Attorney General Pam Bondi has received a strong response from Oregon Governor Tina Kotek regarding the state’s sanctuary policies. Bondi recently expressed concerns that Oregon’s actions “hinder federal immigration enforcement” and potentially endanger the interests of the United States. In her letter, Kotek respectfully disagreed, asserting that Oregon does not engage in “conduct that thwarts federal immigration enforcement.”
Kotek emphasized that Oregon has maintained its sanctuary status since it became the first state to pass such legislation in 1987. This history is rooted in concerns about the profiling of Latinos by law enforcement over immigration status. In reflecting on this history, Kotek noted that the state’s policies have not violated federal law and that solutions have been sought through legislative frameworks without jeopardizing federal regulations.
“A 2018 ballot measure to repeal portions of Oregon’s federal immigration enforcement law failed when 63% of Oregon voters opposed repealing the existing law,” Kotek mentioned. This highlights the state’s commitment to its sanctuary status despite pushback from federal authorities. She also pointed out that Oregon law was revisited and “strengthened” in 2021, further solidifying its stance against compliance with federal immigration laws.
Kotek cited Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, who affirmed that, “Oregon stands for the safety, dignity, and human rights of all Oregonians.” This statement underlines the state’s decision to create a legal buffer that prioritizes the safety and rights of its residents over compliance with federal immigration directives.
The legal grounding for Oregon’s position draws on the Anticommandeering Rule, which limits federal power over state legislation. This principle emerged from the 1992 case New York v. United States, which established that the federal government cannot compel states to enforce federal regulatory programs. Kotek invoked this rule in her defense of Oregon’s policies, asserting, “The state does not take on the additional expense or burden to perform federal immigration enforcement as it is the job of the federal government.”
In closing her response, Kotek stated that Oregon is compliant with federal law while following its own state legislation. Therefore, she argued, no immediate initiatives are required to alter laws perceived to obstruct immigration enforcement.
This exchange arrives at a pivotal moment, as an Oregon federal judge is set to make a significant ruling concerning immigration. The case involves a Guatemalan farmworker, identified only as L.J.P.L., who has faced deportation for the second time. He had been deported during the Obama administration, and his current standing in immigration courts hinges on arguments about his eligibility for release based on regular check-ins with immigration authorities.
With Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, presiding over this case, the outcome could carry implications for future interpretations of state versus federal immigration authority. The judge’s decision will be awaited keenly amid rising tensions surrounding immigration enforcement across various jurisdictions.
"*" indicates required fields
