Pima County adopts resolutions limiting civil immigration enforcement on county property and calling for federal agents to show identification

The Pima County Board of Supervisors approved two resolutions on Feb. 4 that limit how federal civil immigration enforcement may use county property and call for clear identification of federal agents during enforcement actions.

The first resolution prohibits county departments, agencies, officers or employees from providing consent for civil immigration enforcement activities on county‑owned, leased, or operated facilities absent a valid arrest warrant signed by a federal or state judicial officer. The second urges that federal agents engaged in civil immigration enforcement wear visible agency affiliation and unique identifiers and discourages mask use that would prevent identification.• Both measures passed by roll call with four votes in favor and one opposed.

Supporters, led by Supervisor Scott, framed the actions as a policy protecting public access to county services and preserving trust with immigrant and mixed‑status families. Scott pointed to sections of the resolution that narrow scope to county property and expressly exclude interference with lawful warrants or criminal‑law enforcement, saying the measures are intended to stop warrantless “sweeps” staged on county facilities. “If somebody with an enforceable warrant comes in, they will be able to do that,” Scott said during discussion, while arguing the resolution gives county employees direction on reporting and internal procedures.

Opponents, most vocally Supervisor Christie, criticized the choice to use resolutions rather than ordinances and called the measures “toothless” without enforceable penalties. Christie asked why the item was brought back as a resolution after it had been discussed as an ordinance, and warned that absent clear enforcement mechanisms a resolution would amount to only a policy statement. County staff and the county attorney’s office replied that the board had directed an expedited policy statement and that a draft ordinance—with required public notice—will be returned at the next meeting.

Members of the public offered sharply divided testimony during the meeting’s public‑comment period. Several speakers, including Tanya Nunez and Roland Baker, urged protections for immigrants and criticized federal enforcement practices; others, including Jay Tolkoff and Betsy Smith, described experiences of violent crime and urged accountability for public safety and cooperation with federal agencies. Board members noted that the resolution does not bar execution of judicial warrants or lawful criminal investigations and that it is limited to county property and county employees’ consent.

The board also approved a companion resolution calling for the visible identification of federal officers during civil immigration enforcement actions, citing FBI warnings about impersonators and a public‑safety rationale for clear identification. During debate, some supervisors raised concerns that mandating unmasking could endanger officers who had been subject to doxxing or threats; others argued identification promotes transparency and public trust. The item passed with the same 4–1 vote split.

Next steps: county staff said they will draft a public ordinance with required notice and return to the board for possible codified enforcement language. Administrators also described internal implementation requirements, directing departments to develop procedures for reporting attempted or actual county‑property use for immigration enforcement. The board scheduled further work and public notice ahead of a proposed ordinance.