Vancouver attorney Angus Lee argues Washington law improperly shields convicted domestic abusers, sexual offenders, and drunk drivers from deportation and urges lawmakers to change it.

Vancouver Attorney Angus Lee says Washington’s first obligation is the safety of its citizens

Angus Lee
for Clark County Today

In 2011, Washington lawmakers deliberately and officially changed state sentencing law to reduce federal immigration consequences for people convicted of Washington state crimes, and that policy choice has wrongly protected domestic abusers, sexual offenders, and drunk drivers from deportation ever since.

What Washington did in 2011, and why it matters

Washington used to treat gross misdemeanors as punishable by up to 365 days in county jail. Then in 2011, the Legislature made a targeted, one-day change: it reduced the maximum from 365 to 364 days. This was not an accident. It was not a technical trick to hack federal immigration law. It was done for a very specific purpose, and the Legislature said so in black and white. The stated intent was to prevent certain state criminal convictions from triggering deportation under federal immigration law. That is the core fact every voter should understand. In 2011, Washington’s elected officials made an official, formal, statewide decision to soften immigration consequences for people who were convicted. Not accused. Not acquitted. Convicted.

And it applied broadly. It did not apply only to sympathetic cases. It did not apply only to first-time offenders. It did not apply only to nonviolent conduct. It applied across gross misdemeanors.

That includes convicted domestic abusers. That includes convicted sexual offenders. That includes convicted drunk drivers. So here is the question Washington’s leaders should answer plainly. Why should Washington law be drafted to protect convicted criminals from removal?

The result is worse than bad policy

Supporters of the 2011 change will say it was about fairness. They will say it was about preventing disproportionate consequences for immigrants who made mistakes. That argument collapses when you look at what the policy actually does. This is not a narrowly tailored law that protects the innocent. It is a broad rule that has the predictable effect of extending immigration protections to people convicted of serious crimes that Washington itself recognizes as high-harm conduct.

Let’s be clear about what this means. Washington’s sentencing structure has been rigged to reduce the likelihood that certain noncitizen criminals will face deportation consequences after they are convicted of these crimes. How is that in the public interest? How does that protect families? How does that protect communities? It does not. It does the opposite.

It keeps dangerous people here. It tells victims that the system will find ways to soften the consequences. It tells the public that the Legislature’s priorities include protecting convicted criminals from federal removal. That is unconscionable.

This is not an argument about immigration in general

You can support immigration and still oppose the current law. You can be sympathetic to immigrants and still oppose it. You can believe our country benefits from immigration and still say, without hesitation, that domestic abusers and sexual offenders should not be shielded from deportation. In fact, if the political class truly wants the public to have confidence in an immigration system, it should start with the most basic premise of accountability: people who come here and commit serious crimes should not receive special protections from state law that reduce the consequences of conviction.

The left frequently tells us that immigrants are good and hardworking. Maybe some are. But protecting good people does not require having state laws that protect domestic abusers, sexual offenders, and drunk drivers from deportation. If lawmakers want Washingtonians to accept the broad argument that immigration is a net benefit, then they should stop insisting on policies that keep the worst actors among us.

We are calling on Southwest Washington legislators to fix this now

The entire 2011 change should never have happened. It should be repealed outright. But we live in the real world. That is not politically realistic today. So we drafted a narrower bill, and we have presented it to our local representative. The proposal keeps the general 364-day rule intact for most gross misdemeanors, but it restores the 365-day maximum for three specific convictions:

1. Driving under the influence.

2. Assault in the fourth degree domestic violence.

3. Assault in the fourth degree with sexual motivation.

This is the bare minimum. It is not extreme. It is not complicated. It is not punitive beyond reason. It is a targeted correction to stop Washington law from protecting the offenders we should be most concerned about.

So here is the request to every legislator in Southwest Washington. Introduce this bill. Sponsor it. Push it. Make it public. And if any legislator opposes it, force the question into daylight. Ask them to explain why. Why should Washington law protect convicted domestic abusers from deportation triggers? Why should Washington law protect convicted sexual offenders from deportation triggers? Why should Washington law protect convicted drunk drivers from deportation triggers? There is no good answer.

If anyone wants to argue about broader immigration policy, they can do that. But this is not that debate. This is the simplest moral and public safety line there is.

Stop protecting predators. Stop protecting abusers. Stop protecting drunk drivers.

Washington’s first obligation is the safety of its citizens. Washington’s first obligation is to make sure the law is not silently rigged to soften consequences for those who abuse our people. It is time to stop shielding them. It is time for Washington to stop protecting domestic abusers and sexual offenders from deportation. It is time to send them home.

Also read:

VIDEO: Bill dubbed the ‘initiative killer’ clears WA Senate committee
A bill critics label the “initiative killer” cleared a Washington Senate committee on a party-line vote after all Republican amendments were rejected.
Rep. Stephanie McClintock’s bill to modernize beer warehousing laws receives a public hearing
House Bill 2207, sponsored by Rep. Stephanie McClintock, received a public hearing as lawmakers considered updates to Washington’s beer warehousing laws.
Michelle Belkot announces bid for re-election to Clark County Council, District 2
Clark County Councilor Michelle Belkot announced she is seeking re-election in District 2 in the November 2026 General Election.
Legislation from Rep. David Stuebe to strengthen Medicaid support for emergency ambulance services receives a public hearing
House Bill 2531, sponsored by Rep. David Stuebe, received a public hearing as lawmakers consider changes to Medicaid reimbursement and funding stability for emergency ambulance providers.
Opinion: ‘Please make your voice heard by taking my legislative priorities survey’
Rep. John Ley invites Clark County residents to share their views by participating in a legislative priorities survey during the 2026 session.