Rep. Marie Glusenkamp Perez’s recent vote to fund the Department of Homeland Security has drawn sharp criticism from civil-liberties advocates and progressive voters across Southwest Washington. While the congresswoman has described her decision as a pragmatic move to prevent another government shutdown, many constituents see it as a failure to defend constitutional rights amid renewed calls for oversight of federal law enforcement.

The bill, which passed 220–207 with bipartisan support, keeps agencies like the Coast Guard and FEMA funded through the fiscal year — critical services for coastal communities and disaster response across Cowlitz and Pacific Counties. But it also renewed funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) without new limitations or reforms, a move that critics argue perpetuates abuses.

Southwest Washington’s immigrant and civil-rights organizers warn that the congresswoman’s vote condones systemic violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments — including warrantless detentions, surveillance, and unconstitutional searches. Humanitarian attorneys and watchdog groups have documented widespread allegations of coercive interrogations, racial profiling, and unlawful confinement inside federal detention centers. Without conditional restrictions attached to the funding bill, they say, Congress effectively greenlit these practices for another year.

Supporters of Glusenkamp Perez’s position argue that her vote reflects a reality of congressional give-and-take. Her office has emphasized that essential departments would have faced disruptions if the vote had failed, while noting DHS shutdowns wouldn’t have halted ICE operations anyway. However, constitutional advocates counter that the choice wasn’t between funding or chaos — it was between unconditional funding and reform.

Across Southwest Washington, organizers have been pressing Glusenkamp Perez to join calls for dismantling ICE and establishing a new immigration enforcement system grounded in due process and transparency. Despite meeting with local advocates, she has yet to publicly endorse that proposal or outline an opposing reform framework.

“When lawmakers continue funneling billions into agencies that violate constitutional rights, they’re not protecting stability — they’re normalizing state overreach,” said a Kelso community organizer who’s spent years working with mixed-status families affected by deportation raids. “We’re told to value stability, but liberty and accountability have to come first.”

The vote has exposed a widening rift within the region’s progressive ranks. Some constituents who supported Glusenkamp Perez’s centrist brand in 2022 now question whether her appeals to bipartisanship outweigh her commitments to civil rights and democratic oversight. Others see her as reflecting Southwest Washington’s complicated political terrain — one where local economies depend on federal funding, but local values still demand independence and fairness under the law.

As the district navigates flood recovery, economic challenges, and deepening political polarization, the debate over DHS funding cuts deeper than partisan maneuvering. It’s about whether representatives from this region will prioritize procedural stability or constitutional fidelity — and whether they understand that one means nothing without the other.

Southwest Washington has always prided itself on keeping federal power in check. Glusenkamp Perez’s supporters may hope her pragmatism spares the region from bureaucratic paralysis, but her critics warn that unchecked agencies pose a greater threat — not just to immigrants, but to everyone’s rights. After all, a government that enforces the law should itself be bound by it.

Sources:
JD Rossetti: Opinion | A Vote for “Stability” That Undermines Southwest Washington
U.S. House of Representatives: Roll call vote data
American Civil Liberties Union: ICE and CBP Abuse Reports