Law to prevent ICE from warrantless raids in events on Spokane public property fails

Federal immigration officers can continue to enter ticketed events on public property in Spokane, with or without a warrant, after an emergency City Council proposal failed Monday.

The ordinance, “Safe and Welcome in Spokane,” failed 4-3. As an emergency ordinance, it required five votes to pass and only received four. Councilmen Jonathan Bingle and Michael Cathcart and Council President Betsy Wilkerson voted against the proposal.

It is possible the law could be reintroduced through the normal legislative process, only requiring a majority to pass, and Councilman Paul Dillon committed to doing so.

But Monday was also the last day in office for the ordinance’s sponsor, Councilwoman Lili Navarette, who is resigning effective Tuesday for health reasons. The council is scheduled to appoint her replacement by July 28, so it may take some time or a change of heart for a reintroduced ordinance to succeed.

Wilkerson argued Monday that the law had not undergone sufficient legal analysis for her to support it.

Cathcart agreed and questioned whether the city could legally bar specific law enforcement agencies while allowing others, even though the ordinance specifically called out federal immigration officers.

He worried that the law would also effectively bar local law enforcement from warrantless actions in city events, such as responding to an active threat. He also argued that the new law could have the opposite effect than its sponsors intended, attracting federal immigration officers to surveil events shielded by the ordinance.

“We are creating a captive audience opportunity for enforcement,” Cathcart said. “You are telegraphing, communicating directly to the federal agency where they should go to observe for individuals that they might want to be arresting or detaining. I don’t think that’s a smart thing to do.”

Bingle echoed this sentiment and also argued that laws like the one considered Monday would attract the ire and attention of the federal government.

“This is a sanctuary policy, in the same way that the city of Spokane is a sanctuary city and the state of Washington is a sanctuary state,” Bingle said. “The federal government is very determined on this issue right now.”

“This is not a sanctuary city, and this is not a sanctuary policy; this is a constitutional due-process policy,” said Councilwoman Kitty Klitzke, the ordinance’s cosponsor.

“The reason for this ordinance is to protect folks that are law-abiding. … We have had a lot of folks be detained by ICE who are following the rules and who do have green cards,. We don’t want people afraid to show up to events because they might become a victim of racial profiling or be detained despite following due process.”

An earlier version of the ordinance would have specifically applied to event spaces inside city parks, but the one considered Monday would have affected public rights-of-way, such as streets. It would not have affected parks, following pushback earlier this month from the independent Spokane Park Board.

It’s not clear what the knock-on effects of the new law would have been for the events that wanted its protections, or in what specific cases it would have applied.

The ordinance’s supporters have pointed to significant events that take place each year on city property, such as Hoopfest, Bloomsday and Tacos and Tequila. All of these take place on public rights-of-way, but the public can arguably enter all of them without tickets. The law would have only prevented warrantless immigration action in events that required “express permission” for entrance, such as with tickets.

“Would this apply to something as big as Bloomsday?” Cathcart asked. “As small as Tacos and Tequila? It’s not clear to me at all what the process would be for this to apply.”

In a Monday-night text, Dillon said that the “ticketed portions” of such events could be expanded, though it’s unclear if that would lead to previously open events like Tacos and Tequila to require entrance tickets to receive those protections.

Supporters argued that all additional protections are necessary in light of President Donald Trump’s campaign of mass deportations, worried that fear of immigration raids would prevent some from participating in community events.

“Right now, our community has been under attack, targeted and surveilled by (Immigration and Customs Enforcement),” said Jennyfer Mesa, executive director of Latinos En Spokane. “We have seen more detention for deportation in the last six months than I have seen in my five years working within this organization.”

Dr. Luis Manriquez, a family physician, noted that he is the grandson of an illegal immigrant who came to the country legally under the farm labor Bracero Program and stayed in the country after that program ended in 1964.

“When the country decided to discard him and turn its back on him, he stayed,” Manriquez said. “And because of that action, America is better for it. My mother, Dr. Manriquez, works on the cutting edge of cancer therapeutics. … I work three jobs as a physician, caring for the underserved and rural members of this community.”

“And in that way, I am in no way special, because immigrants work very hard to support their families and their community.”

Many of those who expressed opposition to the ordinance were uneasy with the implications of designating public property “nonpublic,” even temporarily.

“Our public spaces are not for encampments, and they’re not for potential CHOP zones where law enforcement isn’t allowed,” said marriage and family therapist Wendy Fishburne, referencing the 2020 Capitol Hill Occupied Protest in Seattle.

Others expressed broad support for immigration enforcement, and argued the city should not stand in their way.

“Heavily armed, masked agents are terrorizing our community, but they’re terrorizing the right people in the community, the people who are here illegally,” said Jerry Quinn Jr. “I want them to be terrified, I want them to be scared, because they broke our law.”

The law would have still allowed immigration officials to execute judicial warrants, noted Hadley Morrow, a local consultant.

“I’m sad that I have to say the obvious, that this is not, in any way, a sanctuary bill for any criminals, and in no way does it prevent any law enforcement agency or officer from operating in the bounds of an actual judicial investigation and with an actual warrant,” Morrow said.

Supporters on the council argued that it was immigration enforcement agents who were breaking the law and operating what Dillon described as a “disappearance machine.”

“We wouldn’t be putting this ordinance forward if federal agents would be following the law,” Navarrete said. “Regardless of documented or undocumented immigrants, they are protected by the Constitution.”