10 — THE BAKER COUNTY PRESS
FRIDAY, JULY 17, 2015
Local
Is Baker County a sanctuary?
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1
At the time of the murder
Sanchez had fi ve prior de-
portations and was a sev-
en-time convicted felon.
He had been released from
a federal prison after serv-
ing a four-year sentence
for previous immigration
violations. Not long after
being released from federal
prison Sanchez was again
arrested in San Francisco
and jailed on charges of
illegal drug distribution.
Several days after being
arrested on the charges
against Sanchez were dis-
missed and he was released
from jail even though
Department of Homeland
Security - U.S. Immigra-
tion and Customs Enforce-
ment (ICE) had requested
local law enforcement in
San Francisco detain San-
chez for federal deporta-
tion proceedings.
City offi cials in San
Francisco refused to honor
the ICE detainer request
and released Sanchez.
Sanchez reportedly had
gone to San Francisco to
look for work knowing
that the city had enacted
a policy declaring San
Francisco a sanctuary city
for illegal immigrants.
The refusal by San
Francisco law enforcement
to honor the ICE detainer
request on Sanchez and
the subsequent murder sets
the stage for a closer look
at immigration policy and
how deportation of illegal
aliens are handled in 21st
Century America. Steinle’s
murder also illustrates the
danger to citizens from
a failure in the system to
deal with the criminal il-
legal alien.
ICE report claims local
law enforcement fails to
honor detainers.
The label of “sanctuary”
community has hit close to
home here in northeastern
Oregon after the organiza-
tion Center for Immigra-
tion Studies (CIS), a large
non-profi t, non-partisan
think-tank concentrating
on immigration related is-
sues, recently released a re-
port and map labelling 276
cities, counties, and states
across the United States,
including Baker County, as
“sanctuary” communities.
“More than 200 cit-
ies, counties, and states
across the United States
are considered sanctuaries
that protect criminal aliens
from deportation by refus-
ing to comply with U.S.
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) detain-
ers or otherwise impede
open communication and
information exchanges
between their employees
or offi cers and federal im-
migration agents,” wrote
the CIS.
The CIS bases their
report and map on an ICE
report, titled “Declined
Detainer Outcome Report,”
prepared by ICE on Oc-
tober 8, 2014. The Center
for Immigration Studies
obtained the ICE report
through a Federal Freedom
of Information document
request.
“ICE didn’t use the term
‘sanctuary’ in their report,”
said Jessica Vaughan,
CIS’s Public Policy Studies
Director, during a tele-
phone interview July 13.
Vaughan explained that the
term was used by CIS after
looking at ICE’s Declined
Detainer Outcome Report.
While not using the term
“sanctuary,” the ICE report
identifi es states, coun-
ties, and cities that they
claim, “will not honor ICE
detainer.”
After receiving the ICE
report the CIS labeled 30
of the 36 Oregon counties,
Baker County included, to
be “sanctuary” counties for
illegal immigrants.
Baker County, Oregon,
on page 21 of the ICE
report, is identifi ed as one
of the counties refusing
to honor the ICE de-
tainer—listing a Sheriff’s
Department decision as the
reason.
The ICE report states
that Baker County, through
a “Sheriffs Offi ce Deci-
sion, will not honor ICE
detainer.” ICE claims that
this decision was en-
acted by Oregon sheriffs in
April, 2014.
The counties of north-
eastern Oregon—Baker,
Grant, Wallowa, and
Union—all made the list
of the counties ICE claims
refuse to honor detainer
requests.
Local Sheriffs respond
to ICE report.
The exposing of ICE’s
2014 Declined Detainer
Outcome Report and the
labeling by the Center for
Immigration Studies that
276 cities, counties, and
states are “sanctuary” com-
munities protecting illegal
immigrants have caused
somewhat of a fi restorm
and generated many
questions from those who
recently noticed the release
of the map and report.
Marguerite Telford,
Director of Communica-
tions for CIS was informed
during a phone interview
July 5 that eastern Oregon
sheriffs claim they are not
sanctuary counties, have
Miners Jubilee
HIGHLIGHTS
Friday, July 17
9 a.m. - 6 p.m. Friends of Library Book Sale
9 a.m. - 1 p.m. Petting Zoo on Broadway near
Main and Resort
10 a.m. - 5 p.m. Downtown Sidewalk Sale
Noon till 7 p.m. Vendors in the Park
2 p.m. Blacksmith demonstrations at the Baker
Heritage Museum
2 p.m. - 4 p.m. Music in the park
7 p.m. - 1 a.m. Bronc Riding at the Fairgrounds,
Beer Garden
Saturday, July 18
7 a.m. - 10 a.m. Lion’s Club Breakfast in the Park
7 a.m. Two-man Scramble at Quail Ridge
8 a.m. 5K fun run in front of Kicks. Registration
forms are Subway
no sanctuary policies in
place, and have never
failed to honor an ICE
detainer—they historically
have simply obtained a
warrant fi rst.
“Oh, I know. We’ve had
a lot of calls from media
and from sheriffs. We’ve
had calls from Oregon
today,” Telford responded.
“You know, what we may
do is allow those sheriffs to
email us a statement as to
why they don’t think they
should be included on that
list. We might allow them
to put a paragraph or some-
thing up on our web site.”
When asked if she knew
how Baker County had
been included on the list,
Telford responded, “I
really can’t answer that—
that’s a question for ICE.”
When asked if she could
confi rm that the data used
to create CIS’s map and
report came directly from
ICE, she said, “Yes. It’s
from ICE. So you would
have to ask ICE how your
county was put on the
list. That’s a question for
them.”
So, how exactly did
Baker, Union, Wallowa,
Grant and 26 other Oregon
counties each make ICE’s
list of communities they
claim refuse to honor ICE
detainers, and then become
labeled by the CIS as
“sanctuary counties” for
illegal immigrants? And,
how was the claim by ICE
that these counties “will
not honor detainer,” attrib-
uted to a policy decision
made by local sheriffs?
Mitchell Southwick
served as Baker County
Sheriff in April, 2014,
and denies ever making a
decision or passing policy
against honoring ICE il-
legal immigrant detainer
requests.
Currently serving Baker
County Sheriff Travis Ash
also is unaware of and
denies any knowledge of
a decision or policy by the
Baker County Sheriff’s Of-
fi ce to refuse cooperation
with ICE detainer proce-
dures. In fact, Ash claims
just the opposite.
“In checking with
Parole and Probation, we
have had only two such
cases in memory. ICE
was called and took the
illegals into custody both
times,” said Ash. “I know
I haven’t signed anything.
In speaking with [former
sheriff] Mitch Southwick,
he hadn’t either.”
Ash, who has served as
Sheriff for two months
now, said he does not
consider Baker County a
sanctuary county. He said,
“We do detain them, but in
order to be in legal compli-
ance with statute, also
require a warrant.”
Due to the ruling from
a lawsuit in Clackamas
County and Oregon state
law, Baker County “does
not conduct sweeps look-
ing for illegal aliens,” said
Ash.
Ash believes Baker
County may have ended up
on ICE’s list because the
ruling in that Clackamas
County case means that
they need a warrant to go
with the ICE detainer to
avoid litigation.
One thing is certain—the
Baker County Sheriff’s
Department does not sim-
ply turn an illegal arrested
for a crime out on the
streets among the general
population, such as the
case in San Francisco.
Oregon State Sheriffs
Association responds to
sanctuary county label.
“The point is moot,” be-
gins John Bishop, Execu-
tive Director of the Oregon
State Sheriff’s Association
and himself a retired sher-
iff. “The sheriffs cannot
honor any ICE detainer
request anymore because
the courts have ruled
that detainer requests are
unwarranted. The detainer
is no longer recognized as
a warrant.
“ICE has already
changed their procedures
and no longer issues de-
tainers,” Bishop continued.
As for the use of the
term “sanctuary” coun-
ties by CIS, Bishop says,
“They are playing on that
term.”
The old ICE procedure of
issuing detainer warrants,
as defi ned in the Homeland
Security Secure Communi-
ties program, was discon-
tinued in November, 2014.
The change in ICE policy
was noted in a memoran-
dum signed by Jeh Charles
Johnson, Secretary of
the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, dated
November, 20, 2014.
“The Secure Communi-
ties program, as we know
it, will be discontinued,”
begins the Department
of Homeland Security
memorandum. “The goal
of Secure Communities
was to more effectively
identify and facilitate the
removal of criminal aliens
in the custody of state and
local law enforcement
agencies. But the reality is
the program has attracted
a great deal of criticism, is
widely misunderstood, and
is embroiled in litigation;
its very name has become a
symbol for general hostil-
9 a.m. - 6 p.m. Friends of Library Book Sale
9 a.m. - 7 p.m. Vendors in the Park
9 a.m. - Noon Petting Zoo on Broadway near
Main and Resort
10 a.m. Miners Jubilee Parade
10 a.m. - 5 p.m. Downtown Sidewalk Sale
11 a.m. Music in the Park, Elks Drum and Bugle
Corps
1 p.m. Gold Panning Competition in the Park
1 p.m. HBC’s Business Duck Race
2 p.m. - 4 p.m. Music in the park
2 p.m. Blacksmith demonstrations at the Baker
Heritage Museum
3 p.m. HBC’s Kiddies Duck Race
6 p.m. - 1 a.m. Bull Riding at the Fairgrounds,
Beer Garden
7 p.m. - 9 p.m. Street Dance in Court Street Plaza
9 p.m. - 11:30 p.m. Teen dance at YMCA gym
Sunday, July 19
7 a.m. - 11 a.m. Lion’s Club Breakfast in the Park
7 a.m. Two-man Scramble at Quail Ridge
ity toward the enforcement
of our immigration laws.”
Johnson directed ICE to
discontinue Secure Com-
munities and instead put in
place a new program, titled
the Priority Enforcement
Program (PEP). The new
PEP program still relies
upon fi ngerprint-based data
submitted during book-
ings by state and local
law enforcement agencies
to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for criminal
background checks.
However, PEP only re-
quires ICE to seek transfer
of an illegal alien in the
custody of state and local
custody when the illegal
alien has been convicted of
certain enumerated crimi-
nal offenses, “or when, in
the judgment of an ICE
Field Offi ce Director, the
alien otherwise poses a
danger to national secu-
rity,” as written in the new
directive.
Court rules ICE
detainer procedures un-
constitutional.
ICE claims that the
Oregon Sheriffs made the
decision against honoring
ICE detainers on April 14,
2014. This date closely fol-
lowed the April 11, 2014
decision by U.S. District
Court Ninth Circuit Dis-
trict of Oregon Magistrate
Judge Janice M. Stewart
ruling ICE detainers as
unconstitutional.
Stewart issued the courts
ruling in agreement with
an earlier decision by the
Third Circuit from an ap-
peals case fi led in Pennsyl-
vania. Stewart’s decision
came from a case fi led in
Clackamas County after
local law enforcement held
Maria Miranda-Olivares on
an ICE detainer.
Stewart ruled that the
detention of Miranda-
Olivares violated her
Fourth Amendment and
due process rights and held
local law enforcement, not
ICE, fi nancially liable for
the violations.
ICE issues blanket
statement, refuses to
comment on report.
ICE media spokesper-
son Virginia Kice refused
to address specifi c ques-
tions about the Declined
Detainer Outcome Report
and the inclusion of Baker
County as one of the coun-
ties refusing to honor ICE
detainer procedures and
instead released a blanket
statement.
“We‘re not comment-
ing directly on that report.
Rather…we‘re focusing
on the way forward…and
providing the statement
below,” Kice responded.
Photo Courtesy of the
Baker County Sheriff’s Offi ce.
Sheriff Travis Ash.
That statement is:
“ICE continues to work
cooperatively with our
local law enforcement
partners throughout the
country to develop policies
and procedures that best
represent all agencies’
efforts to uphold public
safety. The Department
of Homeland Security is
in the process of imple-
menting a new initiative
called the Priority Enforce-
ment Program —PEP for
short—which supports
community policing while
ensuring ICE takes custody
of dangerous criminals be-
fore they are released into
the community. ICE is now
issuing detainers and re-
quests for notifi cation with
respect to individuals who
meet our heightened en-
forcement priorities under
PEP to ensure individuals
who pose a threat to public
safety are not released
from prisons or jails into
our communities. PEP is a
balanced, common-sense
approach, that places the
focus where it should be:
on criminals and individu-
als who threaten the public
safety. ICE is committed
to working with its law
enforcement partners in
Oregon and nationwide
to achieve that mission,”
declares ICE.
Conclusion.
“It was ICE’s mistake
in the Clackamas County
case but it was the local
sheriff’s offi ce that was
found fi nancially liable,”
said Vaughan from CIS.
“Local sheriffs likely
won’t be willing to risk
local taxpayer’s money to
enforce federal law.”
The CIS conclusion on
the dangers to local com-
munities after the court rul-
ings weaken ICE‘s ability
to detain suspected illegal
immigrants brings us full-
circle back to the murder
of Kathy Steinle by illegal
alien Francisco Sanchez.
“Local refusal to comply
with ICE detainers has
become a public safety
problem in many com-
munities, and a mission
crisis for ICE that demands
immediate attention,” con-
cludes the CIS.
10 a.m. - 4 p.m. Friends of Library Book Sale
10 a.m. - 4 p.m. Vendors in the Park
12:30 - 1:30 Gospel hour in the Park
2 p.m. - 4 p.m. Music in the park
2 p.m. Mining Association silent auction/raffl e
3 p.m. Paint Your Wagon movie at the museum
3 p.m. Button drawing winners at the Park