Spokane voices support for Washington’s sanctuary law in most crowded meeting in years

A nonbinding resolution to signal the city of Spokane’s commitment to Washington’s sanctuary state law, the Keep Washington Working Act, was the focal point of the City Council’s first truly contentious meeting of the year.

Roughly 500 piled into city hall Monday to voice support for undocumented immigrants or to demonstrate their desire to see deportations continue unabated and their frustration with the state’s protections. Emotions flared, with immigrant activists booing the first public speaker of the night and one speaker each from either side of the issue telling the City Council that they felt physically unsafe sharing the room with advocates from the other group.

So many were in attendance that the Spokane Fire Department requested that as many as 200 people leave the building, as the crowd was well in excess of the building’s capacity. Dozens also gathered outside of city hall ahead of the meeting Monday night to protest the hard-line immigration policies of President Donald Trump.

Pointing to a presidential administration that has vowed to enact mass deportations, local nonprofit Latinos En Spokane asked the city in January to affirm state sanctuary laws and to find money to support immigrant legal defense services.

The Spokane City Council voted 5-2 Monday to symbolically commit the city to enforcing the statewide Keep Washington Working Act, which restricts law enforcement in the state from supporting the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The resolution, which is purely symbolic and does not create or modify existing law, states the city will also attempt to find funding for the legal services of undocumented immigrants.

Despite the lack of teeth to the resolution, it drew a larger audience than any other council meeting in recent years, perhaps only comparable to the controversy following a 2023 resolution supporting Israel’s right to defend itself in the wake of the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks.

Advocates, like sponsor Councilwoman Lili Navarrete and Councilman Zack Zappone, argued the resolution restating existing law was important to make the community aware of the protections the state provides and to reassure residents and businesses that the municipality will not abridge their rights under state law.

“Opponents of this resolution will say that the resolution doesn’t accomplish anything, it’s just enforcing state law, and it puts the city in jeopardy of losing federal funding,” Zappone said. “The federal government continues to threaten local jurisdictions to intimidate us. However, the city must and will continue to live by our values.”

Carmela Conroy, a former deputy prosecutor for Spokane Country who ran unsuccessfully as a Democrat for Congress against Rep. Michael Baumgartner, R-Spokane, argued that local law enforcement should not be diverted from enforcing local crimes, and that federal authorities should be expected to handle federal immigration law themselves.

Conroy and Councilwoman Kitty Klitzke both argued that the current proliferation of undocumented immigration was a direct result of the failure of federal lawmakers to reform immigration law in decades.

“The U.S. congress must reform our decades-old immigration system that is hampering our economic growth and creating human tragedy for many essential workers and other members of our communities,” Conroy said.

“If there is a legal pathway, show me,” Navarrete said, noting she was the council’s first immigrant member in over 100 years. “Even the ones that are trying to find a pathway for citizenship, for permanent residency, for temporary residents, for work permits – their applications are being denied because denying them is a path faster to deport them.”

Others argued that their support for immigrants and immigration ends when it is done so without legal documentation.

“Sanctuary cities or states are deceptive and unnecessary,” said Mike Gleason, a local resident providing testimony. “Illegal entry into the United States is a crime, and the person who enters illegally is a criminal.”

Will Hulings, one of the most prolific commentators at city council meetings, argued that sanctuary policies prevent law enforcement from doing their jobs.

“They create a haven for criminals, and make it easier for federal drug traffickers, violent offenders, and Biden cartel-linked gangs to operate freely in our city,” he added, without elaborating on his claim that the former president is involved in drug trafficking.

Councilman Jonathan Bingle, who voted against the resolution, argued that tight immigration laws were necessary to prevent a “very small group” of violent criminals and drug dealers from entering.

“Now, had this resolution been: ‘Dear Congress, please fix the broken immigration system, because what we want here is we want more people coming here legally … I 100% would sign off on that all day long,” Bingle said.

Councilman Paul Dillon argued that the Keep Washington Working Act did not just protect undocumented immigrants, but all immigrants and in some cases citizens from being racially profiled. He noted that Greyhound Lines Inc. paid $2.2 million to settle a lawsuit over its practice of allegedly discriminating against customers based on skin color and allowing immigration raids on its buses in Spokane.

Councilman Michael Cathcart, who was the second to vote against the resolution, argued that the law did nothing to further the protections of immigrants and possibly endangered them further.

“It’s not an ordinance that enacts any sort of law, it doesn’t stop ICE in any capacity from operating inside the city of Spokane,” Cathcart said. “What is this law going to do? It is likely going to draw the ire of the federal officials who are actively enforcing these laws.”

He added that the resolution could amount to little more than both sticking the city’s neck out onto the Trump administration’s chopping block and also mislead immigrants into believing they are fully protected when “ICE doesn’t care about this resolution.”

“I’m very concerned that we are creating this immense false sense of security, that there will be a headline in The Spokesman-Review tomorrow, or other publications, about us passing this resolution,” Cathcart said. “And suddenly individuals are going to say, ‘Wow, OK ICE is gone,’ but that’s not the case.”