Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration And Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Two bills target private immigration detention: tax and funding restrictions advance from committee
Summary
Assemblymember Haney’s AB 16 33 would impose a 50% gross‑receipts tax on for‑profit private detention operators; Assemblymember Ortega’s AB 24 65 would bar state grants/loans/tax credits to entities that own/operate or contract with private detention facilities. Both bills drew coalitions of immigrant‑rights, faith and education witnesses and were moved to the next committees (AB 16 33 to Appropriations, AB 24 65 to Judiciary).
Assemblymember Haney urged the committee to advance AB 16 33, a measure proposing a 50% gross receipts tax on for‑profit private immigration detention operators, calling the bill an accountability mechanism for companies that, he said, profit from mass detention. "We will not be forced to pay for [private detention companies]," Haney said, describing reports of unsafe conditions and citing an Attorney General inspection report.
Supporters — including the California Immigrant Policy Center, community organizers and the California Department of Education representative — described alleged inhumane conditions, family separations and impacts on school attendance and local economies. Bruno Huizar (California Immigrant Policy Center) told the committee the AG’s May 2026 inspections found dangerous conditions including inadequate medical care; community organizers and families shared personal accounts of detention harms.
Assemblymember Ortega presented AB 24 65, which would deny state grants, loans and tax credits to businesses that own, operate, or contract with private detention facilities or DHS/ICE enforcement agencies. Witnesses from the Department of Education and multiple immigrant‑rights coalitions described how enforcement operations have disrupted student attendance and family stability. The California Chamber of Commerce objected to the bill’s scope, warning it could sweep in benign contractors (blanket or food providers) and urged careful narrow drafting.
The committee moved both measures forward. AB 16 33 was passed to Appropriations by roll call and AB 24 65 was passed to the Judiciary Committee with a recorded vote, with committee members noting commitments to refine language to avoid unintended consequences.
