Oregon Sheriffs Split Over 31-Year-Old Immigrant Sanctuary Law

HILLSBORO, OR — Oregon's long-standing sanctuary policies may change depending on which way state voters swing this November. To help their communities decide, local sheriffs offices have entered the discussion and offered their support for either repealing or maintaining the state's 31-year-old statute restricting local police agencies from looking for or arresting people whose only crime is breaking federal immigration law.

In an effort to support their own respective communities, more than a dozen county sheriffs from Oregon's more rural areas submit their endorsements to a coordinated statement released Monday advocating for a vote to repeal the state's sanctuary statutes. Conversely, Washington County Sheriff Pat Garrett and the Washington County District Attorney's Office on Aug. 8 released a joint statement advocating to keep the state's sanctuary laws in place.

Ballot Measure 105, to repeal Oregon's sanctuary statute, is up for a vote on the Nov. 6 midterm election ballot.

Sanctuary policies have been a hot-button topic across the country since the campaign and election of President Donald Trump forced those policies into the nation's collective consciousness — though many individual cities and states, including Oregon, enacted sanctuary policies decades ago. Over the past two years, however, an increasing number of city and state leaders have spoken against both working with federal immigration agents and choosing to abstain from enforcing federal immigration laws.

On Monday, Clatsop County Sheriff Tom Bergin entered the fray along with 15 other county sheriffs by submitting a letter that explains why they think Oregon voters should choose to overturn the state's sanctuary statute. Citing his "third-of-a-century in law enforcement" and Mollie Tibbetts' murder at the hands of a supposed undocumented immigrant, Bergin lays out his argument for why Oregon's sanctuary statute needs to change.

"The statute undermines respect for law in significant ways," Bergin wrote. "It tells illegal immigrants that Oregon considers immigration-law violations so inconsequential as to be unworthy of police and sheriffs' attention. In doing so, it legitimizes those violations and encourages more. As well, the statute invites the contempt of U.S. citizens and legal residents, whom Oregon expects to abide by all laws."

By not enforcing federal immigration law in Oregon, Bergin said, local police are unable to proactively pursue "crimes illegal immigrants routinely commit in their effort to conceal their illegal presence — crimes like identity theft, that harm everyday Oregonians at the local level."

SEE ALSO: Mollie Tibbetts Killing: Immigrants And The Making Of Boogeymen

According to Clatsop County District Attorney Joshua Marquis, however, Bergin's claim is "anecdotal at best."

"No one tracks the number of crimes committed by an undocumented person in Clatsop County, Oregon, or the United States," Marquis told Patch on Tuesday. "There is no hard data showing undocumented immigrants commit more identity theft crimes than anyone else because that's not how we track criminal behavior."

Questions on immigration while we're investigating any crime, he said, are irrelevant because enforcing federal immigration law is not a priority. People who commit new crimes are a priority, Marquis said.

"In the United States we do not differentiate a person's rights based on whether they're citizens or non-citizens," Marquis explained. "Immigration status should not have any bearing in how we treat them in the criminal justice system. The protection of a person's rights does not depend on their immigration status. There are not two sets of rules (for citizens and non-citizens)."

Federal immigration crimes and how they're handled in the U.S. — that's a very complex issue, he said, adding, "it's made worse by a president who has politicized and vilified immigration and immigrants."

(Sign up for our free daily newsletters and Breaking News Alerts for the Hillsboro Patch)

Aside from identity theft, Bergin also appears to channel the president in his statement by citing Mollie Tibbetts' recent murder in Iowa as an example of "the violence and heartbreak illegal-immigrant criminals can visit on Americans and their families."

"Tibbetts' killer 'was here because our government neglected its responsibility to keep him out,'" Bergin wrote, quoting Agnes Gibboney, the mother of another U.S. citizen killed by a supposed undocumented immigrant.

"Oregon's statute not only compounds that neglect," he said, "but issues a de facto invitation to illegal immigrants to settle in our state."

The U.S. Census Bureau's data from 2016 shows Latinos make up nearly 12 percent of Oregon's total population, though there's no way of knowing what — if any — percentage of those individuals are in the country "illegally."

Using 2015 statistics from Texas, the Cato Institute in a February 2018 study found undocumented immigrants were 25 percent less likely to be convicted of homicide than U.S.-born American citizens, and documented immigrants were found to be 87 percent less likely.

However, that data hasn't stopped folks like Bergin and the president from inciting fear and concern among U.S. residents that undocumented immigrants pose some kind of imminent threat to the health and wellbeing of otherwise legal citizens.

In Sheriff Pat Garrett's Aug. 8 letter advocating for a "no" vote on Ballot Measure 105, he explains how the law is actually intended to function and offers a few possibilities for what could happen if it were repealed.

"Oregon’s legislature passed ORS 181A.820 in 1987 to provide structure regarding how and when local police can be involved in enforcing federal immigration law," Garrett explained. "This longstanding law states local police cannot use resources to detect or apprehend persons whose only law violation is federal immigration law. Importantly, this law does not prohibit local police from using resources to detect, apprehend, or even cooperate with immigration officials for people who have violated federal immigration law and committed a crime.

"In other words, the current law … provides no sanctuary to an undocumented immigrant who commits a crime in Oregon," he continued. "In fact, it specifically authorizes police to share information with federal immigration authorities."

Repealing the statute, Garrett said, "would likely create a chilling effect in our community," adding, "These are not hypothetical concerns; we have already seen these issues occur."

Undocumented immigrants might be less likely to report crimes, access justice services, or even appear in court as witnesses to crimes, Garrett said. In fact, undocumented immigrant communities may even become greater targets for criminals because they'd know the undocumented immigrant victims would not likely report the crimes against them at all.

Additionally, Garrett mentioned another longstanding argument against repealing the sanctuary statute:

A repeal of the current uniform law that allows all law enforcement throughout Oregon to communicate with immigration authorities regarding criminal defendants would likely result in a patchwork of inconsistent ordinances and rules from various cities and counties.

Bergin calls Garrett's examples "nonsense."

"Can any sanctuary supporter cite a single instance of an illegal immigrant being deported for reporting a crime?" Bergin asked. "To the very best of my knowledge the answer is no and always has been."

According to a Washington Post article from February 2018, Wilson Rodriguez Macarreno, a native of Honduras and an undocumented immigrant living in Tukwila, Washington, called police after he spotted someone peering into his home through a window. When police arrived, they determined someone had trespassed but didn't have enough cause to arrest the intruder.

However, after speaking with Macarreno, Tukwila officers learned he was undocumented and had a warrant from Texas that was issued when he missed a court hearing in 2004 regarding his immigration status. The officers, apparently thinking Macarreno had a criminal warrant, chose to arrest and take him to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility.

Bodycam video of Macarreno's arrest was later uploaded to YouTube:

In the video, Macarreno, crying, tells officers, "I want to be honest with you, I’m illegal … (but) I pay everything. I am working hard every day."

Macarreno's case, lawyers for the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) argue, dramatically illustrates what could happen when an undocumented immigrant calls the police.

"This type of police involvement in immigration matters sends a message that the police are not there to serve and protect the entire community,” wrote NWIRP Legal Director Matt Adams. “The saddest thing is that a hardworking member of the community is now indefinitely separated from his family, including his three small children, not because of a crime, but because he sought help from the police."

Garrett says our communities are safer when everyone can freely call police without fear of repercussions due to an immigration status, and Marquis agrees. Bergin and these 15 other Oregon county sheriffs, however, appear to disagree:

• Gilliam County Sheriff Gary Bettencourt
• Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward
• Morrow County Sheriff Ken Matlack
• Sherman County Sheriff Brad Lohrey
• Umatilla County Sheriff Terry Rowan
• Malheur County Sheriff Brian Wolfe
• Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin
• Curry County Sheriff John Ward
• Coos County Sheriff Craig Zanni
• Klamath County Sheriff Chris Kaber
• Union County Sheriff Boyd Rasmussen
• Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer
• Wheeler County Sheriff Chris Humphrey
• Lake County Sheriff Mike Taylor
• Deschutes County Sheriff Shane Nelson

"Immigration law and policy draw opposing views from across our great state," Garrett told Patch in an email Monday. "While Oregon Sheriffs see eye-to-eye on many issues, the communities and people that we each represent are incredibly varied, and each Sheriff must answer to his own community and conscience. Open, respectful and passionate discourse about political issues isn’t a problem to be solved, it should be cherished as vital to informing the public of differing views."

Click here to read Bergin's complete statement.

Click here for Garrett's statement.

Image via Shutterstock