Some anti-ICE protesters angered by the lack of action in the resolution, while many law enforcement supporters were disappointed that the council was acting to divide the community rather than unite with a resolution that is expected to be read next week
Paul Valencia
Clark County Today
The Clark County Council debated for more than 40 minutes on Wednesday on a resolution regarding federal immigration enforcement in the region, and that was after an hour of public comment on the issue.
While officially not condemning Immigration and Customs Enforcement — the council settled on the word “alarmed” regarding some reported enforcement methods — the modified resolution is certainly an anti-ICE document.
In the end, the council voted 3-2 to read the resolution at a future meeting.
That decision disappointed many in the pro-law enforcement side of the aisle and also angered many of the anti-ICE crowd. Apparently, the language in the modified draft did not go far enough for them. At least one could be heard swearing at county councilors as the person left the meeting room.
The debate between councilors had several intense moments. Michelle Belkot and Wil Fuentes had a back-and-forth on racial profiling/racism. Belkot called out Sue Marshall for what Belkot took as a threat from Marshall to the budget of the Clark County Sheriff’s Office. Glen Yung wanted to show his support only for local law enforcement, not all law enforcement. Matt Little, meanwhile, wondered what the point of the resolution was at all.
“I wanted everyone to be reminded we are the legislative branch of the county. We are not the executive. We don’t have jurisdiction over immigration. We don’t have jurisdiction over law enforcement at any level, including the local sheriff’s office,” Little said. “I’m not an expert on any of these issues. … Putting together a resolution that discusses immigration, law enforcement, due process … is very difficult. I just don’t think it’s our jurisdiction to speak on these issues.”
Little and Belkot voted against the resolution. Marshall, Fuentes, and Yung voted in favor of the resolution.
The councilors went over the document and looked for common ground on language.
For example, Little did not like the word “demands” in the sentence that said Clark County supports the rule of law and demands enforcement tactics that do not increase fear, confusion, or undermine public trust.
“I just don’t think we have the jurisdiction to demand anything. But we can encourage something. We can expect something,” Little said. “But demanding? … I don’t think we can demand these kinds of things.”
Sue Marshall replied:
“We do approve their budget, so we do have some authority,” Marshall said, referring to the Clark County Sheriff’s Office.
Belkot took issue with that.
“By your mention that we control their budget, that’s a very threatening comment,” Belkot said. “I wouldn’t take away or affect CCSO’s budget.”
Marshall responded: “That is really not what that comment meant.”
Yung pointed out that he was hoping the resolution would have some action behind it, perhaps stating that county resources will not be used for federal immigration enforcement purposes.
Belkot wondered how one would enforce that.
Yung noted the county is in charge of its resources. For example, he said, the county does not have to lease any space to the federal government.
Little said he was concerned about unintended consequences of such a statement.
Belkot noted that one such consequence could be that Clark County is put on a list of sanctuary jurisdictions, a move that could affect federal grants to the county.
Later in the debate, the council discussed the possibility of adding words from the Clark County Health Department regarding racial profiling.
Yung was apprehensive, noting that while it might be part of this, he felt it was a separate issue from the overall ICE operations in the region.
“It’s a very big and real issue,” Fuentes said. “Racial profiling is happening. It’s happening in our communities and it’s happening across the country.”
Belkot said: “So you’re assuming law enforcement …”
She was not able to finish the sentence before Fuentes responded.
“I’m not assuming. It is happening,” Fuentes said.
“You’re saying they’re racists?” Belkot asked.
“I am not saying they’re racists. I am saying that racial profiling is happening. That’s what I’m saying, Councilor Belkot. Don’t put words in my mouth.”
“I don’t need to,” she added.
Little asked that there be a paragraph added that also shows support for law enforcement. Something to the effect of the Clark County Council supports law enforcement and is “thankful
to the honorable women, men, and families who serve and place themselves at risk to provide public safety services in our community.”
Yung said he wanted the word “local” in front of law enforcement.
“Trust in law enforcement is dipping. That includes our local law enforcement who have nothing to do with this, and that’s dangerous for our community,” Yung said. “I think I’m not going to go and support … I think it should just be local.”
Little then wondered what that encompassed. Just Clark County Sheriff’s Office and local police departments? Or state police? What about federal fish and wildlife agents?
Yung said the people can decide what that means.
The beginning of the draft resolution stated that Clark County is disturbed by reported federal immigration enforcement activities and tactics. Fuentes wanted that to say that Clark County “condemns” the reported activities and tactics.
Yung was unsure of that word because he does not always know what to believe in the reports. He preferred “alarmed” by the reports.
The modifications that were agreed to will be added to the resolution, and it is expected to be read at the Feb. 17 council meeting. The draft likely will be posted before then on the county website.
Belkot is afraid that this resolution, while not as inflammatory as the city of Vancouver’s statement last month, is another way to divide the community, not unite. She is afraid it will encourage some to interfere with law enforcement.
“The council has no jurisdiction over federal law. … We’ve never had anything to do with law enforcement,” she said. “In my particular opinion, this is them following suit with city of Vancouver, which we are not. We are Clark County Council.
“There are some concerns I have with this. I want everyone … to stay safe. Getting in the way of local or federal law enforcement is an issue. … I think this is pitting our local law enforcement against federal. … Because of these issues … I can’t go along with this,” Belkot said.
Before the councilors had their debate, dozens of people stepped up to the microphone to give their opinion during public comment.
One side asked for respect for law enforcement officials and our nation’s laws. That side also wondered if the resolution would divide the community.
“We should be thanking them for their service to our country.”
“We’re either a nation of laws or we’re not.”
“You are putting our citizens in harm’s way by dividing rather than uniting.”
From the other side, there was swearing and anti-white rhetoric, plus props were used to simulate soiled toilet paper or a diaper.
“No one is illegal on stolen land.”
“Stop negotiating with fascists and f—ing do something,” one screamed at the council.
Before public comment, Marshall, the county chair, reminded the crowd of the rules of the council. No applause. No vocalization for one side or the other. No profanity. No namecalling.
“Each person would be able to speak without intimidation,” Marshall said, adding that if there are disruptions, the council could take a recess and continue the meeting online.
Apparently, Marshall doesn’t consider F-bombs and simulating the act of wiping one’s backside and throwing two pieces of potentially soiled paper on the ground to be disruptions.
“This is what I think about Clark County Sheriff and this is what I think about your statement,” one anti-ICE protester said, tossing the papers to the floor.
That was after the person reached behind their back and appeared to put their hands down their pants to wipe their backside. To be fair, it might have only been a simulation for effect. But the folks sitting in chairs next to the podium were disgusted with the idea of litter just a few feet from them that had been used for the disgusting prop.
They asked for the litter to be removed.
Marshall disregarded their concerns and allowed public comment to continue, with the “toilet paper” display left there on the floor for roughly 20 minutes before a staff member, wearing rubber gloves, removed the paper.
It is noted that the person was wearing rubber gloves because no one was sure what, if anything, was on the paper.
Regardless, this was not considered a disruption worthy of any action from the council chair.
Note:
Here is a link to the draft resolution. It was modified in parts during Wednesday’s Council Time. Please read the story to see some of the changes. The final draft will likely be posted on the county website before the Feb. 17 Council Meeting.
Also read:
- POLL: Did the council’s debate and resolution help unite or divide the community?
The Clark County Council’s 3-2 vote to move forward with a modified ICE-related resolution followed heated public comment and sharp debate among councilors. - Stricter standards for WA sheriffs approved in state Senate
The state Senate passed Senate Bill 5974 to tighten eligibility standards for sheriffs and limit volunteer posses, sending the measure to the House. - Opinion: SB 5292: PFML tax bill looks like a trap
Elizabeth New (Hovde) argues SB 5292 could pave the way for higher PFML payroll taxes by changing how rates are set. - Opinion: Is a state income tax coming, and the latest on the I-5 Bridge project
Rep. John Ley shares a legislative update on a proposed state income tax, the I-5 Bridge project, the Brockmann Campus and House Bill 2605. - Clark County Council modifies language on its resolution on ICE activities in the region
Councilors voted 3-2 to move forward with a modified resolution addressing reported ICE activities, with debate over wording and jurisdiction.
