|
|
|
Large crowd in attendance as Commissioners
consider refugee resolution |
|
December 10, 2015 |
Monday's meeting of the Boundary County Board of
Commissioners dealt with noxious weeds, the
Restorium, and even the big wind storm of
November 17.
But the crowd of 150 people who attended the
meeting weren't really there to focus on those
agenda items. They were there for Monday
afternoon's discussion on possible adoption of a
resolution pertaining to refugee settlement.
The size of the crowd led to a change of venue
of the meeting from the usual County Courthouse
location to a room at the County Fairgrounds,
where there was adequate space for all who
wanted to attend.
A similar crowd was present when this agenda
item came up at the Commissioner's meeting one
week prior on November 30. At that meeting, the
Commissioners allowed for much public opinion
and comment. This time, they hoped to get down
to the work of putting together a resolution
they could agree upon.
Caution advised regarding rumors
Chairman Dan Dinning began the discussion by
cautioning all those present to take care in
believing everything they hear about refugees
and Boundary County.
He mentioned that a person had called him, and
this person said he was told that 166 refugees
had already been approved to be sent to Boundary
County. Nothing like this has happened,
Commissioner Dinning indicated.
“I want you to understand there are rampant
rumors running amongst the internet, running
amongst all kinds of things. Boundary County has
not been approached about having refugees coming
to this community,” he said.
Two possible resolutions considered
Commissioners then proceeded with reading aloud
of two possible resolutions for consideration.
The first resolution started off with a series
of "whereas," essentially setting forth the
reasons why the Commissioners felt a resolution
was needed, and included items such as it being
the duty of government to protect and serve its
citizens, that the program to relocate refugees
has begun under executive order, that some
federal agencies have indicated they don't
believe all refugees can have adequate
background checks or "vetting," and that
terrorist acts have occurred from individuals of
Middle Eastern origin. This part of the proposed
resolution also stated that Boundary County does
not have the resources to appropriately deal
with the needs of a group of refugees and the
services they might need.
The proposed resolution then went on to say that
the County Commissioners would not use Boundary
County funds to assist in the resettlement of
refugees, and called upon the governor and the
legislature to not allow refugees "Syrian or
otherwise" to enter Idaho without a full vetting
process.
The proposed resolution went on recommend that
the governor and legislature organize a task
force to determine if it is in the interest of
the state to accept any Middle Eastern refugees
solely based on determination by the federal
government that those refugees have been fully
vetted and will not harm Idaho citizens.
The second resolution under consideration was
one passed earlier by Bonner County. This
proposed resolution urged halting the refugee
resettlement project until the vetting process
is reviewed and all the state's concerns are
addressed.
Commission Chairman Dinning emphasized that one
of the biggest concerns was mmore about the
vetting process itself. “Our concerns are about
the vetting process, truthfully," he said.
"Whether it is someone that is from Syria or
someone from some other country in this world,
is our vetting process adequate?”
Problems in checking on the background
of refugees
Commissioner Lee Pinkerton brought up what he
considered to be potential danger in allowing
refugees to enter the country who have not been
fully vetted, and that he felt the county needed
to take a stand.
“We’ve always been the most generous country in
the world," he said, "but somewhere along the
line we’ve lost track between helping and
putting ourselves in harm’s way.”
“We’re just Boundary County, Idaho. For the most
part, people outside of this county wouldn’t
even know who we are, where we’re from, what
we’re doing. But somewhere somebody has to quit
playing politically correct games and make a
stand and push back . . . "
“We need to start sending the message that even
in Boundary County, Idaho we’re smart enough to
see where something’s going wrong, and we want
them to understand that we’ve just got to do
something right for a change. Let’s push back."
“Eventually if enough counties and enough
citizens push back, then theyre going to go back
to the table and they’re going to make decisions
that are going to benefit refugees."
Other concerns expressed
He further stressed that he believes Boundary
County cannot bear the financial impact of
having refugees here. Boundary County can't
afford, he said, to “Have a whole other
community put in our laps, and for us ultimately
to take care of them, even though we’d like to.
. . We can’t afford to have another community
here.”
He seemed to be saying he was speaking only for
Boundary County by using Louisiana as an
example. “What the federal government wants to
do in Louisiana, that’s Louisiana and their
counties to decide, but they’re not coming
here.”
He further indicated that the federal government
might initially provide financial assistance for
this, but that often after a few years, that
federal money comes to an end.
Commissioner Pinkerton also spoke of keeping
refugees out of Idaho entirely. "The governor
has made a step in this direction of banning
them or keeping them from coming to Idaho," he
said. We need to go out on a limb and get him
the strength to continue with that resolve, so
the refugees won’t be coming to Idaho. We’re
just a small county, and what we have to do is
deal with what’s available to us, and those
county funds is what our job is to worry about.
"We’re sending a message that we don’t want them
here, to come here, and the reasons for it,
because we couldn’t afford them. . . . We can’t
afford them."
Some in the audience wondered if, having said no
Boundary County funds would be used in refugee
resettlement, if the County would accept federal
money allocated for use in working with any
refugees.
Commissioner Kirby spoke on that issue, along
with his feelings about accepting any refugees
at all: “What I’m trying to say is that we’re
not spending any federal money, we’re not asking
for any federal money, we’re telling them in
essence we don’t want any federal money. We
don’t want their refugees nor do we want the
money that goes with them."
Dinning states proper vetting is main
point of resolution, cautions on religion as a
disqualifier
Commission Chairman Dinning felt that the
discussion was heading more in the direction of
refusing refugees, and getting away from the
proposed resolution's emphasis on recommending
improved vetting: "If we’re going to go through
this process of saying they’re not vetted
properly, and how do we vet them properly, and
we urge our government to vet them properly. But
even if you do so, we’re still not going to take
them, what’s the use of even putting that in
there?"
"We need to be consistent with our message. If
they’re vetted properly, are we going to allow
them in, and if so, that doesn’t mean everywhere
but Bonners Ferry."
Commissioner Dinning further expressed concern
that the resolution not focus on a refugee's
religion. "Are you talking of Islam as a
nationality or as a religion? We have rules that
we as a country have put in place regarding
religion, national origin, sex, age, all kinds
of things. So to me, the Islamic issue that’s
being spoken about today has raised a much
bigger issue than just this one."
He spoke of a conversation he had had earlier,
wherein he asked a person opposed to refugee
resettlement whether they were opposed because
of the nationality of the people from the Middle
East, or because of their religion.
"She said as a religion," he said. "And I took
exception with that, because I do not feel that
I as a county commissioner can tell any religion
they can or cannot come into this community."
Motion passes to move forward with a
resolution
Eventually the Commissioners passed a motion to
accept the first proposed resolution, but with
the understanding that some of the wording would
need to be adjusted and rewritten to reflect
some of the thoughts, concerns, and discussions
outlined above. "This resolution to me is not
just about Syrians," Commissioner Dinning said.
"There’s a bigger issue. It’s about vetting. And
if we’re going to address that, there will be
unintended consequences.”
Commissioner Pinkerton agreed that the issue on
allowing refugees to resettle in the country is
not an issue with a person's religion, but
rather ensuring that adequate background checks
could and would be done. In order to ensure that
all refugees be treated fairly regardless of
their country of origin or their religion, he
felt some changes in wording of the proposed
resolution might include something like: “to
deny any refugees, Syrian or otherwise, from
entering the state of Idaho without going
through a complete vetting process for
immigration. That covers everybody," he said. "A
complete vetting. Doesn’t matter what their
religion is. The Constitution of the
United States allows freedom of religion, and
I’m going to uphold that as best I can.”
The Commissioners ended the discussion after
about an hour and a quarter, intending to work
further on the wording of the resolution in
coming days before accepting and submitting it. |
|
|
|
Questions or comments about this
article?
Click here to e-mail! |
|
|
|
|
