Selectmen shied away from naming Peterborough officially a “sanctuary town,” but generally spoke positively about petition warrant articles submitted that would have a similar effect.
Sanctuary towns and cities don’t have an official definition, but are generally considered welcoming to undocumented immigrants and refugees. They may do so in several ways, including not using municipal funds or resources to enforce national immigration laws, or forbidding their police or municipal employees to inquire about a person’s immigration status or share such information with immigration enforcement. They may also ensure that all residents have access to city services, regardless of immigration status. The stance can be official through law, or just observed only in practice.
In the United Kingdom, the term can also be used for cities committed to welcoming refugees, asylum seekers and others who are seeking safety.
Peterborough resident Ahmed Kuddy, himself an Indian immigrant, spoke to the board during its Tuesday meeting, speaking on behalf of himself and fellow Peterborough resident Kath Allen, who was unable to attend, asking that the board consider Peterborough becoming a sanctuary town. It was standing room only in the board’s meeting room, with about 40 people there in support of the concept.
The Select Board, however, hesitated short of whole-hearted support of the idea of becoming a “sanctuary town.”
“That term frightens me, and I’ll tell you why,” said Select Board Chair Ed Juengst. Juengst said that President Donald Trump’s recent executive order to defund sanctuary cities and towns could threaten projects that rely on federal funding — namely the upcoming work on the Main Street bridge. Eighty percent of that bridge’s 5.7 million price tag is expected to come from federal Highway Administration and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation Municipal Bridge Aid funds.
Town Administrator Rodney Bartlett told the crowd that the town’s counsel had likewise cautioned designating Peterborough a sanctuary town, for the same reason.
While Trump’s executive order has been challenged as possibly unconstitutional, and Peterborough resident Cathy Lanigan argued that current case law was on the side of sanctuary towns, Selectwoman Barbara Miller said Peterborough wasn’t willing to be a “test case” on whether towns could have their federal aid stripped for not complying with federal immigration law.
However, though they took no vote and expressed concerns about the ripple effect of the process, the Select Board was generally warm about two petition articles, submitted in Peterborough as well as several other Mondanock towns, which Lanigan, who was a part of a group along with Peterborough state Rep. Ivy Vann, that was involved in the article’s creation.
The articles ask the respective towns to institute two measures: to ensure that employees of the town will not ask about, report, of act upon any person’s immigration status, and to affirm the town’s commitment to rights ensured by the First and Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by declaring that no person shall be required to declare their religious or philosophical belief or affiliation or be required to sign a registry for such beliefs or affiliations.
While not using the language “sanctuary town,” the first article generally has the effect of making Peterborough one.
“I’m moved by how many people are here,” said Select Board member Tyler Ward. “I share the sentiment completely.”
“Our town has a long history of welcoming people,” said Juengst. “I think we agree we want to stay a welcoming town. The intent, I think we can all agree to that.”
Juengst also commented that he thinks the petition articles are likely to pass.
The board took no vote on the issue, satisfied to leave the matter to the Town Meeting vote on the petition articles, but when pressed by a member of the crowd,
Ward said the board would be open to reconsidering the matter if the political climate continued to shift.