Supervisors approved exploring two ordinances aimed at prohibiting Pima County property being used by federal immigration agents and banning law enforcement officials from wearing masks.
The board also approved a resolution Tuesday opposing the proposed immigration detention center in Marana.
The vote on the two ICE measures, both requested by Supervisor Jen Allen, the board chair, directs county staff to craft them for a future vote.
The board voted 4-1 to move ahead with the two measures, which are expected to be released later this month and are expected to be voted on in March.
Supervisors also approved the resolution opposing the Marana ICE facility by a 4-1 vote.
Supervisor Steve Christy, the lone Republican on the board, was the sole no-vote on all three items.
County property access
The first ordinance would bar county-owned property from being used for federal immigration enforcement purposes, similar to an ordinance that the Tucson City Council is looking to pass in the near future.
Allen said she requested the board look into such ordinances because residents in the community are under the threat of immigration agents, which she called "an assault on people's safety and people's dignity."
"Right now our community is struggling. Struggling whether to go to school, whether to go to church, to get medical care. These are things that are the antithesis of what we as a body seeks to create within our community. We need our community to feel safe," she said. "(County-owned spaces) should be places that are safe. Safe for people to escape from, find some ounce of respite against the terror that we're seeing out on our streets and in streets across this country."
Supervisor Andrés Cano said fear of ICE raids is spreading across the community, changing the way people live and where they go.
Two ordinances Pima County Supervisors will consider early next month would prohibit county property from being used by federal immigration agents and ban law enforcement officials from wearing masks.
"Pima County is a property owner. We have the legal authority to set rules on county property. We have the authority to protect access to services, to protect our county employees, and the authority to keep public spaces calm and functional," Cano said. "Our buildings are not traps, our parks are not ambush sites. Our health clinics are not places of fear, and our libraries are not places, people should avoid. They are public spaces they belong to the public and to everyone."
Supervisor Rex Scott said protecting the public's health and safety "is one of our most-solemn and necessary duties," which was why he voted for the item.
"These are not the worst of the worst. People are finding that their neighbors, their friends ... are being detained. This isn't what was promised," he said. "Going back to that solemn and necessary charge of protecting public health and safety that we are obliged to take on as supervisors, I cannot countenance the idea of federal immigration officials operating, staging any of their activities on county property."
Christy said a key element that had been ignored was "the very intense subject of enforcement" of the proposed ordinance being weighed.
"What are we going to do, send in Tucson Police Department to draw their guns and fight? Is that what we're going to do, is that what we're asking?" Christy said, which some in the audience responded by yelling "yes" while others cheered or applauded.
"Are we asking for the Sheriff's Department to arm themselves up and go in to fight ICE with guns?" Christy asked, which again, prompted many in the crowd to respond yes.
"This is really a highly-volatile issue that's being perpetrated by this board without thinking it thoroughly through. And if there is any violence after this ordinance is passed, it'll be on the hands of my colleagues . . . if you're asking for some sort of a civil insurrection, a violent one, you're treading on very dangerous territory, and I think you know that," he said, speaking to the other four supervisors. "This is a lot of show, but it also has a lot of danger to it, because now you're going to be instructing other law enforcement agencies to physically battle with ICE."
Supervisor Matt Heinz, in response, said he has full faith and confidence in local law enforcement, that "they are here to de-escalate these kinds of situations," to protect county residents while also making sure "that violence is something that does not happen."
Scott, also in response to Christy's objections, said that while "nobody has the right or ability to impede a federal operation," the county board has "the right, the ability and the duty to safeguard county property," which is all the proposed ordinance is calling for."
"Local governments around the country have taken this kind of action. This is nothing novel or new, but it is something that is abundantly necessary, because of what we are seeing coming out of the federal government," Scott said.
Ban on masks
The other ordinance county staff was directed to craft would ban law enforcement officers at the city, county, state and federal level from wearing masks while on the job, "and requires all law enforcement officers to wear visible identification," according to the item requested by Allen.
Christy offered, in a substitute motion, that the county craft an ordinance that would ban the public from revealing law enforcement officers' private and personal information at the city, county, state and federal levels, otherwise known as doxing, while also requiring officers to wear identification.
Though it failed to gain traction, Scott did acknowledge the risk of doxing that Christy spoke of, saying that nobody "should never be painting with too broad a brush."
"Nobody, because of their public role, deserves to have people showing up at their home, threatening their families and endangering their children. We're talking about a failure of leadership when it comes to the actions of some of the DHS agencies," Scott said. "We're not talking about the actions of rank and file people, some of whom have devoted their careers to law enforcement, many of whom are our constituents ... I would ask that all of us keep our tactics and our intentions in mind when we are responding to what is a failure of leadership from the Trump administration, not a failure of the actions of rank and file officers."
Marana detention facility
The resolution passed by the board formally opposes the proposed ICE detention center in Marana.
The former Arizona State Prison-Marana, which was the state’s first private prison until Arizona bought the facility in 2013 from Centerville, Utah-based Management and Training Corporation (MTC). MTC, which already runs five ICE detention centers in California and Texas, bought back the prison last year for $15 million and informed the Marana Town Council that “the facility may be used" as an ICE detention center, which has since brought harsh pushback from the public.
Allen said it's important for the board to take a stand on behalf of residents, "that we do not want this for our community."
"It is essential ... that this (facility) is not warehousing our loved ones, our neighbors, our patients, our students, our employees," she said. "There is much, I think, that we can do to try to stop this detention center ... I think we as the board need to do all that we can to try to stop this sort of warehousing and inhumanity and denigration of our friends and family members."
Scott asked if the county has any "regulatory or legal authority" that could prevent such a detention facility, as it's in Marana's jurisdiction.
Sam Brown, a deputy county attorney, said the office is looking into public nuisance laws for potential legal authority.
