The national debate over immigration policy took a local turn at town meetings throughout the region last week, as voters weighed in on how — or if — their towns should take a stand on the controversial issue.
In Hancock, Wilton, Temple and Dublin, petition articles asked voters to resolve that “in order to ensure that [name of town] is a safe and welcoming community for all, employees of [name of town] shall not enquire about, report, or act upon any person’s immigration status under any circumstances while performing their duties.”
The articles obviously drew the attention of voters, leading to contentious debate in all four towns.
In Wilton, approval of the proposal prompted longtime firefighter and Capital Improvements Committee member Joe Torre to resign all his town positions in protest.
In Hancock, an attempt by petitioners to amend the article with softened language prompted lengthy debate before it was rejected. Voters then turned down the original article by large margin.
In Dublin, a revised version of the article passed. Dublin Police Chief Tim Suokko had notified petitioners prior to the meeting that the town’s Police Department has had a written policy against bias-based policing for more than 10 years.
In Temple, voters approved the article, but only after making an revising the wording. An initial motion to amend the article to insert the language “except where legally required,” failed, and the voters eventually settled on an amendment to allow employees to ask for immigration status before administering services that require citizenship.
Nearly 200 people showed up to debate and to vote in Hancock on Saturday morning, with many standing in the back of the nearly full hall in the lower level of the Meetinghouse.
Sarah Sandback, one of the signers of the petition article, said the resolution would not make Hancock a sanctuary city and that the federal government would not be able to withhold funds from the town if the resolution were to pass.
“It is not our intent to ask any town employees to break any laws,” she said. “States’ rights are at issue here.”
Sandback then offered a motion to amend the article, using wording suggested by the American Civil Liberties Union stating that no employee of the town “shall interrogate, arrest, detain, or take any other law enforcement action against an individual based upon that individual’s perceived race, national origin, religion, language or immigration status, unless such personal characteristics have been included in timely, relevant, credible information from a reliable source linking a specific individual to a particular criminal event or activity.”
Sandback said the country was going through a rough time right now, but that people still have much in common.
“It’s never a bad time to reconfirm who we are as a people,” she said.
Anne Luker said she would be grateful to have the rights of immigrants reaffirmed. Speaking emotionally, Luker said her husband is a legal immigrant who has been in this country for several years, but they are very worried about the current political climate.
“This is the first time that we feel threatened,” Luker said.
Resident David Carney, a nationally-known Republican political consultant, said the resolution was unnecessary “feel-good” stuff.
“It’s a massive insult to our professionals.” Carney added, saying police officers and other town officials don’t need to be reminded of the protection that individuals have under the Constitution.
Deborah Sampson, in response to Carney’s comments, said “I see this as an opportunity not to insult our police and our officials, but to support them.”
Des Ford said town meeting was not the proper forum to debate immigration policy.
“This should be decided at the national level,” Ford said. “We do not need this divisiveness here in Hancock.”
Emma Lord, who said she was both an immigrant and a U.S. citizen, said the resolution was an attempt to blur the line between legal and illegal immigration.
“Immigration is a privilege that a country grants,” she said. “It’s a very high honor… I prefer the word ‘privilege’ to the word ‘rights’.”
On a secret ballot vote, residents defeated the amendment, with 80 in favor and 93 opposed. Voters then chose to close debate and vote on the original motion, and it failed as well, 33 to 118.
The immigration issue was one of the most contentious on the floor at Wilton’s Town Meeting on Thursday – and beyond, as Torre resigned in disgust from the Fire Department, the Capital Improvement Committee and as the town’s representative on the Monadock Area Communications Center after the majority of voters approved the article.
“I am ashamed and disgusted, tonight, at Town Meeting; my town approved Warrant Article 18, which conflicts with the laws of our nation,” wrote Torre, in a resignation letter addressed to Select Board Chair Kermit Williams on Thursday. “Picking and choosing which laws we obey and which laws we do not obey is not part of our republican form of government, and it undermines our society.”
Williams, who is also a state representative, had stood up to vote in favor of the warrant article at the Town Meeting.
Other town officials were on either side of the issue during the discussion. Zoning Board member Neil Faiman noted that it was “clear it wouldn’t be binding,” and said that he approved of the article as a “guiding statement” for the town.
Harry Dailey, a member of the town’s Budget Committee, said he saw the article as “obviously illegal” and suggested that to him, the issue was a financial one that could threaten the amount of federal tax dollars that the town receives.
Wilton’s Moderator Bill Keefe allowed discussion on the article, but warned townspeople upfront that the vote would not be legally binding, and would serve more as a indication of the will of the town.
In Dublin, an amended version of the petition – using the same wording that was rejected in Hancock – was approved as a “sense of the meeting” article.
The language of the article was changed prior to Town Meeting after petitioners consulted with Police Chief Suokko. The new language falls in line with the American Civil Liberties Union’s “Fair and Impartial Policing Rule.”
Referring to bias-based policing, Suokko wrote, “It is not a practice that will be tolerated at this agency and any instances of my officers engaging in such practices should be brought to my attention immediately.”
The article was passed after much debate with a show of hands vote.
A second petition article “to see if [name of town] affirms its commitment to the rights ensured by the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America and declares that in [name of town] no person shall be required to declare their religious or philosophical belief or affiliation, nor to sign a registry for any belief or affiliation” also appeared on warrants in all four towns. It was approved in Temple, Dublin and Wilton; it failed in Hancock.
In Dublin, petitioner Balmeet Khalsa – who wears a turban as a Sikh –spoke in support of the article. She recalled how she had a can thrown at her and was told to go home after walking by a local barbecue.
“The hatred and the fear is here,” said Khalsa. “I can handle this in the outside area, but I can’t handle it in my hometown. Some of us choose to life differently.”
In Hancock, some residents argued that the article might limit or even prevent a person from registering with a political party, although Select Board member Erik Spitzbarth, in response to a question from the floor, said the town’s lawyer had determined that the resolution was “innocuous.”
But before discussion could continue along those lines, it became sidetracked when Des Ford proposed changing the article by adding the Second Amendment to the list, stating that he was concerned about attempts to require registration of gun owners.
Moderator Richard Haskins allowed some discussion of Ford’s proposed amendment, until it was pointed out that the change would significantly alter the scope of the article and should perhaps be declared an illegal motion. Haskins eventually ruled that it was illegal, then asked the voters if they wanted to overule his decision. They voted to affirm his ruling, and then voted down the original motion on a standing vote, with the vast majority opposed.
Ledger-Transcript reporters Dave Anderson, Nicholas Handy and Ashley Saari contributed to this article.