Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Sanctuary Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Polk County residents urge commissioners to uphold Oregon sanctuary law after county joined Marion County lawsuit
Summary
Several Polk County residents used public comment at the Oct. 7 Board of Commissioners meeting to urge the board to follow Oregon’s 1987 sanctuary law and to question the county’s recent decision to sign onto Marion County’s lawsuit seeking clarification on federal administrative subpoenas issued by ICE.
Several Polk County residents told the Board of Commissioners on Oct. 7 they are worried the county’s recent support for a Marion County lawsuit could weaken Oregon’s sanctuary law and endanger community trust.
Liana Dieters, an organizer for Indivisible Polk County, said the county’s support for the Marion County lawsuit — which seeks clarification on whether federal administrative subpoenas issued by ICE can substitute for the judicial subpoenas she said Oregon’s sanctuary law requires — risks undermining protections for immigrants. “We strongly oppose any efforts to weaken or undermine Oregon's sanctuary law,” Dieters said as she read a letter to the commissioners and sheriff.
The concern has local roots: speakers invoked the 1987 statute that limits local participation in federal immigration enforcement and referenced public statements by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield defending the law. Elise Strauss, a West Salem resident, told commissioners, “This sanctuary law stipulates you don't give information without a judicial warrant, period,” and said she did not understand why the board had not sought clarification from the attorney general before signing on to the lawsuit.
Other residents asked for assurances that county officials will follow the rule of law and protect all residents regardless of immigration status. Lisa Milliman asked the board for “assurances that you all are committed to following the rule of law and upholding the U.S. Constitution even if federal agents wish otherwise.” Carol Christ asked how members of the public should contact commissioners for one-on-one meetings; the presiding commissioner replied that individual meetings and emails are allowed and that Nicole in the commissioners’ office arranges appointments.
Speakers repeatedly asked the board to comply with Oregon law “until the case is decided” and said they were concerned about potential releases of information to federal agencies without judicial process. Commenters cited a recent Ninth Circuit ruling and Attorney General Rayfield’s public defense of the statute as reasons they believe the law already provides clarity about when information may be released.
During the meeting the board approved the agenda and minutes unanimously; commenters said the county had “recently voted to sign onto a letter of support for clarification and guidance on responding to requests from the federal government,” but no new board action on the Marion County lawsuit occurred during the Oct. 7 public-comment period.
Residents asked the board to publicly explain its reasons for signing the earlier letter and to confirm the county will follow state law while the Marion County case proceeds.
The board moved on to its regular agenda after public comment and did not take further public action on the lawsuit at this meeting.
