The Clark County Council on Wednesday, Feb. 11, voted 3-2 to advance a revised statement denouncing federal immigration enforcement, setting up a formal reading at its Tuesday, Feb. 17, meeting.
Last week’s meeting follows a Jan. 28 meeting in which three of five council members directed county staff to draft a statement for future revisions. The proposed draft brought before the council last week prompted roughly an hour of sharply divided public comment.
At the council’s Jan. 28 meeting, Chair Sue Marshall said the county had a responsibility to acknowledge fear in the community in light of controversial tactics of federal law enforcement, even if a statement alone would not change federal policy. Councilor Glen Yung said confusion caused by masked or poorly identified federal agents was creating dangerous situations for residents and bystanders. He argued the council should formally recognize that fear.
Councilor Wil Fuentes, speaking as a first-generation immigrant from El Salvador, called for both condemnation and action, including potentially barring ICE and related federal agencies from using county-owned resources such as Camp Bonneville.
Councilors Michelle Belkot and Matt Little urged caution, questioning whether a statement could create unintended consequences or exceed the council’s legislative role, particularly given that immigration enforcement and oversight of the sheriff’s office fall outside the council’s direct authority.
Public comment was limited to two minutes per speaker, down from the usual three. Several speakers who oppose federal immigration enforcement again called on the county to bar agencies such as ICE and the FBI from using county-owned resources, including Camp Bonneville. Others urged the council to reject the proposed resolution altogether, arguing immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility.
During public comment, Fia Marie of Clark County recounted what she described as a recent encounter with the Clark County Sheriff’s Office after she followed what she believed was an ICE vehicle. She alleged that multiple sheriff’s deputies surrounded her car and threatened her with felony stalking charges, though she said no citations were issued.
“I was one of three women detained the other day by Clark County Sheriff's (officers). It was seven vehicles. We were falsely detained. We were accused of committing crimes. None of us were sighted, but we were threatened with felony stalking charges if we were seen near ICE again,” she said.
During those remarks, Marie criticized the proposed resolution as ineffective, holding up a long strip of paper as a prop and making a wiping gesture before dropping it to the floor.
“It reminds me of your statement because it's a lot of words and it doesn't really mean anything to me. This is what I think about (the) Clark County sheriff and this is what I think about your statement,” she said.
A county staff member removed the paper with plastic gloves 20 minutes later during public comment. Despite complaints from attendees, Chair Sue Marshall allowed the meeting to continue.
Rob Anderson, owner of Reform Clark County, criticized statements made at the council’s previous meeting.
“These are exaggerated statements untethered from the facts designed to stoke fears. Much of the violence that I find has been tied to people interfering with or resisting lawful law enforcement activity, not to random enforcement actions targeting the public,” Anderson said. “Interfering with law enforcement, any law enforcement, is dangerous and predictably ends badly.”
Julie Bishop, a county resident, said the draft resolution lacked the forceful language the council used in an October county resolution condemning political violence following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
“Here are the words I would have liked to have seen in the statement: Tragic, intolerable violence that strikes at the heart, threatens, attempts to silence, coercion, bloodshed, reject violence, to defend constitutional liberty, and finally, unequivocally, condemns. There is zero mention of those words in the document. I know the council is familiar with these words and phrases because guess what, it used them in the October 1st resolution,” she said.
Kimberlee Goheen-Elbon of La Center urged the council to reject the proposal and expressed support for stricter immigration enforcement.
“We the people are in charge to hold our governments accountable as they do the will of the people that love God, the Constitution, and the law of the land and the majority who want to be safe. Those who fear call me racist, fascist, communist, and twisted, it’s a form of modern slavery,” she said.
As drafted, the resolution stated that the council is disturbed by reported federal immigration enforcement activities that do not align with its values of transparency, identification and due process. It reaffirmed that immigration enforcement is a federal function, stated that Clark County does not participate in civil immigration enforcement beyond what is required by law and directed the county’s public health department to gather data on potential health impacts tied to immigration enforcement.
Councilors Michelle Belkot and Matt Little said they did not believe the council has the jurisdiction to issue such a statement.
“As I said last week, I wanted everyone to be reminded that we are the legislative branch of the county, we're not the executive, we don't have jurisdiction over immigration. We don't have jurisdiction over law enforcement at any level, including the local sheriff's office,” Little said.
Belkot said she was concerned about unintended consequences and public safety.
“I want everyone in this room to stay safe, and getting in the way of local or federal law enforcement is an issue. I don't want anyone to die or pass away,” Belkot said. “I care about everybody in this room. We are all people with families, and I just think this is pitting our local law enforcement against federal.”
Council Chair Sue Marshall, Councilor Wil Fuentes and Councilor Glen Yung supported moving the resolution forward, though Yung proposed several revisions that were adopted by the majority.
Changes proposed by councilors included clarifying language, adding a standalone statement supporting local law enforcement agencies and changing the word “demands” to “expects” in the resolved portion regarding improvement from federal law enforcement.
Yung also initially supported adding language barring federal immigration agencies from using county resources, but agreed to drop it for now pending more information about “potential impacts,” a concern brought up by Councilor Little.
“I have a hard time tracking at this point how there would be unintended consequences, but I'm always the first to admit that they do happen, so I would be interested in hearing more on that,” Yung said.
Marshall added the council still has the purview to withhold county resources. The council ultimately voted 3-2 to move the revised draft forward for a formal reading in a future council meeting.
As of press time, the revised resolution is scheduled for reading Feb. 17. This article will be updated.
