- Today
- Holidays
- Birthdays
- Reminders
- Cities
- Atlanta
- Austin
- Baltimore
- Berwyn
- Beverly Hills
- Birmingham
- Boston
- Brooklyn
- Buffalo
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Cincinnati
- Cleveland
- Columbus
- Dallas
- Denver
- Detroit
- Fort Worth
- Houston
- Indianapolis
- Knoxville
- Las Vegas
- Los Angeles
- Louisville
- Madison
- Memphis
- Miami
- Milwaukee
- Minneapolis
- Nashville
- New Orleans
- New York
- Omaha
- Orlando
- Philadelphia
- Phoenix
- Pittsburgh
- Portland
- Raleigh
- Richmond
- Rutherford
- Sacramento
- Salt Lake City
- San Antonio
- San Diego
- San Francisco
- San Jose
- Seattle
- Tampa
- Tucson
- Washington
Vancouver Today
By the People, for the People
Clark County Council debates resolution on ICE activities
Councilors vote 3-2 to move forward with modified resolution, sparking debate over wording and jurisdiction
Published on Feb. 12, 2026
Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›
The Clark County Council debated for over an hour on a resolution regarding federal immigration enforcement in the region, ultimately voting 3-2 to move forward with a modified version. The resolution, while not officially condemning Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), expresses alarm over some reported enforcement methods. The debate featured intense moments between councilors over issues like racial profiling, the council's jurisdiction, and the potential impact on local law enforcement.
Why it matters
The resolution is seen as an anti-ICE document by some, disappointing pro-law enforcement groups while also angering those who felt the language did not go far enough. The debate highlights the divisive nature of immigration enforcement issues and the challenges local governments face in navigating these complex topics.
The details
The council debated the resolution for over 40 minutes, with councilors discussing the wording and their jurisdiction. Some, like Matt Little, questioned whether the council should be weighing in on these issues at all, while others, like Wil Fuentes, argued that racial profiling is a real issue that needs to be addressed. The council ultimately agreed to modify the language, changing words like "demands" to "encourages" and adding a section supporting local law enforcement.
- The council debated the resolution for over 40 minutes on Wednesday, February 12, 2026.
- The modified resolution is expected to be read at the council's February 17, 2026 meeting.
The players
Clark County Council
The legislative branch of Clark County, Washington, which debated and voted on the resolution regarding ICE activities in the region.
Matt Little
A Clark County councilor who questioned the council's jurisdiction to weigh in on immigration and law enforcement issues.
Michelle Belkot
A Clark County councilor who expressed concerns that the resolution could divide the community and encourage interference with law enforcement.
What they’re saying
“I wanted everyone to be reminded we are the legislative branch of the county. We are 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.”
— Matt Little, Clark County Councilor (Clark County Today)
“Racial profiling is happening. It's happening in our communities and it's happening across the country.”
— Wil Fuentes, Clark County Councilor (Clark County Today)
What’s next
The modified resolution is expected to be read at the Clark County Council's February 17, 2026 meeting, where it will likely be voted on.
The takeaway
The Clark County Council's debate over the resolution on ICE activities highlights the challenges local governments face in navigating divisive immigration enforcement issues. While the council ultimately moved forward with a modified version, the discussion revealed deep divisions within the community and raised questions about the council's jurisdiction and role in these matters.
