Committee forwards resolution on due process, immigration MOUs to full council after broad public support

The Committee on Governmental Operations and External Affairs on Oct. 7 voted unanimously to forward Resolution 3‑20‑25 to the full County Council with a favorable recommendation, after extensive public testimony urging stronger limits on local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Resolution 3‑20‑25, introduced by Councilmember Michelle Galimba, “expresses support for due process and the protection of constitutional rights for all residents of the County of Hawaii,” asks the mayor to review existing and potential agreements with public and private partners to protect residents’ constitutional rights, and requests the Hawaii Police Department limit its involvement with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to criminal cases.

The committee vote to send the resolution to full council was 8‑0 (one member absent). The action was procedural: the committee recommended the resolution for council consideration; it was not adopted into county policy at the meeting.

Public testimony at three hearing sites focused heavily on the county’s existing memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with federal immigration entities. Representative Armando Rodriguez, who said he immigrated from Mexico as a child, told the committee he supports the resolution and called for local officials “to surround myself with people who love and respect one another.” Noel Lindenman of Kailua‑Kona told the committee, “This resolution is vital to show all in our community that they have rights under our constitution regardless of immigration status,” and asked the council to add language requesting the mayor and police chief issue a 30‑day notice of intent to terminate existing MOUs with HSI and ICE upon adoption.

A speaker identifying as Kencho, testifying for the Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action, urged the same amendment and said, “Words of support cannot undo the harm caused by the existing MOU between the police department and Homeland Security and ICE,” adding that MOUs have “enabled racial profiling, fear, and trauma across our immigrant communities.” Multiple other residents — including Terry McDonald, Nancy Moser, Kathleen Bridal, Maya Kleinfelder, Ruth Robinson and Patty Cook — voiced support for the resolution and for reviewing MOUs.

Committee debate centered on two lines of follow‑up action: whether to ask the council also to petition the state and federal delegation for similar protections, and whether the committee should ask corporation counsel to advise whether the county can adopt local restrictions such as requiring federal agents to identify themselves. Councilmember Kimball asked corporation counsel whether a county ordinance could mirror steps taken in other states concerning identification; Corporation Counsel Renee Brown said she was not prepared to answer in the meeting and would get back to the council.

Galimba said she saw the measure as “setting the stage and as a foundation for some of those more practical efforts” to help immigrant communities, including potential future steps such as assisting farmers with visas and expanding county immigration office staffing. Several councilmembers — including Galimba and others — mentioned the county’s single immigration position and discussed exploring additional staff for West Hawaii to improve access.

The committee accepted public concern about MOUs as distinct from the resolution’s language: multiple speakers sought an explicit, near‑term municipal step (a 30‑day notice to terminate existing MOUs) as an amendment. The committee did not vote on such an amendment at the meeting; it forwarded the base resolution with a favorable recommendation and discussed potential friendly amendments for the full council.

What’s next: Resolution 3‑20‑25 will be considered by the full County Council; the committee record shows the council may consider friendly amendments (including language urging the mayor and chief to issue a 30‑day notice to terminate existing MOUs and language urging state action). Corporation counsel will report back to the committee about the legal scope for any county ordinance or directive proposed during full‑council consideration.