Oregon City residents press commission over ICE actions; police clarify local role

Oregon City residents and local advocates used the city commission’s Nov. 19 public-comment period to press officials for a clearer response to recent federal immigration enforcement actions, while Police Chief Davis told the commission the city’s department would not take on civil immigration enforcement.

At the meeting, Chief Davis acknowledged written submissions from community members and said the department “acknowledge[s] those concerns,” clarifying that “immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the federal government” and that the department follows state rules (citing ORS 181A.*). “We do not engage in civil immigration enforcement, nor do we interfere with federal officers carrying out their lawful duties,” he said, adding the department will focus on “community safety, criminal investigations, and building trust with all of our residents.”

Several residents described visible community distress and asked for concrete steps. Tara Wanstall, a Main Street café owner, urged clearer municipal processes for event permitting and outreach but also expressed concern about community safety and business impacts. Amy Mitchell, speaking for Oregon City Indivisible, said "an unsupervised, poorly trained gang of masked, armed men are allowed to terrorize and humiliate us," and asked why local officers were not more visibly documenting alleged misconduct by ICE contractors. Mike Stetzel recounted reports of federal agents making arrests without warrants or clear charges and asked whether those taken were informed of their rights.

Resident Jen Mess described volunteer-organized escorts for immigrant children and families, saying volunteers coordinate sign-ups to accompany parents to schools and appointments because community members fear being taken. Mess asked the commission to "reaffirm these commitments" to Oregon's sanctuary laws and due process protections.

Chief Davis responded to concerns by restating limits on local authority and describing the department’s usual approach: training officers on exclusion and trespass policies, coordinating with county and state partners, and using exclusion tools sparingly. When asked about who may enforce a proposed downtown civil exclusion zone, Davis said the department would authorize outside officers during major incidents under specific mutual-aid planning and briefing, and emphasized there would be written forms, notice and an appeal process managed through the city manager.

The public discussion did not produce a new city policy at the meeting, but commissioners directed staff to include related topics—public safety, police training and community notifications—on future agendas. The commission’s subsequent business included a separate first reading of an ordinance that would create a downtown civil exclusion zone; that ordinance (25-10-16) was modified during debate to specify that the chief may authorize outside officers "in emergency situations" (first reading adopted; second reading scheduled for Dec. 3).