Why Hillsboro Is Struggling to Codify Its Sanctuary Promise Policies Into Its Codes

On paper, the idea sounds simple: take Hillsboro’s long-standing Sanctuary Promise and put it into city law.

In practice, that step has triggered one of the most complex internal debates City Hall has faced in years.

At a recent work session, councilors, city staff, police leadership, and the city attorney wrestled with a question that goes far beyond symbolism: what actually happens when a city turns a moral commitment into enforceable municipal code?

The answer, it turns out, is complicated — and uncomfortable.  And it played out at yet another Hillsboro City Council work session on this past Tuesday night.  Here is our report.

What Codification Really Means

City Attorney Chad Jacobs explained that staff drafted a proposed ordinance that mirrors Oregon’s Sanctuary Promise Act, defines key terms left vague by state law, and authorizes the city manager to implement training and signage across city facilities.

Staff emphasized that Hillsboro is already doing many of these things.

The tension arises over what should not be placed into code.

Mandatory reporting, documentation of ICE activity, employee training requirements, signage rules, access protocols, and compliance tracking were all recommended to remain internal policy — not law.

The distinction may sound technical, but it carries major consequences.

Code vs. Policy: The Line City Hall Does Not Want to Cross

Municipal code is designed to regulate the public. Policies regulate how employees do their jobs.

Once something becomes law, violating it can lead to citation, enforcement, and court processes. City staff warned that codifying employee duties risks turning internal performance issues into legal violations.

In plain terms: City Hall does not want employees hauled into municipal court for how they carry out sanctuary-related responsibilities.

Staff also flagged labor and collective bargaining concerns. Codifying new job duties can trigger negotiations, redefine roles, and expose the city to labor disputes.  For instance, the Hillsboro Police Union could refuse to live by codified policies and refuse to negotiate a new agreement- just to give one example.

Those realities — not opposition to sanctuary values — are at the heart of staff resistance.

Safety, Immigration Status, and an Unspoken Fear

The work session produced a moment that caught many observers off guard.

Jacobs disclosed that some city employees are not U.S. citizens and have expressed fear that participation in expanded documentation of ICE activity could place them at risk.

Other employees, particularly those outside law enforcement, raised concerns about being asked to document highly charged situations they were never trained to handle.

These concerns are not theoretical. They shape how aggressively the city is willing to formalize sanctuary practices.

The Accountability Question

Councilor Kipperlyn Sinclairarticulated what many residents have been demanding: a clear public record.

She argued that mandatory logging and reporting of ICE activity are among the few tools the public has to ensure accountability and oversight — and, if necessary, legal recourse.  And ultimately, she is 100% right because what we have been doing is not working.  There are no clear records, no accountability, nor do we even know who has been disappeared- it is hundreds of residents by many accounts.

That argument cuts to the core of the dispute.

Codification creates records. Records create standards. Standards invite scrutiny.

Policy can be adjusted quietly. Code cannot.

Police Reality: “We Don’t Capture It All”

City Manager Robby Hammond acknowledged a hard truth: Hillsboro suspects there is immigration enforcement activity occurring in the city that it never learns about.

That admission explains why many residents want codification. If the city does not consistently see what is happening, policy promises feel insufficient.

Police Chief Coleman emphasized that officers respond to ICE-related calls when they receive them and document those interactions. But he also acknowledged the limits of what the department is aware of.

The gap between what happens and what is recorded is exactly where public distrust grows.

A Council Divided — Not on Values, but on Structure

The work session revealed a council aligned in intent but divided on method.

Some councilors pushed for codification as a tool for public accountability. Others urged caution, deeper engagement with community organizations, and partnership with groups already tracking ICE activity.

At least one councilor stated that sanctuary language should not be included in the code at all.

The Mayor, managing the process throughout the session, repeatedly brought the discussion back to whether staff should be directed to codify, modify, or pause.  She was clearly not interested in this happening at the end of the day.

For now, the city has chosen delay.

The Bottom Line

Codifying the Sanctuary Promise is not being resisted because Hillsboro rejects the idea of sanctuary.

It is being resisted because codification changes the rules of accountability.

It turns values into standards. Standards into records. Records into exposure.

That exposure — legal, political, institutional — is what City Hall is still deciding whether to accept.  I do not believe they will accept the responsibility of having the Sanctuary Promise codified.  It would mean that people in the City would have to uphold the policies, many of whom probably do not support them, which would expose the City to liability.  Lots of it.  And lawsuits for violators.

This is one of those things where politicians take a selfie and smile when they want to use something good to promote their careers, but when asked to actually back up something or put themselves under the same scrutiny our residents are put under, they shrink or run and hide. Do I understand the trepidation with Codification? Yes, I do.  On the other hand, I do not think it would be that hard to get the good staff of the City of Hillsboro to live by policies and objectives that are already on the books.

Until that question is answered, Hillsboro’s sanctuary status will remain a promise enforced by policy, not by law.

What do you think?  Should the City and its hundreds of employees be required to live by and be held accountable to the Sanctuary Promise policies?