HB 11A is a Florida immigration-enforcement bill that expands and hardens state and local participation in federal immigration enforcement. It requires state and county law enforcement agencies, and other agencies with more than 25 sworn or certified officers, to enter into written agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the federal 287(g) program and to participate in every program model for which they qualify, unless a waiver is granted for lack of resources or public-safety concerns. The bill also requires agencies to report their compliance status to the State Immigration Enforcement Officer and, in some circumstances, to provide consent for officers to exercise federal immigration-officer powers.
The bill further requires agencies to ensure that at least 10 percent of sworn and certified officers are available to perform immigration-officer duties under federal law, with compliance reporting to the state. If federal training funds are unavailable, agencies may seek reimbursement from the new Unauthorized Alien Transport Program or, during a declared emergency, from the Emergency Preparedness and Response Fund; if no funds are available, noncompliance is excused. The bill also authorizes the Governor to suspend agency heads who, in the Governor’s judgment, act in bad faith and fail to comply with the law.
HB 11A creates the Unauthorized Alien Transport Program within the Division of Emergency Management to facilitate detention, transportation, and deportation activities consistent with federal law. The program is to be run by the State Immigration Enforcement Officer, a gubernatorial appointee, with support from the Division of Emergency Management and assistance from the National Guard and State Guard when activated by the Governor. The bill appropriates substantial funding for the program, including a $350 million nonrecurring appropriation and an additional $3 million recurring appropriation, and it repeals chapter 2023-3, Laws of Florida, relating to the prior version of the transport program.
The bill’s impact on state law is significant: it amends section 908.11, creates a new section 908.13, expands state oversight of local immigration enforcement, and ties local agency compliance to state reporting, funding, and potential executive discipline. It also shifts administrative responsibility to the Executive Office of the Governor through the State Immigration Enforcement Officer and the Division of Emergency Management, while authorizing rulemaking to implement the new requirements.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the available context does not show direct debate or formal legislative sentiment. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears strongly supportive of aggressive immigration enforcement, with the main points of contention likely to be the mandatory nature of 287(g) participation, the 10 percent staffing requirement, the use of state resources and National Guard support, and the Governor’s suspension authority over noncompliant agency heads. Potential supporters would likely emphasize enforcement and cooperation with federal authorities, while opponents would likely focus on costs, local control, staffing burdens, and public-safety concerns.
The bill amends Florida’s immigration-enforcement statutes to require broader participation by law enforcement agencies in federal 287(g) agreements, impose staffing and reporting obligations, create a new state-run Unauthorized Alien Transport Program, and appropriate state funds for immigration enforcement operations. It also repeals the prior 2023 transport-program law and centralizes implementation authority in the Governor’s office, the State Immigration Enforcement Officer, and the Division of Emergency Management.
No committee discussion or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate to summarize. From the bill’s text and caption, the measure reflects a strongly enforcement-oriented posture toward illegal immigration, with an apparent emphasis on mandatory compliance and expanded state involvement. Any opposition would likely center on resource demands, local autonomy, and the use of state funds and personnel for immigration enforcement.
The most notable points of contention are likely to be the bill’s mandate that agencies enter into ICE agreements and participate in all qualifying program models, the requirement that 10 percent of officers be available for immigration-officer duties, and the Governor’s authority to suspend agency heads for bad-faith noncompliance. Another likely area of dispute is the use of state appropriations, the National Guard and State Guard, and the creation of a state transport program for detention, transportation, and deportation. Supporters would likely argue these provisions strengthen enforcement and federal cooperation, while critics would likely argue they impose unfunded mandates, strain local law enforcement, and raise public-safety and civil-liberties concerns.