According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1099 may lead to increased demands on state correctional resources; the overall fiscal impact of the bill is indeterminate due to a lack of reliable data. Specifically, there is insufficient information available to project how many offenses would qualify for enhanced penalties under the bill’s provisions—namely, when an individual is found to be an “illegal alien” at the time of committing a felony offense.

The proposed enhancements would increase the punishment classification for certain felonies to the next highest degree and, in the case of first-degree felonies, would raise the minimum term of imprisonment to 15 years. These changes could lead to longer incarceration periods or greater numbers of individuals sentenced to state prison, which would likely increase operational costs for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. However, without an estimate of how frequently courts would issue affirmative findings of unlawful presence, precise cost projections are unavailable.

At the local level, the bill could similarly strain correctional and judicial resources. Counties may see increased jail populations or supervision caseloads for individuals awaiting trial or sentenced under the new provisions. The Office of Court Administration also echoed this uncertainty, indicating that it could not assess the financial impact without data on the anticipated number of cases that would meet the bill's criteria for enhanced penalties.

In short, while the potential for increased costs exists—particularly due to lengthier prison terms—the actual budgetary effect on both state and local systems remains speculative due to the undefined scope of eligible cases.

SB 1099 proposes increasing criminal penalties for certain felony offenses when committed by an individual determined to be an "illegal alien" at the time of the offense. The bill mandates a judicial finding on the defendant’s immigration status during the trial and, if found guilty and unlawfully present, imposes either a sentence enhancement to the next highest felony category or a minimum 15-year sentence for first-degree felonies. The bill is intended to serve as a deterrent and reflects public concerns regarding border-related crime.

While the bill addresses legitimate public safety concerns, it raises serious constitutional and practical issues. Due process and equal protection under the law are guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These protections apply to all "persons," not just U.S. citizens, and include undocumented immigrants. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that immigration status does not negate one's right to fair treatment in the criminal justice system (e.g., Plyler v. Doe, Yick Wo v. Hopkins). By enhancing penalties solely on the basis of immigration status—without a clear link to the nature or severity of the offense—the bill risks creating a dual system of justice that could be vulnerable to constitutional challenges.

In its current form, SB 1099 could also face administrative and fiscal burdens. Determining immigration status at the trial stage adds a layer of complexity that local courts may be ill-equipped to manage without federal support. The Legislative Budget Board notes that the fiscal impact is indeterminate due to lack of data, but acknowledges that longer prison sentences and increased incarceration could strain state and local correctional systems​.

As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 1099 unless amended as described below. This position reflects agreement with the goal of deterrence while insisting that the policy be refined to ensure constitutional integrity, fairness, and practical enforceability.

Recommended Amendments:

• Shift from Status-Based to Conduct-Based Enhancements: Amend the bill so that penalty enhancements are triggered not merely by unlawful presence but by the combination of immigration status and aggravating factors such as the use of a deadly weapon, involvement in gang activity, or prior violent criminal history. This would ensure the focus is on public safety risk rather than status alone.
• Procedural Safeguards and Evidentiary Thresholds: Require that prosecutors provide formal notice of intent to seek status-based enhancement, that defendants be given a full opportunity to challenge the status finding with access to legal counsel, and that judges make a written determination based on clear and convincing evidence, not merely beyond reasonable doubt at trial.
• Sunset Provision and Reporting Requirements: Add a clause to sunset the bill after five years, pending legislative renewal. Require annual reporting by the Office of Court Administration and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on the number of cases involving the enhancement, associated costs, legal challenges filed, and evidence of deterrent effect.
• Judicial Discretion over Mandatory Enhancements: Provide judges discretion, rather than mandatory sentencing increases, to apply enhancements based on the totality of circumstances, including the offender’s immigration status, criminal history, and threat to the community.

SB 1099 responds to real public concern but risks overreaching in its current form. We recommend that lawmakers refine the bill in a way that maintains respect for constitutional protections, judicial fairness, and fiscal responsibility while still allowing room for deterrence and accountability. When properly amended, the legislation could represent a balanced and defensible approach to enhancing public safety without undermining foundational legal principles.

• Individual Liberty: The bill infringes upon the principle of individual liberty by singling out a class of persons—undocumented immigrants—for heightened punishment based solely on their status, not their conduct. While undocumented individuals are not citizens, the U.S. Constitution guarantees them equal protection and due process. Enhancing criminal penalties for the same offense committed by someone with a different legal status creates a two-tiered system of justice, undermining the core ideal that liberty is inherent to all persons, not just citizens. Furthermore, this type of status-based sentencing opens the door to selective enforcement, particularly in communities with significant immigrant populations. It sends a message that some individuals are less deserving of fair treatment, which weakens public trust in the justice system and threatens the universality of liberty.
• Personal Responsibility: The principle of personal responsibility holds that individuals should be held accountable for their actions, not immutable traits or civil status. The bill veers from this standard by allowing a person’s immigration status—independent of the act itself—to increase punishment. This undermines a basic legal tenet: punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed, not to who commits it. On the other hand, the bill’s proponents might argue that individuals have a responsibility to comply with immigration law and that violating those laws compounds other offenses. But criminal law traditionally punishes based on behavior, not overlapping civil violations, which makes this application conceptually muddled in terms of personal accountability.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not directly affect the free enterprise system. However, there are indirect implications in sectors like agriculture, hospitality, and construction, which often employ undocumented labor (sometimes unknowingly). Harsher penalties that disproportionately affect undocumented individuals may reduce workforce availability, prompting economic ripple effects. That said, such labor enforcement issues are more properly handled through civil and administrative remedies rather than criminal sentence enhancements.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not propose any change that directly affects private property rights. It does not alter land use, eminent domain, or the ability of individuals to own or control property. However, the broader message of enhanced criminal penalties against non-citizens could contribute to a climate in which the property rights of immigrant communities are more easily disregarded, especially if disproportionate policing follows.
• Limited Government: The bill expands the scope and power of the state in several ways. It inserts immigration enforcement into state-level criminal proceedings, an area typically reserved for federal jurisdiction. It mandates enhanced sentencing based on a civil status determination, which may require courts to assume investigatory roles beyond their traditional scope. It potentially increases incarceration and costs to taxpayers with little empirical evidence that it would deter crime more effectively than existing penalties. This move toward broader punitive authority contradicts the principle of limited government, which holds that the state should not exceed its constitutional bounds or expand its enforcement power without compelling, evidence-based justification.