Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:01:55.680><c> and</c> prioritized illegal immigrants and prioritized illegal immigrants and funding
• </c> ensure that we have illegal immigrants ensure that we have illegal immigrants uh<00:03:46.720><c
• </c> reported to ice or any immigration reported to ice or any immigration Authority<00:04:03.560><c>
• </c> information from federal immigration information from federal immigration authorities<00:04:17.280
• </c> a top destination for illegal immigrants a top destination for illegal immigrants and<00:15:05.199

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House Republicans held a press event to announce two priority bills focused on immigration and state spending. Rep. Isaac Schultz said his bill, House File 10, would stop taxpayer funding for people in Minnesota illegally, including through programs such as Northstar Promise, MinnesotaCare, medical assistance, and legal services. He framed the proposal as a way to redirect limited state resources to Minnesota families, veterans, people with disabilities, the homeless, and infrastructure needs, and said it could save more than $100 million, with some estimates discussed during debate reaching about $200 million for MinnesotaCare alone. Rep. Max Rymer introduced House File 16, which would require reporting to ICE or other federal immigration authorities when an undocumented immigrant is suspected of committing a violent crime, and would bar local governments from withholding information from federal authorities. He said the bill is intended to end sanctuary-city practices and improve public safety. Both lawmakers argued that the measures are narrow, targeted at violent offenders, and consistent with cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. They also said the bills respond to voter concerns about illegal immigration and rising costs. During questions, the members said the state-funding bill is aimed at state dollars, while the reporting bill complements federal law by addressing local noncooperation. They discussed concerns about eligibility tracking and said current programs do not provide enough data on how many undocumented people receive benefits. Schultz cited a family in his district that lost MinnesotaCare after an income change as an example of what he sees as unfair treatment compared with benefits for undocumented immigrants. No votes were taken at the event; the lawmakers said these are the first of several bills they plan to advance this session.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> illegal immigrants. illegal immigrants.
• </c> immigrants to come here to Minnesota. immigrants to come here to Minnesota.
• </c> illegal immigrants here in Minnesota. illegal immigrants here in Minnesota.
• Illegal immigrants in illegally?
• </c> immigration system. immigration system.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Immigration and protecting immigrant communities is not just an issue for me; it's personal to my story
• We have heard that a detainee in immigration custody is not being taken to their routine immigration
• There's been a lot of talk about immigrants and immigration, but there hasn't been a lot of talk about
• illegal immigration.
• Immigrants come to this country...

Summary: The House first handled several routine matters, including adoption of a resolution honoring Caroline San Martino Moran on her 80th birthday and suspension of Joint Rule 12 to allow consideration of a petition involving the City of Waltham and the Veterans Memorial Rink. It then advanced a bill authorizing DCAMM to release a sewer line easement in West Roxbury, adopting the Ways and Means amendment and ordering the bill to a third reading. The chamber also took up and advanced another bill, Promoting Rule of Law, Oversight, Trust, and Equal Constitutional Treatment (the “Protect Act”), after a brief recess and a quorum call. Most of the transcript focused on House Bill 5305, the Protect Act, which was described by supporters as a measure to separate state and local law enforcement from civil immigration enforcement, prohibit ICE arrests in courthouses without a judicial warrant, limit cooperation with ICE on civil matters, strengthen notice and language-access protections for detainees and workers, expedite U and T visa certifications, and create rules for sensitive spaces and enforcement by the Attorney General. Supporters from both parties and several caucuses argued the bill would protect due process, encourage victims and witnesses to come forward, and preserve public safety by maintaining trust in courts, schools, and communities. Several members also spoke from personal experience as immigrants, survivors of domestic violence, or law enforcement professionals. The House considered and voted on a series of amendments to H.5305. Amendment 6 to strike Section 4 failed; Amendment 7, which would have required ICE civil warrants to be presented to a court and reviewed for impact on justice, failed; Amendment 2, adding immigration judges to the bill’s definition of government, failed; Amendment 3, concerning 287(g) agreements and federal reimbursement, was withdrawn; Amendment 13, expediting U visa certifications when a family member is aging out, was adopted by roll call 150-3; Amendment 10, clarifying the definition of law enforcement agency/officer to include sheriffs’ correctional roles, was adopted 127-25; Amendment 5, expanding a release-date provision, was adopted 154-0; and Amendment 14, addressing school-related protections and ICE presence, was adopted 135-18. The bill itself was still under consideration at the end of the transcript, with debate continuing after the adopted amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• Immigration and protecting immigrant communities is not just an issue for me; it's personal to my story
• We have heard that a detainee in immigration custody is not being taken to their routine immigration
• There's been a lot of talk about immigrants and immigration, but there hasn't been a lot of talk about
• illegal immigration.
• Immigrants come to this country.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The House first handled several routine matters, including adoption of a birthday resolution honoring Caroline San Martino Moran and suspension of Joint Rule 12 to allow consideration of a petition involving the City of Waltham and the Veterans Memorial Rink. It also advanced two local bills: one authorizing DCAMM to release a sewer line easement in West Roxbury, and another relative to the town administrator of Carlisle. Both bills were amended by Ways and Means and ordered to third reading or engrossed as amended. The chamber also passed a memorial-marker bill for fallen law enforcement officers in Milton and Canton. The main floor debate centered on House Bill 5305, the “Protect Act,” which was presented as a measure to limit state and local involvement in federal civil immigration enforcement, restrict ICE access in courthouses and other sensitive locations, strengthen notice and language-access protections for detainees and workers, and expedite U and T visa certifications. Supporters, including members of the Black and Latino Caucus and other legislators, argued the bill would protect due process, encourage victims and witnesses to come forward, preserve public trust, and keep local police focused on criminal matters. They cited courthouse arrests, fear in immigrant communities, and the need for clearer boundaries between state and federal authority. Several amendments were offered and voted on during consideration of H.5305. An amendment to strike Section 4 was rejected, as were amendments seeking to alter the courthouse enforcement provisions and to recognize immigration judge warrants. Other amendments were adopted, including one clarifying sheriff-related provisions, one expanding language around release dates, one adding protections related to school settings, and one expediting U visa certification for family members aging out. A roll call was taken on the bill and on multiple amendments, with the House ultimately adopting the amendments described and continuing consideration of the bill as amended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Many of our members are immigrants themselves or come from immigrant families.
• inquiry or an inquiry into immigration status that led to civil immigration enforcement?
• These immigrants are here in our country. These immigrants are here in the Commonwealth.
• But immigrant families need more.
• All immigrant students deserve this opportunity. By immigrant communities.

Bills: H4697, S2635, S2680, S2681, H5158

Keywords: constables, civil deputy sheriffs, law enforcement, training, certification, public safety, emergency response, red lights, Barnstable, town management, public health, safety standards, nuclear power, waste management, community protection, BMX, motocross, safety, regulation, insurance

Transcript Highlights:

• And you are an illegal immigrant. You can be an illegal immigrant from anywhere.
• , and then 423 illegal immigrants.
• illegal immigrants.
• immigrants.
• Combat illegal immigration and protect our communities from criminal illegal immigrants.

Bills: SJR36, SR8, SR14, SR15, SR17, HCR54

Keywords: accountants, Texas Society of Certified Public Accountants, advocacy, legislation, business issues, memorial, law enforcement, sacrifice, tribute, community support, service, community, Holocaust, remembrance, antisemitism, human rights, education, Holocaust Remembrance Day, memorialization, sexual assault

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> to force it to Institute its immigration to force it to Institute its immigration policy<00:11:34.839
• </c><00:12:42.680><c> enforcement</c> helping the immigration enforcement helping the immigration enforcement
• or 45.8%, of all immigrants in Hawaiʻi.
• We have Liza Gil in support, Hawaiʻi Coalition for Immigrant Rights. 45.8% of all immigrants in Hawaiʻi
• or 45.8%, of all immigrants in Hawaiʻi.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee on Economic Development and Technology heard testimony on several bills, beginning with HB 22, which would limit state and local cooperation with federal immigration detainers. Supporters, including the Legal Clinic, the Office of the Public Defender, and the ACLU of Hawaiʻi, argued the bill would protect due process and constitutional rights regardless of immigration status. Some supporters requested amendments, including removing a probable-cause terrorism provision, adding enforcement language, and preserving warrant requirements. Public testimony was heavily in favor, with the chair announcing 91 testimonies in support and 52 in opposition. The committee then heard HB 73, which would prohibit setting aside public lands for immigration detention facilities. Testifiers in support said public land should serve local needs, not detention centers, and cited housing, food security, and community trust concerns. The Office of the Public Defender and others also supported the measure, and the chair reported 85 testimonies in support and 40 in opposition. The committee next took up HB 438, which would fund legal representation for people in immigration proceedings. Supporters, including the Public Defender, the University of Hawaiʻi Law School Refugee and Immigration Clinic, the Hawaiʻi Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the Legal Clinic, and the ACLU, emphasized the civil nature of immigration court, the severe consequences of removal, and the need for more pro bono and trained attorneys. Several suggested amendments focused on training and building a legal-services pipeline; the chair reported 83 testimonies in support and 51 in opposition. The committee also heard HB 457, aimed at requiring notice to detained individuals about their rights when ICE seeks to interview them or has a detainer request. Supporters said the bill would ensure people understand their right to remain silent and to refuse interviews, and the Legal Clinic suggested the warning be given orally, potentially via recorded messages, rather than only in writing. The Office of the Public Defender noted the bill aligns with existing due-process warnings in criminal court and suggested referencing current law. Finally, HB 476, which would raise the capital gains tax rate, drew support from Hawaiʻi Appleseed on fairness grounds; the Department of Taxation said it would review revenue questions but had no estimate available. After recess, the committee returned to decision-making and moved HB 22 forward on the chair’s recommendation of HD1, with the chair noting that the bill already contained language allowing counties to adopt stronger standards and protections.

Transcript Highlights:

• would go into the immigration court, put the information in front of an immigration judge, and let the
• Many of our members are immigrants themselves or come from immigrant families.
• These immigrants are here in our country. These immigrants are here in the Commonwealth.
• But immigrant families need more.
• All immigrant students deserve this opportunity. Immigrant families need more.

Summary: The hearing covered several public safety bills and related testimony. On S. 2681, “Colby’s Law,” which would establish safety standards for BMX/motocross tracks, the committee heard emotional testimony from the family of a teen killed at a track and from advocates who said minimum standards are needed for barriers, medical staff, emergency planning, insurance, and oversight. A track owner and rider also testified that safety is important but argued the bill was incomplete and should better distinguish between BMX and motocross and include more specific equipment and weather-related rules. On S. 2680, a bill to expand emergency planning around aging nuclear plants and high-level nuclear waste sites, supporters from Cape Cod, medical groups, and anti-nuclear organizations urged a 50-mile emergency planning radius and stronger state preparedness, citing risks from long-term waste storage and inadequate federal oversight. The committee also heard testimony on a Barnstable home rule petition to allow certain emergency response vehicles to use red lights, with the town supporting the change to improve response times on the water. A substantial portion of the hearing focused on H. 5158, the Protect Act, which would limit state and local cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement. County sheriffs testified about how ICE notifications and detainers work in practice, distinguishing between criminal warrants and civil immigration requests to notify, and describing their discretion when people are released on bail or at the end of a sentence. Sheriffs said they generally notify ICE when requested, especially in cases involving serious charges, but emphasized the need to balance public safety, victim notification, and due process. Committee members pressed them on the impact of ICE pickups at courthouses and jails, and several lawmakers and witnesses argued that pretrial detainees taken by ICE can disrupt prosecutions and deny victims their day in court. Supporters of the Protect Act included labor, education, health care, and immigrant advocacy groups. They said immigrants and mixed-status families are living in fear of routine interactions with police, schools, courts, and hospitals, and urged the committee to ban 287(g) agreements, prohibit law enforcement from asking about immigration status or providing operational assistance to ICE, and add stronger protections for sensitive locations such as schools and health care facilities. Medical witnesses described patients and families avoiding care because of ICE presence, and educators said students are missing school out of fear. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing; the committee heard testimony and indicated it would continue receiving written testimony before taking action later.

Transcript Highlights:

• to nearly 1,500 undocumented immigrants.
• Immigrants Rights Clinic has been working with LUCE and the CPCS Immigration Impact Unit and P.E.A.R
• The last thing I’ll say is: be careful of the “good immigrant, bad immigrant” rhetoric.
• I’m a proud immigrant from Cuba, and I serve as the advocacy director for the Massachusetts Immigrant
• If you're in immigration court alone, you're five times less likely to win your case than an immigrant

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on responding to federal immigration enforcement in Massachusetts, with opening remarks from Sen. Liz Miranda and Rep. Bud Williams emphasizing fear in immigrant communities, recent ICE operations, and the need to learn from advocates and affected residents rather than debate individual bills. The hearing was organized around three topics: detention, arrests, and surveillance, with members repeatedly asking what the legislature can do to improve transparency, legal access, and oversight. On detention, Leah Hastings of Prisoners’ Legal Services said most people end up in ICE custody through contact with the criminal legal system and argued that state carceral systems are deeply intertwined with immigration enforcement. She described conditions at Plymouth County House of Correction and Burlington ICE holding as concerning, citing limited medical care, disability accommodations, solitary confinement, retaliatory transfers, and poor attorney access. Hastings said Massachusetts should reduce funding for sheriffs and the Department of Corrections, ban intergovernmental service agreements and 287(g) agreements, and invest instead in housing, treatment, and other community supports. Members also discussed ICE reimbursement, the immigrant legal defense fund, and the need for more immigration attorneys. On arrests and enforcement tactics, David Albright of JALSA said federal immigration enforcement has been expanded by major new funding and incentives, including higher payments for 287(g) and bed contracts, and he noted that most ICE detainees nationally do not have criminal records. He said Massachusetts has one 287(g) agreement with the Department of Corrections and one IGSA with Plymouth County, and that ICE also uses Burlington, Hanscom, and informal local collaboration in places such as Milford and Auburn. Danny Tampona of Neighbor to Neighbor and the LUCE Rapid Response Network described more than 10,000 hotline calls from 46 cities and towns, with arrests often involving masked agents, surveillance of workers and families, traffic stops, broken windows, and arrests at check-ins or schools; he said the network is concentrated in places including Everett, Chelsea, Lynn, New Bedford, Milford, Marlboro, Framingham, and Springfield. He urged legislation requiring clear identification for law enforcement, limits on surveillance technologies, and stronger legal defense resources. On surveillance, Joshua Dancoff of Citizens for Juvenile Justice argued that current state policies allow broad sharing of fingerprints and surveillance data with ICE, including through BRIC, the Massachusetts Fusion Center, and municipal police policies. He cited cases in Chelsea and Everett where children were taken from police custody into ICE custody and said many departments automatically share arrest fingerprints and other information with federal authorities. He recommended limiting fingerprint sharing, restricting surveillance databases and task-force participation, and curbing police and sheriff collaboration with ICE even where no formal 287(g) exists. Members and witnesses also discussed the need for more immigration lawyers, possible bar advocate-style funding for immigration defense, and legislative action to prevent further collaboration and deportation infrastructure.

Transcript Highlights:

• , I'm actually an immigrant.
• And I will tell you, immigration law was a thousand times worse and more taxing on me as an immigration
• a state-based immigration enforcement mechanism.
• You know, butterflies are immigrants.
• or non-immigrants.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, a moment of silence for the Parkland shooting victims, the Pledge of Allegiance, and adoption of the special order report for the day. The chamber then moved into a special-order agenda focused almost entirely on immigration-related measures, beginning with Senate Memorial 6C urging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to provide guidance and training for 287(g) agreements. The memorial was adopted 85-27 after brief debate, with supporters arguing Florida should help maximize federal immigration enforcement and opponents saying Congress, not the state, should fix immigration policy. The House next took up Senate Bill 4C, an immigration bill creating new state offenses for illegal entry and reentry by adult unauthorized aliens and requiring a mandatory death sentence for an unauthorized alien convicted of a capital felony. Members debated constitutional concerns, due process, racial profiling, fiscal impacts, and whether the bill intruded on federal immigration authority. Several amendments were offered and defeated, including proposals to extend protections to Venezuelans with TPS, to remove the mandatory death penalty, to protect certain long-term immigrant workers and teachers, to expand exemptions for Haitians and humanitarian parole recipients, and to create a task force on best practices for immigration enforcement in schools and other sensitive locations. A final amendment to strip the bill as unconstitutional was also rejected. The bill then passed 85-29. The final measure discussed was Senate Bill 2C, which creates a State Board of Immigration Enforcement led by the Governor and Cabinet, establishes grants and incentive bonuses for local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities, repeals the fee waiver for undocumented students beginning July 1, 2025, and appropriates more than $300 million for immigration enforcement. The sponsor described it as a broad enforcement package, while questions from members focused on the impact on current students who receive in-state tuition and whether the bill would remove incentives for those already enrolled. The transcript ends during that exchange, before final action on SB 2C is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our immigrant community lives in fear. Our immigrant community lives in fear.
• All of the various immigrant defense bills, including access to justice, the Immigrant Legal Defense
• I’m a proud immigrant from Gabon.
• to low-income immigrants in defense of removal proceedings, prioritizing detained immigrants.
• in immigrant proceedings.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a lengthy public hearing on a wide range of civil rights, immigration, hate crimes, and reparations bills. Chair Edwards and Chair Day opened with strict testimony rules, including two-minute limits, written testimony options, and decorum requirements. Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell testified in strong support of S. 1126/H. 1920, the Combating Hate in the Commonwealth bill, saying Massachusetts needs stronger tools to address rising hate and bias incidents. Her Civil Rights Division chief explained that the bill would give the division civil investigative demand/subpoena power, expand civil rights enforcement, close loopholes in the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, add protected classes to the hate crimes law, and require better hate-crime data reporting. The committee also heard support for H. 1954 on access to counsel in immigration proceedings, H. 4684 on law enforcement identification and public trust, and H. 1927 to exonerate individuals accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts. Several bills focused on discrimination and civil rights enforcement. Supporters of S. 1248 on organizational standing said fair housing nonprofits need explicit authority to bring discrimination complaints in their own names, especially as federal protections are under attack. On H. 1246, advocates urged adding sex and gender as protected classes in the hate crimes statute, arguing women are not protected under current state law. H. 1820 drew testimony for protections against height and weight discrimination. H. 1995 would regularize sentencing for hate crimes by requiring diversity awareness training for both convictions and continuances without a finding, and H. 1056/H. 1589 would broaden hate-crime victim standing and require restitution to be used to repair harm. H. 1886 would clarify that defense-based social service staff are exempt from mandated reporter obligations when working under attorney-client privilege. The committee also heard testimony on H. 1889/S. 1064, a bill to eliminate disparate impact. Environmental justice advocates, fair housing attorneys, and community members argued that neutral policies can still produce discriminatory outcomes and that Massachusetts should allow state-court claims and a private right of action to address them. Committee members raised concerns about litigation floodgates, punitive damages, and the scope of protected classes, while supporters said the bill would mainly target systemic harms and injunctive relief. Additional testimony supported H. 1922/S. 119, the Fair Investment Act, which would create civil rights protections in venture capital and other investment settings for founders and investors, especially women and minority entrepreneurs. The hearing also included testimony on H. 1683, the Sex Trade Survivor Act, which would expand vacatur and expungement relief for trafficking survivors, remove archaic offenses from the code, and create an interagency commission; supporters emphasized reducing barriers to housing, employment, and reentry. Finally, the committee heard extensive support for H. 1753/S. 1181, establishing a commission to study reparations in Massachusetts. Testifiers described the state’s history of slavery, redlining, and ongoing racial disparities, and urged the committee to report the bill favorably. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Immigration Legal Services Support and the Immigration Legal Fellowship Project are both aimed at
• I am a former immigration attorney.
• Unrepresented immigrants face an impossible task navigating immigration court.
• I've been an immigrant rights advocate for 20 years, an immigration attorney for 10.
• Immigration Support Services.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services opened its first hearing of the year with a discussion centered on CalFresh, the Department of Social Services, and related anti-poverty and immigrant services programs. Chair Jackson framed the hearing as a response to the “historic and enormous challenges” created by H.R. 1, emphasizing that the committee’s goal was to minimize harm to vulnerable Californians. No votes were taken in the hearing. The first major topic was the impact of H.R. 1 on CalFresh eligibility and administration. CDSS estimated major federal funding reductions, with hundreds of thousands of Californians potentially losing benefits under new time limits and work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, and additional losses among certain non-citizen groups. County welfare directors, eligibility workers, SEIU, and other advocates argued that counties are underfunded and understaffed to implement the new rules, and urged release of the previously authorized $20 million General Fund, a county match waiver, and an additional ongoing workforce investment. LAO and the Department of Finance said they were reviewing the administration’s proposals and emphasized the need to use existing data, automation, and statutory direction to reduce administrative burden and improve implementation. A second panel addressed county administrative backfill and the broader fiscal effects of H.R. 1. CDSS explained that the law shifts more administrative costs to the state and counties beginning in federal fiscal year 2027 and could also create future state benefit costs tied to payment error rates. County and food bank representatives warned that many counties will struggle to absorb the higher match and that penalties tied to payment error rates could worsen budget pressure. Members pressed Finance and CDSS for clearer timelines, written responses, and more detailed workload assumptions, while Finance said it was still analyzing the federal guidance and county resource needs. The final major topic was the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) and possible state responses for people losing federal CalFresh eligibility. CDSS said CFAP remains limited by statute and by the federal structure it currently uses, but that the planned expansion to Californians age 55 and older regardless of immigration status remains on track for October 1, 2027, subject to funding. Immigrant advocates urged the state to fold newly excluded humanitarian immigrants into CFAP and to invest in outreach and administration, while Western Center on Law and Poverty proposed a broader state-funded anti-hunger response for people cut off by H.R. 1. LAO noted that the CFAP expansion is difficult to estimate and that further policy and technical work would be needed to assess costs and implementation options.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're trying, you know, immigration enforcement, immigration policy—there's things spread out all over
• They are oftentimes taking an illegal immigrant.
• Again, that would come from the new immigration officer, Chief Immigration Officer.
• , immigration, appearing numbers of 1.2 million.
• The UF girl who got rejected in place of an illegal immigrant, did the illegal immigrant who took her

Summary: The Appropriations Committee took up SB 2B, a major immigration bill by Senator Gruters, described by supporters as a Trump-aligned package to strengthen Florida’s role in immigration enforcement. The bill would create a grant program for local law enforcement, expand jail-ICE agreements beyond sheriff-operated jails, establish a chief immigration officer and a state immigration enforcement council, require more coordination on E-Verify and detention-bed reporting, allow immigration status to be considered in bail decisions, increase penalties for certain offenses tied to illegal reentry and voting, and repeal in-state tuition waivers for undocumented students. Much of the sponsor’s presentation and debate emphasized focusing on criminal offenders, improving coordination with federal authorities, and using state resources to support detention and enforcement. Committee questioning focused heavily on the tuition-waiver repeal, reimbursement for jail costs, E-Verify coverage, and whether the bill could lead to street-level immigration enforcement in schools or churches. Senator Smith, Senator Pizzo, Senator Polsky, Senator Sharief, and others challenged the tuition repeal as unfair to students who were brought to Florida as children and argued for grandfathering current students or studying the fiscal impact first. Senator Fine defended the repeal as ending a state subsidy for people who are not lawfully present and argued the change would save tens of millions of dollars. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri testified that the bill was limited to jail-based enforcement, said there was no current street-level 287(g) program in Florida, and stated he did not believe the bill raised concerns for law enforcement or schools/churches. A representative of the Florida Supervisors of Elections supported the voting-related section, while a Florida Highway Patrol representative said state agencies would need additional funding if they were expected to take on more enforcement duties. The committee adopted Senator Gruters’ late-filed amendment correcting a drafting error. Senator Smith’s amendment to require an OPAGA study on the tuition-waiver policy was withdrawn after discussion, and his handwritten amendment to delete the repeal of in-state tuition for undocumented students failed on a roll-call vote. The bill then advanced as amended, with several members speaking in debate both for and against it. Supporters framed it as a focused public-safety and enforcement measure; opponents criticized the special-session process, the cost, and the tuition repeal’s impact on students already enrolled.

Transcript Highlights:

• case immigration gets you.
• Unrepresented immigrants face an impossible task navigating immigration court.
• I've been an immigrant rights advocate for 20 years, an immigration attorney for 10.
• I'm Kimberly Wu from Services Immigrant Rights and Education Network, Siren, which serves our immigrant
• Immigration Support Services.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , I’m actually an immigrant.
• And I will tell you, immigration law was a thousand times worse and more taxing on me as an immigration
• So when you say immigration status, that's...
• You know, butterflies are immigrants.
• or non-immigrants.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, a moment of silence for the Parkland shooting victims, quorum call, and the Pledge of Allegiance. The Rules and Ethics Committee special order report for February 13, 2025 was adopted, setting the day’s special order calendar and debate times. The chamber then took up immigration-related special order items, beginning with Senate Memorial 6C, which urged the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to provide guidance and training for 287(g) agreements. Members debated federal immigration policy and state cooperation with DHS, and the memorial passed 85-27. The House next considered Senate Bill 4C, an immigration bill creating new state offenses related to unlawful entry and reentry into Florida and requiring a mandatory death sentence for an unauthorized alien convicted of a capital felony. Members questioned the bill’s constitutionality, including Supremacy Clause, due process, and Eighth Amendment concerns, and several speakers argued it would create separate classes of people and invite litigation. Multiple amendments were offered to narrow or expand exemptions, including protections for Venezuelans on TPS, certain Haitian TPS and humanitarian parole recipients, undocumented people brought to Florida as children working in critical professions, and a proposal to delay action pending court rulings; all of those amendments were rejected. The bill passed 85-29. The chamber then took up Senate Bill 2C, which would create a State Board of Immigration Enforcement led by the Governor and Cabinet, establish a local law enforcement immigration grant program and advisory council, repeal the undocumented-student fee waiver, and appropriate more than $300 million for immigration enforcement. The sponsor described it as supporting cooperation with federal immigration agencies and ending the in-state tuition incentive for undocumented students. Early questioning focused on the impact on “dreamers” and whether the bill would effectively raise their tuition costs; the sponsor said it removed the incentive of in-state tuition but did not bar attendance. The transcript cuts off during that exchange, before final action on SB 2C is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> security risk unlike legal immigrants security risk unlike legal immigrants illegal<00:40:50.720
• </c> aliens um illegal or unlawful immigrant aliens um illegal or unlawful immigrant I<01:08:55.759><
• </c> participation in the Federal immigration participation in the Federal immigration program<01:18:
• officials. immigration laws and identify immigration laws and identify individuals<01:31:49.960><c>
• They're an illegal immigrant.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights.
• ><c> Immigration</c><00:33:37.200><c> Law</c> Refugee and Immigrant Immigration Law Refugee and Immigrant
• </c> preserving access to immigration relief. preserving access to immigration relief.
• </c> immigration review process. immigration review process.
• </c> immigration issues. Is is that correct? immigration issues. Is is that correct?

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 1768, which would prohibit state and county law enforcement agencies and officials from entering into federal immigration-enforcement agreements under 8 U.S.C. 1357(g) and from assisting in certain immigration enforcement actions except in limited circumstances. The Office of the Public Defender, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the Legal Clinic, and the ACLU of Hawaiʻi all testified in strong support, arguing the bill would protect due process, reduce fear in immigrant communities, preserve trust in local police, and keep local resources focused on public safety. Testifiers said cooperation with immigration enforcement can chill court attendance, crime reporting, and cooperation with police, and they emphasized that the bill would not stop federal enforcement or affect other deputization agreements for environmental or other criminal matters. Committee members asked whether any 287(g) agreements currently exist in Hawaiʻi; testifiers said they were unaware of any and believed the bill would maintain the status quo. No vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee then took up House Bill 1548, which would reduce the maximum sentence for misdemeanors from one year to 364 days and allow people previously sentenced to one year to seek sentence modification. The Office of the Public Defender, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Legal Clinic, the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the ACLU of Hawaiʻi, and the William S. Richardson School of Law immigration clinic all supported the measure, saying the one-day change could prevent severe immigration consequences such as detention, removal, and bars to relief that can be triggered by a sentence of 365 days or more. Testifiers stressed that the bill would not change criminal liability or public safety, but would align Hawaiʻi law with similar reforms adopted in other states. Members questioned whether the change would affect citizens or create an automatic immigration process; witnesses responded that the issue is the federal immigration consequence tied to the maximum sentence, not actual time served, and that citizens would not face that consequence. The transcript ends during continued discussion of HB 1548, with no final vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• OK, immigrants with advanced degrees.
• When immigration agencies such as our nation's overwhelmed immigration court and legal system move quickly
• It's trying to say immigration law schools that have an immigration clinic, you can no longer help individuals
• I'm an immigration attorney.
• Does he like immigrants? She loves immigrants.

Bills: HB 256, HB 1308, HB 1554, HB 1743, HB 2308, HB 2351, HB 2858, HB 3676, HB 3784, HB 4312, HB 4552, HB 4823, HB 4852, HB 5007, HB 5010, HB 5520, HB 5524, HCR 19

Keywords: E-verify, employment verification, illegal employment, state contracts, government entities, license suspension, immigration compliance, state grant funding, E-Verify, compliance, penalties, immigration, government contracts, employee status, state contractors, E-verify program, legally present, employment practices, legal services, public money

Transcript Highlights:

• IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, IMMIGRATION POLICY, THERE ARE THINGS SPREAD OUT ALL OVER STATE GOVERNMENT AND
• I'M NOT SAYING THEY ARE TAKING THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, BUT THAT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
• ABOUT 423 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS DID.
• THE UF GIRL WHO GOT REJECTED IN PLACE OF AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, DID THE IMMIGRANTS HAVE WORSE GRADES
• ANTI-IMMIGRANT PROPAGANDA.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And do you practice immigration law at all? I do. Is there a backlog in the immigration courts?
• Immigration Courts.
• Immigration law clicked for me.
• I'm an immigration attorney.
• Does He like immigrants? She loves immigrants. Do you? I do. Thank you. Thank you.

Bills: HB256, HCR19, HB256, HB1308, HB1554, HB1743, HB2308, HB2351, HB2858, HB3676, HB3784, HB4312, HB4552, HB4823, HB4852, HB5007, HB5010, HB5520, HB5524, HCR19

Keywords: severe weather, adaptation plan, vulnerability assessment, environmental protection, state agencies, federal agents, transparency, law enforcement, identification, public trust, immigration enforcement, HCR 19, Texas concurrent resolution, federal immigration enforcement, masked agents, facial coverings, visible identification, uniforms, badges, name tags