Lebanon’s city council voted on Wednesday to repeal their welcoming ordinance at the end of this year, which prevents city officials or police officers from cooperating with Immigration or Customs Enforcement or asking about immigration status. The decision comes ahead of two new laws that go into effect in the new year — one called a “sanctuary city ban” that specifically prohibits policies like the city’s soon-to-be-repealed welcoming ordinance.

Despite what City Councilor Timothy McNamara called a “reluctant, very reluctant” vote to repeal the ordinance, city officials said they are hoping to form a committee that will draft a new welcoming ordinance that would comply with state law next year.

Residents spoke out on the topic during a public hearing. While most agreed this was a difficult decision, they disagreed on how to respond. If Lebanon doesn’t comply with the new laws, McNamara estimated that the city could lose over $500,000 in state funding, as well as become involved in a costly legal battle with the attorney general.

Several residents pointed at the high cost of living in Lebanon and said the funding could be better used to make the city more affordable. For other residents, like Mark Pageau, this decision was about fiscal responsibility and staying in line with state law.

“When the ordinance was adopted in 2020, its purpose was to show that Lebanon is a welcoming and inclusive community. That’s a goal I fully support. However, the legal and policy landscape has since changed,” he said.

“This isn’t about rejecting our community’s diversity or compassion. It’s ensuring our local laws align with the state law, and that our city acts responsibly within the framework of that law.”

Other residents said the decision was about local control — whether the state can tell cities what they can do with their police department. A municipality cannot control whether immigration enforcement comes into a community, especially not within 100 miles of the border.

Until now, cities were able to prohibit their local officials from cooperating with ICE. The new state law places high penalties on municipalities that keep these bans on the books, although it doesn’t require local law enforcement to ask about immigration status or join a 287(g) program that would deputize local officers to carry out immigration enforcement.

For other residents, like Rachel Kent, the decision is a moral one. She said it was important to take a stand against ICE despite the potential loss of funding from the state. Kent called them a “band of thugs,” pointing to footage of masked, unidentified individuals smashing car windows and separating children from parents.

“We know that our rights everywhere are being compromised,” she said. “This is not the time to back down from what we know is just, as the people of Lebanon asserted with the passage of the welcoming ordinance.”

Nearby Hanover is also mulling over a similar decision. The community risks losing about $350,000 unless it changes a 2020 fair and impartial policing policy that prevents town police from asking about immigration status or cooperating with ICE. The town held its own public hearing on Monday and is expected to make a decision in the coming weeks.