Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bangor council directs immediate compliance with new state immigration law after heated debate
Summary
The Bangor City Council voted 6–3 to direct staff to comply immediately with a new state immigration statute and formalize procedures for handling law‑enforcement requests for confidential information; an immigration ordinance was postponed to March 23 for further work.
The Bangor City Council voted 6–3 on March 9 to approve an order directing the city manager to begin complying immediately with new state statute 5 M.R.S. chapter 337‑e (LD 1971) and to formalize written procedures for staff when law enforcement requests confidential information or access to nonpublic spaces.
The measure’s sponsor told the council the order would bring the city into alignment with an expected state law and create procedures to help staff respond to federal and state requests. "This order directs the city manager to instruct city staff to comply immediately with new state statute 5 M.R.S. chapter 337‑e," the councilor said, explaining the government operations committee recommended the order after voting 3–2.
Residents and councilors offered conflicting views during a lengthy public comment and council debate. Joe Garcia, a Bangor property owner, asked whether the directive would obligate the city to spend taxpayer money or to pass costs to the city: "What protections do you have for the taxpayers of this town that our money is not gonna be spent on helping and abetting illegal aliens?" he asked. Hillary Simmons, a resident who spoke earlier about homelessness, urged caution and asked the council to study implementation costs and legal guidance before acting: "If the city rushes to adopt policies before these guidelines are finalized, we risk creating rules that may later need to be changed, corrected, or even reversed."
Proponents warned of legal and fiscal risk if the city did nothing. One councilor cited a string of court settlements in other jurisdictions as justification for a local procedural framework, saying failing to act could eventually expose the city to lawsuits and costs.
Councilors also considered a companion ordinance (26‑095) that would limit city employee engagement with federal immigration enforcement. That ordinance was moved, seconded and then postponed to March 23 by a 9–0 roll‑call vote so members could refine its language and ensure coordination with the order and legal review.
The order instructs the city manager to formalize staff procedures and to begin complying immediately with the identified state statute. The council approved the order 6 yes, 3 no. The ordinance (26‑095) will return to the council on March 23 for further consideration.
