The Japanese had already devoted all of their landing craft and marines to other tasks, which they considered more crucial to their war effort than seizing Pearl Harbor.

• All US carriers escaped destruction
• US subs were a significant threat to IJN ships
• IJN shipping capacity was limited making it very difficult to send troops and supplies so far(distance between Tokyo and Pearl Harbor is around 6200 kilometers)
• There were around 40k US soldiers defending PH altogether
• Japan needed the Phillippines, Malaya and Indonesia more desperately in order to gain oil and secure oil supply lines than a distant base at Hawaii
• Japanese Army wasn´t eager give troops under Navy command

Here is a lot more information on the logistics of taking hawaii in 1941: http://www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm

The Japanese did consider it but the logistical situation would have been a nightmare for them since it would have taken a good part of their stretched tanker and cargo fleet to supply a garrison on Hawaii. They would have been very vulnerable a blockade so they decided on a hit and run tactic. See the excellent "Shattered Sword" by Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully for an in depth study of Japanese military thinking at that time.

They didn't have the resources based on the potential return. Hawaii itself wouldn't have given them anything that destroying the American fleet wouldn't have done. The perceived value of the Pearl Harbor attack was that it would set the American war machine back by months or years, allowing the Japanese to consolidate their gains in the Dutch East Indies. Once the fleet was destroyed, it would have conveyed little strategic advantage to the Americans.

In answer to your follow up:

Pearl Harbor was the result of years of tension between the US and Japan. If Japan had been content to stay within its territory then it wouldn't have been an issue, but their goal was expansion. As Japan began to invade Manchuria and China war became inevitable. The US embargoed oil exports to Japan which Japan needed. In order to get more oil Japan had to continue invading around the Pacific including the Philippines, an American territory. So even if they hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor they still would have been attacking American territories. This wouldn't guaranty war, but it was basically a matter of time. Without Pearl Harbor it would have been harder for the US to rally troops and raise money. In that sense it may have been a mistake, but beyond that its just speculation.

Short answer is that it wouldn't be "fairly easy" and that Japanese logistics were stretched enough just doing a quickly hit & run. Try for the sustained effort needed for an invasion and not only does that mean you have to cancel other attacks - including probably in the Dutch East Indies, the whole point in the first place - but you will lose a large portion of your transport doing it.

Basically, invading Hawaii is a great way to shorten the war by months, maybe years...just not in Japan's favor.

Imperial Japan didn't want Hawaii, it was too far away from their primary manufacturing/production land (in simple terms). The only reason they attacked Pearl Harbor was to quickly and effectively decimate the USN's inactive Pacific fleet in order to conquer all of Southeast Asia without major opposition.