MUNI CD-DETENTION FACILITIES
HB5024 amends the Illinois Municipal Code to add a new section regulating “detention center facilities,” defined broadly to include facilities owned, leased, operated, or controlled by government or federal immigration authorities for immigration-related detention, deportation processing, or temporary holding while citizenship status is determined. The bill prohibits such facilities from being located, constructed, or operated within 1,500 feet of schools, day care centers and homes, cemeteries, public parks, forest preserves, public housing, private residences, or places of worship.
The measure applies to facilities tied to immigration enforcement, including ICE, Customs and Border Protection, the Department of Homeland Security, and contractors performing immigration enforcement activities. It takes effect immediately upon becoming law. In practical terms, the bill would create a new land-use restriction on where immigration detention or processing facilities may be sited within municipalities in Illinois.
HB5024 would add a new municipal zoning-style restriction to the Illinois Municipal Code, limiting the siting of detention center facilities associated with immigration enforcement. It would affect local governments, private contractors, and any state or federal immigration-related facility operating within Illinois municipalities by barring those facilities from being located within 1,500 feet of specified sensitive uses. The bill does not appear to alter criminal law or immigration law directly, but it would constrain local land use and facility placement decisions and could affect existing or proposed detention-related projects.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, the available record does not show formal debate or a documented roll-call sentiment. The bill’s structure suggests a policy approach aimed at limiting the proximity of immigration detention facilities to neighborhoods and community institutions, which typically reflects concern about community impacts and public welfare. No contrary positions are documented in the provided materials.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s treatment of immigration detention facilities and the breadth of the setback rule. Supporters would likely view the measure as protecting schools, homes, houses of worship, and other sensitive locations from nearby detention or deportation-related operations. Opponents could argue that the definition is broad, that the 1,500-foot buffer is restrictive, and that it may interfere with local siting authority or the operation of facilities used for federal immigration enforcement. Because no committee discussion or votes are provided, specific named proponents or opponents are not identifiable from the record.