Curry County’s Board of Commissioners meeting Wednesday night caused an uproar over a proposed resolution supporting cooperation with federal immigration officials — a move that would directly contradict Oregon’s decades-old sanctuary law that prohibits using local resources for immigration enforcement.
The southwest Oregon county’s three-member governing body considered a non-binding proclamation that states the commissioners’ disagreement with state law. The draft resolution also argues it’s in the best interests of the community to honor requests known as detainers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold people in jail who are also wanted for immigration violations.
“We acknowledge the complexities faced by our Sheriff’s department due to the conflict between state sanctuary policies and federal immigration laws,” the document states.
The proposal in Curry County comes as tensions around Oregon’s immigration laws are ramping up, both locally and nationally. President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week that would target federal funds to cities and states “that obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration laws.”
During the discussion of the proclamation, Commissioner Patrick Hollinger cited threats to federal funding as one of the reasons to oppose the state’s sanctuary protections.
“We need to prepare ourselves for a potential loss in federal funding from our sanctuary status,” he said.
Hollinger said the resolution was modeled off a nearly identical one from Coos County, which was rejected by commissioners in February.
“I wanted to bring this up, again, as an item of discussion, no intention on bringing the resolution to vote,” Hollinger said. “I know these are items we do face and I do know come through our county and just wanted to bring it to you guys’ discussion.”
In the standing room only crowd in Gold Beach, the coastal city where the Rogue River meets the Pacific, a majority of speakers voiced their opposition to the resolution.
“Tonight you are asking us if we agree to an overreach of our elected sheriff’s authority. We elected him to be the sheriff — not an ICE agent,” Janet Jeffrey of Gold Beach said during public comment. “I do not agree with this.”
Some supported the resolution, citing concerns about crime rates. Others offered suggestions they thought might boost public support.
Brookings City Councilor Phoebe Pereda suggested the county’s commissioners might ease the concerns of those who believe the resolution is solely aimed at targeting people in the country without legal status.
“Perhaps considering an adjustment to the resolution that specifies cooperation with ICE primarily on felony offenses, traffickers and drugs, sex crimes and human trafficking would be beneficial,” she said. “While I empathize with the hesitation to contact immigration authorities for minor offenses it is equally important that we provide avenues to help support our community’s safety.”
After discussion, commissioners decided to consider revising the resolution’s language.
“There is a pathway to success with this on a local level,” Commissioner Lynn Coker told the crowd, noting that the resolution was meant to promote discussion. “Not doing anything is to aid and abet criminality.”
A report last October by the nonpartisan American Immigration Council noted that in 19 separate research studies examining immigration and crime, no connection was found between the two. According to the report, as immigration has risen, crime rates overall have fallen.
A separate study that used data from Texas, that appears to have been removed from the National Institute of Justice’ website, found that “undocumented immigrants are arrested at less than half the rate of native-born U.S. citizens for violent and drug crimes.” The website notes the agency is reviewing materials “in accordance with recent Executive Orders.”
Oregon’s sanctuary law
Oregon’s sanctuary law dates back to 1987. It established that immigration enforcement is the job of the federal government, rather than the state, and prohibited state resources from supporting those efforts — with an exception made if immigration officers have a warrant signed by a judge.
Since then, the law has survived a ballot measure that would’ve repealed it. State lawmakers have also gone on to strengthen it, blocking local jails from housing immigration detainees, and expanding protections and benefits Oregon extends to immigrants, such as health care and driver’s licenses.
The Trump administration has escalated its nationwide immigration crackdown. Despite the rhetoric and mounting pressure, some of the state’s top Democrats are standing by Oregon’s sanctuary law.
Gov. Tina Kotek “will not back down from a fight and believes these threats undermine our values and our right to govern ourselves,” a spokesperson said in a statement to OPB last week, adding the state “will not be bullied to deport people or perform immigration enforcement.”
House Republican Leader Christine Drazan called this stance “short-sighted,” noting that it places federal funds at risk.
“The administration right now is enforcing immigration laws specifically around taking violent criminals and returning them to their country of origin,” Drazan said. “Oregon should not be linking arms with international criminals and sacrificing the needs of our citizens across our state when they do so. So the right thing to do from my perspective is to reconsider that position.”
On Tuesday, the Drug Enforcement Administration announced that authorities had indicted 16 people in what prosecutors described as a historic bust involving vast amounts of cash, drugs and guns.
Among those arrested was Heriberto Salazar Amaya, 36, who authorities described as the leader of a multi-state drug trafficking ring. They also noted he entered the country illegally. He was arrested April 28 in Salem, where Attorney General Pam Bondi said he was living.
“I think the intentions of being a sanctuary state can, at times, be compelling,” Sen. Daniel Bonham, R-The Dalles, said. “We can say there are refugees, there are people from around the world that are looking for a safe space to flee from persecution. But I think simultaneously we open up opportunities like this for bad citizens, for bad actors to come and find a safe refuge as well.”
Drazan, a Canby Republican, said changing the state’s sanctuary laws would be a step toward addressing Oregon’s crime and drug problems. But Democrats hold the power in both chambers of the Legislature, and the party does not seem inclined to change the state’s policies.
“When it comes to this particular issue set, it’s Oregonians that will need to stand up and speak out and say that they want to be assured that members of these international cartels are not using Oregon as a safe haven,” Drazan said.
Juliet Stumpf, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School, questioned the conclusion that Oregon’s sanctuary laws would hinder the U.S. Department of Justice. “The sanctuary law I don’t think would have really had any impact on this particular investigation.”
“This drug bust is a huge moment for the Justice Department,” Stumpf said. “It’s the sort of drug bust that’s going to take months or years of investigation, of coordination of Justice Department officials with other agencies, a multi-state investigation. I just don’t think the sanctuary law in Oregon really would have gotten in the way of something that big.”
Some Democrats in Oregon’s state Senate said Wednesday that the DEA’s multistate drug bust highlights the easy access to firearms. Among them was Sen. Anthony Broadman, D-Bend, who praised law enforcement and emphasized that voters have chosen to make Oregon a sanctuary state.
“We are built on the strength of immigrant ancestors,” Broadman said. “And as a law-and-order civil liberties Democrat, we 100% need to go after criminals.”
