HARTFORD — The future of so-called “sanctuary” policies in Upper Valley municipalities is uncertain amid a flurry of policy changes, recent executive orders and proposed state immigration laws.

As of last summer, the Hartford Police Department adheres to a statewide legislatively mandated Fair and Impartial Policing Policy as established by the Vermont Criminal Justice Council, according to Hartford Police Chief Greg Sheldon.

The policy, with which the department must comply in order to send officers to the Vermont Police Academy, states that “local and state agencies and officials may not prevent or restrict their employees from communicating with federal immigration authorities regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status.”

The policy is in conflict with the Welcoming Hartford Ordinance.

The conflict “will remain an ongoing topic of discussion within the Town of Hartford,” Sheldon wrote in an email.

The Selectboard plans to discuss the issue at its Tuesday meeting, said Kim Souza, the board’s vice chairwoman. The meeting is at 6 p.m. at Hartford Town Hall or on Zoom at: zoom.us/j/549799933.

The conflict in Hartford is a local example of an ongoing national debate about what role local law enforcement agencies ought to play in federal immigration enforcement.

In 2020, during the first Trump administration, Hartford, Lebanon and Hanover passed policies that in essence, prevent local agencies from being deputized as immigration enforcers. Jurisdictions that have such policies are often referred to as “sanctuary cities.”

“In the absence of any criminal conduct, no department officer shall aid or participate in civil immigration enforcement activities carried out by the Federal or State government,” according to the Hanover Fair and Impartial Policing Ordinance.

Lebanon and Hartford’s Welcoming Ordinances contain similar language.

All three ordinances prohibit municipal agents or agencies from detaining a resident solely based on immigration status, sharing information about a resident’s immigration status with federal immigration authorities or allowing federal immigration authorities access to a person in custody.

“What these policies say is local police departments are going to enforce state and federal laws, but federal civil immigration enforcement is the job of the federal government,” said Gilles Bissonnette, the legal director of the New Hampshire American Civil Liberties Union.

Bissonnette opposes the term “sanctuary city,” stating it is often used by anti-immigration policy makers. “There is no sanctuary for a person who has committed a crime here,” he said.

The ordinances’ proponents say that they help make communities safer by making people without legal status feel more comfortable interacting with local law enforcement agencies.

“If you have a police department doing civil immigration enforcement, immigrants are far less likely to reach out for help or report crimes which every community member has a right to do,” Bissonnette said.

Devin Wilkie, a current Lebanon City Councilor and member of the group that promoted and developed the city’s ordinance back in 2020, emphasized that Lebanon’s Welcoming Ordinance seeks to go beyond protecting people’s immigration status.

“This is a policy about discrimination,” Wilkie said. “It’s meant to insure all of our law enforcement will do their duty without discrimination and the idea that the state government and potentially federal government could attack policies like this seems to be one of the key issues here.”

On Jan. 20, President Trump issued the executive order “Protecting The American People Against Invasion.” Section 17 of the order states, sanctuary jurisdictions should not receive access to federal funds.

Meanwhile, some city officials across the country such as the mayors of Chicago and Portland, Oregon, have doubled down on their commitment to being sanctuary cities.

It is unclear what the exact definition of “sanctuary jurisdiction” is, whether Lebanon, Hanover and Hartford, could be affected, and whether Trump will be able to withhold federal funding from municipalities.

“It’s kind of a wait and see situation,” John Haverstock, Hartford’s town manager, said. “I’m sure it must be an anxious time for certain members of the community and we’re hoping for more clarity in the coming weeks ahead.”

While town officials “want to be prepared in the event that requests are made to local law enforcement” to enforce immigration, Haverstock said he is unsure how the town will proceed at this time.

In the meantime, New Hampshire Republicans have proposed several state bills targeting immigrants in the state who lack permanent legal status.

State Sen. Bill Gannon, R-Sandown, proposed two bills last week that, if passed, could invalidate the policies in Hanover and Lebanon’s ordinances. Senate Bill 62 prevents municipal governments from prohibiting local law enforcement from entering into agreements with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Senate Bill 71 states “local governmental entities may not prohibit or impede any state or federal law enforcement agency from complying with federal immigration laws.”

“New Hampshire law enforcement needs to cooperate with the federal government when it comes to illegals,” state Sen. Daniel Innis, R-Bradford, said in a phone interview. Innis, who is a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 71, voiced his opposition to Lebanon and Hanover’s policies, and asserted this bill would invalidate them.

Innis, who represents parts of the towns of Grafton and Orange, said his goal aligns with that of the Trump administration.

“What we’ve heard, and what we’ve seen so far is the only people being deported are criminals,” Innis said. “I don’t believe the Trump administration will go far beyond that.”

President Trump’s “border czar” Tom Homan stated in separate interviews with ABC and Fox News that all noncitizens without legal status, including those who have not committed crimes, should be concerned about deportation. President Trump has also authorized Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, known as ICE officers, to make arrests in schools and churches.

Innis said if Senate Bill 71 passes, the law could be enforced by withholding state funds from municipalities that fail to comply.

If the bill passes in the Senate, the House could expect to take it up in the first week of April. Innis estimates the fate of the bill will not be known until June.

“It’s perhaps not terribly clear what this bill is intending to do,” Bissonnette, of the ACLU, said. “The (welcoming ordinances) don’t say federal immigration enforcement can’t happen in our town; they’re just saying that it’s not local police departments’ job.”

Lebanon and Hanover are part of the New Hampshire Municipal Association, a nonprofit membership organization of municipalities, which is advocating in opposition of the state anti-sanctuary city bills since they impede local control.

Over the past four years in Lebanon, out of hundreds of arrests, only three people have had “questionable immigration status,” Lebanon City Manager Shaun Mulholland said in a phone interview.

As new policies go into effect at the state and federal level, Mulholland said, “the city will comply with the law no matter what it is.”

Hanover Town Manager Robert Houseman echoed Mulholland, stating Hanover’s Fair and Impartial Policing Ordinance “is currently valid and if a portion becomes invalid we will adjust accordingly.”

Emma Roth-Wells can be reached at erothwells@vnews.com or 603-727-3242.