Sponsors narrow bill to allow certain noncitizens to apply for Nevada police jobs; opponents cite vetting and public-trust concerns

Senate Bill 155 drew a lengthy committee hearing on May 2, 2025, as sponsors described a narrowly tailored measure to allow some noncitizens to apply for law-enforcement positions in Nevada.

Senator Edgar Flores, sponsor of the bill, told the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs the measure has two components: first, it would clarify existing law allowing honorably discharged members of the U.S. armed forces who are not U.S. citizens to pursue employment as peace officers; second, it would permit lateral movement for peace officers from jurisdictions that already permit noncitizen officers — allowing those officers to apply to Nevada agencies and undergo the usual Nevada vetting process.

"All we are doing is allowing them the opportunity to apply," Flores said, noting that agencies can still reject applicants after background checks. He told the committee the bill was intentionally narrowed from a broader original draft to build consensus and allow agencies time to evaluate the policy.

Assemblymember Ruben De Silva, who spoke about his own experience as a noncitizen who later served in the U.S. Marine Corps, framed the measure as a step toward including immigrant residents in public-safety roles. "When you give immigrants an opportunity to serve in these sort of capacities ... they tend to over perform," De Silva said.

Opponents included representatives of major county law-enforcement groups and members of the public who argued agencies may not be able to complete thorough foreign background checks and that noncitizen officers could raise public-trust and legal issues. Jason Walker, representing the Washoe County Sheriff's Office and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, said local hiring standards — set out in NAC and NRS 289.11 — require a thorough background check and typically a U.S. citizen. "Police officers often have powers that exceed those of ordinary citizens ... Most or some may argue that these powers should be limited to U.S. citizens," Walker said.

Other callers and opponents raised related concerns: whether temporary visa holders would be eligible (some feared the bill could be interpreted broadly), whether foreign criminal records could be reliably checked, and whether federal funding or firearm-possession laws might be implicated. Several callers urged lawmakers to reject the measure.

Flores and De Silva emphasized the bill does not require agencies to hire any applicant and that applicants would still be subject to Nevada's background checks and academy standards. Flores listed the background checks a lawful permanent resident commonly undergoes in federal immigration processing — including FBI fingerprint checks and the DHS biometric checks — and told the committee that applicants who previously served in U.S. military service underwent additional vetting.

Committee members questioned both policy and technical details. Assemblymember Golding asked whether law-enforcement agencies could seek information about an applicant's prior employment status in another agency; Flores said agencies may directly contact previous employers and vet lateral candidates the way they would any other applicant. Assemblymember Gallant asked whether states that already allow noncitizen officers have reported safety problems; Flores said he had not found data linking such policies to incidents but did not assert none exist.

Jason Walker and other sheriffs' representatives asked the committee to consider making permissive language rather than mandatory wording (for example, allowing agencies to consider such applicants rather than specifying that they "shall"). Several public callers, including veterans and party officials, urged rejection.

The committee did not take a vote during the hearing. Sponsors said the measure is a narrow, incremental change intended to allow agencies flexibility to consider applicants who are lawful permanent residents or honorably discharged service members and to allow agencies to continue applying existing vetting and approval standards.