LEBANON — Two municipalities on the New Hampshire side of the Upper Valley are reviewing policies that aim to protect non-citizens from investigation by town employees, volunteers and local police, and from federal immigration authorities.
The review of Lebanon’s Welcoming Ordinance and Hanover’s Fair and Impartial Policing policy comes in response to two new anti-sanctuary city laws Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed in May. They ban communities from preventing local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.
The Lebanon and Hanover policies both contain immigration-related provisions that could violate the new laws come Jan. 1, when most sections, including a clause that introduces financial penalties, take effect.
If the municipalities don’t amend or repeal their current policies — which both adopted in 2020 — they could face penalties of up to 25% of the total funding they receive from the state.
Both ordinances came in the wake of an immigration crackdown under the first Trump administration. In summer 2019, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol conducted a high profile checkpoint on Interstate 89 in Lebanon and in a separate instance arrested 18 people without immigration documentation over the course of one weekend.
Neither Hanover nor Lebanon police have received any requests to assist federal immigration authorities in at least the past five years, Hanover Police Chief James Martin and Lebanon Police Chief Phil Roberts said Thursday.
On Wednesday night, the Lebanon City Council discussed how to amend the city’s “Welcoming Ordinance,” which bars city employees, volunteers and Lebanon police from asking about people’s immigration status or sharing information with federal immigration authorities. The Hanover Selectboard held a similar discussion last week.
“I think there are important provisions worth protecting that are not addressed in the new laws that have been passed in the state Legislature this year,” Lebanon Mayor Doug Whittlesey said Wednesday night. “It has been a hallmark of our community that we are welcoming to everyone.”
The City Council briefly discussed three options; to repeal the policy, amend the policy or leave it as is and face penalties. The council will hold a public hearing to discuss the options further next month.
Ahead of Wednesday’s meeting, Whittlesey drafted a revised version of the policy to remove any potentially problematic language. Voters approved the original ordinance by a narrow margin of 200 votes, or 9%, in 2020.
The draft policy introduces exceptions to the provisions throughout by including the phrase “to the extent required by State and Federal law.” Whittlesey said he added the language to make the policy flexible if the law continues to change.
The draft policy also dictates that Lebanon staff, volunteers and police can cooperate with federal immigration authorities if they are presented with a judicial warrant or a request under the state’s right to know law, RSA 91-A.
It preserves language that prohibits Lebanon staff, volunteers and police from offering federal immigration authorities access to city resources and adds language prohibiting Lebanon police from questioning people’s immigration statuses themselves.
As an alternative to Whittlesey’s proposal, Assistant Mayor Devin Wilkie presented a separate resolution “affirming the city’s commitment to the diversity and belonging of all of its residents and opposing discrimination.”
“While Lebanon must comply with the letter of state law, it will do so without surrendering its moral and ethical obligations to protect human rights, and without participating in or facilitating any acts of hate, fear or exclusion,” the resolution concludes.
Wilkie was on the original task force that produced the welcoming ordinance in 2020 and is one of two council representatives on the Lebanon Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Commission.
Wilkie said he is in favor of repealing the ordinance and creating a task force to write a new policy that better preserves the intent of the original. The draft amended ordinance could be “a really good framework” for a new policy, he said.
The City Council has met with legal counsel to review the documents and plans to have any other revisions reviewed by a lawyer, Wilkie said.
Councilor George Sykes floated the third option: Leaving the ordinance as is and facing a penalty from the state.
“We have to be looking at more than just those two options,” Sykes said Wednesday night.
The council scheduled a public hearing to discuss the ordinance on Wednesday, Nov. 5.
At Town Meeting this spring, Hanover voters supported updating the town’s 2020 policy by adding a provision explicitly calling on the town manager and police chief not to enter any agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.
The item was brought before the town by a voter petition in response to a still ongoing immigration crackdown by the Trump Administration. President Trump also issued an executive order in April promising to crackdown on “sanctuary cities” across the country.
The policy, as written, prohibits Hanover Police from trying to determine a person’s immigration status or contacting ICE to inform them of a person’s immigration status, and outlaws biased policing.
Hanover Town Manager Robert Houseman asked a town attorney to review the policy and identify which portions of it violate state law. He presented the results of this conversation at a Selectboard meeting last week.
The changes would remove a brief clause prohibiting officers from contacting or notifying ICE “about the undocumented individual based solely on an individual’s undocumented status.”
It would also eliminate two larger sections, six and seven, which further prohibit Hanover Police from working with or sharing information with federal immigration authorities and from cooperating with an ICE detainer.
ICE detainers are when local law enforcement hold a person in custody after they are cleared for release in order to give ICE time to determine the person’s immigration status or take action against them.
Last week, the Hanover board briefly discussed the options of amending the policy or keeping it as is and facing a possible fine, but made no decisions on how to proceed.
As of August, a 25% state funding penalty would be about $75,000 for Hanover, according to numbers shared by Houseman.
“We are in no rush, the penalty will kick in in January,” Houseman told the Selectboard last week.
The Hanover Selectboard will hold a public hearing about the policy at its Nov. 3 meeting.