HB 1440 creates the “Mississippi Immigration Enforcement Act of 2025,” a multi-part immigration enforcement and funding measure. The bill requires licensed money transmission businesses to collect a new fee on each transaction, with the fee amount set at $7.50 for transfers up to $500 and 1.5% on amounts above $500. Those fees would be remitted to the Department of Revenue and deposited into a new Illegal Immigration Enforcement Fund, which is dedicated to supporting a newly created Illegal Immigration Enforcement Unit within the Department of Public Safety and local agencies participating in federal immigration enforcement agreements.
The bill also requires county detention facilities to enter into written agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under Section 287(g) by January 1, 2026, and directs the Department of Public Safety to negotiate a statewide memorandum of agreement with ICE and develop immigration enforcement training for local agencies. In addition, it restricts governmental entities from contracting with common carriers that knowingly transport unauthorized aliens into Mississippi, unless the transport is for detention, removal, or departure, and requires contract attestations and termination clauses for covered agreements. Finally, the bill creates an income tax credit equal to the money transmission fees paid by a taxpayer, with unused credits carryable forward for five years.
Impact
If enacted, HB 1440 would add new sections to Title 45 and Title 27 of the Mississippi Code and would significantly expand state involvement in immigration enforcement. It would impose new compliance duties on money transmitters, create a dedicated enforcement fund and unit within the Department of Public Safety, require county detention facilities to pursue 287(g) agreements, and alter state and local procurement rules for certain transportation-related contracts. It also creates a refundable-like offset mechanism through a tax credit tied to the new transaction fee, while authorizing license suspension and bond claims for noncompliant money transmitters.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a strong pro-enforcement posture toward immigration policy, with multiple mandatory provisions and enforcement mechanisms. The structure suggests support from sponsors favoring expanded state and local immigration enforcement, but the absence of voting history prevents a reliable assessment of legislative sentiment.
Contention
The most likely points of contention are the new fee imposed on money transmission transactions, the mandate that county detention facilities enter into ICE agreements, and the restriction on governmental contracts with carriers that transport unauthorized aliens. Critics could object to the bill’s costs, administrative burden, and potential effects on remittance users, local governments, sheriffs, and transportation contractors. Supporters would likely emphasize immigration enforcement, cooperation with federal authorities, and dedicated funding for enforcement operations. The tax credit may be intended to offset the fee, but its practical effect and administrative complexity could also be debated.