Ocean Shores debates merits of ‘sanctuary city’ designation

Published 1:30 am Wednesday, February 25, 2026

The Ocean Shores city council held a study session Monday evening to discuss the possibility of starting the process of designating the seaside town of nearly 8,000 a “sanctuary city.”

After a vote at the Jan. 27 city council meeting to discuss sanctuary cities at a future council meeting and a highly charged public comment period during which many commenters spoke about the tactics of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents that have led to nationwide protests, and expressed their fears about the possibility of similar instances happening in Ocean Shores, the council cancelled its Tuesday, Feb. 10 regular meeting due to expected larger than usual attendance. On Feb. 9, the city announced it would hold a study session on Feb. 23 instead.

An America’s Voice article stated, “There’s no single definition of what is a sanctuary city, but generally speaking, it’s a city (or a county, or a state) that limits its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agents in order to protect low-priority immigrants from deportation, while still turning over those who have committed serious crimes. This is why we prefer the term ‘safe cities.’”

Meanwhile, the state of Washington has already declared itself a “sanctuary state.” In April 2025, Jake Goldstein-Street of the Washington State Standard wrote, “The [state] law stops local police from helping federal authorities with immigration enforcement. For example, police can’t provide nonpublic personal information to federal authorities investigating civil immigration cases, and can’t interview or detain people solely based on questions about their immigration status.”

The American Immgration Council recently stated, “The aggressive actions of federal immigration agents in Minnesota and cities around the country have drawn attention to an important truth: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP, which includes U.S. Border Patrol) agents are routinely going far beyond what the law allows them to do. Their aggressive tactics on the ground are backed up by unprecedented interpretations of their legal authorities, with the agencies secretly adopting aggressive new policies toward entering homes and making arrests without judicial warrants.”

The city published an agenda packet on its official website ahead of a nearly three-hour meeting with a packed house at the Ocean Shores Convention Center. Mayor pro tem and councilor Denise Siers presided over the study session and began the proceedings by outlining the decorum expected and the purpose of the meeting. The study session began with a presentation from Ocean Shores Police Chief Neccie Logan.

Logan read from a statement that was published in the agenda packet. She took umbrage with certain materials provided by City Councilor Richard Wills.

“One of his documents stated ‘… declaring sanctuary city status is largely symbolic …’ It went on to say, ‘Symbols are not empty.’ And ‘They tell our police officers what their mission is.’ I’d like to pause right there. I find that last statement very offensive. It is telling the police officers, your police officers, who are currently working for and protecting the citizens of Ocean Shores 24 hrs a day, 365 days a year, that you believe they need to be told what their mission is. As if, you don’t believe they know what their mission is, or what their job duties are. That statement is telling them you do not have faith in them,” Logan said. “Plainly put, police officers cannot get involved with the detaining, apprehension or sharing of information regarding illegal immigrants with Federal Immigration Agents. And if they did, they would be breaking Washington State Law, which is a criminal offense, and they would lose their state certification, which means they could no longer be a police officer. And I can tell you that no officer here wants to risk losing their job to help federal agents apprehend an illegal immigrant. And to double down on the Washington laws, the law also required all law enforcement agencies in Washington State to put the laws into policy, which we did in 2021.

“… So, in conclusion, what Councilmember Wills stated about making Ocean Shores a sanctuary city being ‘largely symbolic,’ I would agree. And that is all it would be, is symbolic. Local law enforcement will not be doing anything differently than what they are doing now. They will continue to do their sworn duties to protect this city and all those who enter it. I personally see it as a waste of time because you cannot change the local laws in any way that could be enforceable on federal agents. They will still come into this city and do their jobs as needed and under the authority of Federal Laws.”

The packet, which contains policy, statements, and resolutions from other municipalities and agencies, can be found here: https://oceanshores.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/183/?preview=318160

After Logan’s presentation, Wills immediately apologized for any real or perceived slight toward Ocean Shores police officers.

“I want to apologize to the police chief and all of the police officers. I never intended to insult any police officer,” Wills said.

The councilors then conducted a discussion that included clarification on police policy and City Councilor Curt Dooley’s reading of the statement he provided for the agenda packet.

“Our police department already has policies that address the concerns being raised. Officers do not inquire about immigration status unless it is relevant to a criminal investigation. They do not detain individuals solely for civil immigration matters. Victims and witnesses are encouraged to come forward regardless of status,” Dooley said. “In other words, the protections many residents are requesting are already in place today as standard practice. Before the council takes any formal action, there should be a clear local need and a practical outcome. If an action does not improve safety, improve operations, or provide a tangible benefit to how the city functions, we must ask whether it is necessary at all. Without a measurable benefit, we risk engaging in symbolism rather than solutions.”

City Councilor Alison Cline reiterated the police chief’s assertion that state law already provides guidance for policies and procedures.

“With the information we have that we are a sanctuary state, we do have the laws that are in place, we do know legally what our police officers are allowed to do and not allowed to do,” Cline said. “I think that makes a difference that we need to understand.”

City Councilor Lisa Scott expressed dismay at the argumentative discourse this issue and others have raised and conveyed gratitude for the public’s involvement.

“One of the things that I have been most disheartened about is, as a community, how we’re treating each other. What happened to the point where we could respectfully disagree and go have a cup of coffee or a beer at the end of the day. We’ve lost sight of that. It’s sad because we’re all neighbors, we’re here for the betterment of our community and we should be able to state our opinions without somebody yelling or screaming or name calling. That’s what we’re about as a community. Let’s stand apart from everybody else and let’s be respectful,” Scott said. “I appreciate everybody being here tonight. … I’m so thankful for all of the people that supported and sent emails to us. I read them all. I like to hear what you have to say. Look at the amount of people that showed up tonight. It shows that you’re passionate and you care about our community.”

After a 45-minute council discussion, Siers turned the meeting over to moderator and City Councilor Lisa Griebel and the attendees for what became a nearly two-hour, at times emotional, public comment period, save a 10-minute break. After applause for the first two commenters, Siers threatened to have anyone who disrupted the meeting removed by the police.

Commenters against a sanctuary city designation told horror stories about alleged attacks perpetrated by undocumented immigrants, made the argument that the designation is unnecessary and would draw unwanted attention, spouted unsubstantiated statistics and stories while using racially charged language, extolled the virtues of legal immigration, equated crime in homeless encampments with sanctuary city status, justified the wearing of masks by ICE agents, mischaracterized protests and repeated conspiracy theories about immigrants.

Others expressed a desire to further define the term “sanctuary city” and for the Ocean Shores to publicly proclaim community trust, and to feel safe from overaggressive federal law enforcement agents, while others reiterated that Washington’s sanctuary state status speaks for itself.

After that 10-minute break, Siers once again reminded the residents in attendance about decorum and threatened to have disruptive audience members removed.

Once the meeting resumed, commenters discussed federal government jurisdiction and the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land, border security, strain on resources and infrastructure, unfounded fears of an increase in the homeless population due to sanctuary city status, misconceptions about large American cities and crime rate statistics, anti-Hispanic rhetoric, concerns about illegal drug trafficking and loss of tourism due to sanctuary city status, another read off the names of 20 victims of crimes allegedly involving undocumented immigrants, and another spoke of possible federal reprisals.

Others vehemently decried the bigotry and racism displayed by some speakers.

“I find it really tragic that in [2026] people of color are being painted as criminals, it turns my stomach to hear bigots stand here using phrases like ‘protect our own.’ It’s clear that the people against the sanctuary city didn’t read the packet. The only people making racist statements standing here at this podium spoke against the idea,” Taylor Priest said. “Ask Chief Logan about the law if you don’t understand it. Being undocumented doesn’t mean someone is a criminal. … There weren’t many non-white faces in this crowd, I wonder if this is because people of color don’t feel so safe being out in the community. I know for a fact that that’s true because I’ve spoken with many of them. … I’m offended by the councilwoman who reminisced about the good old days when everyone got along. Bigotry divides us, let’s just say it like it is.”

The Washington State Budget and Policy Center indicates, “There are 1.2 million immigrants in Washington state, including 619,000 who are non-citizens, and among those, an estimated 325,000 who are undocumented. In 2022, people who are undocumented paid nearly $1 billion ($997 million) in Washington state and local taxes.”

According to the National Immigration Law Center, “Again and again, studies show that there is no correlation between sanctuary policies and increased crime. A 2017 study examined overall violent crime, property crime, and assault rates in U.S. cities from 2000 through 2014, both before and after the implementation of sanctuary policies. The findings of this study and others show no statistical relationship between an increase in crime rates and the implementation of sanctuary policies. There is, on the other hand, a documented decrease in crime in cities and states that prioritize welcoming instead of targeting immigrants.”

At the conclusion of the study session, Griebel said, “This conversation is about do we go through a process to make a formal proclamation of what those laws already are?”

All told, among those who spoke during public comment, opponents of Ocean Shores becoming a sanctuary city outnumbered supporters approximately 6-to-1. The conversation continued at the Feb. 24 regular city council meeting with some new commenters and others doubling down, for or against, on their position from the night before.