Sanctuary Policies

Oregon's sanctuary law

 
January 8, 2017
 
The section of Oregon law that limits cooperation between local Oregon law enforcement and Federal immigration enforcement is cited briefly as ORS 181A.820, or more fully as Oregon Revised Statutes 181A.820.  It is informally referred to as Oregon’s sanctuary law.
 
It is now included in Chapter 181A — State Police; Crime Reporting and Records; Public Safety Standards and Training; Private Security Services.  The full Chapter is online at: www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors181A.html.
 
Here is the text of part 181A.820, which is headed PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL GENERALLY.
 
      181A.820 Enforcement of federal immigration laws. (1) No law enforcement agency of the State of Oregon or of any political subdivision of the state shall use agency moneys, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.
      (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a law enforcement agency may exchange information with the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the United States Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection in order to:
      (a) Verify the immigration status of a person if the person is arrested for any criminal offense; or
      (b) Request criminal investigation information with reference to persons named in records of the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the United States Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services or the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.
      (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a law enforcement agency may arrest any person who:
      (a) Is charged by the United States with a criminal violation of federal immigration laws under Title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act or 18 U.S.C. 1015, 1422 to 1429 or 1505; and
      (b) Is subject to arrest for the crime pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by a federal magistrate.
      (4) For purposes of subsection (1) of this section, the Bureau of Labor and Industries is not a law enforcement agency.
      (5) As used in this section, “warrant of arrest” has the meaning given that term in ORS 131.005. [Formerly 181.850]

Legislative history of Oregon’s sanctuary law

The sanctuary law started out as HB 2314 in the 1987 session of the Oregon Legislature.  The bill was pre-session filed at the request of the Joint Interim Judiciary Committee for the Hispanic Political Action Committee. The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on February 6, and the bill passed the House on February 20, with 54 Ayes and 3 Nays, Reps. Verner Anderson, George Gilman, and George Trahern. Three House members were excused from voting.  The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on May 20, and the bill passed the Senate with amendments on June 9, with 29 Ayes and 1 Nay, Sen. Lenn Hannon.   On June 11, the House concurred in the Senate’s amendments and repassed the measure with 58 Ayes and 1 Nay, Rep. Trahern. One House member was excused from voting.  The Governor signed the bill on July 7, 1987.
 
As passed then, the official description of the bill, from House Calendar, said:  “Prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing immigration laws.  Permits law enforcement agency to [contact] exchange information with United States Immigration and Naturalization Service in order to verify immigration status of person arrested for criminal offense or request criminal investigation information about persons named in service records.  Specifies that Bureau of Labor and Industries is not law enforcement agency for purposes of prohibition.”
 
Since passage in 1987, the law has been amended somewhat and there have been various attempts to repeal it.  It was cited as ORS 181.850 for many years and changed to ORS 181A.820 recently.
 
Here is the wording of the law as originally passed and printed in Oregon Laws 1987:
 
CHAPTER 487. An Act, HB 2314, Relating to law enforcement.  
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
 
SECTION 1.   (1) No law enforcement agency of the State of Oregon or of any political subdivision of the state shall use agency moneys, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship residing in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a law enforcement agency may exchange information with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service in order to:
(a) Verify the immigration status of a person if the person is arrested for any criminal offense; or
(b) Request criminal investigation information with reference to persons named in service records.
(c) For purposes of subsection (1) of this section, the Bureau of Labor and Industries is not a law enforcement agency.
Approved by the Governor July 7, 1987
Filed in the office of Secretary of State July 8, 1987

References on sanctuary policies for illegal aliens

2018

Remarks by President Trump at Law Enforcement Roundtable on Sanctuary Cities, issued on: March 20, 2018

Sanctuary Cities Undermine Law Enforcement and Endanger Our Communities; White House Fact Sheet, March 20, 2018. Lists steps taken to restore law and order to the immigration system, including reversal of sanctuary city policies.

What You Need to Know About Sanctuary Cities; White House statement, March 13 2018.

Criminal Aliens Set Free By Sanctuary Cities; White House article, February 13, 2018.

The Dangerous Myth That Sanctuary City Policies Encourage Victims and Witnesses to Cooperate with Local Law Enforcement. FAIR Issue Brief written by Matt O'Brien | March 30, 2018. Contents - The Claim: Sanctuary Policies Enhance Information Sharing Between the "Immigrant" Community and Law Enforcement.- Why the Claim is False.- How Many Criminal Aliens Are Allowed Back Onto Our Streets by Sanctuary Policies? - Conclusion. View as a pdf: https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2018-03/IssueBrief_Sanctuary-Cities-and-Alien-Cooperation.pdf. 8 p., of which p.7-8 consist of footnotes which begin at bottom of p.6.

Sanctuary Jurisdictions Nearly Double Since President Trump Promised to Enforce Our Immigration Laws. Federation for American Immigration Reform, May 2018. 154 p. This report is a pdf document including links to 564 sanctuary policies currently in operation. Arrangement is by state. https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2018-05/Sanctuary-Report-FINAL-2018.pdf

Sanctuary Cities Protect Crooked Employers and Human Traffickers; exploitation of the vulnerable is anything but “compassionate.” By Michael Cutler, in FrontPage Magazine, May 1, 2018.

2017

Fact Sheet: Donald J. Trump and Attorney General Sessions Stand Up Against Lawless Sanctuary Cities. White House press release, August 16, 2017.

U.S. Department of Justice. Attorney General Jeff Sessions Delivers Remarks on Sanctuary Jurisdictions, Washington DC, Monday, March 27, 2017. (Press release)
For a brief summary, see: AG Sessions says they will withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions, on NumbersUSA’s website, March 28, 2017.

______________. Department of Justice Sends Letter to Nine Jurisdictions Requiring Proof of Compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. (Press release issued Friday, April 21, 2017) Copies of the letters sent can be viewed by clicking the link at end of Press release.

_____________. Attorney General Jeff Sessions Issues Memorandum on Implementation of Executive Order 13768, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” Washington DC, Monday, May 22, 2017. (Press release) The press release listing does not describe the memo; it links to text of the memo which is displayed here. These news articles summarize the content of the memo, giving background and details: What Is a ‘Sanctuary City?’ Sessions Memo Clarifies DOJ Position, by Ian Mason, 22 May 2017; Sessions Readies Crackdown on ‘Sanctuary’ Jurisdictions, by Brendon Darby, 23 May 2017.

_____________. Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks to Federal Law Enforcement Authorities About Sanctuary Cities, Portland OR, September 19, 2017.

Why President Trump Can And Should Strip Sanctuary City Federal Funding, by Matt O’Brien, Federation for American Immigration Reform, April 12, 2017.

List of CIS reports on sanctuary cities. This online list is continually being updated. Here are a few recent entries; some entries are blogs and some are fuller reports. For example,

List of NumbersUSA references on sanctuary policies. Click here to get a current list of NumbersUSA’s many news reports on sanctuary policies. For example, this posting of March 28, 2017: Rasmussen poll: Likely voters believe that sanctuary policies make their communities less safe. If the link doesn’t work, visit the homepage of NumbersUSA and use Search box in top horizontal menu, entering search term “sanctuary policies.”

Beaverton's 'sanctuary' status will threaten U.S. citizens, by Richard F. LaMountain. In Beaverton [Oregon] Valley Times, January 19, 2017. Also posted on OFIR website here. LaMountain is a past Vice President, OFIR.

Partners In Crime: Mayors Of Sanctuary Cities, Human Traffickers And Other Criminals, by Michael W. Cutler, April 4, 2017. On website of Californians for Population Stabilization. Cutler is a retired INS Senior Special Agent, with 30 years’ service at INS.

Oregon's Sanctuary Status Threatens Public Safety and Law Enforcement Funding, by Billy J. Williams. Op-ed In The Oregonian, Sunday, August 6, 2017. Billy J. Williams is the United States Attorney for the District of Oregon.

2016

Tackling Sanctuaries, by Dan Cadman, Jessica Vaughan. Center for Immigration Studies, December 2016. 18 p. “This report examines the justifications given by sanctuary jurisdictions for their policies, and finds them to be largely unfounded. … The Trump administration has a number of tools available at its disposal and within the confines of executive authority to address the problem of sanctuaries and the public safety problems they create. Contents: Key Findings -- Introduction and background -- What is a “sanctuary”? -- What are the arguments made by sanctuary advocates? -- How can the new Administration tackle sanctuaries? -- Conclusion -- End notes.

The Role of State & Local Law Enforcement in Immigration Matters and Reasons to Resist Sanctuary Policies. Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Issue brief, January 2016. 8 p. (pdf version, 6 p.) Partial contents. -- Cooperation with federal immigration officials is essential to thwarting national security threats. -- Cooperation with federal immigration officials saves taxpayer money. -- The Supreme Court has upheld state and local cooperation and assistance provisions. -- Conversely, state and local sanctuary policies may be preempted by federal law.

Sanctuary Nation; the Tragic Cost of Harboring Illegal Alien Criminals. (vol.26, no.3, Spring 2016 issue of the quarterly magazine, The Social Contract) Partial contents. -- America’s ‘sanctuary cities’ and their tragic consequences, by Dave Gibson. -- The impact of criminal alien violence: Administrations’ immigration policies under scrutiny at Congressional Hearing, by Rep. Trey Gowdy. -- Dangerous alien criminals prey on American communities, by Rep. Bob Goodlatte. -- Immigration and the art of the question: effective questions that must be asked of our politicians, by Michael Cutler.

Sanctuary bill in 2019 Legislature

HB 2932, “Relating to the immigration status of criminal defendants; declaring an emergency.  Prohibits court from inquiring into defendant’s immigration status or requiring defendant to disclose defendant’s immigration status at time of plea or at any other time during criminal proceeding.  Requires court to allow defendant, upon request, additional time for plea decision after informing defendant about possible adverse immigration consequences of plea. Declares emergency, effective on passage.”

Written statements submitted in opposition to HB 2932, at House Hearing, 3/18/2019

In alphabetical order by first name

Cynthia Kendoll - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174570

David Wall – https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174984

Elizabeth Van Staaveren –  https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174206

Jerry Ritter - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/173965

Jim Ludwick - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174594

Lyneil Vandermolen –  https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174571

Richard LaMountain – https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174572

====================================

Written statements submitted in support of HB 2932, at House Hearing, 3/18/2019

In alphabetical order by name of organization

1. ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon), Leland Baxter-Neal, Staff  Attorney.    https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174299

2. AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association), Cindy del Rosario, Immigration Attorney, Gonzales and Gonzales Law Offices.     ttps//olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174329

3. Causa, Andrea Williams, Executive Director.       https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174573

4. OCDLA (Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association), Mary Sofia, Legislative Director.    https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174338

5. OCDLA (Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association), Kacy Jones, Attorney, Metropolitan Public Defender.    https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174332

6. OJRC (Oregon Justice Research Center, Immigrant Rights Project), Joseph Justin Rollin and Erin L. McKee, Attorneys and Co-Directors.    https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174283

7. PCUN (Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste), Martha Sonato, Political Director.    https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/174586

 

Televised discussion, Sanctuary Cities, Jan. 22, 2017

 
See an 11-minute video of the discussion at: http://fullmeasure.news/news/full-episodes/full-measure-january-22-2017.
 
Full Measure is a weekly Sunday news program “focusing on investigative, original and accountability reporting.” 
 
Following are excerpts from the transcript of the Jan. 22, 2017 program, which featured opinions from several key speakers.  Speaking in favor of ending sanctuary city policies were Jan Ting, professor of law at Temple University, and parents of victims who died at the hands of criminal illegal aliens.
 
SANCTUARY CITIES
 
[Excerpts from TV program]
 
January 22, 2017 — In the 1940s, Jan Ting’s parents faced a difficult path to American citizenship following a U.S. immigration ban on Chinese workers that lasted 61 years.
 
Jan Ting: '43 just opened the door to Chinese 100 a year. One hundred per year could come in as immigrants.
 
Today, Ting is a law professor at Temple University—after serving as a top immigration official under George H.W. Bush.
 
Ting: I teach citizenship and immigration law, among other things.
 
Ting is also a strong opponent of sanctuary cities that shield illegal immigrants from deportation. That includes Philadelphia, where Temple University is located.
 
Ting: I think that it is wrong, I think it endangers public safety, I think it endangers our law enforcement officers, and it's just short-sighted.
…
Kevin Kamentez: it is our policy in general that Baltimore County [MD] police officers do not ask the immigration status of anyone that they encounter. That's not their job.
 
Baltimore County executive Kevin Kamenetz supports his county’s sanctuary status even as he disputes the term.
 
Kamenetz: And if you are otherwise here in this county and you haven't committed a crime, that is you're otherwise law-abiding, then we are not going to interfere with that relationship whatsoever.
 
Critics offer a compelling counterpoint: cases of illegal immigrants trampling on the rights of U.S. citizens like Kate Steinle. Less than four months before her murder in 2015, San Francisco authorities had refused a request from ICE to hold her accused killer for possible deportation. He had five previous deportations and seven felonies on record.
 
There are thousands of horrifying examples.
 
Don Rosenberg: Especially in San Francisco, they become a protected class. Whatever they do, they get away with.
 
Don Rosenberg's son, Drew was on his way home from law school in the sanctuary city of San Francisco when he was run over and killed by an illegal immigrant.
 
Laura Wilkerson’s son, Josh, was murdered a high school classmate and illegal immigrant with an arrest record.
 
Laura Wilkerson: He hit him so hard in the stomach that it made his spleen go into the spine and it sliced it in two. Then, he tortured him by strangling him then, he put him in a field and he set his body on fire.
 
And Sabine Durden's only child, Dominic, was a 911 dispatcher in the sanctuary state of California when he was hit and killed by an illegal immigrant with a long rap sheet.
 
Sabine Durden: He had a prior felony conviction, then he had a DUI. And he got put on probation with a DUI even though he had no license, no insurance, and no registration. So then he had another DUI while he was on probation for the first DUI.
 
In one recent two-year period, more than 66-thousand illegal immigrant criminals were set loose after being arrested in the U.S. Among them, they had 166-thousand convictions; 30,000 for drunk or drugged driving, 414 kidnappings, 11-thousand rapes or other types of assaults, and 395 homicides. Within a year, thousands of them had already been re-arrested and convicted of new crimes in the U.S., including felonies and gang offenses.
…
Kamenetz: To somehow suggest in, in a political fit here, to, to say okay, Baltimore County, we're going to take away the 110 million dollars you received of federal aid every year, well you know what that money actually goes to? It goes to senior citizens, it goes to people who have mental illness// I think it really is, somewhat spiteful to hurt people who have nothing to do with the immigration issue, in order to achieve their political goals.
 
But Ting hopes the Trump administration acts quickly and forcefully.
 
Ting: I think they need to announce clearly that they are going to use executive authority to cut off as much federal funding as possible, to all sanctuary cities, and if, if those communities want to litigate the issue, bring it on.
 

Efforts to repeal Oregon's sanctuary law

January 14, 2017; updated March 27, 2018
 
EFFORTS TO REPEAL OREGON’S SANCTUARY LAW
 
by Elizabeth Van Staaveren
 
The sanctuary law passed in 1987 by the Oregon Legislature is a hindrance in controlling illegal immigration, and over a period of several years, there have been many efforts to repeal it.
 
Soon after Oregonians for Immigration Reform was organized, repeal of the law, cited then as ORS 181.850 (now ORS 181A.820), became one of the group’s objectives.  In 2002 OFIR sent questionnaires to candidates for State Legislature.  Question 4 of 10 questions was: “Will you support repeal of the law which prohibits police officers from arresting or assisting in the prosecution and arrest of illegal aliens? Will you support legislation clearly requiring that assistance?”
 
2003
 
In January 2003 Rep. Cliff Zauner (R- Woodburn) requested a resolution asking that ORS 181.850 be repealed, and  Rep. Alan Brown (R-Newport) asked the Legislative Council to write the resolution as a bill. Accordingly, HB 2051 was pre-session filed, and introduced in the State Legislature in February, supported by OFIR.
 
OFIR prepared a sample letter for its members to send to legislators, urging that hearings be held on the bill and explaining why repeal of ORS 181.850 was necessary.   It said, in part, “ORS 181.850 is the state statute that Portland, Corvallis and Hillsboro cited as their excuse not to cooperate with Attorney General John Ashcroft in the questioning of possible terrorists in Oregon following the attack on 9/11 {2001}.  As events have transpired, three Portland residents have been arrested for terrorism conspiracy.  In addition, the INS arrested 124 persons who were working at the Portland Airport, several who had security badges to allow them into sensitive areas.”
 
In an editorial in opposition to the state law, the Albany Democrat Herald stated, “… {ORS 181.840} sends the wrong signal.  The signal is that as far as the state of Oregon is concerned, it’s all right to violate federal law on immigration – nothing to worry about.”
 
HB 2051 was sent to the House Judiciary Committee which did hold a public hearing on April 11, but no further action was taken.  In this 2003 session of the Legislature, OFIR had to spend large amounts of time in a major but successful fight against SB 10, a bill granting instate tuition to illegal aliens.
 
2004-2005
 
Again in March 2004, in preparation for the spring primary, OFIR sent questionnaires to state candidates, and the number one question to legislators was:  “…We need to establish regular cooperation between federal BICE agents and local law enforcement, yet ORS 181.850 prohibits our police from detecting or apprehending illegal immigrants except under strictly limited circumstances.  Would you be willing to introduce or support a bill to repeal ORS 181.850?”
 
On August 30, 2005, OFIR President Jim Ludwick wrote to then-Governor Kulongoski urging him to declare a state of emergency in Oregon due to the fact that the federal government was not enforcing immigrations laws.  Mr. Ludwick listed a number of actions the Governor could take to ameliorate the situation, including “Order state police to work with ICE in the apprehension of illegal aliens.”  Ludwick asked for an opportunity to speak with the Governor on these subjects.  Although the requested meeting did not occur, the Governor did take steps to end, as Ludwick requested, the practice of state agencies accompanying the Mexican Consul General on his visits around the state passing out Matricular Consular cards to Mexican nationals.  The state agencies had been handing out information on how Mexican nationals could obtain state benefits.
 
2006-2007
 
In January 2006, Gov. Kulongoski replied to the OFIR President by letter from his Policy Advisor, Daniel P. Santos.  The letter relayed the Governor’s position that immigration is a federal responsibility and disclaimed any obligation or interest in assisting in the control of illegal immigration.  Santos defended illegal immigrants as only coming here to work, and claimed that without them, communities would suffer.  Pres. Ludwick wrote a firm rebuttal, asserting that the state can and should play a major role in immigration control.
 
Preparing for the Spring primary of 2006, OFIR again sent questionnaires to candidates, and question number one again dealt with repeal of ORS 181.850, asking “Would you be willing to introduce or support a bill to repeal ORS 181.850?”  The great majority of candidates who replied to the questionnaire said Yes.
 
In the 2007 session of the Legislature, Reps. Linda Flores (R-Clackamas) and Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer) introduced HB 2682, “Relating to enforcement of immigration laws,” which would permit “law enforcement agencies to apprehend person based upon probable cause that person is in violation of immigration law.” The 18 co-sponsors were Reps. Bruun, Cameron, Dallum, Esquivel, G. Smith, Garrard, Gilliam, Girod, Hanna, Krieger, Krummel, Maurer, Minnis, Olson, Richardson, Scott, Whisnant, and Senator Boquist.  The bill had a First reading on February 13 and was referred to the Judiciary Committee which did not grant it a hearing, thus it expired.
 
Also, House Republican leader Wayne Scott (Oregon City and Canby) introduced two bills, HB 3426 and HB 3428 both titled “Relating to criminal aliens.”  HB 3426 allowed “state employee to report to federal immigration enforcement authorities information about individual who cannot produce valid, independently verifiable documents to prove that individual is legally present in United States.”  The bill had 18 co-sponsors in the House:  Bruun, Butler, Cameron, Dallum, Flores, G. Smith, Gilliam, Gilman, Hanna, Jenson, Krieger, Maurer, Minnis, Nelson, Olson, Richardson, Thatcher, and Whisnant, and one Senator, Brian Boquist.  Scott’s other bill, HB  3428, required “district attorney to investigate residency status of convicted person.”  Neither of Scott’s bills was granted a hearing; both were buried by the Judiciary Committee and not heard of again.
 
 
Initiative Petition 112
 
Stymied by the Democratic Party’s refusal to support any controls over illegal immigration, OFIR began work toward an initiative which subsequently was filed as IP (Initiative Petition) 112.  It combined and replaced 3 separate initiatives OFIR had originally prepared, then decided that one initiative would be more manageable than three. The certified ballot title for IP 112 was challenged by the opposition but upheld by the Supreme Court.  It said:
 
 “Allows state cooperation with immigration enforcement; Requires certain documentation for voter registration and driving privileges.”
 
OFIR held a press conference at the State Capitol on Nov. 13, 2007 to announce the launching of the initiative.  Only 3 days later, Gov. Kulongoski issued Executive Order no. 07-22, “Standards for Issuance of Oregon Driver Licenses and Identification Cards,” including a requirement for applicants to provide DMV with a valid Social Security number and ordering that the DMV shall verify with the Social Security Administration the accuracy of Social Security numbers provided.
 
Gov. Kulongoski had previously announced the calling of a special session of the Legislature to begin in February 2008.  He wanted to have Oregon issue driver licenses issued only to those who could prove they are citizens and legally present, but he also wanted Oregon residents without such proof to be able to obtain “driver privilege permits.”  OFIR was pleased to hear of his support for proof of citizenship but very displeased about the proposal for illegal aliens to have special driver permits.
 
2008
 
In addition to work on the initiative to repeal ORS 181.850, OFIR again for the Spring primary of 2008 sent questionnaires to candidates including the question on candidates’ support for the repeal.
 
After OFIR had started its initiative in 2007, the Secretary of State announced new procedures to take effect January 3, 2008 for the gathering of signatures on initiatives.  This adversely affected OFIR’s work with the initiative to repeal ORS 181.850.  The change forced OFIR to wait until January 3 to distribute petition sheets for signatures, and we faced a deadline of July 3, 2008 for completing the collection of signatures.  This was not enough time for an all-volunteer group inexperienced in the process to gather the necessary 90,000 valid signatures.  Thus the initiative did not appear on the November 2008 ballot.  However, meantime, SB 1080 had been passed in the State Legislature’s special session of 2008.  This met OFIR’s goal for proof of citizenship for driver licenses, so a very important one third of IP 112 was accomplished.
 
As OFIR President Ludwick reported in the OFIR newsletter of December 2008:
 
“ … OFIR was unsuccessful in getting our initiative “The Respect for Law Act” on the 2008 ballot.  It wasn’t because of lack of effort. Trying to collect 120,000 initiative signatures as a grass roots organization is a daunting task. The new initiative rules are stacked against regular citizens petitioning their own state government.”
 
In support of the initiative, Richard F. LaMountain wrote an excellent “In My Opinion” article that was published in The Sunday Oregonian on May 25, 2008.  The article was entitled, “Enable state’s officers to aid federal enforcement efforts.”  His arguments and the information in the article are still pertinent.  Mr. LaMountain currently serves as OFIR’s Vice President.
 
2009
 
Conscientious legislators introduced several bills in the 2009 Oregon Legislature attempting to promote state and local authorities’ cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.  Only one was allowed a hearing by the Democratic Party controlled Legislature, and the other bills died without even a hearing.
 
Senate, 2009 -- SB 815, sponsored by Sen. Doug Whitsett (R-Klamath Falls) and co-sponsored by Senators Brian Boquist (R-Dallas) and Senator Frank Morse (R-Albany), was introduced as “Relating to enforcement of immigration laws:  Permits law enforcement agencies to apprehend person for violation of federal immigration law based upon probable cause.”  On March 16 it was referred to the Judiciary Committee, where it remained with no hearing and no further action.
 
House, 2009 --  HB 3364 was titled, “Relating to criminal aliens:  Authorizes State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision or county sheriff to release inmate to custody of United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under certain circumstances.”  The bill was sponsored by Rep. Jeff Barker (D-Aloha) and co-sponsored by Reps. David Edwards (D-Hillsboro), Tim Freeman (R-Roseburg), Wayne Krieger (R-Gold Beach), Greg Mathews (D-Gresham), Andy Olson (R-Albany), Dennis Richardson (R-Central Point), Mike Schaufler (D-Happy Valley), Kim Thatcher (R-Salem), and Jim Thompson (R-Dallas).  On March 16 it was referred to the Judiciary Committee, and on April 14 a public hearing was held, but as of June 29 the bill remained in committee upon adjournment, without further action.
 
HB 3439, introduced by Rep. Kim Thatcher (R-Salem) and co-sponsored by Rep. Sal Esquivel (R-Medford), was titled, like SB 815:  “Relating to criminal aliens: Authorizes State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision or county sheriff to release inmate to custody of United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under certain circumstances.”  On March 16 it was referred to the Judiciary Committee, where it remained with no hearing and no further action.
 
HB 3440 was titled:  “Relating to immigration:  Requires county to verify immigration status of person incarcerated in county correctional facility.”  It was introduced by Rep. Kim Thatcher (R-Salem) at the request of Craig Cox in memory of Judy Cox.  
 
In 1980, Newberg residents Craig and Judy Cox and others were in a car hit by a drunken driver in the country illegally. Craig's bookkeeper was killed; Judy was hospitalized and left with seizures for life.   Twenty-seven (27) years later, another illegal immigrant drunk driver slammed into the Coxes' car, leaving 66-year-old Judy dead at the scene and 72-year-old Craig a bereaved widower. The perpetrator had six previous DUII convictions and multiple license suspensions.
 
HB 3440 was co-sponsored by Reps. Vicki Berger (R-Salem), Kevin Cameron (R-Salem), Sal Esquivel (R-Medford), Tim Freeman (R-Roseburg), Greg Smith (R-Heppner), Bill Garrard (R-Klamath Falls), Bob Jenson (R-Pendleton), Ron Maurer (R-Grants Pass), Andy Olson (R-Albany) Dennis Richardson (R-Central Point), Jim Thompson (R-Dallas), Jim Weidner (R-McMinnville), Matt Wingard (R-Wilsonville).
 
The bill was referred on March 16 to the Judiciary Committee where it remained with no hearing and no further action.
 
2010
 
For the Spring Primary election, OFIR again included in its questionnaires to candidates, a question on ORS 181.850:
 
The Pew Research Center estimates that there are 175,000 illegal aliens in Oregon.  Currently, illegal aliens who successfully enter the U.S, or foreign nationals who overstay their visas, face little likelihood of deportation, because we have so few ICE agents working on interior enforcement.  We need to establish regular cooperation between Federal ICE agents and local law enforcement, yet an Oregon State Statute, (ORS 181.850), prohibits our police form detecting or apprehending illegal aliens except under strictly limited circumstances.
 
Would you be willing to introduce or support a bill to repeal ORS 181.850?
 
Most respondents to the questionnaire said yes.
 
2011
 
Rep. Thatcher introduced 2 bills promoting state cooperation with federal immigration authorities: HB 2802 and 2803, and Rep. Tim Freeman with several co-sponsors, introduced HB 3341 for similar purpose. All three bills were shelved by the House Judiciary Committee and died upon adjournment.
 
HB 2802, “Relating to aliens, declaring an emergency: Prohibits restrictions on public body’s ability to enforce immigration law to extent permitted by federal law,” was referred to Judiciary Committee on January 21 where it remained until adjournment, with no hearing or further action.
 
HB 2803, “Requires county to verify immigration status of person incarcerated in county correctional facility. Authorizes law enforcement agency to enforce federal immigration law pursuant to agreement with federal government.”
 
HB 3341, “Authorizes law enforcement agency to enforce federal immigration law pursuant to agreement with federal government.”
 
2012-2016
 
During this period, the Democratic Party increasingly advocated benefits for illegal aliens and supported illegal immigration both nationally and in Oregon.  OFIR led the successful state-wide campaign to overturn SB 833, a bill passed by the Oregon Legislature giving driver licenses to illegal aliens and fought the granting of instate tuition to illegal aliens.  As the Democratic Party grew more entrenched in power in the Oregon state legislature it became impossible to make any progress on state-federal cooperation in immigration law enforcement.
 
On August 26, 2016 Reps. Sal Esquivel (R-Medford) and Michael Nearman (R-Dallas) filed Initiative Petition 6 aimed for the 2018 election.  Its subject: “An initiative to repeal Oregon’s sanctuary law.”  The required number of signatures to begin the process were collected and submitted to the Secretary of State, who referred the initiative to the Attorney General for writing the ballot title.  However, the Attorney General declined to prepare a ballot title, and thus stopping that initiative.

2017-2018

On May 1, 2017, OFIR announced the launching of a new initiative, initiative petition 22 – Stop Oregon Sanctuaries – to be placed on the November 2018 statewide election ballot.  Official sponsors of the petition are three Oregon State Representatives, Mike Nearman, Sal Esquivel, and Greg Barreto.  The necessary 1,000 signatures for filing a proposed initiative were submitted to the Secretary of State’s office early in June and verified on June 7.

At that point, the ballot title proposed had to be submitted to the State Attorney General who is responsible for writing the official ballot title.  The Attorney General can use the proposed title, edit it, or rewrite it entirely.  Her office did revise the proposed ballot title somewhat before making it official.  Regardless of the changes made by the Attorney General partly in response to opponents’ complaints, opponents of the initiative filed an appeal of the ballot title to the Oregon Supreme Court on Friday, July 28, nearly the last day possible for them to do so (Monday, July 31).  The Court rendered its judgment on October 6, that the Certified Ballot Title was approved without changes. 

Appeals by opponents, which can be made at two points in the prescribed process, delay movement of a petition and eat into the time proponents have for collecting signatures which must be completed very early in July before the November election.

To help citizens overcome this delaying tactic that is a great advantage to opponents, the new Secretary of State, Dennis Richardson, issued on July 13, 2017 a directive that petitioners can collect signatures during the period when the Attorney General’s approved ballot title has been challenged and is awaiting action by the Supreme Court.  So OFIR proceeded to collect signatures while the ballot title was pending before the Supreme Court.  Again, opponents worked to hamper IP 22, filing a lawsuit against Secretary Richardson’s proposed changes.  To avoid an extensive legal battle, the Secretary called upon the Legislature to enact his proposed changes into law instead of having them created by administrative directive.  The result of the lawsuit and Legislative inaction was that OFIR unjustly lost all signatures collected from June to October 6, 2017.

Now, as of March 2018, signature gathering is back on track, continuing apace, and we are optimistic that the required number for getting petition IP 22 on the November ballot will be obtained.  The magic number is 88,184 valid signatures of Oregon registered voters. We urge everyone who can help with signature gathering to do so.