LYNNWOOD—A proposed resolution before the Lynnwood City Council aims to clarify the city’s stance on federal immigration enforcement and outline steps to better inform residents of their constitutional rights. After concerns from Police Chief Cole Langdon about potential legal liability for officers, Councilwoman Isabel Mata amended the measure to remove language that would have directed local police to intervene in federal operations.
Lynnwood Times Senior Reporter Kienan Briscoe asked Councilwoman Mata why she felt there was a need for the Protecting Immigrant Safety Resolution in the first place.
“We’re seeing the rights of immigrants being infringed upon by federal immigration, we’re seeing U.S. citizens be detained unlawfully, we’re seeing constitutional rights being ignored,” said Mata. “That’s the big scope answer. The real simple answer is that immigrant residents here in Lynnwood are scared. They’re reaching out to me and saying they’re scared to go to the grocery store. They’re scared to drop their kids off at school. They’re scared to drive anywhere, go to the park, because of the color of their skin. As a city we need to do something about it.”
Mata’s resolution, unlike an ordinance, is non-binding expression of policy or opinion. Because of that, some Lynnwood residents, and critics of Mata’s resolution have called it, simply “performative” and offers a false sense of hope to immigrant communities.
Mata replied to these critics by saying “if all we have is hope right now then that’s something that I can hope to give.”
“There’s really not much we can do on a local level to ensure our residents are having their constitutional rights protected. But that doesn’t mean I’m not going to try and do something,” said Mata.
The resolution does ask Lynnwood Mayor George Hurst and Lynnwood Police Chief Cole Langdon to take actual action. For example, the resolution asks the Mayor to work with staff to ensure the city has a robust system of resources for its immigrant community, and allies, so they know what their rights are, so they know what to do in times in crises. The resolution also asks the Chief of Police to clearly state what policies are, when it comes to ice, intervention, excessive force, and so on.
“While I can’t fix all of the problems of the world with one resolution I’m hoping to just do something to show our community that we care about them and we’re trying to do whatever we can to keep them safe,” said Mata.
Mata’s original resolution called for local law enforcement to intervene when witnessing excessive force or unlawful conduct by federal agents. However, after the City Council’s last Work Session it was brought up that this could set nonfederal officers up for non-criminal liability.
Mata said the Work Session was an important conversation to have, and to have publicly because these are all of the questions she has been asking law enforcement behind the scenes.
The resolution has since been amended to not include anything that would ask local police officers to intervene on any level.
“Because there are very little protections for police officers, my goal is to work hand-in-hand with our public safety team to keep people safe. So I want to understand what those policies are, what limits they have, and what they’re worried about because both things can be true. Police can be worried about their safety when dealing with federal immigration, and people can be worried about their safety when dealing with ICE,” said Mata. “I want to make sure we are taking into account all the things and writing a resolution that keeps everyone safe regardless of who you are.”
Mata was asked what the felt federal delegation could do better when it comes to immigration enforcement. She replied that it starts with training them not to break the law and upholding the U.S. Constitution. Since that isn’t happening, according to Mata, she said it comes down to state law.
“There are numerous bills in the state legislature that can hopefully protect people against secret police, masked law enforcement officers, anything that would infringe upon their rights. I’m going to continue to keep advocating for policies that keep people safe, especially when it comes to federal overreach,” said Mata. “I don’t want to tell police officers what to do, that’s not in my job at all, I just want to work with them, and work with members of the community to hear what their needs are, where they don’t feel safe, and do everything that we can to protect that.”
The bills Mata is referring to are SB-5855 that would prohibit face coverings of law enforcement (passed Senate, now in House), SB-5925 which guardrails for privacy and civil liberties (passed Senate, now in House), HB-2165 that addresses impersonation of police (passed House, now in Senate), and HB-1710, an act relating to compliance with the Washington voting rights act of 2018 (passed House, now in Senate).
When Councilwoman Mata was growing up she was taught that the United States was a melting pot and that was what she felt made the United States great, with people coming from all over the world to have a better future – to get away from poverty, violence, all of these things that were making it hard for their children to grow up in safety.
“My message to our immigrant community is you are welcome here and I am going to do everything I possibly can as your city council person, to make sure that you feel safe here. Whether or not I can actually make laws, or policies, and those sorts of things, if the least I can do is listen to their concern, then that’s what I’m going to do,” said Mata. “I am here for you, I want you to be safe, you are welcome, you are valued, and Lynnwood is for all of us.”
Interview with Councilwoman Isabel Mata on her Immigrant Safety Resolution
🚨'All are welcome,' Councilwoman pushes immigrant safety in Lynnwood
A proposed resolution before the Lynnwood City Council aims to clarify the city’s stance on federal immigration enforcement and outline steps to better inform residents of their constitutional rights. After… pic.twitter.com/I2iyCs3lVX
— Lynnwood Times (@LynnwoodTimes) March 4, 2026
Background on Mata’s resolution
Amid escalating national outrage over fatal shootings and tactics by ICE in sweeping immigration crackdowns — which has deported over 540,000 people since January 2025 — the Lynnwood City Council debated a resolution on Tuesday, February 17, to shield immigrant residents from federal agents and raids. The Lynnwood police warned of legal risks if they are directed by the City Council and Mayor to intervene against federal agents conducting an operation.
Lynnwood City Councilwoman Isabel Mata is spearheading the resolution that would that foster trust, fairness and safety for all residents, particularly marginalized groups, she said.
The resolution draws on state laws like the Keep Washington Working Act, which restricts local resources from aiding civil immigration enforcement unless required by law or court order. It also calls for Mayor George Hurst to develop accessible resources, such as webpages and posters on a person’s rights, and urges reviews of police policies on intervening in alleged use of excessive force or unlawful conduct by federal officers.
Police Chief Cole Langdon expressed support for aligning with current state law but raised concerns about provisions in the resolution that could require his officers to intervene against federal agents, warning that directing LPD to intervene in federal operations would expose them to significant risks, including federal criminal liability.
“I’m concerned about anything where we are asking my officers to go out and interfere with federal investigations or federal efforts because how do I know in that moment that they’re engaged in civil immigration work as opposed to preparing to go serve a warrant on somebody who is wanted for human trafficking and they have a warrant?” Langdon stated. “If I get there and I’m like, hey, give me, let me see your copy of your warrant, they’re under no obligation to give me a copy of their warrant.”
He further cautioned that such interventions could lead to officers facing arrest or legal repercussions under federal law, potentially pitting under-resourced local police against armed federal agents.
“We are exposing our officers to potential federal criminal liability. They could be very much committing a federal crime by intervening in a federal operation,” Chief Langdon said. “So to go up there and to do something, to interfere with an arrest, they see something where they perceive that potential federal criminal liability. So we’re asking our officers to potentially be arrested.”
After that meeting Mata has since revised her resolution, taking out portions that would ask police officers to intervene when witnessing excessive force. The language has been replaced with an ask to the Mayor and the Chief to come up with a policy regarding what they can do to help and make people feel safe.
Both local and federal law enforcement are bound by the same U.S. Constitution (Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard), but they differ significantly in policy, jurisdiction, and accountability. While local departments often have more granular, variable, and restrictive policies, federal agents follow more uniform, agency-specific guidelines. Local laws are geographically restricted, whereas federal agents have nationwide authority.
Mata is encouraging the public to email her or provide public comments to further improve her revision with a vote scheduled for March 9.
Author: Kienan Briscoe
