Laconia council rejects resolution urging formal cooperation with ICE 287(g) program after prolonged public comment

The Laconia City Council on Monday rejected a proposed resolution — Resolution 2025-15 — that would have expressed the council’s support for local cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the federal 287(g) program.

The final vote failed, with Councilor Bogart the lone recorded “yes.” Councilors Hoffman and Haines voted “no,” and Councilors Cheney and Soucy abstained. One councilor was recorded as “no” but was not identified in the public roll call, and the motion was declared to have failed.

The resolution drew an extended public comment period and lengthy debate among councilors and residents. Members of the public who spoke during the citizens’ request portion urged the council to reject the measure, saying formal cooperation with ICE would harm trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities.

Carlos Cardona, an appointed member of the New Hampshire Commission on Native American Affairs and a longtime Lakes Region resident, called the resolution “a step towards fear, division, and a breakdown in trust” and said it would discourage immigrants from reporting crimes or cooperating with investigations. “This makes every one of us less safe,” Cardona said.

Retired attorney Patrick Wood addressed the council at length about legal and budgetary concerns, quoting the federal statute and New Hampshire law. “Are our budgets sufficiently available to cover the cost of the work that is already being done by the federal government? I don’t think so,” Wood said, and argued that ICE detainers are not reviewed by an independent authority such as a judge and therefore pose due-process risks if local officers act solely on them.

Multiple other residents echoed those concerns during public comment. Catherine Tokar (Ward 6) urged the council to ask the Belknap County Sheriff’s Office to withdraw from participation. Caroline Smith (Ward 4) said she was “very much against the resolution” and that having local police involved in detentions tied to civil immigration matters was “very wrong.” Speakers also raised national examples of problematic ICE practices and questioned whether local resources should be diverted to federal immigration enforcement.

Council debate reflected a split between those who argued the city should defer to the rule of law and cooperate with federal agencies when proper warrants and probable cause exist, and those who warned of civil‑liberties and trust implications. Councilor Soucy (identified in the meeting as Councilor Susie/Soucy) said she was disappointed the matter was before the city council and emphasized a desire to keep partisan politics out of municipal business, while still saying officers take an oath to uphold the law.

Councilor Bogart, who brought the resolution forward for discussion, said the measure would not direct police officers to act without warrants and argued that cooperation can help ensure proper procedures when federal agencies request assistance. Councilor Felts (who seconded the initial reading) and several other councilors noted that the resolution was written as a recommendation to the Laconia Police Commission rather than a direct order to the police chief.

Councilor Feltsch (who announced he opposed the resolution) told the room that Laconia’s police department already cooperates with federal agencies when appropriate and that a formal council endorsement was unnecessary. Councilor Cheney referenced federal criminal statutes (citing 8 U.S.C. provisions discussed during public comment) and stressed that some immigration offenses can be criminal depending on circumstances, adding that he would likely not support the resolution.

Mayor Hosmer and other speakers repeatedly urged civility during the public comment session and framed the item as a policy discussion, not a personal attack on any council member.

The council first voted to waive reading of the resolution and then approved a first reading. After public comment and debate, a motion to approve the resolution on final action received one recorded yes vote, three no votes and two abstentions and failed.

The city’s discussion referenced multiple statutes cited by speakers: the federal “287(g)” provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act and New Hampshire statutes cited by commenters, including RSA 159‑E (described in testimony as limiting the use of state or local resources to enforce certain federal laws) and a state law prohibiting racial profiling enacted in 2024. Those authorities were cited during public comment but the council did not adopt a statutory change; the action before the council was a policy resolution.

With the resolution defeated, the council moved on to other agenda items later in the meeting, including votes on event permits, budget items and contracts.

Ending: The failure of Resolution 2025-15 closes this specific local push to endorse formal cooperation with ICE under 287(g). Council members and residents signaled the issue will remain a point of concern in subsequent meetings if similar proposals return; several speakers and councilors said they want clearer conversations between the council, the police commission and the police chief before future votes.