SB 6264
In CommitteeSenate
Immigration status
Amending the statewide policy supporting Washington state's economy and immigrants' role in the workplace.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill strengthens Washington’s existing policy limiting state and local involvement in federal immigration enforcement. It prohibits agencies from asking about immigration status when providing services, bars detention solely for immigration reasons, and prevents agreements that delegate immigration enforcement authority to local officers. It also requires the attorney general to issue model policies and training by July 1, 2026, to ensure consistent implementation across agencies.
- Prohibits state and local law enforcement from using resources to enforce federal immigration laws or policies that target people based on immigration, citizenship, race, religion, or national origin.
- Bars agencies from asking about immigration or citizenship status when providing services, and requires services to be offered to all residents regardless of status.
- Restricts law enforcement from collecting or sharing immigration information unless tied to criminal investigations or required by law or court order.
- Prohibits detention solely for immigration status determination or based on civil immigration warrants/holds, unless specific legal exceptions apply.
- Bars agencies from entering into agreements (e.g., 287(g) agreements) that give local officers federal immigration enforcement powers or from signing new immigration detention contracts.
- Requires the attorney general to publish model policies and training by July 1, 2026, and mandates that all state and local law enforcement agencies either adopt those policies or explain why they are not doing so.
Who is affected
- State and local law enforcement agencies — State and local law enforcement agencies (e.g., police departments, state patrol) must revise policies to avoid collecting or sharing immigration status information unless tied to criminal investigations or required by law, and are prohibited from entering into agreements that delegate immigration enforcement authority to local officers.
- State service agencies and their staff — Employees in agencies like the Department of Licensing, Health Care Authority, and Department of Social and Health Services must provide services to all residents regardless of immigration status and may not ask about immigration or citizenship status when delivering benefits or services.
- Individuals in custody or under community supervision — People in custody (in jail, prison, or under community custody/probation) are protected from being held, denied services, or interviewed about immigration status without consent and proper safeguards.
- Washington residents seeking public services — Individuals seeking public services (e.g., driver’s licenses, healthcare, education, employment benefits) are guaranteed access regardless of immigration or citizenship status, and agency staff may not ask for proof of status.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Guarantees access to public health services, including Medicaid and emergency care, regardless of immigration status — directly benefits undocumented residents who otherwise avoid care due to fear of status inquiries or deportation, improving community health outcomes and reducing uncompensated care costs for hospitals.
HealthcarePeopleRef: RCW 43.17.425(2)(d); RCW 10.93.160(10)Prohibits asking about immigration status when providing services, reducing fear and increasing trust in law enforcement and public agencies — encourages reporting of crimes, cooperation with investigations, and use of essential services by undocumented residents, improving public safety for all residents.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: RCW 43.17.425(2)(c); RCW 10.93.160(3)(a)Bars detention solely for civil immigration reasons, protecting individuals from prolonged incarceration without due process — aligns with constitutional protections against arbitrary detention and reduces risk of rights violations in local jails.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: RCW 10.93.160(7), (8)(a)Limits collection and sharing of immigration information unless tied to criminal investigations or required by law — protects privacy and prevents mission creep where immigration data is used beyond its intended lawful purpose, reducing risk of profiling and misuse.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: RCW 43.17.425(2)(a), (b); RCW 10.93.160(4), (5)Requires attorney general to issue model policies and training by July 1, 2026, promoting consistency and clarity across agencies — helps standardize implementation, reduces confusion among frontline staff, and supports equitable service delivery statewide.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: RCW 43.10.315
Potential Concerns (5)
Prevents local law enforcement from holding individuals solely based on civil immigration warrants or detainers, which may reduce cooperation with federal immigration authorities and limit the ability to assist in deporting individuals who have committed crimes but are in civil immigration hold — potentially undermining federal enforcement priorities and creating concerns about public safety if individuals released on immigration holds reoffend.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: RCW 10.93.160(7), (8)(a)Prohibits local governments and law enforcement from entering into 287(g) agreements or immigration detention contracts, which removes a potential revenue stream for counties that house federal immigration detainees and may reduce interagency cooperation with ICE, limiting local options for managing detention capacity and associated funding.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: RCW 10.93.160(11), (12)(a)Bars agencies from asking about immigration status when providing services, which may complicate crime reporting and investigation if victims or witnesses fear interacting with police due to immigration concerns — though the bill aims to reduce that fear, some law enforcement agencies argue it may hinder outreach to undocumented communities who remain unaware of protections.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: RCW 43.17.425(2)(c), (d); RCW 10.93.160(3)(a)Mandates attorney general–developed model policies and agency compliance reporting by July 1, 2026, imposing administrative burden on local agencies to review, adopt, or justify deviations from model policies — especially burdensome for small or under-resourced jurisdictions without legal or policy staff.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: RCW 43.10.315Restricts access to incarcerated individuals for federal immigration interviews unless written consent is obtained, and excludes Department of Corrections from key provisions — may create inconsistent application across agencies and increase legal uncertainty about what constitutes “consent” in custodial settings, potentially leading to litigation or inconsistent enforcement.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: RCW 10.93.160(14), (15)
Who Is Most Affected
Undocumented residents gain greater access to public services (healthcare, education, licensing) without fear of status inquiries or detention; reduced risk of being held in local jails based on civil immigration holds.
Law enforcement agencies avoid legal liability for unconstitutional detention or privacy violations, but lose potential federal funding and interagency cooperation tools (e.g., 287(g) agreements); may face increased administrative burden to revise policies.
Service-providing agencies (e.g., DSHS, DOL, DHA) can serve all residents without fear of federal reprisal for non-inquiry, but must retrain staff and revise intake protocols — net benefit is improved service equity and reduced fear-driven nonparticipation.
Local governments that previously earned per-diem payments for housing federal immigration detainees lose that revenue stream; may see reduced cooperation with ICE on joint operations but gain community trust.