SB794 would prohibit the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Board of Land and Natural Resources from disposing of, approving, or setting aside public lands for the establishment of any immigration detention facility. It also bars state and county agencies from contracting with the federal government for any purpose related to establishing such a facility on public lands.
The bill defines an “immigration detention facility” as a facility used to incarcerate individuals during deportation proceedings while their removal or permission to remain in the United States is determined. The measure would take effect upon approval and would add a new section to Chapter 171, Hawaii Revised Statutes, governing public lands.
Impact
SB794 would create a new statutory restriction on the use of state public lands by preventing them from being used for immigration detention facilities and by limiting state and county contracting authority with the federal government for that purpose. In practical terms, it would constrain DLNR and BLNR decision-making over public land disposition and set-asides, and it would affect state and county agencies that might otherwise participate in or facilitate such a facility. The bill would not regulate immigration detention generally, but would specifically target public land involvement and government contracting related to detention facilities on those lands.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcripts or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broad support or opposition. Based on the bill text and report description, the measure appears to reflect a precautionary or restrictive stance toward immigration detention facilities on public lands. The referral history suggests the bill remained under legislative review and was re-referred to WLA and JDC, indicating continued consideration rather than a clear consensus outcome.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely whether the state should preemptively bar the use of public lands for federal immigration detention purposes. Supporters would likely view the bill as protecting public lands and limiting state participation in detention infrastructure, while opponents may argue it unnecessarily restricts cooperation with the federal government or limits land-management flexibility. Another possible issue is the breadth of the prohibition, which applies not only to land disposition but also to any contracting by state or county agencies related to establishing such a facility.