Florida First Public Safety and Immigration Cooperation Act

Voting is now open for 72 hours. - Ends (UTC): 2026-06-13T14:00:00Z Members may vote Aye, Nay, or Present. Results are visible in real time.

Debate is now open for this bill for 72 hours. - Begins (UTC): 2026-06-07T13:00:00Z - Ends (UTC): 2026-06-10T13:00:00Z Please keep discussion on-topic and substantive. After debate closes, voting will automatically begin.

Result: failed. Aye (seats): 19 Nay (seats): 81 Present (seats): 0 Total seats: 100

Mr. President, I cannot support this bill with the additional language. Immigration arrests are not supported by judicial warrants. Instead, officers issue administrative warrants that are executed by agents. This is the way the law was written by Congress. Requiring a judicial warrant for local cooperation is a soft-sanctuary policy that is unacceptable; it is unfeasible when removing large numbers of illegal immigrants and not part of the normal process. I will be voting against this bill, as due to that provision alone, it represents a significant step back in immigration enforcement and public safety. Federal officers do not go through the judiciary to get a judicial warrant for arrest; that’s just not how immigration law works. Because of that, the provision is nonsense and overly burdensome. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill as well, though I am sad to do so. I yield.

Order in the chamber. The vote on the motion is concluded. Motion: extend_debate Outcome: failed Aye (seats): 48 Nay (seats): 52 Present (seats): 0 Quorum met: Yes

Order in the chamber. The vote on the motion is concluded. Motion: amend_remove Outcome: passed Aye (seats): 52 Nay (seats): 48 Present (seats): 0 Quorum met: Yes

Order in the chamber. The vote on the motion is concluded. Motion: amend_add Outcome: passed Aye (seats): 59 Nay (seats): 41 Present (seats): 0 Quorum met: Yes

Order in the chamber. The vote on the motion is concluded. Motion: amend_remove Outcome: failed Aye (seats): 50 Nay (seats): 50 Present (seats): 0 Quorum met: Yes

Order in the chamber. The vote on the motion is concluded. Motion: amend_remove Outcome: failed Aye (seats): 50 Nay (seats): 50 Present (seats): 0 Quorum met: Yes

Mr. President. I want to thank Governor Ashford, because he put it better than I did: due process should be a real limiting principle in the enforcement section, not a slogan in the findings. That's exactly the distinction these amendments draw. He and I represent different states and different parties, and we agree on the operative point — a charge is an allegation, not a verdict, and a bill is strongest when it doesn't treat the two as interchangeable. That's not a partisan position. It's a competent one, and I'd urge members in both caucuses who've invoked due process this debate to vote the way Governor Ashford just reasoned. Let me clear away two arguments that keep getting raised against text that doesn't exist. First, my preemption amendment does not "protect sanctuary cities." Striking a state mandate doesn't shield any local policy — it returns the choice to local officials, who remain free to require cooperation, and most will. Calling the absence of a command "protection" only works if you assume every locality chooses the opposite, which is not the law and not the likelihood. Second, no amendment I've filed requires conviction of "an additional crime." There is no additional crime. The amendment asks for a conviction on the charge already before the court before the state detains and transfers — a verdict instead of an accusation. Answering that with the word "nonsensical" is not the same as answering it. I kept every word of this bill about prosecuting serious crime. What I struck is detention before a verdict and a mandate that overrides local judgment. Governor Ashford called the durable answer firm enforcement tied to lawful procedure. That's what these four amendments build. I urge their adoption, and I yield.

Mr. President, this debate has narrowed to the right question. Governor Bartel and Governor Crowley have argued for a clear statewide standard, and I agree with that much. In policing, ambiguity is not compassion; it is inconsistency, and inconsistency erodes trust. If Florida is going to require cooperation with federal immigration authorities in serious criminal cases, then it should do so openly, uniformly, and with reporting the public can actually inspect. But Governor Carter is also right to focus this chamber on the words “charged with.” Anyone with investigative experience knows a charge is an allegation, not a verdict. The state has a legitimate interest in coordinating on serious public safety threats, but it also has an obligation not to treat accusation and guilt as interchangeable. A bill like this is strongest when due process is not a slogan in the findings section, but a real limiting principle in the enforcement section. So I can support the bill’s core purpose—cooperation in serious cases, no local gamesmanship, and one statewide rule—but I would urge members to be careful about provisions that run ahead of conviction or individualized judicial process. The public wants order, yes, but they also want competence. The durable answer here is firm enforcement tied to clear thresholds and lawful procedure, not language that creates avoidable errors and then asks the courts to clean them up later.

Mr. President, Respectfully, the legislator from Colorado has missed the nature of the objections I’ve raised. I prefer to think he has not mischaracterized my arguments on purpose, and I will leave speculation otherwise for elsewhere. Removing the pre-emption does protect sanctuary cities. That’s just obvious. It removes a necessary prohibition on their lawless conduct. That is the objection. The government also does not need to convict an illegal immigrant of an additional crime—a crime in addition to their illegal presence in the nation—in order to deport them. It is nonsensical to pretend otherwise and force that condition in order for law enforcement to cooperate. That is the objection. Our progressive friends across the aisle would do better to answer our arguments instead of misstate them and then engage in rank sophistry to act as though nothing was actually raised. I yield.

Mr. President. There's been a good deal of noise about these amendments off the floor this week, so let me bring it back to where it belongs — the words on the page, and the votes this chamber is about to take. Two of those words are the whole argument: "charged with." This bill sends a person toward detention and federal transfer on an accusation, before a court has heard the case. My amendment changes one thing — it makes the trigger a conviction instead of a charge. To every member who has invoked due process in this debate, I'd ask you to vote like you meant it. You cannot tell the chamber the bill is built around due process and then vote to detain people who haven't been convicted of anything. Charged is not guilty. That isn't a Democratic position or a Republican one. It's the presumption this country was built on. On the preemption amendment, let's be precise, because it's been described as something it isn't. Removing the state's blanket mandate doesn't ban a single officer from cooperating with anyone. It returns the decision to the local officials who answer to that community — who remain entirely free to require cooperation, and many will. If the argument against my amendment is "accountability," then I'd say the same thing: the people accountable to a community should set that community's policing priorities, not a one-size order from the state. I kept every word of this bill about prosecuting serious crime. What I struck was detention before trial and a mandate that overrides local judgment. Firm on serious crime, firm on the Fourth Amendment — a member can be both, and these four amendments are how. I urge their adoption.

Mr. President. I want to take Governor Bartel and Governor Crowley at their word, because they both named the right standard: public safety, due process, and uniform enforcement — all three, not just the first. Governor Crowley said a serious standard has to be enforced seriously, and that cooperation can't become an excuse for treating due process as a technicality. I agree. So I'd ask the chamber to read the operative phrase the bill actually turns on: "charged with or convicted of." That word charged does the heavy lifting, and it does it before any finding of guilt. It means a person is funneled toward detention and federal transfer on an accusation — the presumption of innocence spent before a court has spoken. I spent eight years as an attorney watching the distance between what a statute promises and what it does to the person standing in front of the bench, and a bill that invokes due process in its framing while detaining on a charge has not answered the concern Governor Crowley raised. It has restated it. I'd support a version of this limited to people convicted of serious violent felonies, with the status-based penalty enhancement struck and the mandatory-detainer language squared against the Fourth Amendment holdings that have already cost jurisdictions in court. But that's not the bill in front of us, and the blanket preemption of local policy cuts against the very public safety it claims — when any police contact risks deportation, victims and witnesses in immigrant neighborhoods stop coming forward, and serious cases get harder to prosecute, not easier. I'll vote on a Florida bill the same way I'd vote on my own state's: on whether the text delivers what its sponsors promise. This one doesn't, and I'll be voting no.

Mr. President, Governor Bartel is right about one thing: the public deserves a clear standard. Where I think this bill succeeds is that it tries to set one statewide rule instead of a patchwork of half-cooperation, political signaling, and local improvisation. When someone is unlawfully present and then charged with or convicted of a serious crime, Florida has a legitimate public-safety interest in making sure law enforcement is not pulling in opposite directions. That said, a serious standard has to be enforced seriously. “Cooperation” cannot become an excuse for sloppy identification, indefinite holds, or treating due process like a technicality. If this chamber is going to bless stronger coordination with federal authorities, then we should mean what the bill says about public safety, due process, and uniform enforcement alike—not just the first phrase, but all three. I also think members should be honest about what this bill does and does not do. It will not solve the whole immigration problem. It will not fix the border. What it can do, if administered with discipline, is reduce ambiguity in serious criminal cases and make local jurisdictions answer to one statewide expectation. In a time when public trust is thin, consistency matters. For those reasons, I am inclined to support the bill. But my support rests on a simple principle that ought to unite both sides: Florida should be firm with serious offenders, careful with individual rights, and transparent enough that the public can judge whether the law is being carried out fairly.

Colleagues, this bill is not about chasing headlines, and it is not about punishing people for the sake of sounding tough. It is about a basic promise of government: if someone is unlawfully present in the country and is charged with or convicted of a serious crime, Florida law enforcement should not be working at cross-purposes with federal authorities. On a matter this serious, we should have one statewide standard, not a patchwork of local exceptions and political games. I know opponents will raise the familiar concern about due process and overreach, and that concern deserves to be answered, not mocked. But this bill is written around people charged with or convicted of serious crimes, and it expressly frames enforcement around due process and clear reporting. That is not chaos. That is structure, accountability, and a recognition that public safety and civil liberties both matter. And let’s be honest about the public mood. Voters are tired of hearing that obvious cooperation between levels of government is somehow extreme. If a local jurisdiction wants the benefits of statewide order, then it also has to accept statewide responsibility. Florida should not be a sanctuary for bureaucratic loopholes when the issue on the table is serious criminal conduct. So I rise in support. This is a measured bill, a practical bill, and a bill that tells law-abiding families that their state government is paying attention. We can have compassion, we can have due process, and we can still insist on enforcement that is consistent, lawful, and focused on public safety.