) promote improvements in the economy, infrastructure, and other conditions along the border; and (4) develop constructive dialogue between border county officials and their Mexican counterparts.7
The Coalition has successfully received several hundred thousand dollars from the federal government to conduct studies of the particular fiscal impacts on various service areas of providing services to undocumented immigrants, such as law enforcement, criminal justice and emergency medical care. Findings have been presented to Congress for its consideration in crafting reimbursement programs. Border hospitals and other emergency medical care agencies have received some reimbursement as a result of these research efforts. The costs of law enforcement and criminal justice services | 3
The Unitedtedted Statestatestatestatestates-Mexicoco Bordeder
The line that separates the United States from the Republic of Mexico runs some 1,954 miles from Brownsville to San Diego. The overall goal of border protection is to prevent passage of both persons without documentation and illegal substances and commodities from entering into the United States. But the security of the residents living on or near the Mexican border is of peripheral interest to the federal government and left largely up to local law enforcement and criminal justice agencies, particularly those of counties.8
The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has primary responsibility for this objective. It is a unit in the Department of Homeland Security. The arrest of entrants who are in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act is called an “apprehension.” Apprehensions take place under three different CBP programs: Border Patrol, Investigations,
and Inspections. Border Patrol is the largest of the three programs. The mission of the Border Patrol is to secure 7,500 miles of land and water boundaries that exist between ports of entry, to prevent illegal entry, and to interdict drug and people smugglers and other crimes. The Border Patrol divides the U.S.-Mexico boundary into nine segments,
called sectors. Sectors by state are presented in the following table.
Table 1: U.S.-Mexico Border Sectors by State
California
Arizona
New Mexico
Texas
San Diego
El Centro
Yuma
Tucson
El Paso
El Paso
Marfa
Del Rio
Laredo
McAllen
Source: Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
Other sectors are located in New Orleans, Miami, Havre in Montana, Blaine and Spokane in Washington, Grand Forks in North Dakota, Buffalo, Swanton in Vermont, Ramey in Puerto Rico, Houlton in Maine, and Detroit.
Each sector is divided into one or more ports of entry. Inspections and Customs Enforcement (ICE) defines a port of entry as “…any designated place at which a Customs and Border Protection officer is authorized to collect duties and to enforce the various provisions of the customs and navigation laws (19 CFR 101.1).” There are 41 ports of entry situated on the border where bus, train, and vehicle passengers and pedestrians may enter. (There are countless other ports at airports or that accept commercial traffic only.) In calendar year 2005, CBP reported 23 million passenger or pedestrian crossings through these 41 ports of entry. Hundreds of thousands of trucks, containers and rail cars also entered the U.S. Table 2 presents southern border statistics for 2005.
Table 2: Southern Border Statistics by State
STATE
Ports of Entry
Legal Crossings
Apprehensions
Border Length
California
6
88,951,186/37%
141,207/22%
165 miles/8%
Arizona
8
32,857,431/14%
403,493/63%
354 miles/18%
New Mexico
3
2,135,676/1%
22,314/3%
180 miles/9%
Texas
24
115,864,896/48%
75,736/12%
1,255 miles/64%
Total
41
239,809,189
642,750
1,954 miles
Source: Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of customs and Border Protection4 | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition
Bordeder Demogemogemogemograpaphicscs
The total population of the 24 border counties reached 6,899,904 in 2006. This is a population increase of 9.5 percent over that of 2000. The two California counties contain 45 percent; Arizona’s border counties have 19 percent; the three New Mexico border counties hold 3 percent; and Texas counties comprise 33 percent. The per capita income by county ranges from a low of $13,744 in Maverick County, Texas to a high of $35,841 in San Diego County. Table 3 presents some border county demographics.
Table 3: Border County Demographics
State
County Population
# Counties
Per Capita Income
California
3.1 million/45%
2
$18,000
Arizona
1.3 million/19%
4
$16,000
New Mexico
.23 million/3%
3
$12,500
Texas
2.3 million/33%
15
$14,200
Total
6.9 million
24
NASource: U.S. Census Bureau
Mexicoco’s Bordeder Statestatestatestatestates
Six Mexican states share the border with the United States. They are, from west to east, Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua,
Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas. They have a combined population of about 18 million. The size of the population on each side of the border is a factor in the level of legal and illegal crossings and apprehensions. Mexico’s estimates for 2004 indicate that 6.4 million people live by or near the border. This is a 16 percent increase from that of 1999. The most populous municipios across the line are Tijuana, Mexicali, Juarez, Nuevo Laredo, Reynosa, and Matamoros.
There is no equivalent in Mexico to the American county. Table 4 presents some Mexican border statistics.
Table 4: Border Municipio Population
U.S. Border State
Border Municipio Combined Population
California
2,365,667/37%
Arizona
561,114/9%
New Mexico
46,567/1%
Texas
3,418,223/53%
Total
6,391,571
Source: El Instituto Nacianal de Estudia Geographica e Informatica
Fedeedeederalal Bordeder Strategategategategieses
In recent years, as public and legislative attention to security issues has heightened, various new technological initiatives
have been implemented both at border crossings and in surrounding areas, in attempts to apprehend those crossing illegally. At ports of entry programs have been implemented such as U.S.-Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT), which addresses border security issues using digital, inkless finger scans and digital photographs in combination with the BioVisa program that runs checks against watch lists. The US-VISIT program also aims to implement an automated entry-exit system at all ports of entry.
Beyond the ports of entry, technological initiatives have been advanced in attempts to control the 1,954 miles of southern and 5,525 miles of northern borders. America’s Shield Initiative and the Secure Border Initiative are recent The costs of law enforcement and criminal justice services | 5
policies targeting technology at the border. The Shield Initiative called for an upgrade of the existing Integrated Surveillance
Intelligence System (ISIS) and outlined several updates to remote video surveillance, sensor, and intelligent computer-assisted detention systems. The Secure Border Initiative, a multi-year plan announced in 2005 by Homeland
Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, included additional upgrades to technology used in controlling the border. As part of this initiative, stadium lights at border areas susceptible to illegal crossing, surveillance cameras along targeted areas, and improved roads for Border Patrol access have been instituted in areas such as San Diego County.
As part of America’s Shield Initiative and the Secure Border Initiative, sensors and cameras have been an integral part of border technology. In March 2003, the Border Patrol installed new ground sensors in Palominas, Arizona to detect undocumented immigration in nighttime operations. Volunteers, nicknamed the “Millisecond Men,” continue to monitor
the system utilizing web cams. Cameras also continue to be a staple in border security, especially in combination with sensors. As part of ISIS, camera technology is in use which can detect vehicle features from two miles away and human movement from three miles away when operated with buried sensors that use seismic, magnetic, and infrared
technology. One of the more publicized technical advances in recent years is use of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). Use of these autonomous, remotely-piloted aerial vehicles on the southern border is the first non-military use of UAVs in our nation’s history. The vehicles, such as the new “Predator B” in Fort Huachuca, Arizona, are equipped with electro-optic sensors and sophisticated communication systems which relay and transfer information to ground stations where resources can then be sent to the area of concern. They can be airborne for up to 20 hours, and can read license plates and even identify vehicle occupants from up to 15 miles away. Other current technology used to scope the southern border includes helicopters, planes, tower-mounted video cameras, ground sensors, night-vision goggles, and portable lifts.
With the increased use of sensors, cameras, UAVs, and other technology comes the need for upgraded communications
centers. The Border Patrol completed a new state-of-the-art communications system in the Laredo Sector where the advancement of command and control systems, along with video surveillance, serves as “windows looking out onto the border.” The center allows for better monitoring of cameras and sensors, quicker automated criminal checks, and communication with agents without the need for them to leave their terminals.
Along with new technology to secure the southern border have come additional Border Patrol and Customs agents. States have even committed the use of their National Guards to relieve agents from desk jobs. New strategies directly lower the incidence of illegal crossings and drug and people smuggling where new strategies are employed, but the game of entering the United States illegally for any purpose simply shifts in response. Moreover, crossers with criminal
intent become more desperate and violent toward law enforcement, shooting guns, throwing rocks, smashing vehicles,
sometimes with lethal effect. Where one avenue for crossing is pinched off, another in a more remote location opens up.
There have been numerous short-term border security strategies designed to concentrate resources in one area. Operation
Blockade, Operation Hold-the-Line, and Operation Gatekeeper are a few that have been implemented since the early 1990s. Such concentration of resources, including the use of technology and physical barriers, have been successful, only to push illegal entry elsewhere. As one administrator for a hospital overwhelmed with undocumented immigrant patients described, “It’s like poking your finger in a balloon. If you displace air in one place, it’s going to bulge out somewhere else.”9
The Bordeder Countountountountieses
Twenty-two counties are contiguous to the U.S.-Mexico border. Two others, both in Texas, are within a few miles of the border. Texas has the longest portion of the border and 15 of the counties. New Mexico has three counties, Arizona
has four, and California has two. The 24 counties have a combined population of 6.9 million and a combined geographic
area of 79,109 square miles. The aggregate general fund budgets of these counties in 2006 were $4.7 billion. While governing body structures vary by state, (e.g., board of supervisors in California and Arizona, county commission
in New Mexico, and commissioners court in Texas), they have identical fiduciary and policy-setting responsibility
for their counties. One hundred-ten officials are elected every four years to provide governance. In addition to elected governing bodies, all counties elect three or more officials to head specific departments. The most common are 6 | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition
the sheriff and the prosecutor. Trial court and lower court judges are typically elected locally but are considered state officials in most counties. Records data, including county budgets, case filings and jail bookings, were provided to investigators by county officials upon request, usually while on site.
The counties along the border share similar characteristics with all other American counties. They are considered administrative
arms of the state whose authority and powers are defined and limited by state constitutions and statutes. Counties primarily deliver services that are mandated by the state, namely public health, law enforcement, criminal justice, taxation, assessment, and property recording. They are, however, fundamentally local governments, elected by local voters and financed by local taxpayers.
Border County Law-Justice System. The border counties manifest some differences in their law-justice systems that influence the level of impact and cost of criminal undocumented immigrants. California and New Mexico, for example,
have assumed responsibility for courts, so court costs do not accrue to their counties. New Mexico counties do not prosecute or handle juveniles. Arizona and Texas counties finance most of their law-justice systems through the general fund, though some programs, such as adult and juvenile probation, receive state funding. Similarly, the size of the law-justice system varies among states and counties. The following table illustrates the scope of the law-justice system in Arizona’s border counties with respect to the number of full-time employees in each department.
Table 5: Size of Arizona Border Counties Law-Justice System
County/Department
Yuma
Pima
Santa Cruz
Cochise
Adult Probation
95
310
16
41
County Attorney
78
441
24
51
Clerk of Court
42
226
15
35
Constable
6
13
2
5
Justice Court
30
142
12
49
Juvenile Court
154
582
6
77
Indigent Defense
32
219
NA
26
Sheriff
113
791
53
127
Detention
242
596
30
58
Superior Court
54
664
17
21
Total
846
3,984
175
490
The number of full-time employees includes all categories in each department. Pima County’s law-justice system provides
an example of the proportion of staff in different divisions. In the county attorney’s office, 72 percent (319) work in the criminal division. In juvenile court, 35 percent (201) work in detention, 5 percent (27) in juvenile court, and 45 percent (262) in juvenile probation. In the sheriff’s department, 43 percent (596) are in detention, 18 percent (244) in investigations, 27 percent (374) in operations, and 12 percent (163) in administration.
Scopecopecopecope ofof Studtudtudy
This study has been conducted under a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. The appropriation was contained in legislation signed by President G.W. Bush in 2005 (P.L. 109-108) and awarded to the United States/Mexico Border Counties Foundation in 2007. The purpose of the research is to determine the costs to the 24 border counties of providing services to undocumented immigrants in the service areas of law enforcement and criminal justice. The study examines one year of data, fiscal year 2006, which commenced July 1, 2005 and closed June 30, 2006 (the fiscal year for Texas counties runs October 1 through September 30). County governments operate with several funds within the total budget; with few exceptions, this study relates to only one—the general fund—which is financed through local taxes (i.e., the property tax) to support general government operations. Cost estimates refer to the general fund unless otherwise noted. Were costs to include impacts on other funds, such as The costs of law enforcement and criminal justice services | 7
state-funded programs, special districts, road and hospital funds or districts, and debt service funds, the fiscal impact of undocumented immigrants would be significantly greater.
County operations examined in this study include patrol, investigation and administrative operations in the sheriff’s office; detention (usually operated by the sheriff); lower and trial courts; district and county attorneys and clerks; indigent
defense; adult probation; and juvenile probation and detention. (Costs of providing services to undocumented immigrants most surely accrue to municipal police departments and courts, state corrections and courts, public and private hospitals, border Indian tribes, and other counties farther north as well, but determining those costs is beyond the scope of this study.)
Although this study is limited to the impact on counties that share a border with Mexico or are within a few miles of the border, it is important to recognize that the burden extends to taxpayers and citizens of other counties throughout
the border states, and more recently, throughout the country. The economic, social and environmental costs of undocumented immigration and drug smuggling are not limited to the counties examined in this report, although they clearly bear the brunt of the burden. For example, counties and states across the country now receive a greater portion of SCAAP awards than ever before. Further, municipal governments are adopting resolutions or ordinances to deny services to persons without documentation.
R
eseaeseaeseaesea
r
c
h Metethodsodsods
This research study addresses the following two questions: (1) What is the percentage impact on the workload of each department of providing services to undocumented immigrants? (2) What is the cost to the county general fund of providing those services? Investigators from two universities—The University of Arizona and San Diego State University—collected and analyzed all data. Both investigators employed graduate students from time to time to assist with data collection and report preparation. Site visits to each county began in summer 2006 and continued through summer 2007. In some cases, many site visits were required. Interviews were held on site with department heads, elected officials, data specialists, budget specialists, judicial officials, and county managers when possible. Officials of the U.S. Border Patrol were consulted from time to time. Months of follow-up work proceeded with telephone calls, faxes, and e-mails. Drafts were sent to a member of the governing body of each county for review. Other data sources include county budgets, U.S. Bureau of Census statistics, border crossing statistics, Border Patrol apprehension statistics,
newspaper accounts, public documents, and academic and pragmatic literature for background information and existent research. Records data, including county budgets, case filings and jail bookings, were provided to investigators
by county officials upon request, usually while on site.
Hundreds of county officials were interviewed and consulted. They are neither cited nor listed in the endnotes or reference section because of U.S. Department of Justice regulations on the “confidentiality of Identifiable Research and Statistical Information” and “Protection of Human Subjects.” The chairman of each governing body (county judge in Texas) was sent a letter introducing the research project and announcing that investigators would be visiting. A second letter was mailed indicating a specific date and requesting assistance in scheduling interviews. This letter also relayed the two research questions for which information would be collected. Follow-up phone calls and e-mails further solidified the visits. Department heads selected which staff would meet with investigators, and in many cases the department head participated, including elected officials. Often several people in a department would participate in interview sessions.10
During the interview, the investigator would describe the purpose of the research, the source of the funding, the sponsor of the project (U.S./Mexico Border Counties Foundation), and that the U.S. Senate had requested this research
to update a previous study conducted in 2000. One central question was asked of each respondent: “What percentage of your department’s workload is associated with processing criminal undocumented immigrants during fiscal year 2006?” This question led to discussions among respondents and often necessitated phone calls to information
technicians. Many responses were based on “field experience.” Detention statistics, however, are maintained by sheriff’s departments for the purpose of submitting reimbursement applications to the federal government’s State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. In addition, adult and juvenile probation officers keep statistics on legal status as they develop a somewhat personal relationship with clients and work with Mexican consulates and family in Mexico. These two pieces of hard data gave an indication of the total impact on a county. However, the impact on sheriff’s 8 | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition
patrol and investigation is usually greater than that on other agencies, as many crimes, such as undocumented immigrant
homicides and remote residential burglaries, go unsolved. Prosecutors might also keep statistics on legal status as they can get some reimbursement from the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative. Further, district and county clerks were sometimes able to cross reference with jail statistics to determine the percentage of filings involving undocumented immigrants. Moreover, the level of workload burden is often dependent on the choices of department heads. Elected prosecutors, for example, have discretion in accepting federal declination cases, which can reduce their impact as well as that of defenders and the balance of the system. Sheriffs also have restricted the use of their deputies in participating in tracking and holding undocumented immigrants (e.g., Cochise County Sheriff), which would alter the impact throughout the system.
Discussions during interviews were relatively open-ended. Investigators often asked law enforcement officials to describe
the border environment with respect to illegal immigration as well as types of crimes and suspects. Discussions also revealed a wealth of contextual information. Some of the topics brought up for discussion included the treatment of juvenile offenders, the Texas Linebacker Program, infrastructure in colonias, locational shifts in border crossings, medical needs of undocumented inmates, smuggling strategies, general jail conditions, weapons, drugs and vehicle recovery, comparative pay scales in law enforcement, information technology deficiencies, burials and autopsies, and growth and economic development, to name a few.
Estimated costs capture all impacted departments in each county’s law enforcement and criminal justice system that are funded through the general fund. Some departments, such as adult and juvenile probation, are heavily supported by state grants and so their budgets from the general fund reflect only a portion of full costs. Another, less direct impact
registers in some general government departments that provide internal services to line departments. Those departments
include county administration, the county governing body, human resources, finance and budgeting, and management information services. These administrative costs are noted in tables as “Gen Gov,” for general government.
Percentages vary from county to county depending on the size of these departments relative to the total general fund or on cost recovery studies that counties have conducted. In a few cases, the indirect cost percentage determined in the fiscal year 1999 study is also used for this study.
Cost estimates have been determined for all 24 border counties. Calculations for each department are based on their general fund budget and the estimated portion of their workload devoted to serving undocumented immigrants. Audited data were used when available. When departmental workload includes other services besides criminal work, such as civil filings with the district clerk, the estimated criminal portion of the budget is used. It is noted in tables as “Crim Budget.�� A few department officials were either unresponsive to queries or unable to make an estimate on workload impact, and those departments are noted and excluded. The designation “NA” in tables denotes that the impact information is either not available or not applicable. In some cases the exact costs were provided rather than a percentage impact on workload, and in others county officials did not respond to requests for information.
Cost estimates are also presented on a county per capita basis. The size of the impact and the cost of the impact vary widely from county to county, depending on population on both sides of the border, whether there is a port of entry, and border protection strategies, among others. Some of the smaller, more remote counties appear to have experienced
little impact; however, when the cost is measured as a per capita cost, a more complete picture of the fiscal burden on citizens emerges. The total cost does not necessarily relate to a county’s capacity to pay for the burden of services for undocumented immigrants. Thus, considering the per capita burden places these costs in a fuller context.
Statistics on undocumented immigrant apprehensions were provided by the U.S. Border Patrol. Segregating out sector
apprehension figures by county was performed by investigators. Population estimates for 2006 were provided by “Quick Facts” from the U.S. Census Bureau. Quick Facts also provides the demographics, 2004 median household income figures, and the percentage living below the poverty level. Per capita income figures for 2003 were provided by the Regional Economic Information Systems (REIS) and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Mexican border municipio population estimates for 2004 were provided by El Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica (INEGI). Sources for other statistics and information are cited in the document.
Terms. The term “undocumented immigrant” is used primarily in this study. Other terms noting illegal status are used interchangeably from county to county. “Illegal immigrant,” “illegal alien,” “undocumented alien,” “UDA,” or “undocumented
person” are the most commonly used terms in counties and in newspaper accounts. The undocumented The costs of law enforcement and criminal justice services | 9
immigrant population actually refers to three types of undocumented visitor: those who enter the country illegally; those who reside in the country illegally (i.e., overstay their visa); and those who enter legally for day work or shopping
(“border crosser” or “day crosser”) but fail to return to Mexico. While the vast majority of subjects in this study hold Mexican citizenship, others come from India, China, Russia, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Germany, Honduras and El Salvador.
The federal government established the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) in 1995 to reimburse state prisons and county jails for the costs of detaining undocumented immigrants who had committed a state felony or two or more misdemeanors. Initially the appropriation was $585 million, but recently program money has been cut to as low as $200 million. The awards for 2006 amounted to over $400 million. Border counties were awarded 1 percent of the appropriation—$4.7 million.
Most, if not all, border counties have colonias. A colonia is an incorporated town or an unincorporated place within 150 miles of the border that meets the U.S. Department of Agriculture standards, mainly related to insufficient infrastructure,
especially for water and sewer systems. If standards are met, the colonia will be eligible to apply for various grants, including Community Development Block Grant funds.11
Data Collection Limitations. The inherent limits on collecting information on costs to counties of providing services to undocumented immigrants have been discussed in all studies on undocumented immigrants. County agencies do not generally track the legal status of clients. For one, they do not have the data fields in their management information
systems that would enable them to record and retrieve information on legal status. For another, they do not have an economic incentive to track such information. Providing it for this and previous research would have been unthinkable in terms of labor requirements. Moreover, many departments consider inquiring into the legal status of clients (or patients) to be inappropriate, unethical or even illegal. County detention staff can and do track legal status, as federal law enforcement agencies require it and the SCAAP program provides some form of reimbursement. Tracking
such data over a year’s time is labor intensive, however, and many counties decline to apply for meager SCAAP returns for their efforts. Adult and juvenile probation departments also have the capability to determine legal status, as they form somewhat personal relationships with clients and often contact relatives in Mexico or Mexican consulates.
Last, undocumented immigrants produce false documents, or otherwise prove legal residency by showing a utility bill or other document. New Mexico, for example, only requires a utility bill for a household, not an individual. Therefore, most impact estimates are based on field experience or are deduced from the data of related departments. These methods of identifying legal status have been used for decades in studies by such sponsors as the Government Accountability Office (1994), The Urban Institute (1994) and The University of Arizona (1997 and 1998).12
Liteteratuatuature Reviewew
Review of recent research on the topic of costs to border counties of undocumented immigrants and the socioeconomic
context of border counties follows. It includes the three most recent studies. A more comprehensive review of past research on undocumented immigration and border issues may be found in Illegal Immigration in U.S./Mexico Border Counties: The Costs of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice, and Emergency Medical Services (2001).12
Economic Impacts of Immigrants in Arizona. This report examines the costs and benefits of immigration—both naturalized citizens and non-citizens—in Arizona. It provides estimates of fiscal costs of education, health care, and law enforcement. The total state tax revenue generated by immigrants amounted to $2.365 billion in 2004 ($1.49 billion
from non-citizens). The cost was $1.414 billion. The net fiscal impact of immigrants was a benefit of $942 million. This report was published in July 2007.13
At the Cross Roads. The most recent comprehensive study of the 24 counties along the U.S.-Mexico border was published in March 2006. At the Cross Roads: US/Mexico Border Counties in Transition framed the 24 border counties as a 51st state and compared this “state” to the 50 existing states in 13 different categories. Categories include population, income, labor force, labor pool and unemployment, employment, public and higher education, environment, health and health care, trade and border traffic, immigration, housing, crime and law enforcement and finally, fiscal balance
of payments. Some of the findings reveal that the border region would rank 13th in population, last in per capita 10 | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition
income (excluding San Diego County), 5th in unemployment, last in higher education (excluding San Diego County), last in the presence of health care professionals, 22nd in homeownership rates, and 16th in crime rates.
Medical Emergency. In an American Hospital Association annual survey, hospitals in southwest border counties
reported uncompensated medical care that totaled $832 million in 2000. A subsequent report determined that almost $190 million (25 percent) in hospital costs and $13 million in emergency transportation costs resulted from emergency medical treatment provided to undocumented immigrants. Proposed by the U.S./Mexico Border Counties Coalition and funded with a federal grant secured by Senator Jon Kyl and administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Medical Emergency: Costs of Uncompensated Care in Southwest Border Counties found that state and local healthcare providers absorb a large portion of the costs incurred by undocumented immigrants and that the (former) Immigration and Naturalization Service brought injured and ill undocumented entrants to hospital emergency rooms or called ambulances without arresting them so that the federal government would not bear the cost of treatment. The study recommended that Congress reimburse these hospitals and transport agencies for care of undocumented immigrants and also provide Customs and Border Protection with sufficient funding to cover costs of entrants found by Border Patrol.
Costs of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice and Medical Emergency Services. This research report, funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, determined that the 24 counties along the Mexican border incurred costs of $108.2 million in fiscal year 1999 to provide services to undocumented immigrants in the areas of law enforcement,
criminal justice and emergency medical service. The study concluded that the capacity of border counties to handle the “rising tide” of illegal immigration is severely limited because these counties are the poorest in the nation and their populations are increasing at a greater rate than those of the rest of the nation. New residents will not likely raise the per capita income levels or decrease the percentage living in poverty. State laws require that county government
process anyone arrested on a felony or two or more misdemeanors at county expense, so counties have no discretion in enforcing the law or in preventing illegal entry. The federal government has sole province over immigration
policy and enforcement and likewise for these costs that fall on counties. Additional social costs, not factored in estimates, include environmental degradation, wildfires, fear, property damage, and deterioration of communities.
Overviewew ofof Studtudtudy
The study calculates and examines the costs to 24 border counties situated along the U.S.-Mexico border for providing law enforcement and criminal justice services to undocumented immigrants who have been apprehended on a state felony or multiple misdemeanors. In some cases costs also include the use of the judicial system for civil purposes. The report is divided into four sections by state, beginning west with San Diego County in California and moving east to Cameron County, Texas. Each section begins with an introduction to the state and follows with each of its border counties, westward to eastward geographically. County chapters include a brief introduction to the county, a description
of its border environment, costs by department, and a summary. Endnotes are attached at the end of each state section. A final section presents a summary, makes several conclusions, and poses recommendations for Congressional
action. The costs of law enforcement and criminal justice services | 11
1. U.S. Senate Democratic Policy Committee Report on President Bush’s Law Enforcement Funding. Washington, D.C.: February 6, 2003.
2. “President Bush Discusses Comprehensive Immigration Reform in Yuma, Arizona,” April 9, 2007. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007.
3. “Attack on BP agent halts entrant rescue,” Arizona Daily Star, June 28, 2007, A10.
4. Stephanie Innes, “Battle at the Border: Along with tougher enforcement has come a spike in assaults on border agents, indicating smugglers are becoming more desperate,” Arizona Daily Star, September 26, 2006, A1.
5. Julia Preston, “State lawmaking on entrants widespread,” Arizona Daily Star, August 7, 2007, B5.
6. Susan Carroll, “Illegal crossers cost Pima the most,” Tucson Citizen, November 30, 2000, A1, quoting Senator Jon Kyl.
7. United States Border Counties Coalition website, www.bordercounties.org. The research reports include the
following: Illegal Immigrants in U.S./Mexico Border Counties: The Costs of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice, and Emergency
Medical Services (2001); Medical Emergency: Who Pays the Price for Uncompensated Emergency Medical Care Along the Southwest Border?” (2002); and At the Cross Roads: US/Mexico Border Counties in Transition (2006).
8. Jose Garcia, “Operational Milieus: Security Regimes on the U.S.-Mexico Border,” paper presented to the annual meeting of the Latin American Studies Association, Miami, Florida, March 16, 2000. Las Cruces, New Mexico: New Mexico State University.
9. Haley Nolde, “Border Hospitals on the Brink.” http://www.motherjones.com/newswires/borderhospitals.html.
10. Investigators met with roughly 227 county officials. Most frequently interviewed were sheriff’s department
officials. The distribution and frequency of interviews across departments is as follows: sheriff, 42; detention, 18; district and county clerk, 20; district and county attorney, 26; indigent defense, 17; superior and district court, 12; justice court, 16; constable, 2; adult probation, 10; juvenile court, 17; supervisors and commissioners, 23; and county administration, 24. Title 45 Part 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations strives to make uniform the National Institutes of Health’s Policies for the Protection of Human Subjects. Investigators must ensure that the identities of interview subjects remain confidential unless signed consent is given. As investigators were inquiring into departmental workload information, rather than personal opinions or experiences, they gave a guarantee of confidentiality to all subjects. In addition, investigators were required to describe how subjects would be identified and recruited, how the research and its purpose will be described to subjects, that their participation is voluntary and how it may benefit their department or county, and that the only cost will be their time. Both The University of Arizona and the National Institute of Justice must approve the subject consent process.
11. Fyffe, Nicole. Choices for Unincorporated Communities in Arizona. Tucson: Institute for Local Government,
The University of Arizona. May 2001.
12. See, for example: Clark, Passel, Zimmerman and Fix, Fiscal Impacts of Undocumented Aliens: Selected Estimates for Seven States. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1994; Illegal Aliens: Assessing Estimates of Financial Burden on California. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1994; and Tanis J. Salant, Border Impact: Criminal Illegal Immigrants on the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice System, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Tucson: The University
of Arizona, 1999.
13. Gans, Judith. The Economic Impacts of Immigrants in Arizona. Tucson: Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, The University of Arizona. July 2007.12 | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition
California
Border CountiesThe costs of law enforcement and criminal justice services | 13
CALIFORNIA BORDER COUNTIES
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the population of the state was 1.5 million, less than 2 percent of the U.S. population. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, California was the most populous state, with 36,457,549 people, accounting for more than 12 percent of the total U.S. population. Migrants from Mexico, and especially their offspring, have made a substantial contribution to that growth since the 1970s. In 1970, the state’s 2.4 million Hispanics represented 12 percent of California’s population, whereas by the year 2006 the estimate of the Hispanic population was nearly 13 million, accounting for 35 percent of the state’s population. The Demographic Research Unit of the California State Department of Finance projects that by 2042 the Hispanic population will represent the majority
in the state’s population.1 California’s median household income in 2003 was $49,894, and the per capita income was $22,711. Population living below the poverty level accounted for 13.2 percent.
The Mexican economy cannot generate enough jobs to meet the demands of its young people reaching adulthood. At the same time, the more robust California economy has been a nearly constant attraction for Mexicans to enter the state. Since the process of obtaining legal permission to enter the country can often be lengthy, the flow of undocumented
immigrants is known to be large, although its exact size is unknown. The most widely cited estimates are those produced by the demographers at the Pew Hispanic Center, which estimates that there were approximately 2.6 million undocumented immigrants living in California in 2005 (25 percent of the U.S. total).2
Calalifofornia’s Bordeder Environmentonmentonmentonmentonmentonment
Two of California’s 58 counties—San Diego and Imperial—share the state’s 165-mile border with Mexico. Six ports of entry operate in California: three in San Diego County and three in Imperial County. In each county, one of the ports is a service port for trucks and thus not for pedestrians or passenger vehicles. Through the four general purpose ports of entry there is an annual average crossing in both directions of 19 million pedestrians and 70 million passengers in vehicles. These numbers account for 37 percent of all pedestrian and passenger crossings along the U.S.-Mexico border. Additionally, in 2006 there were 141,207 apprehensions of undocumented immigrants in California, accounting
for 22 percent of apprehensions along the border in that year. This number represents a substantial decline from previous years, which is attributable to the impact of the border fences that have been constructed along the border in San Diego County as part of Operation Gatekeeper. These fences have pushed illegal crossers farther to the east, especially to Arizona. Table C1 presents California border statistics.
Table C1: California Border County Statistics
County
Population/%
Square Miles/%
Ports of Entry
Legal Crossings/%
Apprehensions/%
San Diego
2,941,454 (95%)
4,200 (50%)
3
63,194,708 (71%)
79,396 (56%)
Imperial
160,301 (5%)
4,175 (50%)
3
25,756,478 (29%)
61,811 (44%)
TOTAL
3,101,755
8,375
6
88,951,186
141,207
Characteacteacteacteriststicscs ofof Calalifofornia Countountountounty Governmentnmentnmentnmentnment
California county governments represent the largest political subdivision of the state having corporate powers. The specific organizational structure of a county in California will vary from county to county, but each county is required
to be governed by a board of supervisors consisting of five members. California law provides for two kinds of counties–general law and charter. General law counties adhere strictly to state law regarding the number and duties of elected county officials. Charter counties have some latitude or “home rule” with regard to the election of officials, and the administration of the county. However, all counties must elect the sheriff, district attorney, and assessor. Although charter counties have more flexibility than general law counties, a charter does not give county officials any 14 | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition
extra authority over local regulations, revenue-raising abilities, budgetary decisions, or intergovernmental relations. Of the two border counties, San Diego is a charter county, and Imperial is a general law county. Most counties employ a professional manager, who then appoints directors of the departments who report to the board of supervisors.
The single most important source of revenue for the general fund of most California counties comes from state-shared taxes (so-called intergovernmental revenues). The state of California distributes to counties a portion of the state’s revenues
(from sources including state income tax and federal block grants), although this funding comes largely in the form of revenue dedicated to specific programs. General county revenues include the property tax, sales tax, vehicle license fees, transient occupancy tax, real property transfer tax, and a few other miscellaneous sources.
Calalifofornia Countountountounty Lawaw Enfonfonforcementcementcementcementcementcement andandand Justustusticece Systemstemstemstem
Most counties have a sheriff’s department, which enforces laws in unincorporated parts of the county, as well as within municipalities that contract with the sheriff’s department for those services rather than establishing their own. The sheriff’s department is usually responsible for incarceration of prisoners before and during trial, and for minor offenses carrying a sentence of less than one year. Convicted felons are normally incarcerated in facilities operated by the California Department of Corrections. The prosecution of alleged criminals is undertaken by an elected district attorney, and the supervision of persons on probation is undertaken by the department of probation. The defense of indigents is the responsibility of the public defender and alternative public defender. San Diego and Imperial counties received a total of $2.4 million from SCAAP for 2006.
The court system in California has undergone important recent changes in funding and structure. In 1997 the California
legislature passed the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act, which consolidated all court funding at the state level and also capped the amount of money that each county would be required to contribute to the state court fund. In centralizing the funding, the legislation unlinked the contribution that each county made from the amount that each county’s court might receive. Thus, each county contributes to court costs, but those costs are not necessarily
proportionate to the costs associated with the court in that county.3 The contribution required of each county is based on its funding of state courts in fiscal year 1994-1995. Furthermore, counties are required to continue funding court facilities and those court-related costs that are outside the statutory definition of court operations, including indigent defense, pretrial release, and probation costs.
Unification of the court system has also occurred. In 1998, California voters approved a constitutional amendment permitting judges in each county to merge their superior and municipal courts into a single countywide court upon the vote of a majority of the county’s superior court judges and a majority of the municipal court judges. San Diego and Imperial counties both unified their courts in 1998, whereupon the municipal court judges became superior court judges and thus subject to countywide election. Municipal court employees also became employees of the unified
superior court, and municipal court locations became locations of the countywide superior court. All aspects of the criminal justice system, including arraignments, hearings, trials, and the handling of both misdemeanors and felonies are therefore now dealt with in the unified superior court. The costs of law enforcement and criminal justice services | 15
Costsostsostsosts toto Calalifofornia Bordeder Countountountountieses
The total annual cost to California’s border counties for providing law enforcement and criminal justice services to criminal undocumented immigrants from the general fund is estimated to be $82.6 million. This cost also includes the percentage charge for general government services. Table C2 summarizes these data for the two border counties of California.
Table C2: Costs of Undocumented Immigration by County
County
Costs/%
Per Capita Cost
San Diego
$77,096,995 (93%)
$26.21
Imperial
$5,544,216 (7%)
$34.59
TOTAL
$82,641,211
$26.64 (avg)
San Diego County’s estimated cost of $77 million accounts for 93 percent of the costs of the two counties combined, but table C2 shows that the impact per person is greater in Imperial County ($34.59) than it is in San Diego County ($26.21). The average per capita cost for both counties is $26.64.
Costsostsostsosts toto Calalifofornia Bordeder Countountountountieses by Depaepaepartmenttmenttmenttmenttment
The cost of processing criminal undocumented immigrants at the departmental level is shown for each county in table C3. The costs are derived by multiplying the general fund departmental budget by the estimated percentage impact of undocumented immigrants, and adding a general government overhead cost. These costs are discussed in more detail in the section devoted to the individual counties.
Table C3: Costs to Border Counties by County and Department
Total Cost: $82,641,211
Average Per Capita Cost: $26.64
Department
San Diego County
Imperial County
Sheriff
$50,842,831*
$2,478,019
Detention
NA
$1,606,680
District Attorney
$9,049,743
$604,721
Indigent Defense
$7,128,667
$135,217
Adult Probation
$4,762,733
$374,204
Juvenile Services
$5,313,021
$345,375
* Includes costs for detention16 | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition
Costostost toto Calalifofornia Countountountounty Citizensensens
The money that is spent by California’s border counties is an obvious burden on residents of these counties, and drains away resources that could be used more productively. For example, in San Diego County, a total of $872,228,063 was spent in fiscal year 2006 on law enforcement and justice costs that could potentially be influenced by undocumented immigrants, accounting for 32 percent of the total county budget. In San Diego County the amount spent on undocumented immigrants represents 7 percent of the total law-justice budget, whereas in Imperial County it represents 21 percent.
The structure of public financing in California makes it extremely difficult for local governments, especially county governments, to increase their sources of revenue. This problem is greatly exacerbated when counties are also forced into expenditures that are beyond their control. Without the ability to raise taxes in any significant way to deal with the costs associated with criminal undocumented immigrants, counties are forced to cut back on other expenditures that would otherwise benefit the legal resident population, either through tax cuts or through augmented services.The costs of law enforcement and criminal justice services | 17
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
San Diego County lies at the southwest corner of the United States, at the westernmost end of the U.S.-Mexico border. It contains 4,200 square miles of territory and shares 60 miles of border with Mexico. The population is concentrated to the west of the Laguna Mountains, more specifically within 25 miles of the Pacific Ocean. The city of San Diego accounts for somewhat less than half (43 percent) of the county’s population of 2.9 million and it is one of the two incorporated areas in the county that are adjacent to the border. Altogether, the county has 18 incorporated cities. The others include, in order of population size, Chula Vista, Oceanside, Escondido, Carlsbad, El Cajon, Vista, San Marcos,
National City, Encinitas, La Mesa, Santee, Poway, Imperial Beach (the other municipality that is adjacent to the border), Coronado, Lemon Grove, Solana Beach, and Del Mar. The municipalities take in 84 percent of the county’s population.
San Diego County has a reasonably diversified economy. Besides the long-term reliance on defense and tourism, the county now hosts the third largest concentration of bioscience companies in the United States. Other important high-tech manufacturing clusters include cellular communication technology and sports equipment. There are also close connections between San Diego County and the maquiladora industry in neighboring Tijuana—where, for example, most of the televisions sold in the western United States are manufactured. San Diego County also has an important
agricultural area in which specialty crops such as avocados and poinsettias form part of the regional economy. Although the presence of Naval and Marine bases is the most visible way in which the defense industry impacts San Diego, there are actually more dollars injected into the regional economy through defense contracts awarded to local businesses. Much of this work is related to the Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. Beaches and several
state and national park facilities add to the county’s appeal, as do major tourist attractions such as the San Diego Zoo, Wild Animal Park, Sea World, and Legoland.
The population estimate for 2006 was 2,941,454. The median household income in 2004 was $51,939 and the average
per capita income in 2003 was $35,841. Sixty-seven percent of the population is white, and 14.4 percent claims Hispanic or Latino origins. Only 10.9 percent live below the poverty level. The 2006 San Diego County general fund was $3.3 billion.
Sanan Diegoegoego Countountountounty’s Bordeder Environmentonmentonmentonmentonmentonment
The Mexican state of Baja California shares its entire northern border with the two California border counties. The Mexican population south of San Diego County is clustered primarily in the large city of Tijuana, population 1.4 million,
and the smaller cities of Tecate, Playas de Rosarito and Ensenada, although the latter two cities are not adjacent to the border. The 2005 Mexico Conteo enumerated 2 million people in those four cities combined. Three ports of entry operate in San Diego County: two at San Ysidro and one at Tecate. The San Ysidro border crossing between San Diego and Tijuana has for many years been the world’s busiest international crossing. Among the three San Diego ports of entry there are an annual average of 10 million pedestrians and 53 million vehicle passengers who cross the border in both directions.
Since 1997 San Diego County has experienced a decrease in the number of apprehensions of undocumented immigrants.
This is a direct consequence of the extension of the border fence in the more accessible regions of southern San Diego County through the federally-funded Operation Gatekeeper. (It has not necessarily deterred undocumented border crossing, but rather has pushed it east, into the mountains of San Diego County, into the desert in Imperial County, and farther east into Arizona and New Mexico.) Nonetheless, because of the size of the county’s economy and its function as a gateway to the vastly larger economy in Los Angeles, the number of undocumented immigrants coming into San Diego County remains a serious concern. In 2006, nearly 80,000 persons without documents were apprehended trying to cross the border into San Diego County. Table C4 presents the county’s border statistics.18 | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition
Table C4: San Diego County Border Statistics
Population
Square Miles
Border Length
Ports of Entry
Legal Crossings
Apprehensions
2,941,454
4,200
60 miles
3
63,194,708
79,754
Costsostsostsosts ofof Undocumentedndocumentedndocumentedndocumentedndocumentedndocumentedndocumentedndocumentedndocumentedndocumentedndocumented Immmmigratationon fofor Lawaw Enfonfonforcementcementcementcementcementcement andandand Criminalnalnal Justustusticece Servicescesces
The direct costs to San Diego County of providing law enforcement and criminal justice services to criminal undocumented
immigrants are estimated to be $65,558,760 for fiscal year 2006. A county expenditure audit has determined the indirect cost allocation formula for general government services on each department. Within the Public Safety Group of San Diego County, the rate is 17.6 percent, and this was applied to all departments. The indirect impact on general government services adds $11,538,325 for a total impact of $77,096,995. This translates into a per capita cost to San Diego County residents of $26.21. Site visits were made throughout 2007. They included personal interviews, budget and report reviews, and follow up with e-mails, faxes and telephone calls. The calculations for each department
are summarized in table C5, followed by a brief discussion of each department.
Table C5: San Diego County Costs by Department
County Total: $77,096,995
Per Capita Cost: $26.21
Sheriff/Detention
District Attorney
Indigent Defense
Adult Probation
Juvenile Services
$50,842,831
$9,049,743
$7,128,667
$4,762,733
$5,313,021
Sanan Diegoegoego Countountountounty Sheriffff andandand Detentetentetentetentetentionon
The San Diego County Sheriff’s Department (SDSO) does collect some data on undocumented persons in detention. Staff reports that the presence of federal immigration authorities in county jails has increased and that detention staff is now more likely than in the past to learn if inmates are illegally in the United States. SDSO also collects this information
in order to prepare a request for federal reimbursement from SCAAP. The current measure of an undocumented
person in custody is likely to underreport some persons, such as those sent to state prison with an immigration “hold” (a detention order to be executed at the time of release from state custody) that was unknown to SDSO, drunks released after they sober up, or persons who bond out quickly. Thus, the SDSO estimate is likely to underestimate the total impact. The estimate is that undocumented immigrants account for 8 percent of the costs associated with detention and, by inference, of other law enforcement responsibilities borne by the sheriff’s department. The general fund budget in 2006 was $540,421,248. The budget, impact and costs for detention are included. The direct cost, by applying the 8 percent impact, is $43,233,700. After adding a 17.6 percent charge for general government services ($7,609,131), the total cost comes to $50,842,831, as displayed in the following table.
Table C6: San Diego County Sheriff and Detention Impact
Budget
Impact
Direct Cost
Gen Gov
Total Cost
$540,421,248
8%
$43,233,700
$7,609,131
$50,842,831The costs of law enforcement and criminal justice services | 19
Sanan Diegoegoego Countountountounty Diststrictct Attottottorneney
The District Attorney’s Office does not collect data on the immigration status of defendants. However, it does provide a considerable amount of service and support related to the prosecution of undocumented immigrants arrested for crimes, as well as to the victims of those crimes. Although the level of support and services related to undocumented immigrants is not directly quantified, it is estimated that 6.5 percent of defendants are undocumented persons. The district attorney’s 2006 general fund budget was $118,390,160. Direct costs are $7,695,360. With an indirect charge of $1,354,383, the total comes to $9,049,743. Table C7 portrays these findings.
Table C7: San Diego County District Attorney Impact
Budget
Impact
Direct Cost
Gen Gov
Total Cost
$118,390,160
6.5%
$7,695,360
$1,354,383
$9,049,743
Sanan Diegoegoego Countountountounty Indndigentgentgentgent Defenseefenseefenseefenseefenseefense
The public defender and alternate public defender are mandated by the court not to collect data on the immigration status of clients, in order to prevent any bias to representation that might be induced by that information. However, given the role of the public defender in providing legal representation to indigent persons accused of crimes, it is reasonable to assume that a disproportionate share of the public defender’s workload involves undocumented immigrants.
The 1999 impact study found that whereas the district attorney spent 6.4 percent of its resources on undocumented
immigrants, the public defender spent 9.1 percent of its resources in that way. The same ratio has been applied to 2006 costs. Thus, adding 2.7 percent to the district attorney’s impact of 6.5 percent brings the impact to 9.2 percent to both public defender offices for costs associated with undocumented immigrants. The public defender’s budget in 2006 was $50,787,795. The alternate public defender’s budget was $15,101,253. Combined budgets amounted
to $65,889,048 and calculations are found in table C8 below.
Table C8: San Diego County Indigent Defense Impact
Budget
Impact
Direct Cost
Gen Gov
Total Cost
$65,889,048
9.2%
$6,061,792
$1,066,875
$7,128,667
Sanan Diegoegoego Countountountounty Adultdultdultdult Probatobatobatobationon
The San Diego County Probation Department serves about 20,000 adults at any one time. As of May 2007 there were 19,695 adults on formal probation, of which 2,040 were determined to be undocumented, representing 10.4 percent of the caseload. The majority of these offenders have been deported, but because they often return, and re-offend, the probation department must track them. The general fund budget for the Adult Field Services division was $38,941,757, for a direct cost of $4,049,943. An additional $712,790 is added to cover general government services, and the total comes to $4,762,733. The table below arrays these costs.
Table C9: San Diego County Adult Probation Impact
Budget
Impact
Direct Cost
Gen Gov
Total Cost
$38,941,757
10.4%
$4,049,943
$712,790
$4,762,73320 | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition
Sanan Diegoegoego Countountountounty Juvenenilele Servicescesces
It is known that undocumented immigrants are included among the juveniles who are investigated, incarcerated, supervised, and placed in residential settings. For the most part, data are not collected on immigration status of juveniles, but it is known that 4.5 percent of juveniles currently in placement in the juvenile system are undocumented.
All of them have been approved for the Permanently Residing Under the Color of Law (PRUCOL) Doctrine. It is assumed that 4.5 percent is a reasonable approximation of the overall impact of undocumented immigrants on the juvenile system. The general fund budget for 2006 for the Juvenile Field Services and Institutional Services divisions was $100,397,231. The direct cost is estimated to be $4,517,875, to which is added $795,146 for general government, for a total impact of $5,313,021. Table C10 presents these findings.
Table C10: San Diego County Juvenile Services Impact
Budget
Impact
Direct Cost
Gen Gov
Total Cost
$100,397,231
4.5%
$4,517,875
$795,146
$5,313,021
Sanan Diegoegoego Countountountounty Summaummaummaummary
The total cost to San Diego County’s law enforcement and criminal justice system in fiscal year 2006 amounted to $77,096,995. Each resident of the county paid approximately $26.21 to fund these services. This represents a substantial
absolute dollar increase from the estimated impact of $34,063,840 for the comparable services for fiscal year 1999, which amounted to $11.96 per resident. In constant dollars, the 1999 figure would have inflated from $34 million to $41 million in 2006. This means that, even taking the consumer price index into account, over this span of time there was nearly a doubling of the impact of criminal undocumented immigrants on the residents of San Diego County. Moreover, assuming that service costs increased at a steady rate in the six intervening years, the cost would rise each year by about $6.3 million, for a cumulative cost impact on San Diego County of $565 million. A reimbursement
of $77 million from the federal government for costs in 2006 would enable the county to do many important things. This could include important maintenance that has been deferred because of lack of funds, or it could even form the basis for an endowment that would provide a future source of programmatic funding.The costs of law enforcement and criminal justice services | 21
IMPERIAL COUNTY
Imperial County is an important agricultural region. It is an inland valley with the Laguna Mountains to the west and the Colorado River to the east. The river supplies irrigation water to farms in Imperial County that were created after construction of the Imperial Dam—the last American dam along the Colorado River before it enters Mexico and empties
into the Gulf of California (Sea of Cortez). Imperial County is one of the larger border counties in area, with 4,175 square miles. The county seat of El Centro has a population of 37,985. Other incorporated municipalities include the second largest city, Calexico (population 32,517), Brawley, Imperial, Calipatra, Holtville and Westmoreland.
The 2006 population of Imperial County was 160,301, a 12.6 percent increase since 2000. The median household income in 2004 was $33,674 and the per capita income was $13,239. Eighteen and one-half percent lives below the federal poverty level. A little over 75 percent are Hispanic or Latino, and 18 percent are white. The general fund budget
for fiscal year 2006 was $179,166,360.
I
mpempempe
rialal Countountountounty’s Bordeder Environmentonmentonmentonmentonmentonment
Imperial County hosts three ports of entry along its 105-mile border with Mexico. Two are located at Calexico, the sister city of Mexicali. The state capitol of Baja California, Mexicali’s population is 867,000, dwarfing Imperial County’s by five and one-half times. The third port of entry rests at Andrade, on the eastern edge of Imperial County near Yuma. Imperial County provides a major transportation route for Mexicali’s goods by way of Interstate-8, which cuts through the county connecting it to San Diego and Tucson; and Interstate-10, running north of Imperial County for a connection to Los Angeles and Phoenix. As shown in table C11, legal crossings from Mexico into Imperial County through these three ports totaled nearly 26 million (a drop of 10 million since 1999). Border Patrol apprehensions also decreased from those of 1999, falling from 220,439 to 61,811. Tightened border enforcement has pushed the incidence
of undocumented immigration eastward into Arizona and New Mexico border counties.
Table C11: Imperial County’s Border Statistics
Population
Square Miles
Border Length
Ports of Entry
Legal Crossings
Apprehensions
160,301
4,175
105 miles
3
26,187,917
61,811
Despite a drop in apprehensions as well as legal crossings, border crimes occur, especially “ag crime”—theft of farm equipment, seed, alfalfa, batteries, and wire. Calexico police arrest the majority of undocumented immigrants who commit state crimes. Personal violence occurs as well, which requires more intensive investigation than legal resident crimes of violence. Homicides are unusual, occurring at the most once a year. As one sheriff’s administrator explains, “Imperial County’s terrain is straightforward [flat and open].” While Imperial County serves as a transit point to other U.S. destinations, entrants are more aggressive, entering with the intent to commit crimes. Rural homes are burglarized
and ransacked with the purpose of “building supplies,” a common “MO.” They are also younger and more sophisticated.
Moreover, people who live in Mexico but cross legally to work are committing crimes as well, especially those in the farm labor pool.
Costsostsostsosts ofof Undocumentedndocumentedndocumentedndocumentedndocumentedndocumentedndocumentedndocumentedndocumentedndocumentedndocumented Immmmigratationon fofor Lawaw Enfonfonforcementcementcementcementcementcement andandand Criminalnalnal Justustusticece Servicescesces
The direct costs of providing law enforcement and criminal justice services to undocumented immigrants in 2006 are $4,698,488. An additional $845,728 for general government expenses brings the total impact to $5,544,216. Each resident of Imperial County spent $34.59 in 2006. The charge for indirect services is 18 percent. A site visit was made in August 2007 and officials in impacted departments—sheriff, detention, adult probation, and juvenile court services were interviewed. (The district attorney was interviewed by telephone.) Budget and SCAAP documents were reviewed, and follow-up e-mails and phone calls completed the data collection. Table C12 presents these costs by department.22 | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition
Table C12: Imperial County Costs by Department
Total Cost: $5,544,216
Per Capita Cost: $34.59
Sheriff
Detention
District Attorney
Indigent Defense
Adult Probation
Juvenile Hall
$2,478,019
$1,606,680
$604,721
$135,217
$374,204
$345,375
I
mpempempe
rialal Countountountounty Sheriffff
Interviews with administrators reveal that about 18 percent of the workload on patrol, investigation and administration
involves undocumented immigrants, farm laborers and those with three-day laser visas (72-hour time limit within 25 miles north of the border) who overstay. The general fund budget in 2006 was $11,666,754. The direct impact is about $2.1 million. The added cost for general government ($378,003) brings the total impact to $2,478,019. Table C13 below arrays these costs.
Table C13: Imperial County Sheriff Impact
Budget
Impact
Direct Cost
Gen Gov
Total Cost
$11,666,754
18%
$2,100,016
$378,003
$2,478,019
The sheriff’s office also serves as county coroner. Thirty-two percent of its cases (about 60) are undocumented, most of whom drown in the American Canal. (Each canal drowning requires two to three professional divers and three or four additional investigators, most on overtime, making this responsibility very expensive.)
I
mpempempe
rialal Countountountounty Detentetentetentetentetentionon
The Imperial County Jail contains beds for 624 inmates. Its average daily inmate population is 490, of which 305 are county prisoners. With a general fund budget of just below $11 million, its “county inmate budget” is 62 percent, or $6,807,963. Of the 305 county prisoners, about 61 on average are undocumented, for a 20 percent impact. Many of these inmates stay fewer than four days and/or have been charged with only one misdemeanor, thereby not qualifying
for reimbursement from SCAAP. Total impact to detention comes to $1,606,680. Details are presented in the table below.
Table C14: Imperial County Detention Impact
County Inmate Budget
Impact
Direct Cost
Gen Gov
Total Cost
$6,807,963
20%
$1,361,593
$245,087
$1,606,680
I
mpempempe
rialal Countountountounty Diststrictct Attottottorneney
The Imperial County District Attorney does not track the legal status of clients, and to determine an impact, the assumption
is made that his impact mirrors that of adult probation, or about 18 percent. The general fund budget in 2006 was $2,847,086, for a direct cost of $512,475. General government charges bring the total to $604,721, as shown in table C15.The costs of law enforcement and criminal justice services | 23
Table C15: Imperial County District Attorney Impact
Budget
Impact
Direct Cost
Gen Gov
Total Cost
$2,847,086
18%
$512,475
$92,246
$604,721
I
mpempempe
rialal Countountountounty Indndigentgentgentgent Defenseefenseefenseefenseefenseefense
Defense attorneys estimate that the impact to their caseload is about 15 percent, when border crossers and farm laborers are included. With a general fund budget of $763,940 in 2006, the direct cost is $114,591 and the total cost is $135,217, as shown in the table below.
Table C16: Imperial County Indigent Defense Impact
Budget
Impact
Direct Cost
Gen Gov
Total Cost
$763,940
15%
$114,591
$20,626
$135,217
I
mpempempe
rialal Countountountounty Adultdultdultdult Probatobatobatobationon
According to adult and juvenile probation officials, there are a greater number of cases involving drugs and human smuggling than in 1999. Vehicle theft and home break-ins are also more prevalent. In addition to the ports of entry at Calexico and Andrade, there are three interior check points, easy to circumvent, to reach Indio or Coachella farther north and drop off loads. Entrants then steal cars to get back to the border. Adult entrants only receive pre-sentence investigation (PSI) services, which consumes half the adult probation budget. About 18 percent of PSIs are conducted on undocumented immigrants. As presented in table C17 below, the PSI portion of the budget is half the general fund budget of $3,523,580, and the total cost is $374,204.
Table C17: Imperial County Adult Probation Impact
PSI Budget
Impact
Direct Cost
Gen Gov
Total Cost
$1,761,790
18%
$317,122
$57,082
$374,204
I
mpempempe
rialal Countountountounty Juvenenilele Probatobatobatobationon andandand Detentetentetentetentetentionon
Minors who violate any laws can be prosecuted by the district attorney under an agreement with federal prosecutors which allows the federal prosecutor to charge federal code violations as state charges. The federal government still prosecutes the juvenile, but he or she still receives county detention and probation services. Juvenile entrant crimes include predominantly undocumented crossings and smuggling. (A juvenile “coyote,” for instance, took a family across in the Imperial County desert and left them there to die. He has been in detention for a year.)
Minors can drive a car into the county through the sand dunes or float up the All American Canal in tubes. They attack Border Patrol agents with rocks to distract them, and then others will steal the agent’s car keys and equipment inside the car. Juveniles are dangerous and “the money is good.” (Mexico is now the largest supplier of methamphetamine
for the U.S.) If juveniles get adjudicated, usually for possession of marijuana, they spend 30 days in jail. If the charge is assault, they are sentenced 30 days to 60 days. Cocaine possession brings a sentence of 60 days. (Adults get out sooner.) Juvenile detainees are treated equally—they receive schooling, computer training, medical care (especially
for TB, for which the medication is expensive), and treatment for eyes and teeth. Moreover, state law requires nutritional meals, such as steamed vegetables and low fat milk. 24 | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition
The general fund budget for juvenile probation was $2,090,650, which includes detention. Officials estimate an impact
of 14 percent on both probation and detention, for a direct cost of $292,691. Complete costs are detailed in the following table.
Table C18: Imperial County Juvenile Hall Impact
Budget
Impact
Direct Cost
Gen Gov
Total Cost
$2,090,650
14%
$292,691
$52,684
$345,375
I
mpempempe
rialal Countountountounty Summaummaummaummary
The total cost to the Imperial County general fund for providing services to criminal undocumented immigrants in fiscal year 2006 was $5,544,216. Each citizen spent $34.59. The cost determined for fiscal year 1999 for similar services was $3,714,995, an increase in costs of $1,829,190 (33 percent), or roughly $300,000 per year. Assuming the cost increase was incremental over the six intervening years, the general fund has expended a cumulative $40 million from 1999 through 2006.
Discussions with one of the governing board members indicate that the money spent on services for undocumented immigrants should be returned to those departments if the county were to be reimbursed for those costs. “The safety of the entire county,” he explains, “is our most important responsibility.”
1. State of California, Department of Finance, “Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity for California and its Count,” Sacramento, California, July 2007.
2. Pew Hispanic Center, “Estimates of the Unauthorized Migrant Population for States Based on the March 2005 CPS,” April 26, 2006; http://www.pewhispanic.org.
3. Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, “Special Report: Trial Court Funding,”
Sacramento, California, August 2007. Arizona
Border CountiesThe costs of law enforcement and criminal justice services | 25
ARIZONA BORDER COUNTIES
In 1912 Arizona became the last of the continental 48 states to join the union. Typical of Western states, Arizona is arid and rugged, with sparsely populated rural areas and geographically large counties. Nearly 85 percent of its population lives in the two metro areas of Phoenix and Tucson, making Arizona an urban state. The federal government
and 21 Indian tribes own most of Arizona’s 113,634 square miles (83 percent), so decisions and policies made in Washington affect the state significantly. As with other states along the border, the macroeconomic and political conditions in Mexico reverberate throughout Arizona.
Arizona’s population in 2006 was 6.2 million, an increase of 16 percent since the 2000 Census. The median household
income in 2003 was $41,963, and the per capita income was $27,232. Persons living below the poverty level constituted 14 percent of the population.
Four of Arizona’s 15 counties share the state’s 354-mile long border with Mexico. To varying degrees, Arizona counties
have been grappling with the consequences of proximity to Mexico for many years. The economic benefits of easy access to Arizona communities by Mexican citizens have been well documented and encouraged for years, but the social, environmental and fiscal consequences of illegal activities have come to the forefront of the public’s attention in the last decade. A tradition of county involvement in federal and state policy making led the four border counties to bring together their border counterparts in California, New Mexico and Texas. Santa Cruz County, the smallest of the four border counties in both land base and population, commissioned a precursor in 1997 to the 2000 and 2007 border impact studies; titled Border Impact: Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice in Santa Cruz County, Arizona, its findings
led to a state appropriation to the county in 1998. The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors then distributed the study to other counties along the border, and formation of the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition followed. All four of Arizona’s border counties are founding members.
Arizonaonaona’s Bordeder Environmentonmentonmentonmentonmentonment
The four counties along Arizona’s 354-mile long border with Mexico have a combined population of 1.3 million. Eight ports of entry operate along the border: one in Yuma County at San Luis, two in Pima County at Lukeville and Sasabe, three in Santa Cruz County at Nogales, and two in Cochise County, at Naco and Douglas. In 2006, there were 32.9 million legal crossings and 403,493 apprehensions reported by Border Patrol. Table A1 presents border county statistics for Arizona.
Table A1: Arizona Border County Statistics
County
Population /%)
Square Miles /%
Ports of Entry
Legal Crossings /%
Apprehensions (%)
Yuma
187,555/14%
5,561/25%
1
8,919,676/27%
112,764/28%
Pima
946,362/73%
9,186 /41%
2
1,421,039/4%
110,296/27%
Santa Cruz
43,080/3%
1,237/6%
3
15,876,584/49%
99,672/25%
Cochise
127,757/10%
6,169/28%
2
6,640,132/20%
80,761/20%
Total
1,304,754
22,153
8
32,857,431
403,493
Recent research indicates that there are more than 500,000 undocumented immigrants in the state.1 There were also more apprehensions by the Border Patrol than in California, New Mexico and Texas combined in 2004.2 Moreover, nearly all the marijuana sold in the United States comes through Arizona, and the DEA also reports that more methamphetamine
is seized along the Arizona-Mexico border than anywhere else.3 Arizona’s governor declared a state of emergency in August 2005 and released $1.5 million to reimburse Arizona’s four border counties for some of their extra costs. She also established the Arizona-Sonora Border Security Council with Sonora’s governor “….because of the federal government’s inability to secure the border.”4 26 | US/Mexico Border Counties Coalition
Characteacteacteacteriststicscs ofof Arizonaonaona Countountountounty Governmentnmentnmentnmentnment
Arizona county governments are subdivisions of the state but with considerable local authority. Principal revenues come
Arizona State Government Publications
