Residents give mixed views on sanctuary policy during public comment; council declines immediate action

Clovis residents used the public comment period at the Feb. 11 council meeting to deliver sharply diverging views about whether the city should identify as a sanctuary or non‑sanctuary city. Council did not take formal action on the topic; speakers urged the council both to avoid local involvement in federal immigration enforcement and to press for legal entry and enforcement.

Kendra Myers Devegian, who said her family has lived in Clovis for generations, urged the council to preserve the city’s tradition of welcoming neighbors from diverse backgrounds. "What makes my Clovis neighborhood super awesome is the diversity," she said, and asked officials to remember that many residents love the city "because of the diversity."

Other speakers said enforcement of federal immigration law should be the duty of federal authorities and that local involvement risked harming children and school communities. Angelica Rios, a Clovis Unified social worker, told council members she feared students could be singled out and said, "I don't think what you are proposing is something that would be in the best interest of our children or our school campuses."

Some citizens voiced the opposite view. One speaker identified only as a long‑time resident argued that people should come to the United States through lawful channels and said state resources were under strain; that speaker cited a broad figure for state medical spending on undocumented immigrants. Another resident who identified himself as a longtime Clovis resident said he supported the city taking an "anti‑sanctuary" stance and urged legal immigration.

Multiple speakers asked the council to focus on local priorities such as road maintenance, public safety and rising water bills rather than national policy. Joshua Engel said the priority for him and his family was municipal budget matters, and he asked why city police resources would be diverted from local needs to enforce federal immigration laws.

Council members did not place a policy proposal on the Feb. 11 agenda for a vote. In subsequent council comments, several members said they would welcome an agendized, education‑style workshop that brought police, the city attorney and other departments together to present legal constraints, enforcement roles, and public‑safety implications before the council considered formal action. Council indicated it would consider holding a structured discussion in chambers to present facts and options to the public before any resolution or ordinance was considered.