Town meeting agendas in Calais, East Montpelier, Hartland, Marshfield and Plainfield include formal articles on the issue, while residents in Putney hope to add their support through a general nonbinding resolution they’re encouraging the rest of Vermont to adopt.
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer frisks a migrant worker. File photo
Bell single-handedly collected 150 signatures to spark his town’s vote on a proposal to “declare that any illegal immigrant will be safe from deportation,” specifically by directing municipal employees to “not report people living in the town to the federal government solely on the question of immigration status” and “to adopt rules for the town that will enforce the spirit of the language in this resolution.”
Although Vermont is hailed by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center for its limits on how much police can cooperate with federal immigration agents, city councils in Burlington, Montpelier, South Burlington and Winooski have adopted or pursued formal policies associated with sanctuary status.
“The minute I heard Trump was going to attempt to take away funding from sanctuary cities, I thought other communities have to respond,” Bell said.
The doctor at White River Junction’s VA Medical Center doesn’t expect the federal government to carry out the president’s threat. But if it does, his resolution gives Hartland’s Selectboard the authority to re-examine the issue “if at any time a situation arises that might jeopardize local funding.”
“If people are worried their taxes will go up,” Bell said, “their concerns should be listened to.”
The wording and specific municipal actions that would result from the town meeting articles vary from community to community.
Calais simply asks residents whether to become “a town of sanctuary for refugees and asylum-seekers and not participate in federal efforts to deport undocumented immigrants.”
East Montpelier will debate whether to direct municipal employees “not to inquire into any resident’s immigration status or religious affiliation as part of their official duties and to refuse any request from a state or federal agency for: 1) information on a resident’s immigration status or religious affiliation; or, 2) assistance in enforcing federal immigration policy.”
Marshfield and Plainfield share a lengthier statement based on wording from the Winooski City Council.
The text notes, in part, that “nearly 60 million people worldwide are displaced by violence, political strife or natural disaster and forced to become refugees,” “millions of additional people worldwide are driven to seek out immigration opportunities for better lives and wellbeing for their families” and “immigration has been the cornerstone of our state and nation’s development.”
“Be it resolved the town formally announces its intention to be a designated sanctuary,” it continues before calling for “policies that direct employees to refuse the application of any request from a state or federal agency that requires the identification of a resident’s immigration status” and the refusal of “any request to be an extension of any federal immigration policy enforcement actions” or “enter into any agreement to carry out such enforcement.”
Putney residents were too late to place an item on their town meeting agenda, so they’ll instead propose an “other business” resolution “declaring our intention to welcome and protect the rights of immigrants and refugees who seek to come to our state and our community.”
“It won’t be binding on the Selectboard to take any particular action,” resident Maggie Brown Cassidy explained in a Vermont Public Radio commentary aimed at inspiring other communities, “but we hope it will reinforce and document our town’s commitment to welcome immigrants and refugees.”
The post Vermont communities to debate ‘sanctuary’ status appeared first on VTDigger.