Hawaii 2025 Regular Session

Hawaii House Bill HB73

Introduced
1/16/25  
Refer
1/21/25  
Report Pass
2/4/25  

Caption

Relating To Immigration Detention Facilities.

Summary

HB73 would prohibit the State of Hawaii from using public lands for the establishment of any immigration detention facility. It directs the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Board of Land and Natural Resources not to dispose of, approve, or set aside public lands for that purpose. The bill also bars state and county agencies from contracting with the United States government in connection with establishing such a facility on public lands, and from processing permits related to that use. The bill defines an immigration detention facility as a place used to incarcerate individuals during deportation proceedings while their immigration status is determined.

Impact

If enacted, HB73 would add a new section to Chapter 171 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes and create a statewide prohibition on the use of public lands for immigration detention facilities. It would constrain the authority of DLNR, the Board of Land and Natural Resources, and state and county permitting and contracting agencies, limiting their ability to support or facilitate such projects on public land.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a restrictive policy stance toward immigration detention facilities on public land, but the overall sentiment from lawmakers cannot be determined from the available record.

Contention

The main point of contention would likely be whether Hawaii should prevent any state or county involvement in immigration detention facilities on public lands, including land disposition, permitting, and contracts with the federal government. Potential supporters may view the bill as a safeguard against the use of public resources for detention purposes, while opponents could argue it limits governmental flexibility or interferes with federal immigration enforcement arrangements. No specific objections or proponents are identified in the provided materials.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

No similar bills found.