Washington state already has what many people call a “sanctuary law” that essentially prohibits local law enforcement from assisting ICE, so Navarrete wanted to take a step further: allowing certain officials to designate city properties as “nonpublic” to restrict warrantless access for ICE.

The council could have passed the law had it not advanced it as an emergency ordinance, which requires at least five votes to pass. The officials voted 4-3, with Council President Betsy Wilkerson dissenting with the conservative minority in opposition to the progressive majority.

“I don’t expect a lot of people to understand this,” Navarrete said. “You would have to walk in the shoes of immigrants to understand what is what is like to not commit any crime, to be targeted and to not walk freely because of the way you look, because of your accent, or where you come from, and you know, I don’t expect you to understand, but try to to see it in the human way.”

She said the council wouldn’t have considered the proposal if the Trump administration followed the law. Councilmember Paul Dillon agreed, adding that they labeled it an emergency because “we have a disappearing machine in this community,” given Spokane’s proximity to the border.

Federal agents have additional authority within 100 miles of the border to conduct searches and arrests based on “reasonable suspicion” rather than a higher legal standard of “probable cause.” 

The city of Spokane is located 110 miles south of the Canadian border, with some of the county sitting just below that 100-mile zone. Idaho is only about 30 miles east, which Dillon said ICE has used to circumvent Washington state law by detaining immigrants over in Kootenai County.

“This is not a sanctuary city, and this is not a sanctuary policy,” Councilmember Kitty Klitzke said. “This isn’t us telling the federal government how to do their business. This is us allowing people in our community to do their business without fear of racial profiling and harassment.”

Klitzke called the ordinance “a constitutional, due process policy.” However, Councilmember Michael Cathcart noted that, unlike a prior iteration, Monday’s version had not undergone the proper legal review. He raised concerns about the lack of clarity and process behind the proposal.

The original proposal would’ve allowed the Spokane Park Board to “temporarily or permanently” designate city parks as “nonpublic” areas due to residential safety concerns. That means agents wouldn’t be allowed to enter without written permission unless they have a warrant for someone.

Park Board President Jennifer Ogden opposed the proposal before it went public, so the council majority had to change its plan due to conflicts with the city charter. Monday’s version eliminates mention of parks, focusing on preventing entry to permitted events held on public right-of-ways.

Dillon told The Center Square that the proposal is currently dead, but he plans to reintroduce it.

Wilkerson said she supports the idea but voted against it due to “legal nuances” that were not clarified before the meeting. After voting, Councilmember Jonathan Bingle attempted to explain to the audience that the proposal had failed, but Wilkerson cut him off since he didn’t have permission to speak.

TWENTY STATES SUE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION FOR SHARING SENSITIVE MEDICAID DATA WITH ICE

Spokane then issued a news release on Tuesday, stating that the ordinance had passed, only to quickly add a correction before ultimately wiping it from the city’s website later that day. Notably, Monday marked Navarrete’s last council meeting with her recent resignation effective June 30.  

“If I hurt some feelings, I’m sorry,” she said. “But I am an immigrant that is proud … and a lot of times I am an example of what people don’t like to see: a successful immigrant, Latina, being in a white space.”