Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ice Activity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Astoria council responds to resident concerns about ICE activity; asks staff to draft resolution and policy options
Summary
Councilors pressed staff for quick action after recent ICE and Border Patrol operations in the region, requested legal review of city options (including land‑use limits on detention centers and limits on local assistance), and heard that police and sheriff officials are meeting to refine protocols and dispatch verification procedures.
Several Astoria councilors on Monday pressed for rapid staff work and legal review after constituent reports of ICE and Border Patrol activity along the North Coast.
Councilor Mazzarella (who circulated a preliminary draft) and others said residents are frightened and asked for an explicit local response beyond a statement. Councilors discussed options that staff and the city attorney could research, including whether land‑use code could preclude detention facilities, whether the city’s policies constrain police from assisting federal immigration enforcement, what data and reporting channels city law enforcement could use, and how to preserve city resources for local priorities.
Mayor Fitzpatrick said he had asked the governor’s office to verify reports about possible detention‑facility siting on the coast; he said he had been told preliminary reporting suggested Newport had been identified as a potential site and that state staff hoped to join follow‑up conversations.
Chief Kelly described an evolving law‑enforcement protocol: ORS limits some sharing with federal immigration authorities, and county chiefs and sheriffs are meeting to finalize guidance that emphasizes dispatch confirmation of agency identity, witness documentation (body/dash cam and reporting) and a step‑back policy if an operation transitions to immigration enforcement. He said initial guidance to ‘‘go the other way’’ when ICE appeared on joint operations has been reconsidered and chiefs are refining approaches to keep residents safe while complying with legal limits.
Councilors asked staff to coordinate with the city attorney, community‑development staff and county partners and to return draft resolution language and legal options at the next practicable meeting. Council extended discussion time to allow a fuller debate and asked staff to prioritize the work.
Public commenters noted language‑access and access issues: community representatives urged the council to ensure Spanish speakers and other vulnerable residents can participate and to find ways to collect and weigh their views if they cannot attend public meetings in person.
