Lawmakers clashed over immigration enforcement bills during a floor session of the state House of Representatives Tuesday.
Dozens of bills were up for discussion at both chambers of the state Legislature Tuesday, in advance of the Legislature's crossover deadline later this week. While the House voted perfunctorily to vote through the vast majority of the proposed measures before it, representatives hotly debated a handful of controversial measures.
ICE and Christian values
The fiercest arguments at the House revolved around a handful of bills concerning immigration enforcement, which had originated in response to aggressive federal immigration crackdowns at the start of the year.
While there were several immigration-related bills on Tuesday’s agenda, it was House Bill 1870 that caused the House to go into recess for half an hour while tempers cooled off.
The measure, if passed, would make certain public locations off-limits for state immigration enforcement. The bill states that state agents or contractors for the state cannot assists with immigration enforcement in a “protected community location” — defined as “any facility operated by the state or a county” — or in public spaces within 1,000 feet of those locations.
Hawai‘i Island Rep. David Tarnas said Tuesday that state standards regarding immigration need to be clarified at a time when federal policies on the matter are increasingly erratic and volatile.
“It seems that the federal policies have changed,” Tarnas said. “It used to be the federal policy in immigration enforcement that certain places were protected and they did not carry out immigration-related activities in those areas.”
Tarnas said that the bill ensures that places like schools, libraries, places of worship and shelters remain freely accessible to all residents while preserving the state’s compliance with federal law.
But Ho‘opili Rep. Elijah Pierick spoke against the bill, arguing that the 1,000-foot radius of protection around public facilities would include approximately 170,000 private residences statewide.
“That’s crazy,” Pierick said, before adding: “We’re basically saying to all the rapists and murderers, ‘hey guys, you guys have a place to escape and not get detained by law enforcement.’”
Waialua Rep. Sean Quinlan interrupted Pierick, saying he “strongly condemn[s] the characterization of immigrants as rapists and murderers,” and asking Pierick to “stick to the subject.”
‘Ewa Beach Rep. and Minority Floor Leader Diamond Garcia immediately called for a recess, ending the confrontation.
Half an hour later, when the House reconvened, Quinlan retracted his statement.
“I believe I was inarticulate a few minutes ago,” Quinlan said, withdrawing his complaint regarding Pierick’s comments.
But Pierick, not skipping a beat, continued: “This bill creates a safety net for murderers and rapists to escape the law and not receive justice.”
The debate didn’t end there. Tarnas chided Pierick for not studying the bill more thoroughly: the 1,000-foot radius of protection only applies to public spaces, he said, not private residences, and doesn’t impede law enforcement officers from executing judicial warrants.
“Members should read the bill so you know what the language is that we’re voting on,” Tarnas said, not quite addressing Pierick directly, but looking at him across the chamber. “Mischaracterizing the language in these bills does a disservice to everyone in this chamber.”
With lines drawn on both sides of the bill, other representatives offered their own two cents, largely in support of the measure. But Kapolei Rep. Kanani Souza, herself a Republican, clashed with Garcia over the measure, suggesting that allowing immigration enforcement within places of worship constitutes a violation of the separation of church and state.
Garcia quickly responded, stating that the bill has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. And when other representatives invoked the teachings of Jesus to urge for clemency toward illegal immigrants, Garcia shot back with his own Bible quote: “Jesus also says to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to render unto God that which is God’s.”
“I would like to provide a rebuttal for what [Garcia] said, but honestly I don’t really understand the argument,” Souza replied.
With the thread thoroughly lost at this point, discussion finally moved away from HB 1870, which ultimately passed third reading Tuesday alongside several other hotly debated immigration-related bills.
One of those bills, HB 1886, prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings except as necessary for police operations, but also creates a new felony offense: unauthorized civil immigration interrogation, arrest or detention. If a law enforcement officer “knowingly acts beyond the scope of [their] lawful authority” in detaining a person to determine their immigration status, that would be a Class C felony, carrying a maximum possible sentence of five years in prison.
Puna Rep. Greggor Ilagan said he wants police officers to be seen as friendly, positive influences on communities, “but when they’re roaming around the streets and not having any judicial warrant and just stirring up the community, [there] might be some problem with that.”
Pierick, conversely, said the measure will make officers vulnerable to retaliation by “an assassin or a fellow gang member.”
But despite some opposition, HB 1886 passed third reading as well. A similar measure, Senate Bill 3322, also passed third reading in the Senate Tuesday.
Parking woes
Only one bill failed to pass third reading at the House on Tuesday: HB 1919, which saw 25 of the House’s 51 representatives vote against it — all other measures only saw, at most, a handful of votes in opposition.
The measure prohibits any county from requiring building developers to include a minimum number of parking spaces for housing units or smaller-scale commercial developments.
Lawmakers shot down the bill en masse, noting that, while the cost of including parking spaces in certain neighborhoods can be prohibitively expensive for developers — and therefore exacerbates the state’s lack of affordable housing — counties in Hawai‘i are not one-size-fits-all.
“My concern is with the unintended consequences that may arise when parking requirements are reduced too aggressively without considering the infrastructure realities of existing communities,” said. Mānoa Rep. Andrew Garrett.
Hāli‘imaile Rep. Kyle Yamashita opposed the bill — something he said he rarely does for any bill — because it attempts to “increase density … without master planning.”
But the bill was not without supporters. Wailua Rep. and chair of the House Housing Committee Luke Evslin said the state’s housing woes are “a crisis of our own making,” the result of “60 years of state and county policy adding regulation upon regulation which has made it so difficult to build a home in Hawai‘i.”
Evslin said many people — particularly the elderly or those with disabilities — may not drive, but the requirement for their home to have a parking space they don’t need drives up the cost of rent.
“The point of this bill is just to give people the option of whether to build a parking stall or not based on their own circumstances,” Evslin said. “Let the homeowner decide, in my opinion.”
Nonetheless, the bill is dead.
“Two sides to every fish”
One of the last bills to be discussed Tuesday was HB 2101, a proposal to prohibit commercial aquarium fishing in Hawai‘i Island waters.
Kailua-Kona Rep. Nicole Lowen gave a lengthy speech in support of the proposal, saying the bill will decide “what should Hawai‘i's reefs be used for and who should benefit from them”
“Scientists, cultural practitioners and community members continue to raise concerns about the ecological impacts of removing large numbers of herbivorous fish from our reefs,” Lowen said. “And at a time when climate change is already placing unprecedented pressure on coral reefs around the world, we should simply be asking whether it makes sense to remove millions of reef fish simply to be used as decoration.”
Lowen added that the positive economic value of reopening West Hawai‘i waters to commercial aquarium fishing will largely be felt outside the state, while the increased demand for rare fish will incentivize poaching and illegal harvesting.
Moloka‘i Rep. Mahina Poepoe gave her own lengthy speech in support of the bill, calling the reefs and the fish therein resources that belong to the people of Hawai‘i.
“The reef cannot survive alone,” Poepoe said. “They depend on entire living communities, thousands of organisms working together in balance. And reef fish are a big part of that.”
While Quinlan commented that there are “two sides to every fish,” only one lawmaker actually gave comments in opposition to the measure, although eight representatives ultimately voted against it without comment. ‘Ewa Beach Rep. David Alcos III opined that the measure will take away jobs from local fishermen at a time when fish of all sorts are in decline.
But what about the Senate?
The state Senate voted on March 6 and on Tuesday to pass well over 100 bills on third reading. Each session ended within an hour with little debate on the floor.
One bill did prompt some brief discussion on Tuesday, however. Senate Bill 3125, Governor Josh Green’s promised measure to suspend a series of tax cuts previously planned over the next few years, sparked a brief exchange.
Mililani Sen. Donovan Dela Cruz gave remarks supporting the bill, largely echoing Green’s rationale: federal funding cuts have left the state with a budgetary shortfall that must be filled by tax dollars. At the same time, he said other provisions within the bill will ensure that working households still see tax relief.
Ko ‘Olina Sen. Samantha DeCorte spoke against the bill, saying the cost of living is too high for working families to be able to afford to wait for relief.
Nonetheless, the bill passed third reading.
For the latest news of Hawai‘i, sign up here for our free Daily Edition newsletter.
