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.