On Wednesday, the Hawai?i County Council approved a contentious proposal that empowers the mayor to sign agreements between the Big Island police department and federal law enforcement entities. Despite existing concerns, this resolution was passed amidst fears that local police could potentially become involved in immigration enforcement operations.
This resolution permits the renewal of three long-standing agreements the police department has with the FBI, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Homeland Security Investigations, a sector of ICE. Leading up to the council meeting, intensive discussions and testimonies were presented by opponents, including immigrants and their advocates, who expressed worry that such agreements could facilitate local police officers being recruited into the former President Donald Trump’s initiative to deport millions of immigrants.
The decision by the council was notably close, with a 5-4 vote in favor. An amendment was included stating that the memorandums of understanding (MOUs) would not allow the Hawai?i Police Department officers or any personnel to take enforcement action on federal immigration law administrative violations. This amendment came after cooperation between Police Chief Benjamin Moszkowicz and council members, aimed at alleviating concerns from immigrant community advocates. They felt the agreements did not firmly prevent police cooperation with federal agents in immigration enforcement actions.
Adding this specific language to the resolution sought to address apprehensions that the police department’s MOUs with federal agencies might lead to involvement in immigration operations. Liza Ryan Gill, co-coordinator of the Hawai?i Coalition for Immigrant Rights, commented that it offered some clarification, despite her continued opposition to the resolution.
Voting against the resolution were council members James Hustace, Jenn Kagiwada, Heather Kimball, and Rebecca Villegas. They argued that the federal government under Trump’s administration was infringing on constitutional rights and could not be trusted to keep its promises. Moreover, they worried that any semblance of cooperation with immigration authorities by local law enforcement could further unsettle already anxious immigrant communities.
Hustace mentioned that such agreements might impact efforts to improve and maintain community relationships. However, a council majority was convinced by assurances that the police department would neither desire nor engage in enforcing immigration laws, and that the agreements lacked such provisions.
Deputy Corporation Counsel Dakota Frenz addressed the council, acknowledging widespread misunderstandings and concerns but clarifying that no “backdoor” exists for police involvement in immigration enforcement within these agreements.
Frenz emphasized the independence of the local situation from national issues, noting that these agreements were unrelated to the national upheaval. Chief Moszkowicz mentioned that the MOUs include clauses allowing either party to terminate these agreements with 30 days’ notice, providing an opting-out mechanism.
Council member Villegas voiced skepticism, arguing that simply having a termination clause did not protect the community from possible repercussions under the current federal administration. In contrast, council member Matt Kaneali’i-Kleinfelder found comfort in Frenz and Moszkowicz’s explanations, expressing hope that the public’s fears were also alleviated.