Committee hears emotional testimony on two immigration bills; chair defers both measures for further work

State lawmakers heard sustained public testimony on two bills addressing law-enforcement interaction with federal immigration authorities: House Bill 457, which would require state and local law enforcement to notify detained individuals of their rights before any interview with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and to notify designated representatives when people are transferred to ICE custody; and House Bill 22, which would limit state and county collaboration with federal immigration enforcement to narrowly defined circumstances.

Witnesses included immigration legal-service providers, immigrant-rights coalitions, health and social-service agencies, and survivors. Several speakers described personal trauma and said notification rules were necessary to protect due-process rights and prevent family separations. April Bautista, a Kalihi Palama resident and public-comment witness, said of a past domestic-violence episode: “Going to sleep with my 4 month old baby not knowing if he was gonna come through the door was terrifying.” Legal providers and the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights said the bills would help preserve trust that encourages victims and witnesses to report crimes and access health care.

Support and concerns - Supporters: The Office of the Public Defender, ACLU of Hawaii, Legal Clinic, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, and other immigrant-service organizations testified in support. They argued the bills are compatible with federal law and that state governments may adopt guardrails to protect residents’ constitutional rights. Nathan Lee of the ACLU summarized that such measures codify protections and that “there is no need for states, counties, localities to enter into these agreements and to assist in ICE operation.” - Law-enforcement and fiscal concerns: The attorney general’s testimony on HB457 urged caution about mandatory transfer-notice provisions and a broad sealing requirement later proposed for eviction records (discussed separately), cautioning the committee about possible conflicts with federal funding and the First Amendment right of public access to court records. The committee chair explicitly raised concerns that moving HB457 or HB22 could risk federal funding or other federal responses under the current administration and recommended deferral for further study.

Why it matters: The measures address when and how local police and state agencies may facilitate ICE interviews or transfers. Proponents say standardized notices and transfer-notification requirements protect civil liberties and public health; opponents caution about the state’s legal exposure and practical consequences for county operations and federal funding.

Committee action and next steps: After extended testimony and questioning, the chair recommended deferring both HB457 and HB22 to allow further work with the attorney general and county officials. The chair asked sponsors and stakeholders to continue drafting and discussions to find a path that balances constitutional protections and state interests.

Ending: Sponsors and advocates urged lawmakers to act quickly; the committee opted instead for additional discussion and technical work before advancing either bill.