By Jeniffer Solis, Nevada Current
This piece was originally published in the Nevada Current.
Federal immigration enforcement in Nevada wasn’t an issue listed on Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo’s formal proclamation announcing a special session last week. But the issue made its way to one legislative chamber anyway, in the form of an initiative from Democratic Assembly leaders that was unequivocally rejected by their Democratic colleagues in the Latino Legislative Caucus.
Assembly Concurrent Resolution 5 would order a legislative study on immigration enforcement operations in the state. It is not expected to be heard or passed, and behind the scenes became a flashpoint for advocates and lawmakers who wanted to see more done to safeguard immigrant families in the wake of large-scale immigration sweeps.
Resolutions are non-binding and do not require the governor’s signature for approval.
Members of the Nevada Latino Legislative Caucus said the resolution was proposed by Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager (D-Las Vegas) and Majority Leader Sandra Jauregui (D-Las Vegas) as a compromise solution without input from the caucus.
“We let them know that we’re not going to be supporting it if it makes it to the floor,” said Assemblymember Selena Torres-Fossett (D-Las Vegas). “The Latino Legislative Caucus is not supportive of any policy that’s gonna do nothing.”
The caucus introduced several bills during the 2025 regular session to provide immigrant communities a sense of security, including Assembly Bill 217, which would have barred immigration officials from entering school grounds or obtaining student records without a warrant. That bill was vetoed by Lombardo.
“The Latino Legislative Caucus has consistently been saying that we need to do something that impacts immigrant families, especially with what’s going on in our state and across the country,” Torres-Fossett said.
Advocates echoed those concerns. Noé Orosco with the Nevada Immigrant Coalition argued a study “would not produce anything that is not already known now, which is that our families are being terrorized.”
The Trump administration has continued to expand funding and personnel for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in an effort to fulfill its promised mass-deportation campaign.
Orosco said the coalition reached out to Yeager and Jauregui after finding out about the resolution to emphasize their top priorities, which did not include a study.
The coalition urged lawmakers to instead ban immigration enforcement officers from wearing face coverings, limit immigration enforcement in sensitive locations such as schools, and prohibit state and local agencies from sharing personal data for the sole purpose of immigration enforcement.
On Sunday, Yeager said the Assembly no longer planned to hold a hearing for the resolution, which was referred to the Assembly Committee on Health and Wellness on the first day of the special session.
“Advocates didn’t want it,” Yeager said.
—“It’s a slap in the face of the immigrant community. We do not need to study immigration issues. We need to act.”
Assemblymember Cinthia Zermeño Moore (D-Las Vegas)
“It’s a slap in the face of the immigrant community, ” said Assemblymember Cinthia Zermeño Moore (D-Las Vegas) of the resolution. “We do not need to study immigration issues. We need to act.”
Dissatisfaction over the lack of safeguards in Nevada for immigrant communities carried over to Lombardo’s signature crime bill. The crime bill passed the Assembly Sunday on a 31-11 vote – six fewer votes than when it was first considered during the 2025 regular session.
Several Democrats who peeled away cited the lack of safeguards for immigrants in the bill as a major factor for the switch. Reuben D’Silva (D-Las Vegas), who voted for the previous version of the bill, said he was concerned punitive measures in the bill could put a bigger target on immigrants in the state.
“Just seeing the aggressive nature of the federal government going after immigrants, I think this could have opened up an avenue for folks to get caught up in the system and get deported,” D’Silva said. “I’m a formally undocumented person. I represent a district that is heavily immigrant, and I just could not morally come to a yes vote again.”
Lawmakers and advocates repeatedly called for the inclusion of two amendments submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada to the special session crime bill. The amendments would have required the investigation of individuals acting as law enforcement who detain, remove, or restrain people without identifying themselves and prevented the construction of immigration detention centers without legislative approval.
“It’s not just an immigration issue, it’s a public safety issue,” said Moore, who supported the amendments on the Assembly floor.
“I don’t think it’s too much to ask. They were reasonable, and I just feel like it was a missed opportunity to provide more guardrails for our community as a whole,” Moore said.
Moore also criticized the lack of accommodation and transparency during the special session, saying Spanish speakers couldn’t speak in opposition to the bill because translation services weren’t provided like they typically are during a regular session.
While supportive of the amendments proposed by ACLU of Nevada, Torres-Fossett said they were unlikely to get added to the crime bill or passed. Torres-Fossett took a different direction, spearheading an amendment that would require the consulate to be notified if a citizen of the country they represent has been arrested.
The amendment was adopted by the full Assembly, but later withdrawn. Torres-Fossett said she pulled it because she needed more time to work on the language and plans on bringing back the issue during the next regular session.
