A resolution to urge the United States Congress to pass legislation to require immigration officers to display visible identification, prohibit immigration officers from covering their faces, and limit immigration enforcement actions in sensitive locations.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Rosemary Bayer and 3 co-sponsors

Michigan urges Congress to require visible ID badges for immigration officers, ban face coverings, and prohibit enforcement in sensitive locations like schools and hospitals.

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS, JUDICIARY, AND PUBLIC SAFETY

Legislative bill overview

SR 86 is a Michigan state resolution urging the U.S. Congress to enact three federal policies: requiring immigration officers to display visible identification badges, prohibiting officers from covering their faces during enforcement actions, and establishing restrictions on immigration enforcement in designated sensitive locations (such as schools, hospitals, and courthouses). As a resolution, this bill expresses the state legislature's position but does not create binding law—it relies on Congress to take action.

Why is this important

Immigration enforcement practices significantly affect communities, and transparency measures can enhance accountability and public trust in federal agencies. The bill addresses concerns about officer identification and facial concealment that have been raised in immigrant advocacy circles, while the sensitive location restrictions aim to protect access to essential services and institutions. However, these measures would directly constrain federal immigration enforcement operations, creating tension between state preference and federal immigration authority.

Potential points of contention

Federal vs. state authority: Immigration enforcement is primarily federal jurisdiction; a state resolution urging Congress to limit ICE operations may face pushback as overreach into federal domain

Officer safety vs. transparency: Law enforcement agencies argue that facial concealment and operational flexibility are sometimes necessary for officer safety; advocacy groups counter that transparency is essential for preventing abuse

Enforcement effectiveness: Immigration advocates support sensitive location restrictions to protect vulnerable populations; enforcement proponents argue such restrictions create enforcement gaps and undermine immigration law compliance

Identification standards: While identifying badges seem straightforward, disputes could arise over what constitutes "visible" identification and exceptions for undercover operations