Anchorage Assembly targets ICE with anti-enforcement resolution … and no public comment allowed

Jan. 30, 2026 – A group of liberals on the Anchorage Assembly is introducing a resolution that takes direct aim at federal immigration enforcement and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, suggesting that ICE operations are unconstitutional and calling for restrictions on federal authority, funding, and enforcement powers.

The measure, AR No. 2026-35, is sponsored by Assembly Members Erin Baldwin Day, Yarrow Silvers, and Daniel Volland, all from the hard-Democrat viewpoint, and is scheduled for a reading on Feb. 3.

Because it is a resolution rather than an ordinance, it will not go through a public hearing process and will not be subject to public comment. There may be debate, however, among the members of the Assembly.

The resolution is formally sold as a reaffirmation of constitutional principles, but its substance functions as a political statement opposing federal immigration enforcement, ICE operations, and the Department of Homeland Security.

It repeatedly characterizes federal actions as abusive, unconstitutional, and “militarized,” and portrays immigration enforcement as a civil liberties crisis rather than a public safety function of the federal government. It makes no references to the many people who have been killed by illegal immigrants across the country.

The document directly criticizes the expansion of enforcement agencies following passage of the “One, Big Beautiful Bill Act” in 2025, claiming it led to increased funding and expansion of the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the US Border Patrol. It also references recent ICE deployments in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area, asserting that federal agents were responsible for civil unrest and killings, claims presented in drama-laced language that comes before any judicial findings or completed investigations cited in the resolution itself.

The resolution goes further by alleging “mass deportation” of individuals to “prison camps,” claiming deportations are occurring without due process and in defiance of court orders, language that escalates the politicization of immigration enforcement into a constitutional crisis narrative.

The members also criticize federal officials for labeling individuals killed during unrest as agitators, rioters, or terrorists, and argues that lawful protest, assembly, and firearm possession are being improperly treated as threats by federal authorities.

The measure calls on Alaska’s congressional delegation — Lisa Murkowski, Dan Sullivan, and Nick Begich — to pass legislation that would impose new restrictions on federal immigration enforcement.

Those demands include independent investigations of federal uses of deadly force, public identification requirements for federal agents during operations, expanded training and regulation of immigration officers, restrictions on federal funding for enforcement activities, and reforms to align immigration enforcement with international human rights standards. Sen. Murkowski has already called for an investigation and congressional authority over ICE. Congressman Nick Begich has said, “If anything, recent events have underscored the need for additional funding to ensure law enforcement has the tools, personnel, and training needed to complete their job,” and says he supports law enforcement’s ability to do its job without interference from outside agitators.

The Assembly resolution also formally asserts a list of rights it claims are being threatened, including protections against warrantless home entry, unlawful detention, retaliation for protest activity, and presumption of threat based solely on lawful firearm possession.

While the resolution carries no legal force, it represents a clear political posture by Anchorage Assembly sponsors against federal immigration enforcement and ICE operations. As a non-binding resolution, it does not change policy, law, or enforcement authority, but functions as an official political statement.

Because it bypasses public testimony and public hearing requirements, residents will have no formal opportunity to comment before Assembly action, even as the resolution takes positions on national immigration policy, federal law enforcement authority, and constitutional interpretation.