— from San Juan County Communications —
A San Juan County citizen’s initiative concerning immigration has been approved to go to the November general election ballot. Initiative 2017-7 required 1,635 signatures (which represents 15% of the votes cast in the County in the last gubernatorial election) in order to advance to the voters. On July 5, the sponsor turned in 156 petition signature pages containing 2,668 signatures. On July 12, the petition was certified with 2,382 valid signatures. Upon certification, the Auditor is authorized to submit the measure to the voters at the next general election.
There is an alternative route to adoption. If it chooses, the County Council can unilaterally adopt the initiative into law. If they do so, the measure will not go to the voters in November. Council must adopt the initiative as presented, “without change or amendment.” If they make changes, both the original initiative and the amended initiative must go to the voters.
In order to consider its options, and to facilitate public discussion, the County Council has scheduled a public hearing on the initiative for Tuesday, August 15, at 9:15 am. The public hearing will take place in the Council Chambers at 55 Second Street in Friday Harbor.
The right to create law by initiative has been available to San Juan County citizens since the adoption of the County Charter in 2005. Since 2005, five initiatives have been filed with the County Auditor’s Office. Of those, only two have completed the petition process and submitted petitions for certification. The previous one, Initiative 2012-4, commonly known at the GMO Initiative, was certified as sufficient, went to the 2012 general election ballot, and was adopted into law by the voters.
In addition, two “mini-initiatives” have been submitted. Mini-initiatives require fewer signatures and go to the County Council, rather than to the voters, for adoption or rejection. Only one of the two – Initiative 2010-3, concerning vesting of property rights – completed the petition process and went to Council. Council elected not to adopt the initiative into law.
For more information about the initiative process, contact the Elections office at (360) 378-3357.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
I encourage everyone who cares about protecting all of our residents to post a comment here, to also contact the county councilors, and to attend the hearing on Aug. 15. Adopting the ordinance now by the council brings safety to our residents sooner, it shows that our elected leaders are willing to lead and truly care about the safety of all our people, and it puts us on the map with the other counties whose elected leaders have already adopted such an ordinance. Your comments will show our councilors that this ordinance has overwhelming public support, so use your constitutionally protected right to express yourself and help our councilors to do the right thing.
David Turnoy
Chair, San Juan County Democrats
“Undocumented” immigrants have all “jumped the line” while other people were waiting patiently for legal admission.
They have also all committed a crime in the process.
If we truly want to welcome all comers (and we should), then we need to force our legislators to change our government’s antiquated immigration laws.
It might also be useful to revive some form of the old Bracero Program, to permit temporary workers to have easy access to our available jobs.
But to unquestioningly accept people who came here illegally, and who thereby are displacing people who are trying to obey our immigration laws, is both socially wrong and immoral.
I therefore suggest that we should vote “No” on the initiative.
Well, Steve, I agree that federal immigration law should change… Almost everyone does… However this initiative has nothing to do with immigration law and everything to do with unfunded mandate’s, and dealing with crime in the process. Federal law permits ICE to request local authorities to help enforce immigration law, but they cannot require it. I would hope that our police enforce state and local laws and not work (Unpaid) as agents of the federal government. We pay our federal taxes to the federal government so that they can enforce their laws. Let our local police do their job, and ICE do their job. Beyond that, issues about whether and how to deal with immigration policy are beyond the scope and power of local or state initiative, and I urge you to make your voice known in the federal setting.
I would hope that all of our law enforcement agencies (local, state, federal) would work together to protect all of us. I think it’s unfortunate that some people, and elected officials, have chosen to take an “us” vs “them” attitude toward public safety. The results can and have been disastrous for some of “us”. Just one example in Portland, Or.
An illegal immigrant arrested and deported 20 times was released in Portland last year because Portland, like Washington, had directed law enforcement to not hold someone in their custody long enough for the Feds to arrest him.
As a result, he was released last year even though ICE asked that he be held until they could pick him up.
On Monday, (07-24-17) he committed a robbery, kidnapping, burglary and sexual attack on two victims, including rape of a 65 year old woman.
I’ll be voting “NO”, if our council members give us the opportunity to vote on this.
Of course a case like the one you mention should be of concern to everyone. Simply put, this Immigration Initiative would not prevent the sheriff from holding such a person for ICE. See Section C.1.b.. If there is probable cause to believe that the individual has engaged in Class A felony, a violent Class B felony or a violent Class C, all the prohibitions against the County holding a person for ICE are lifted.
Eleanor- you are correct if he had raped the woman, committed a robbery and kidnapping before he was picked up the Sheriff could hold him for ICE. Unfortunately these crimes were committed after he was released because he had “only” been deported 20 times. Seems like there are a few holes in the immigration initiative to me if someone who flagrantly breaks our laws multiple times can just be released into society.
John,
That happened in a different county under different rules than this initiative sets forth. Thanks for your worry about rapists, but in this country most of the time rapists are actually U.S. citizens. Most often they are white men who know the victim, and, should the crime even be reported, don’t get convicted or punished much if at all.
As a woman living on Orcas, I am far more concerned with the children in our county who are afraid their parents will be deported while they are at school, the people fearing to complain about crimes committed against them and the people being intimidated into not reporting crimes they may have witnessed for fear of being asked questions about immigration status than with the idea an “”immigrant” might kidnap and rape me after having been set free by Sherriff Krebs 20 times.
Also, I am not a lawyer, but the language in this ordinance looks to me like if a person got thrown in jail on suspicion of a violent crime, that person would be kept in jail regardless of immigration status and if they ended up charged with that crime, ICE would surely be welcome to them. I feel okay with that. Practically speaking I think clearly separating the duties of local law enforcement from federal immigration enforcement will make the community safer.
Looking at proposed initiative I’m convinced that it’s a smart local response to our disfunctional national immigration policy.
In large measure, the proposal simply makes permanent the existing policy of Sheriff Krebs—to not demand immigration papers or assist in deportations for minor offenses.
Most important, the proposal would ensure that all of us are free to call 911, interact with local officials, come forward as victim of or witness to crime—all without fear of being, reported, rounded up, deported.